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.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I disagree with the first point and would go so far as to say that for me 40K is coming closer to being a fun wargame than before, but I agree with your second point. 40K changes too often. After all these years one should think the guys are able to write a rulebook that lasts longer than 3 years.

40k is not a wargame, its a tabletop miniatures combat game that is themed around sci-fi warfare. There is a deep and meaningful difference between actual wargames (which tend towards simulationist approaches as a teaching aid, rather than being high-abstraction games subject to RNG), and what a lot of us call "wargaming" (i.e. games like 40k, Warmachine, etc.). Beyond that, at its heart 40k is a narrative skirmish game that has had the limits of its "game engine" pushed to accommodate much larger forces than its really designed to handle. So its not a wargame on multiple counts. Both wargames and tabletop miniatures combat games exist on the same spectrum, but they are on opposite ends of it.

My question for experienced players, based on comments I see on this forum, is how much room does 40K allow for skill and tactical ability. Some people seem to be able to read a codex or supplement and decide wether an army is worth playing. If there no room for being able to use different armies skilfully then that really just means there is only one way to play the game for repeatable success, we’ve all seen computer games like that.

If that’s true I would say this isn’t a way game. A war game should be pro games to be subject to a combination of tactical superiority, skill and luck, regardless of the resources of the army in question

The main mechanic of 40k is arguably listbuilding. 80% of the game is decided by your army list relative to your opponents, the remaining 20% is based on a combination of skill and luck, with the majority of the "skill" being in how you deploy your army, rather than the tactical decisions you make during gameplay. This breakdown might be a bit exaggerated, but lisbuilding is the most important factor, followed by deployment, followed by dice rolls.

it may have started out as more of an RPG in rogue trader and 2nd ed, but at its best from 3rd-7th (before formation spam killed it) it was a wargame that required a level of tactical play on the table with pros and cons for every unit and actions taken.

It wasn't a wargame from 3rd to 7th ed, there never really anything "tactical" about gameplay. It was "point and shoot, let RNG decide" all the way - it was pretty much always MTG with minis, even if it wasn't as obvious in the past.

Eh, I think there were a good bit of tactics in 4th edition, given that the terrain rules were actually interactive.

 Eldarain wrote:
That's wild.

Have look at Vintage deck prices..

https://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/vintage-hogaak-vine#paper

The main mechanic of 40k is arguably listbuilding. 80% of the game is decided by your army list relative to your opponents, the remaining 20% is based on a combination of skill and luck, with the majority of the "skill" being in how you deploy your army, rather than the tactical decisions you make during gameplay. This breakdown might be a bit exaggerated, but lisbuilding is the most important factor, followed by deployment, followed by dice rolls.

It wasn't a wargame from 3rd to 7th ed, there never really anything "tactical" about gameplay. It was "point and shoot, let RNG decide" all the way - it was pretty much always MTG with minis, even if it wasn't as obvious in the past.

Incorrect on both points

List building is a factor but it was only 50-60% because what you did with those lists on the table mattered-random dice effects aside.

i knew a guy who would copy tourney winning lists, but because they were not his lists and he did not use them tactically in the game he often lost with them against well rounded take all comers non-power lists.


Secondly it was absolutely a wargame from 3rd-7th.- tactical movement, terrain interaction, target priority, weapon/unit roles all played a part in tactical TT play. it was not MTG.

Magic allows you to buff creatures/damage output, survival/resistance through the use of manna and spells. this is directly comparable to the CP/stratagem system in 8th/9th ed 40K. in prior editions units had specified roles and rules for a specific function that had to be applied by actions on the table.

You have a very different (and very sad) definition of "tactical". I suggest playing a wider variety of games.

Terrain hasn't mattered in the game since 5th edition, after they decided to essentially make all terrain a 5+ save and grant cover saves for shooting through another unit. Target priority is the only meaningful decision you get to make as a player but is rendered totally meaningless by RNG outcomes (i.e. its less about skill and more about knowing basic probabilities). And I can remember psychic powers and unit abilities as far back as 3rd edition that let you pass around buffs and synergize support. Not sure what rose tinted goggles you're wearing where units had "specified roles". The game has always been about spamming 1-2 units that were essentially able to cover all the tasks that you threw at them.

Also still wasn't a wargame, very much was a tabletop miniatures combat game.

It seem like players typically falls into 2 major groups(28-30mm scale or 10-15mm scale);

28mm: likable by mostly new players
pro- great detailed miniatures, fun skirmish game, conversion possibilities
con- restriction of table size if you want a real battlefield suited for 28mm scale; transportation of large armies and miniature, especially so overseas or on a plane; rules doesn't fit the fluff on TT, prior to the new edition guardsmen has 1 W/space marine has 1 W

15mm: likable by mostly historians
pro- fitting battlefield for gaming, solid rules for real combat, easy to transport a whole army
con- scale size greatly limits the detail of miniatures and conversion opportunities;

Like I mentioned before, 40k can be enjoyed in many ways, every game has its pro and cons.

I wish i could still like 40k too. I love the models and the lore but the game mechanics from my perspective are straight up garbage.

IGOUGO is my biggest complaint. It may have worked a few editions ago where a lot less stuff died during one turn but now? It makes the game feel like you choose your forces before the game and then in the actual game you're pretty much a bystander who watches the fight and throws buckets full of dice to determine whats going on. It just does not really feel like tactics and ingame decisions matter too much.
I've given up on 40k and sold everything and moved on to Infinity and Bolt Action which are FAR superior gameplay wise. Also balance wise. Which brings me to the next point.

The balance is bloody awful. It has always been awful. The rate at which GW pumps out "new shineys" at the moment only exaggerates the massive balance problems the game has. Marines went from good at the start of 8th to a total joke in mid edition till the end of 8th where they then went to absurdly good.
Imperial army was absurdly good at the start of 8th and is now pretty bad. Orks went from a one trick pony to a no trick pony, Tau went from good to bad to amazing, Grey knights went from meme level bad to very solid, Imperial Knights were at one point of 8th the bane of everything and are now hardly ever talked about anymore. The point is: You'll never know if your lovingly painted Army you built for tournament play is going to be trash tier tomorrow. Balance is never a thing in 40k which is especially bad because ingame decisions matter so little compared to list building.

Also all of these changes in balance come with new books and faqs, the amount of paper you have to consider and carry around is just absurd. The amount of money for campaign books, CA, PA and so on GW expects you to spend is also absurd. Compare this to infinity where the rules are FREE and there is a FREE Army builder which is run by the company itself and is always up to date and a FREE rules wiki where every rule is explained in detail. I know right? It's bonkers.

I've had a great time with 40k, I still love the lore which i have extensively studied over the years and I still love the models. The game tho? It lost its soul somewhere along the line. I cannot enjoy it anymore especially since there are other games out there which have far superior rulesets. I really hope the next time GW reinvents 40k it's for the better.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
June of 2019 I found I couldn't bring myself to play 40k again, and it's super-annoying because I feel like 40k should be so much more fun to play than it is, and I don't understand why it isn't. It's like there's the 40k I imagine, and there's the 40k I can play, and somehow they're exclusive of each other.

I think it is because the verisimilitude is gone. It is difficult to imagine a Predator Destructor tank dying more quickly to small arms fire than a Tactical Squad, yet that is exactly what happens on the tabletop (99 boltgun hits vs 120 with the 2 wound tacmarine). So your brain desynchronizes its picture of how things should work from how things went in the game and your suspension of disbelief dissolves.

I think you nailed it. This is exactly the problem for me. Back in prior editions, when a single lucky krak missile could pop a battlewagon from the front but a hundred bolters stood no chance, the game still felt like it was at least a rough approximation of a battle between soldiers and tanks and monsters. Nowadays that's totally broken: you have multi-wound human characters who have a pretty good chance of surviving that krak missile and you whittle down tanks with heavy bolters and autocannons! Regular infantry can can move faster on foot than they can in a transport. Troops in open-topped transports can't get out of them any faster or more effectively than troops in totally closed transports with only one door. Strategems let units act twice in a single turn. A heavy weapons team can re-position and fire on the move with barely any penalty. Tanks can draw line of sight from their rear treads with guns that are fixed forwards. When one Ork boy in a 30-strong squad is visible but 29 are out of line of sight, all 30 of them can be killed with shooting with no cover bonus--but if those other Orks 29 are instead visible but in cover, the whole squad gets a cover bonus.

It's all just wrong. None of it makes any sense. The game's connection to what it's modeling has been severed.

At least that's how I feel about it.

You have a very different (and very sad) definition of "tactical". I suggest playing a wider variety of games.

LOL look into a mirror much? i reckon i actively play a lot more systems than you do.

An average game night i bring minimum 1 force for
.warmachine
.infinity
.heavy gear
.classic battletech
.40K
.epic 40K
.B5 wars
.DUST 1947
With special advanced planned games for battlefleet gothic, forces of valor-battle tactics, and victory at sea when we feel like it.

I think our group is pretty well versed as to what constitutes a tabletop miniature wargame,

Terrain hasn't mattered in the game since 5th edition

Probably a good thing then that our group still plays 5th edition for our regular 40K games.

can remember psychic powers and unit abilities as far back as 3rd edition that let you pass around buffs and synergize support

Maybe if you were eldar using "guide" and "fortune", my salamanders librarian was a teleporter to move himself and units around as well as rocking a psychic heavy flamer because that's what a salamander librarian would do in universe.
Although honestly i am more of a master of the forge type player when i field HQs i almost never use librarians.

Not sure what rose tinted goggles you're wearing where units had "specified roles". The game has always been about spamming 1-2 units that were essentially able to cover all the tasks that you threw at them.

Sounds like you spent a bit to much time power gaming. i went to exactly 2 GTs and maybe 3 or 4 local RTs before i decided the tourney scene was garbage...that was back between 3rd and 4th editions.

If i am rocking a dev squad with 4 las cannons or a hellfire dreadnought their job is dedicated to killing tanks and big monsters, granted they can kill anything with a las cannon but that's not their primary role. the flip side is if i bring a land raider prometheus, or any other unit focused around heavy bolters. their battlefield role is to deal with infantry and especially light horde type infantry.



@Morkphoiz

From what i have heard Andy Chambers wanted to change 40K over to an alternating activation system but GW HQ would not let him so he left and worked on other game systems. i really like what he did with the solid mechanics in DUST.

@Pointed Stick

It's all just wrong. None of it makes any sense. The game's connection to what it's modeling has been severed.

Exactly. it is the reason i jumped off the train. a little abstract is needed to translate some things like area terrain to the table, but when the entire game goes abstract it breaks immersion. the fun of playing the game is replaced with spamming power combos that break core mechanics.

While I like the concept of the new 'To Wound' table, I think keeping the original and adding a second dice roll in for those really extreme cases would have been a better idea.

So:

S1 vs T4 = 6+ and then 2+
S2 vs T4 = 6+
S3 vs T4 = 5+
S4 vs T4 = 4+
S5 vs T4 = 3+
S6 vs T4 = 2+
S7 vs T4 = 2+ with 6+ re-roll
S8 vs T4 = 2+ with 5+ re-roll

in addition: S9/10 VS T4 = 2+ Mortal Wound

Morkphoiz wrote:

The point is: You'll never know if your lovingly painted Army you built for tournament play is going to be trash tier tomorrow.

This is actually a very good thing IMHO, since I despise skew tournament lists. And on the flip side your lovely painted casual built could become viable if not top tier tomorrow. It actually happened with my Drukhari when their 8th codex was released.

Shaking up the meta constantly allows variety, with no changes for years at some point everyone would just play with the same 2-3 cheesiest lists forever.

It entirely depends on what are you seeking from 40k though.

and than you are getting flamed of being "That Guy" because of playing that list
even if you already played it that way before it was good

constantly changing the meta is bad for casual players
specially if it also changes which armies are legal

Imagine a world where a game was made well enough where 2-3 Cheese lists never emerged. Where having hard choices meant you couldn't cover every base and had to keep adapting to the meta.

This has never been even close to that game. As far back as I can remember it has just been spam whatever is laughably undercosted or efficient at engaging multiple unit types. Sometimes those two even overlapped in a hilarious failure of game design.

Watching this take place over and over while the players of the current roulette wheel of balance failure defend it only to acknowledge it an edition later while railing against the new "winner" is the great purgatory for those who love the lore and the hobby side.

 Blackie wrote:

Morkphoiz wrote:

The point is: You'll never know if your lovingly painted Army you built for tournament play is going to be trash tier tomorrow.

This is actually a very good thing IMHO, since I despise skew tournament lists. And on the flip side your lovely painted casual built could become viable if not top tier tomorrow. It actually happened with my Drukhari when their 8th codex was released.

Shaking up the meta constantly allows variety, with no changes for years at some point everyone would just play with the same 2-3 cheesiest lists forever.

It entirely depends on what are you seeking from 40k though.

To be frank, you're absolutely wrongheaded about this. What you're describing is a game where skill and choices don't matter, just the roll of the dice. That much uncertainty in balance just discourages people from actually playing the game.

Hecaton wrote:


To be frank, you're absolutely wrongheaded about this. What you're describing is a game where skill and choices don't matter, just the roll of the dice. That much uncertainty in balance just discourages people from actually playing the game.

I've always though that skill and choices matter when there are really hard decisions to make like trying to optimize a list with a real existing collection of models. Copy-pastying lists from GTs winners means little skill and definitely no choices at all.

Playing with non skew lists, just optimized armies with what a player actually owns and getting the best out of it. That's where you see skill and choices and actually good players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
and than you are getting flamed of being "That Guy" because of playing that list
even if you already played it that way before it was good

constantly changing the meta is bad for casual players
specially if it also changes which armies are legal

Nah, casual players don't mind toning up or down their lists in order to play fair games.

 Blackie wrote:
I've always though that skill and choices matter when there are really hard decisions to make like trying to optimize a list with a real existing collection of models. Copy-pastying lists from GTs winners means little skill and definitely no choices at all.

Playing with non skew lists, just optimized armies with what a player actually owns and getting the best out of it. That's where you see skill and choices and actually good players.

Except that you can optimize an army all the way to being one of those overpowered tournament netlists. Any skill in listbuilding can be copy/pasted over the internet to different players. Skill on the tabletop is one thing, but you're advocating against it in favor of an unbalanced meta, and GW doesn't want a game that takes skill to play well because they don't want little Timmy with his Primaris (TM) Adeptus Astartes (TM) getting beat badly when he had no idea wtf's going on.

 Blackie wrote:
Nah, casual players don't mind toning up or down their lists in order to play fair games.

Casual players might not have access to every model in the range to tune their list. They also might actually want to play with a given unit which they enjoy for non-rules reasons. It's not the responsibility of the playerbase to balance everything perfectly in games when GW is incapable or unwilling to get basic balance right.

Tl;dr you're very very wrong.

 Blackie wrote:
Playing with non skew lists, just optimized armies with what a player actually owns and getting the best out of it. That's where you see skill and choices and actually good players.

A badly balanced games will make choices and player skill disappear. I remember 7th edition when my regular eldar opponent just ran the army he had always owned since 4th and just tabled me turn one. There was absolutely nothing I could do about that. The only option to keep competing with him was to drop 400€+on new models and I simply decided to drop the game instead. If it hadn't been for 8th and a lucky coincidence that prevented me from selling my orks, I would never have gone back to 40k.

Nah, casual players don't mind toning up or down their lists in order to play fair games.

In my experience, most actual casual players lack both the skill and the models to tune their lists properly - both up and down.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Playing with non skew lists, just optimized armies with what a player actually owns and getting the best out of it. That's where you see skill and choices and actually good players.

A badly balanced games will make choices and player skill disappear. I remember 7th edition when my regular eldar opponent just ran the army he had always owned since 4th and just tabled me turn one. There was absolutely nothing I could do about that. The only option to keep competing with him was to drop 400€+on new models and I simply decided to drop the game instead. If it hadn't been for 8th and a lucky coincidence that prevented me from selling my orks, I would never have gone back to 40k.

Nah, casual players don't mind toning up or down their lists in order to play fair games.

In my experience, most actual casual players lack both the skill and the models to tune their lists properly - both up and down.

Yes that is the way it was, in our casual player group well rounded take all comers lists are the norm. even though we may switch units up from time to time-that happens when you have collected as many minis as you do over 20 years, every now and then we will play something silly usually by proxy just to see how dumb it is.

We had a bit of this discussion last night when one of the regulars was trying 9th for the first time. it feels more like building the army and choosing all the strats are the most important thing now. as if the game plays itself in 9th you just have to know when to pop the right powers. the days of a units dedicated role on the battlefield has largely disappeared since everything can hurt everything now with the only mitigating factors are weapon strength and AP reduction.

The wounding chart and GW's misspricing of any effect affecting wound rolls (Up or down), is probably one of the main culprits of the paradigm torwards plasma and other such equivalents over anything else, in combination with the serious issues it causes for granularity and differantiation of light and medium vehicles.

 aphyon wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Playing with non skew lists, just optimized armies with what a player actually owns and getting the best out of it. That's where you see skill and choices and actually good players.

A badly balanced games will make choices and player skill disappear. I remember 7th edition when my regular eldar opponent just ran the army he had always owned since 4th and just tabled me turn one. There was absolutely nothing I could do about that. The only option to keep competing with him was to drop 400€+on new models and I simply decided to drop the game instead. If it hadn't been for 8th and a lucky coincidence that prevented me from selling my orks, I would never have gone back to 40k.

Nah, casual players don't mind toning up or down their lists in order to play fair games.

In my experience, most actual casual players lack both the skill and the models to tune their lists properly - both up and down.

Yes that is the way it was, in our casual player group well rounded take all comers lists are the norm. even though we may switch units up from time to time-that happens when you have collected as many minis as you do over 20 years, every now and then we will play something silly usually by proxy just to see how dumb it is.

We had a bit of this discussion last night when one of the regulars was trying 9th for the first time. it feels more like building the army and choosing all the strats are the most important thing now. as if the game plays itself in 9th you just have to know when to pop the right powers. the days of a units dedicated role on the battlefield has largely disappeared since everything can hurt everything now with the only mitigating factors are weapon strength and AP reduction.

Games where you can make important decisions during gameplay leave it open for players to make *wrong* decisions - and that's anathema to GW's current paradigm where anyone can buy Primaris and ensure a certain level of success on the table. Braindead gameplay is a feature.