Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've been looking at getting into 40K for some time now. I play a number of other miniature games which are very tactical, but nothing that comes close to the sci-fi lore and community of 40K, which I thoroughly enjoy. However, I do love a very tactical game, and one well suited for balanced competitive play.

Do you consider this a very tactical fulfilling game, or with the current 6th edition, just good-ole-fun narrative game play?

Thanks,

Sammer

Yeah, you aren't going to find what you want in 40k.

Certain races have a strategic/tactical feel to them....something like Eldar where your plans MUST be well thought out and come together to achieve victory. But more times than not, no. The game is a bit more about narrative and having a good romp with your buddies. In the truly competitive scene 40k can be played, but it can get frustrating with unbalanced power lists and people that do not care about the game's integrity.

It's really going to come down to your group, plain and simple

Ironically enough, I think my most tactically involved games have been ones with silly lists brought on "the for fun" days, aka "casual" games for lack of a better word. Trying to figure out how to use a unit of inbred hobbits with sniper rifles tends to take a lot more thought than just spamming vendettas

Tourneys always just felt like a slugfest of who brought the better list though, although I have lost a couple of games due to rookie moves. That said, many people see list building as a critical strategic skill, so who knows, if you like that, you may enjoy this.

What you want to avoid, without a doubt, are the powergamers and WAAC types. They tend to bring lists that, unless you have a perfectly tuned list or crazy combos yourself, simply will not be able to beat. No tactical ability can beat the fact that the other guy is abusing some obscure combination of rulings to make his guys almost unkillable, or make it where your guys aren't allowed to shoot at him etc. Thankfully, these gamers are rare, and you can spot one a mile away.

Ask around, find a cool, relaxed group of guys, and be creative with your games (nothing but the standard missions gets stale sometimes) and it can be a highly rewarding game tactically. Tourneys can be a ton of fun too, but it tends to rely on who you're up against. Go to a club, talk to them, and see what they're like. Watch a few games, and see if they're back and forth, or one sided. I think that will give you a better idea of what you're in for more than anything. After all, we can tell you whatever we want, but we can't tell you what your group will be like.

The answer is yes, if you play with people who understand the rules, and use sufficient terrain on the table to break up LOS and force maneuver.

I'd pass on 40k. It's rules aren't well-balanced, and the results of crucial events (and thus the games themselves) are determined by dice. There are certainly more serious tactical wargames out there.

If you read the rulebook, you will see GW explicitly telling players that the game is about painting minis and making up stories about them, and not to take who wins or loses seriously. If this is their stated goal, then having a tactical game is going to be on accident, not by design.

Of course, 40k is still fun, precisely because there is a very rich setting (that's good, too), and it's got tons of minis that look great when painted up nicely. It's a much more rewarding hobby than it is a tactical simulation.

There's tactics to it, but 40k is (and always has been) a game about hanging out with your buddies and having cool gak go down on the table. Stuff blows up, there are epic challenges, and the models are cool.

bfdhud wrote:
Yeah, you aren't going to find what you want in 40k.

Listen to this man, he speaks truth and wisdom.

I'd really recomend you have a look at Ambush Alley games and their Force and Force and Tomorrow's War ranges for the sort of competitive, tactical play you want. Or warmachine, either or, really.

6th edition is not particularly tactical. Much of what people see as "tactical" is merely micro-management, and micro-management more suited to a game with 1/5th or 1/10th of the model count. 40k has huge issues with scale, it doesn't know if it wants to be a skirmish combat system, an RPG Encounter system, a company level wargame, etc and it ends up trying to be everything and that's why we have sillyness like mechanics for individual combat next to long range anti-tank guns and orbital bombardment.

I really appreciate everyone's feedback. You've basically confirmed my impression of the game. It's a shame they couldn't create a more refined and balanced tactical experience considering how long this game has been in production and still maintain the beer-and-pretzel fun factor for casual game play. Oh well, I guess no game is perfect, and there's definitely much more to this game than just the tactical element. For now, I think I'll just be in a holding pattern until the new Tau Codex is released, and hopefully, it'll give me the little push I need to overlook the game's short-comings and start up a trust fund for Games Workshop.

Thanks Gents,

Sammer

my IG use no tactics . its just shot , hide behind aegis get up using order shot again , here come the vendetas[lets hope necron/other flyer went in first] etc. Only tactical part of the game is durning set up when someone leaves a tall LoS blocking building and you plop it right in front of his anti aircraft gun , so he cant shot anything .

There are armies that require a lot of thinking like BAs , but all those armies are generaly weaker becaus of the random factor . A proper IG list ignores rolling most of the time , while other armies sometimes die on one roll[demons not getting the proper wave. front dude who was suppose to be the tank dieing too soon etc] .

This game is all about what you want to put into it.

Are the rules a bit "clunky" in areas? Yep. However, if you have a friendly atmosphere then any of the odd places are easily smoothed over with a bit of common sense. Word of advice: only go into the ymdc area as a last resort. A lot of those guys are very pedantic.

Are there "tactics" involved? Sure. Tactics is defined as the maneuver of forces In battle. From the various terrain options right down to where a certain model is within a squad is now very important. Makumba said that IG doesn't use tactics, but that's not true. Dropping a blob of guys beyond some cover to pop shots across the field is certainly a tactical option. Dealing with that blob is a combination of strategy and tactics. Which is pretty similar to real life.

Further you certainly have options for the make up and disposition of your forces. This enters more of a strategic area during list building. What type of forces do you think you will encounter? What options do you have for opposing them? How does this play with the end game of achieving objectives? All of this can require a fair amount of thought and planning. Again, similar to real life.

There are certainly random factors that can impact the game such as mysterious terrain and warlord traits, however I feel that only adds to it to give each game it's own flavor.

Other factors include random charge distances. Again though it boils down to how you see these things. IMHO they add a much needed element of reality that some game systems just don't have. After all, "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry"...

If this game had "perfect balance" as *some* very vocal people apparently want then you'd be able to know with 100% confidence that a unit of TH/SS terminators would always crush a unit of wyches. This would quite frankly leave out what I think is an important aspect of the game. Namely of holding your breath hoping that the dice gods favor you and being ecstatic when, against all odds, those wyches prevail. For those that desire "perfect balance" I would suggest they view Penny Arcade's take on the subject: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/perfect-imbalance

I consider the game to be extremely stratigic, with tactics coming into play as you learn how to play and learn the other armys you play with. I use tactics alot in my games, after i have my stratagy in place. Terrien/los/tanks that become wrecks, all of this contributes to how the squad tactics will come into play. Who do i shoot and when? do i try to force a pinning check? is that Flying MC the biggest threat? you refer to your stratagey and then adjust with tactics. it does work in this hobby, But i will mirror something said above. it works out best depending on who you are playing. TFG/WAAC Gamers kinda make this game harder to do unless you put yourself at their level and build lists the same. There are still tactics but they become pretty blunt.

The impression I got from the op was him looking for a deep tactical game. 40k is just not it. 40k is like playing checkers when chess is really what you want

bfdhud wrote:
The impression I got from the op was him looking for a deep tactical game. 40k is just not it. 40k is like playing candyland when chess is really what you want

Fixed that for you. It's possible to be more tactical in checkers than in 40k.

The thing is... Games Workshop is honestly a Model company FIRST and a rules company SECOND...then you look at like Privateer Press...Rules come first, and then they have thier models.

GW really stresses the 'have fun, build up your army' theme in their Rulebook and codexes

As a wargame 40k is not very tactical, it never really has been. GW no longer produces games that I would consider tactical.

Know the guys i said to avoid in your gaming club? Makumba would be one of those

daedalus wrote: It's possible to be more tactical in checkers than in 40k.

Umm, I'm not sue about this. Yes, checkers doesn't have a random element in it, but checkers is still practically not very strategic. I mean, tic-tac-toe doesn't have a random element either, and I'd say it's less strategic than 40k.

Of course, that's just splitting hairs.

One of the things I find interesting, though, is that for how much people seem to want to have a lightweight tactics intense strategy game, they don't tend to do very well. Confrontation was fantastic, and a lot of people got on board... and now nobody plays it. It seems like tabletop tactics simulators tend to have a rather limited shelflife. The ones that seem to survive for more than a few years are the ones that eventually go the way of 40k. Large, hobby based games with bloated yet narrative rules sets (cf. the direction warmachine has been going since its creation).

So long as you don't bother with tournaments, you'll be okay. There's a lot of skill required to use units in codices that are not themselves overpowered.

Tournaments encourage a win-at-all-costs mindset that sterilizes most codices and most players.

 Ailaros wrote:

One of the things I find interesting, though, is that for how much people seem to want to have a lightweight tactics intense strategy game, they don't tend to do very well. Confrontation was fantastic, and a lot of people got on board... and now nobody plays it. It seems like tabletop tactics simulators tend to have a rather limited shelflife. The ones that seem to survive for more than a few years are the ones that eventually go the way of 40k. Large, hobby based games with bloated yet narrative rules sets (cf. the direction warmachine has been going since its creation).

Or are historical games.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Know the guys i said to avoid in your gaming club? Makumba would be one of those

why because I say the truth ? IG gaming is a target priority thing , has nothing to do with tactics . point at stuff and roll . Same with list building for IG , the choice is more or less made for me . Even ally are covered by the design team by not giving IG any psychic protection but letting me battlebrother SW rune priests.

there are lists that have to use more then just target priority ,but those are the weaker armies , they suffer more from random effects , change of scenarios or bad match ups . And this isnt much of a change from 3ed-5th ed , it was the same back then. marines had their rhino rush, then gunline , then msu spam which all were point and click . I played armored company , then a cadian gunline , then the chimera spam , and now a mix of foot and tanks . aside for target priority , there isnt much to do with the list . Even movment to grab objectives or contest stuff with flyers are in build in to the army. I can tell when I will do it against all non mirror match lists .

Tournaments encourage a win-at-all-costs mindset that sterilizes most codices and most players.

then why do people play with the same lists in "normal" and tournament games , then ? there is no tournament or non tournament , just good and bad And people dont want to play bad lists , because bad armies/builds lose more , get hurt by edition change more , get hurt more when new dex come out etc.

The ones that seem to survive for more than a few years are the ones that eventually go the way of 40k. Large, hobby based games with bloated yet narrative rules sets (cf. the direction warmachine has been going since its creation).

it has little to do with the system more with how big in wargaming GW is . in a lot of place around the world you can either play GW games or non . Being bigger GW also deals with slowing market better. Confrontetion died because Rakham had financial problems [and the first set of rules was too unbalanced] . In eastern europe PP made gained a huge foothold . The tournament sceen was growing like nothing before , 100+tournaments good support [+GW helped them with making the gav dex and making a lot of w40k people leave] . But then PP started the have problems with production and they stoped sending stuff here . Always giving the excuse that they dont want to send a not full shipment . now 2 years later , the fandom is dead or close to being dead . veterans have armies , new guys cant start because there is no starters . press gangers jumped ship because teaching/promo working for a game that doesnt exist in store [save for models no one uses] isnt fun and the only way to get models that came out in 2012 end of 2011 is to buy them direct from the States . Such thing stops other wargames from growing , not being not enough B&P.

Actually you can have a “Tactical Element”, but that depends on the players. If you have two players running Gunlines and are into “Small Unit Tactics” you can actually get into a very “Tactical” game. Lots of maneuvering for positions and setting up fire zones and things.
The problem is that it only takes one to decide to “Fix Bayonets and Charge the Gunline” and it all goes to pot.

On a side note.
How is the tournament scene coping with 6th ed?

Anpu42 wrote:If you have two players running Gunlines ... you can actually get into a very “Tactical” game.

What?

Gunlines are the least tactical army in the entire game. Both players deploy, and then nobody even uses the movement or assault phase (at least not until they absolutely have to). Both players just sit there and roll dice at each other until one of the players win. It's the closest to a game of yahtzee that you can get in 40k.

 Ailaros wrote:

daedalus wrote: It's possible to be more tactical in checkers than in 40k.

Umm, I'm not sue about this. Yes, checkers doesn't have a random element in it, but checkers is still practically not very strategic. I mean, tic-tac-toe doesn't have a random element either, and I'd say it's less strategic than 40k.

Of course, that's just splitting hairs.

One of the things I find interesting, though, is that for how much people seem to want to have a lightweight tactics intense strategy game, they don't tend to do very well. Confrontation was fantastic, and a lot of people got on board... and now nobody plays it. It seems like tabletop tactics simulators tend to have a rather limited shelflife. The ones that seem to survive for more than a few years are the ones that eventually go the way of 40k. Large, hobby based games with bloated yet narrative rules sets (cf. the direction warmachine has been going since its creation).

I'd wager the reason is these games appear tactical or to have depth but once the Meta game is learned people realize it isn't what they thought.

For example diablo3 seemed at first to be the sequel everyone wanted. After a while more and more people realized how paper thin and 1 dimensional the game was. Now all that's left are the hardcore players.

Sammer wrote:
It's a shame they couldn't create a more refined and balanced tactical experience considering how long this game has been in production

Well it would be if that was something they'd tried and failed to do at any point, but they really haven't. But yeah, reiterating what other people have said - warhams is all about fun gameplay, cool minis and narratives full of stuff exploding. In its 6E incarnation it's my favourite game system on earth, but there are a lot of other things with more serious in-depth tactical elements.

No offence to anyone in this thread, but 40k is only vaguely tactical in the miniature gaming sense of the term and certainly not very strategic.

40k is the opitome of a "beer and pretzels" game and that has always been its charm, er, if you can call it that. It is the fluff that gives the illusion of depth in the game.

40k has always been about the miniatures and the fluff and will continue to be so.

I'm sure some wit out there could come up with a suitably deep background for 40k's near tactical twin, the game of checkers...

KING ME! In the dark future there is only red.. and black...

Don't let these foggies whine and moan about tactics to you OP

I will outline the advantages and disadvantages to the game for ya.

40k takes a bit of time to learn but once you have you will find the game promotes you thinking ahead of the current gameplay and figuring out where you want to be and how before you oponnent does.

You will learn through your rules can in certain ways be more effective than others (some armies will get advantages from shooting certain types of guns at certain enemies ect ect.)

You will develop preferences and game play styles which work well for you.

You will learn not every enemy may be fought the same way

and lastly you will eventually enjoy the game if you picked an army you truly identify with (I suggest before investing in an army to read over it's codex 'main rulebook' and in the first pages you will see an entry which says "why buy a ____ army. I will tell you a bit about them and try and see yourself enjoying the qualities told you there)
---------------------------------

The problems with 40k are the ones everyone are voicing to you but I encourage you to think about this like a other games you might have played. First off 40k isn't chess, it isn't 100% fair certain armies were produced years ago and are going to eventually be updated but because 40k does a "power creep" you might find your army isn't as powerful persay as the 'flavor of the month'. I am playing one of the oldest codexes in 40k and have beaten brand new armies it all comes down to ... you guessed it tactics.

Certain armies can avoid using tactics in place of obscure rules or debating. this is something indigenous to all war gamers though so it shouldn't demoralize you.

the main issue I would caution you about is make sure you want to take 40k seriously because it's a hobby you can get into pretty cheaply but getting a formiddable army is never cheap no matter the resoruce. I've spent over 1.3k in my army over the years. my best suggest is buy small and look for deals online and through ebay, don't rush your collection and treat it like a hobby. and if nothing else MAKE SURE THE ARMY YOU PICK IS THE ONE YOU ARE SURE YOU WANT. I have seen more people spend hundreds of dollars to end up hating how the army plays after months of using them.

--------------------------------------

40k is a game i find myself thinking constantly finding a smart blend of rules, tactics and knowing your foe produces very satisfying games with just enough randomness to never get dull IMO. I highly advise you go to a local game store and ask how you could observe a game played and do so. everyone posting here hates the game... they are going to do everything they can to say how awful it is, how the company just wants your money and yadda yadda yadda. ifyou want the entertainment and challenge of playing in a war game with cool sci-fi stories, painting and modeling with an admiration for what your army represents then this game is most certainly one you should try.

Well, it's not that 40k has NO tactics, it's that its tactical depth is really shallow. It's not so shallow that someone who has never played before has an even chance of beating a veteran, but once you've played a dozen games or so, and learn to show up with a netlist, you're already getting to the point where player skill has now started to become a controlled variable.