Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 14:34:35
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka
|
I'm somewhat disappointed in the direction the game seems to be heading. It seems that we're getting away from a more classical military strategy game, and heading down the path of combo-gaming.
Afterall, what's the advantage of maximizing your use of cover, when your opponent fields a unit with a re-rollable 2++ save? Refusing a flank seems inconsequential compared to having a deathstar that comes apart to contest 5 objectives on the last turn of the game.
I was reading natfka this morning and they had a battle report up that detailed how, using an inquisitor, white scars and IG, he was able to get a 50-man blob squad with scout, and hit&run, and rad grenades and psykotrope grenades and who knows what else, and had them bouncing from target to target, wiping them all out...
This just doesn't appeal to me. I'm not saying there's no strategy to playing with, or against, combos like these. But it's not really wargaming, not in the sense that I understand.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 15:22:54
Subject: Re:Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Don't know what else I can say other than that I agree with you.
In a way, its starting to feel like a card game played out with some dice and miniatures.
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 18:27:55
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Well, this isn't exactly new. 40k has always been a game that's mostly about who brought which lists to the table. The only real difference is that, with allies, the combos have gotten more complicated. They haven't gotten any more or less important, though.
As you well note, 40k is a game that on the one hand alludes to itself as a strategy game by having things like balanced points levels and missions with objective and rules for terrain, and two different ways of doing damage (shooting and close combat), and a bunch of other stuff... and then it tries its hardest to make all of that as irrelevant as it can. And that's before we even consider the fact that 40k is, at its heart, a dice game.
I guess, if anything, what's going on is more of 40k dropping its veneer of being a strategy game in favor of a more naked approach to being a game where you get to push your favorite pretty models around while drinking a beer with friends. The only people who should be shocked by this, though, are people who were incorrectly believing that 40k was a serious strategy game in the first place.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/03 18:28:28
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 18:36:02
Subject: Re:Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Blacksails wrote:Don't know what else I can say other than that I agree with you.
In a way, its starting to feel like a card game played out with some dice and miniatures.
The card game analogy is spot on. Especially with the new formation rules.
Army lists are starting to read more like "Here's my blue/red/black deck" Than "This is my Alaitoc Eldar army"
|
BlaxicanX wrote:A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 18:39:01
Subject: Re:Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Eldarain wrote: Blacksails wrote:Don't know what else I can say other than that I agree with you.
In a way, its starting to feel like a card game played out with some dice and miniatures.
The card game analogy is spot on. Especially with the new formation rules.
Army lists are starting to read more like "Here's my blue/red/black deck" Than "This is my Alaitoc Eldar army"
I mean, its not a perfect analogy or comparison, but it certainly feels like its headed that way.
I think I've given up on trying to stay up to date with what's competitive now with all the options. I plan on re-doing my IG up to ~2000pts, then get a HH/30k/Marine force of Salamanders of ~2000-3000pts and then call 40k quits. In the meanwhile, I'll be moving back to Firestorm Armada!
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 18:43:45
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Hallowed Canoness
|
Warhammer Fantasy is a tactical battle game.
Warhammer 40,000 is an excuse to put down tanks and make machinegun noises.
I like making machinegun noises.
|

"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 21:42:17
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Executing Exarch
|
Well honestly 40K is more of a tactical game rather than "strategy" per se. Paying attention to where the models are placed and which models take the shot and targeting the correct target with the correct weapon will always be of top importance. More important than any 2++ seer star.
I do find it a little strange that people claim "combos" affecting military is not realistic. Have you heard of force multipliers? Those are "combos" in military. So instead of nightvision and drones you have prescience and grimoire.
I am not exactly a fan of the 2++ rerollabled on multiple models but I also have not had a particular problem with it as good strategy can mitigate it and a good tactic can remove it (tank shocks +barrage sniping a grimoire herald is one of my favorites).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 22:46:43
Subject: Re:Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Blacksails wrote:In a way, its starting to feel like a card game played out with some dice and miniatures.
You know, there's something that I'm starting to see about that. I mean, let's go back a few years. Let's say I came up to you after the GK codex came out and said "I play GK". What does that mean? I could be about to break out a henchmen list, or a draigowing, or a crowe purifier list. At the same time, even after the guard codex had aged for a couple of years, me saying I played guard could mean any combination of two of the following five: foot horde, tanks, artillery, air-cav, and mech. There were certainly netlists, but there were netlistS with a capital S.
Fast forward a few years, and someone says "I play greycrons" and you know almost exactly what their list. Two whole codices to choose from, and everybody winds up with basically the same thing. If I say I'm playing taudar, what does my list look like? You already know. I mean, just within the tau codex this happened. After a few weeks of experimentation how quickly did everybody... everybody... from the internet down to the sudden surge of tau players at my FLGS play tiny variants on the same list?
It's hard to say what the source is. On the one hand, people have always been uncreative lemmings, following whoever happened to win a couple of dice games at NOVA, or whatever. A lot of my work with imperial guard over the last years has been a desperate attempt to show people that there are plenty of different ways to play guard. That said, there's still this change. Is it that the nature of people who are on online forums has changed, the character of 40k players in general has changed over time, or has 40k itself, structurally become a different kind of game?
I mean, I guess I should say it is at least a part the last of those things. When 6th edition and a few codices came out, they turned 40k into a game of gunlines. Gunlines are no- or barely-any skill lists, and when you reduce the inroad for player skill in a dice game, you necessarily make the end result more dependent on the die rolls themselves, and thus, who wins more being who plays better odds. Given that the biggest way that you play odds is with your list choice, one could argue that the simplification of 6th edition and it's decision to axe the assault phase most of the time pushes things even more into the direction of the lists you bring.
... that said... 40k was always a game about who brought which lists. I mean, MTG has always been nearly entirely about what deck you brought, and that hasn't stopped thousands upon thousands of people from, for some reason, thinking its a strategy game. I guess we shouldn't assume 40k would be any different.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 01:04:30
Subject: Re:Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka
|
Ailaros wrote:
... that said... 40k was always a game about who brought which lists.
Only to a point. If you didn't bring the tools to deal with what your opponent brought, you were boned. But that's somewhat realistic - Poland didn't have anti-tank weapons when the Germans came around.
But, previously, even as recently as 5th edition, if you had the basic toolkit in your list, most of the game came down to how you used it and how you set up mismatches in your favour. A list could pose certain questions, and another list might not have answers for it (or, enough answers), but you didn't see the unanswerable questions that I'm seeing now.
Allies have made for more tricksy combos, things that the designers probably didn't contemplate. 50-man units hitting and running from combat??? What's more, these combos and powers often don't have counters anymore. There is no defense against psychic buffs, other than to hope that your opponent fails a die roll. There's no counter to stacking USRs off multiple characters from multiple codexes. And, these combine to be far more important (or potent) than the old skills that you see in all military games: target priority, terrain utilization, mobility and positioning. I can put a lot of effort into putting my troops in advantageous positions to survive early fire and get to objectives in the midgame, and it means nothing if my opponent can split apart a re-rollable 2++ deathstar as time runs out and contest every location on the board by doing so.
I mean, MTG has always been nearly entirely about what deck you brought, and that hasn't stopped thousands upon thousands of people from, for some reason, thinking its a strategy game. I guess we shouldn't assume 40k would be any different.
This is a fallacy. There have been times when MtG was more about the deck than the play, but the designers are well aware that the game is about interplay between players, and whenever it has moved too far towards combo-play, it gets reigned back in. Knowing how to attack and defend with your creatures is a very relevant skill in MtG, or at least still was when I played.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 02:26:57
Subject: Re:Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Redbeard wrote:Allies have made for more tricksy combos,
Yes, combinations have gotten more complex, but why does this, in itself, mean that the game has been more determined by combos? You could easily imagine a scenario where you could make more complicated combos and the utility of combos goes down. The two are unrelated.
So what we're seeing is an increase in combo complexity AND an increase in the reliance of combos. It's hard to say that the two are necessarily causal (and which way the causality goes).
Redbeard wrote:This is a fallacy. There have been times when MtG was more about the deck than the play, but the designers are well aware that the game is about interplay between players, and whenever it has moved too far towards combo-play, it gets reigned back in. Knowing how to attack and defend with your creatures is a very relevant skill in MtG, or at least still was when I played.
It's an analogy, not a fallacy. In any case, MTG is often, strangely, held up as a paragon of a well-balanced game, when it isn't. Even if Hasbro is better at game balance than GW, that doesn't have anything whatever to do with levels of player skill - something which is endemic to the games themselves. I mean, candyland is extremely well balanced, and requires basically no player skill.
All you're saying here is that you like MTG better than 40k, not that 40k has necessarily become a more combo-driven game than it was before, much less any particular cause even if this were true.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 02:38:51
Subject: Re:Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka
|
Ailaros wrote:Redbeard wrote:Allies have made for more tricksy combos,
Yes, combinations have gotten more complex, but why does this, in itself, mean that the game has been more determined by combos? You could easily imagine a scenario where you could make more complicated combos and the utility of combos goes down. The two are unrelated.
So what we're seeing is an increase in combo complexity AND an increase in the reliance of combos. It's hard to say that the two are necessarily causal (and which way the causality goes).
I think that it's more a matter that GW's just not that good at game design, and adding the ability to create combos between different books, which were seemingly not tested for this capability, has led to the increased reliance on them.
The added complexity leads to things falling through the cracks of game balance. The resulting imbalance leads to the increased reliance.
It's an analogy, not a fallacy.
Well, no. When you stated, "I mean, MTG has always been nearly entirely about what deck you brought" - that's not an analogy, it's a statement. And, it's a statement that is wrong.
All you're saying here is that you like MTG better than 40k, not that 40k has necessarily become a more combo-driven game than it was before, much less any particular cause even if this were true.
Again, no. I don't like MtG better than 40k. And, yes, I am asserting that 40k has become a more combo-driven game, I think that even the most casual observer of competitive level 40k play can see that.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 03:02:36
Subject: Re:Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Redbeard wrote:that's not an analogy, it's a statement. And, it's a statement that is wrong.
Wrong, perhaps, but not a fallacy. Unlike, say...
Redbeard wrote: And, yes, I am asserting that 40k has become a more combo-driven game, I think that even the most casual observer of competitive level 40k play can see that.
... an appeal to common knowledge, which is.
Redbeard wrote:The added complexity leads to things falling through the cracks of game balance.
And this is certainly true. Smaller games are not necessarily better balanced, but it is more difficult to make larger games more balanced than smaller ones. 40k is a monstrously complex game, compared to most others (well, not compared to advanced squad leader, but still, over 100 pages of rules = a complex game).
If what you want is a better-balanced game, then yeah, it would make sense that you'd want to gravitate towards a simpler game, like MTG, for example, or... well... practically anything.
That said, while simple systems are generally better than complex ones, this isn't always the case. 40k's complexity means that there's just a lot more game to the game. Much more depth as more rules interact with more rules, and more different kinds of things you can do. MTG's combat system, for example, provides nowhere near the same level of game play as 40k does, because there just isn't the rules set to support it all.
So the question is, what's more important to a game being good, balance, or depth? If the answer is the former, not the latter, then go play tic- tac-toe, or chess, or Go, or something. A vast sea of opportunities for simple games that have decent balance. If, however, what you want is a system with depth, you're talking about a system that is more complex, and therefore will suffer with game balance. There's just no real way around this problem, and merely badmouthing GW's game designers won't make it otherwise.
Personally, I like that 40k is complex, and that has a bunch of special rules interacting with each other. If I didn't, as mentioned, I'd play chess, or something. The question here, though, is is that complexity actually breeding a certain form of simplicity - that is, complexity isn't breeding depth, it's just breeding netlisting, or whatever. The thing is, though, that 40k can't enforce a player taking advantage of its depth. That's a choice that the players themselves have to make.
If there are more players who are choosing to take less advantage of depth (which I'm not entirely convinced is true), then the question is what, in the game's complexity, forces people not to use it? Put that way, the question sort of doesn't make sense - I mean, the problem with any open-ended system is the people who choose to use (and abuse) it. The problem with 40k, then, is 40k players, not 40k itself. If anything, the only changes in the rules that would make this problem worse is by reducing restrictions in such a way that allows bad players to wreck the game even more than they already were.
So does this mean that 40k is failing because it's insufficiently stopping people from being their own (and their opponents') worst enemy? Seems unlikely. Otherwise socialism would work...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 03:02:53
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 03:41:03
Subject: Re:Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka
|
Ailaros wrote:Redbeard wrote:that's not an analogy, it's a statement. And, it's a statement that is wrong.
Wrong, perhaps, but not a fallacy. Unlike, say...
There are different definitions for fallacy. In this case, what you said was false. It may not have been a classical logical fallacy, but it was a fallacy none the less.
Webster wrote:
fal·la·cy noun \ˈfa-lə-sē\
: a wrong belief : a false or mistaken idea
: the quality of being false or wrong
plural fal·la·cies
Full Definition of FALLACY
1
a obsolete : guile, trickery
b : deceptive appearance : deception
2
a : a false or mistaken idea
b : erroneous character : erroneousness
3
: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
You'll see I was using the word in the way described in definition 2.
If what you want is a better-balanced game, then yeah, it would make sense that you'd want to gravitate towards a simpler game, like MTG, for example, or... well... practically anything.
Indeed.
But I'm not so much looking for a better balanced system (well, I am that too, but let's not confuse the topic of the thread), but rather one in which the complexities are based around the interaction of units rather than the interaction of rules.
With an infinitely variable board and limitless movement possibilities, the game can be quite complex enough without needing to resort to who can find the most abusive means of stacking USRs into a unit.
So the question is, what's more important to a game being good, balance, or depth? If the answer is the former, not the latter, then go play tic-tac-toe, or chess, or Go, or something. A vast sea of opportunities for simple games that have decent balance. If, however, what you want is a system with depth, you're talking about a system that is more complex
People have played Go for thousands of years, and Chess for hundreds. If you are insinuating that 40k has more depth than either of these games because it has added complexity, then I don't think we can have an intelligent conversation about game design. We're just not even close to being on the same page.
Complexity is often used as a mask for inadequate game design. Rather than address core issues with a game, the designers seek to obfuscate problems with additional rules, and this is what I think 40k's designers have done. For example, in 5th ed, wound allocation was a bit of a mess. Rather than really attempt to solve the problem, they added several layers of additional rules (focus fire, look out sir, casualties from the front, I'm sure I'm missing one or two), that add additional rules without addressing the core problems that it's a gameable system, and with the added complexity, added additional means to game the system (one re-rollable 2+ save model taking all the hits for a unit of 50 guys with crap armour, for example).
The question here, though, is is that complexity actually breeding a certain form of simplicity - that is, complexity isn't breeding depth, it's just breeding netlisting, or whatever.
See, I think calling it netlisting is kind of incorrect. GW's balance is so poor that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what units are good and what are bad, and obviously, people would rather take the good ones, regardless of whether they'd been posted on the net or not.
And this was true in 5th too, so it's not really a balance issue, it's that the nature of the game is changing. It's becoming less of a wargame, and more of a gimmick game. Like I said before, traditional wargaming skills are being pushed aside in favour of exploiting combos.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 03:41:28
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 07:07:48
Subject: Re:Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Ailaros wrote:40k is a monstrously complex game, compared to most others (well, not compared to advanced squad leader, but still, over 100 pages of rules = a complex game).
The problem with 40k is that it has very little depth. It has lots of needless complexity for the sake of complexity, but many of those rules don't really add very much. Just to name the most absurd example, having a USR that literally does nothing except grant two other USRs is pointless complexity. It adds words to the rulebook, but adds nothing to the depth of the game. And a lot of the rest of the game isn't much better. For example, why does WS even exist as a mechanic when 99% of the time you hit on either a 4+ or 3+? Why does each unit type need to have its own special movement distance instead of having a movement value in the basic stat line? Why do we need a separate USR for "re-roll 1s to hit" and "re-roll to hit", is the difference between the two really so significant that the game needs two sets of rules?
And, compared to MTG, 40k is a simple game. MTG might have simpler core rules, but just like in 40k the core rules are only a tiny part of the complexity. MTG has tens of thousands of "units", for a potential number of interactions that vastly exceeds anything 40k has.
MTG's combat system, for example, provides nowhere near the same level of game play as 40k does, because there just isn't the rules set to support it all.
That's not true at all. MTG's combat rules may be fairly simple, but the range of creature stats and special abilities, combat tricks, and hidden information make the actual combat require a lot of thought. In 40k, on the other hand, combat is extremely straightforward: you point your unit at a target, and roll dice to see if you kill it. There are rarely any real decisions to make beyond target priority, and almost never any decisions to make as the defender. The vast majority of "strategy" in 40k combat is just building an optimized list where your units will usually win.
If, however, what you want is a system with depth, you're talking about a system that is more complex, and therefore will suffer with game balance. There's just no real way around this problem, and merely badmouthing GW's game designers won't make it otherwise.
Nonsense. Complexity does not mean poor game balance, it just means you have to do a better job of playtesting. Yes, there will be the occasional balance mistake (preferably corrected by errata and/or bans), but let's not pretend that GW's "game designers" are doing anywhere near a professional job of it.
The thing is, though, that 40k can't enforce a player taking advantage of its depth. That's a choice that the players themselves have to make.
Sure it can. Make every unit a 0-1 choice and add a rule that no FOC section (other than the mandatory two troops) may have more than one more unit than any other FOC section. Then remove allies/allied formations/etc from the game so that you can't get around the restrictions by adding an allied army that is essentially the same as your main army. Congratulations, now you've enforced depth once you get to a high enough point level that players are forced to start picking lower-tier units.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 08:29:33
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Still ton of strategy in the game . Slingshoting , LoS sniping . Yes the combos are powerful , but that is normal . When armies were 1-1.5k pts , there was less space for combos . when armies are 1,5-1999 it is easier to build a combo unit . But you guys are right that ally , fortifications , FW and designers help with that too. If there were no 4 heralds per 1 slot , screamer star wouldn't exist . no ally would mean fewer seer councils . My IG blobs wouldn't be runing with Inq or Azrael . It is still better I think , then the RTS style game play we had at the end of 5th.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 08:59:08
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Hacking Proxy Mk.1
|
Ok anyone that thinks that 40k is strategically deep outside of the list building phase needs to go play.. pretty much anything else.
X-wing's secretly declare movement then act out the predetermined results in init order means you have to constantly guess where your opponent will be moving so that you can line up a shot at them.
Dystopian Wars (and all Spartan Games' systems I guess, but Dyst Wars is the one I know for sure) requires a lot of thought in movement so that you get your guns at the range you want them (that means between 1 and 8 inches for the front gun on target X and between 8 and 16 for the torpedoes at Y and between 24 and 32 for Z, not simply getting within 48 and calling it a day). As well the I move/shoot/assault, you move/shoot/assault 1 unit at a time system means that target priority is a much bigger issue but mush less clear too since it is usually far less obvious. Games can and will be lost because you've got the option to activate and push your battleship forwards and broadside your opponent's battleship before it does the same to you or activate a squadron of bombers that will wipe out his gunships before those gunships flank you, if you chose wrong you'll happily cripple your opponents battleship only to find they have wiped out your entire flank before your bombers have activated.
I dislike warmahordes but that's mostly an issue with the local playerbase more than anything else, when they tried to get me into it I found it combo heavy but there was balance there that made it work, 40k lacks that.
Hell even warhammer fantasy has a lot more tactical depth to it than 40k, charging is the very first thing you do in a turn and you don't have a 360 degree charge arc so if you don't line your charges up a turn in advance you're never going to get into the fights you need to to win.
As Peregrine said, VERY little depth.
|
Fafnir wrote:Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 09:21:53
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Makumba wrote:Still ton of strategy in the game . Slingshoting , LoS sniping .
Except those aren't really combos, they're just ways of exploiting GW's bad rules. Using a spare Rhino to block LOS so my squad can only see one model and therefore finally learn how to shoot at the desired target within a unit doesn't feel like a legitimate strategy my army is executing, it feels like just another stupid aspect of the wound allocation rules that GW didn't bother to think about before publishing them. A game with real strategic depth involves interesting choices, not being "clever" about finding the best way of manipulating the rules.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 10:39:23
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Guard Heavy Weapon Crewman
Australia
|
I dont feel lie there is a lot of strategy in the game, although there is some, you still have to find a way to deal with combos.
I dont know much else other than 40k so how does the strategy compare to other 28mm war games? Dont some other games use an "orders" system so you can only issue some orders in a game?
|
Chris |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 12:11:25
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Sneaky Striking Scorpion
South West UK
|
Redbeard wrote:I'm somewhat disappointed in the direction the game seems to be heading. It seems that we're getting away from a more classical military strategy game, and heading down the path of combo-gaming.
Afterall, what's the advantage of maximizing your use of cover, when your opponent fields a unit with a re-rollable 2++ save? Refusing a flank seems inconsequential compared to having a deathstar that comes apart to contest 5 objectives on the last turn of the game.
I was reading natfka this morning and they had a battle report up that detailed how, using an inquisitor, white scars and IG, he was able to get a 50-man blob squad with scout, and hit&run, and rad grenades and psykotrope grenades and who knows what else, and had them bouncing from target to target, wiping them all out...
This just doesn't appeal to me. I'm not saying there's no strategy to playing with, or against, combos like these. But it's not really wargaming, not in the sense that I understand.
This is one of those insights that is not obvious until someone says it, and then unmissable thereafter.
A nice post. I agree with all of it, including the caveats. It's not black and white but it has certainly lurched heavily in that direction.
|
What is best in life?
To wound enemy units, see them driven from the table, and hear the lamentations of their player. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 12:43:01
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Makumba wrote:Still ton of strategy in the game . Slingshoting , LoS sniping .
These are gimmicks and exploiting rules, not strategy.
40k is a very shallow strategy/tactical game when you boil it down or compare it to anything currently on the market.
I'm going to echo jonolikespie and agree that games like X-Wing and Firestorm Armada (haven't played Dystopian, but very similar mechanics) are significantly more strategic and tactical, where you rely on movement, force concentration, and target priority to get you though a game; not USR stacking, slingshotting (a gimmick and rule loophole), or LoS sniping (again, a gimmick done through rules knowledge not through tactical decision making).
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 12:59:31
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos
|
My gaming group is seriously thinking about breaking out the old 3rd edition rules, and playing lists out of the big black book. It was shocking to me how simple the rules were. "Wound allocation" is simply "defending player chooses, but must remove whole models." Its an abstraction, but one that allows a unit to operate at full speed.
I"m curious to play a few games, and see how we like it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 13:04:54
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Executing Exarch
|
Polonius wrote:My gaming group is seriously thinking about breaking out the old 3rd edition rules, and playing lists out of the big black book. It was shocking to me how simple the rules were. "Wound allocation" is simply "defending player chooses, but must remove whole models." Its an abstraction, but one that allows a unit to operate at full speed.
I"m curious to play a few games, and see how we like it.
If any of your guys play blood angels, they'll kiss you.
They can get up to a 30" charge (from a rhino) and can use sweeping advance to stay in cc for the entire game, consolidating from one squad into the next without ever having to stop
|
Blacksails wrote:
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 13:09:02
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Leader of the Sept
|
PredaKhaine wrote: Polonius wrote:My gaming group is seriously thinking about breaking out the old 3rd edition rules, and playing lists out of the big black book. It was shocking to me how simple the rules were. "Wound allocation" is simply "defending player chooses, but must remove whole models." Its an abstraction, but one that allows a unit to operate at full speed.
I"m curious to play a few games, and see how we like it.
If any of your guys play blood angels, they'll kiss you.
They can get up to a 30" charge (from a rhino) and can use sweeping advance to stay in cc for the entire game, consolidating from one squad into the next without ever having to stop 
Indeed. I once had a game against a BA force where the death company moved about 192" over the course of the game due to never ending consolidations.
|
Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!
Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 13:18:50
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos
|
Well, one thing we're doing is using the basic book lists, not the codices. That limits how good a lot of the stuff is, as the basic lists were conservatively costed with few, if any, special rules.
It's easy to homebrew the hacks we need to make the game fun. Hell, there are the TAR and TVR, plenty of army lists, and piles of errata and Chapter approved.
the reason we're playing is mostly to roll dice using a simple system that won't take a lot of rulebook flipping. We all have armies, but just don't care for the fiddliness of 6th.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 17:17:39
Subject: Re:Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I'm going to echo jonolikespie and agree that games like X-Wing and Firestorm Armada (haven't played Dystopian, but very similar mechanics) are significantly more strategic and tactical, where you rely on movement, force concentration, and target priority to get you though a game; not USR stacking, slingshotting (a gimmick and rule loophole), or LoS sniping (again, a gimmick done through rules knowledge not through tactical decision making
Because slingshoting or rhino sniping doesn't require movment to block LoS or push your character in to our out of melee . doesn't require concetration of force , because it is not like you need at least 2 units to pull it of and it ignores targer priority , because you always snipe those grunts and not the HQ, special weapon guys etc. right ?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 17:29:56
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka
|
No one is saying that slingshotting is not a tactic, nor even that it doesn't require skill.
What we're saying is that it's a very 'gamey' thing, not anchored in any sort of realism.
The idea that an army commander would order two of his tanks to obscure the fields of fire of most of his men, in order that one of his soldiers could only see an enemy with a heavier weapon is ludicrous. Such things should be addressed within base rules (say, an order that lets you pick your target), not the manipulation of LoS rules.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 17:33:44
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Trazyn's Museum Curator
|
Polonius wrote:My gaming group is seriously thinking about breaking out the old 3rd edition rules, and playing lists out of the big black book. It was shocking to me how simple the rules were. "Wound allocation" is simply "defending player chooses, but must remove whole models." Its an abstraction, but one that allows a unit to operate at full speed.
Yeah, that's a lot better than the current system. I'm tired of squads of 2 wound models being kept alive by spreading wounds around, and the fact that it takes so long to allocate wounds on characters now >.<
|
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:02:23
Subject: Re:Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
@Makumba
See Redbeard's response to your post.
Its a Warhammer 40k tactic only. You will never find anything resembling this kind of gameplay in any other wargame, as its based purely in rules knowledge and bending of those rules. They're gimmicks, really. Tactical gimmicks, but gimmicks nonetheless.
The 40k rules don't lend themselves well to much other than gaming the rules themselves.
Have you played any other wargames? If not, I recommend you do so you can see the difference. If you have, then I hope you understand the difference from strategy/tactics and 40k specific tactics.
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:10:05
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre
|
Really? The old 50 man thing giving you trouble? Take a damn vindicare assassin, shoot the inquisitor twice, kill it. That's all you do. Or of course, stop taking elite only killing power and make balanced TAC lists instead of this stupid MC spam meta.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:23:21
Subject: Strategy vs Combos
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
juraigamer wrote:Really? The old 50 man thing giving you trouble? Take a damn vindicare assassin, shoot the inquisitor twice, kill it. That's all you do. Or of course, stop taking elite only killing power and make balanced TAC lists instead of this stupid MC spam meta.
Except this thread isn't about the 50 man blob. Its about how the game has turned its focus from strategy/tactics into combos and USR stacking. The blob was an example of this.
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
|
|