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 mulling over a question about the nature of 40K for a while, and with the 9th edition changes and the new codexes, I'm prompted to pose my question to a broader group. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but these are some impressions that I have about the direction of the game:

Basically, my question is whether or not the entire direction of 40K over the past 2-3 editions has shifted away from being a "tactical miniature" game (where you what you do on the table - chiefly position and maneuver - is the most important factor to your success) and is increasingly a game of "MathHammer", where victory is predominately a function of list building and probability management - aided by stratagems and a growing array of special powers that mitigate die rolling and risk and tactical plays.

As we know, the core rules were simplified tremendously in 8th (and revised and expanded slightly in 9th). But I've felt from the very start of 8th that the simplifications resulted in a reduction in the tactical depth and the possibilities for clever play on the table (use of terrain, LoS blocking, flexible positioning, etc.). Removal of vehicle armor facing, changes to the way LoS and cover saves work, morale tests resulting straight casualties instead of falling back, ability to freely splitting fire, etc all contribute IMHO opinion to a reduction in tactical choices and opportunities available to players. There aren't as many hard choices to make. Modifiers are sprinkled around everywhere adding a "mushiness" to the game. Shooting is super dominant. I can't help but feel that the table dynamics and tactics are less deep and interesting now compared to prior editions. Not to mention how these simplifications undercut the sense of immersion of simulation.

At the same time as the above, a large part of the game now hinges on managing command points and wading through a dizzying array of stratagems that all alter the course of battle. These seem to be a bigger driver for play and a bigger determinant of your success than many of the physical table level interactions. Couple this with different detachment types allowing for crazier army lists than you got under the old standard FOC and I can't help feel the game has become even more about list building and managing combos of abilities that have little to do with tactics directly. It's like the command point "mini game" is slowly become "the whole game".

Additionally, in 8th edition, and especially with what we are now seeing in 9th, the codexes are getting significantly more complex and rule heavy. Maybe the core rules are simpler but there is vastly more content and stuff to keep track of through the codexes themselves. 9th edition is every bit as detailed and modifier heavy as 2nd edition was. I already mentioned stratagems, but the new codexes have pages of even more faction specific ones. Then you have warlord traits, and faction-specific tactical objectives, and chapter traits, and special relics, command traits, litanies of battle, chapter/faction special rules. There's just all this other "stuff" to process and we have not even got to the point of assigning points and picking units yet! And once you get, then you have a roster of units, like the new marine codex, with OVER 100 UNIT ENTRIES and pages of weapon tables!! How many different types of Bolters are there now to keep track of now?

This issue with this ballooning complexity in the codexes is that it makes it significantly harder to read and understand your opponent's capabilities, especially when playing against lists you aren't familiar with. If you can't make reasonable assumptions about how things work it's harder to formulate clear table-level tactics. So it's a strange situation where much of the design is reducing randomness in some respects, or giving players tools to mitigate it, but then throws so much content and complexity at the players that itself becomes a sort of unpredictable chaos.

I play a lot of boardgames, and one thing about modern boardgames - specifically eurogames - is that they tend to reduce player-to-player interactions so that players get the feeling that their success or failure is all about their own performance and nothing to do with what their opponent did. In someways, I think the de-emphasis on table-level tactics is pushing 40K in that direction. If you loose in "MathHammer", it's not "your fault" for losing due your opponents superior tactics. Rather, your loss was a fully predictable outcome based on the inevitable conclusion of comparing army lists and the inherent probabilities being against you. Take Chess as a counter-example - where both sides are identical and there is no randomness. If you lose it's clearly your poor play and/or your opponent's superior plays. But in MathHammer, it's easier to blame the game than attribute your loss to your own bad decisions or an opponent that outplayed you. It's like it's designated to protect our feelings.

These are my impressions of 8th and 9th, and I must admit my direct experience of both is limited (couple of games in 8th, watched numerous gameplay videos). But I don't see people talking about tactics or how to use units "on the field" ... I see people talking about how to outfit their units and what stratagems and chapter tactics and detachment types and other special rules to pair with the unit - i.e. combo building. Tactics discussions are consumed by list building discussions, not physical tactics. I recognize that the game has always been driven by list building to a significant degree, and has never been a super deep tactical game, but it seems every passing edition just keeps ramping this up more and more... watering down the actual table tactics and filling the space with an avalanche of specials rules bloat.

Am I wrong in these impressions? What am I missing? What do others think?

 Mezmorki wrote:


Basically, my question is whether or not the entire direction of 40K over the past 2-3 editions has shifted away from being a "tactical miniature" game (where you what you do on the table - chiefly position and maneuver - is the most important factor to your success) and is increasingly a game of "MathHammer", where victory is predominately a function of list building and probability management - aided by stratagems and a growing array of special powers that mitigate die rolling and risk and tactical plays.

The answer is no. Warhammer has always been more of a game about mathhammering and lists building than anything else.

Now, we can say that many more "tactical" and "simulation" aspects of the game have been toned down in favour of the "modern" perception of tactics: Builds, more akin to card games ,with combos, etc... much more detached from that sense of "Trying to simulate something" that the original warhammer had.

The biggest loses in the transition of 7th to 8th in respect to the general rules of the game were the morale rules and the terrain ones. Everything else was very much improved. Personally I love the changes to army building but I'm also the kind of guy that always wanted to play a full troll army with Throgg as his leader so... I love my spammy heavely themed and extremely bad armies.

40k doesnt reaches the levels of AoS compared with Fantasy but has clearly entered that direction. Personally I enjoy all forms warhammer, each one for their own virtues. I'm not a man of "hating" something, really, even in movies, the worst one can be for me is a little bit boring.

I actually had an earlier thread where I suggested 40k is dropping the war from wargame, and becoming just a game.

So I fully agree with you, and it pains me that this is the case.

9th makes movement more important than it was in 8th.

The biggest thing that has always in my eyes impacted 40k as a 'tactical' game is the fact that so many units and weapons have basically unlimited range, or the ability to appear within range to do their stuff.

If anything, 9th is much more tactical than 8th without ITC.

I'm curious why you're filing stratagems under something OTHER than "tactics" as deciding how to use a resource you have on the fly during the game is...kind of definitionally "tactics." Unless you have an exact plan going in how you're going to spend every single command point you have, which seems unusual most of the time.

the_scotsman wrote:
The biggest thing that has always in my eyes impacted 40k as a 'tactical' game is the fact that so many units and weapons have basically unlimited range, or the ability to appear within range to do their stuff.

If anything, 9th is much more tactical than 8th without ITC.

I'm curious why you're filing stratagems under something OTHER than "tactics" as deciding how to use a resource you have on the fly during the game is...kind of definitionally "tactics." Unless you have an exact plan going in how you're going to spend every single command point you have, which seems unusual most of the time.

I see what you're saying, but I think stratagems don't "feel" tactical because there's no counterplay. You play stratagem on unit, unit now has capabilities. The tactics I have to counter that are... well, basically entirely strategic in nature (i.e. deprive you of command points in earlier turns). It's not really a "tactical interaction" so much as just a spontaneous 'blah'.

This is distinct from a unit with actual wargear. Take the example of the Flakk missile from 7th. If you bought Flakk missiles for everyone, then you'll be at a significant disadvantage in points. If you bought Flakk missiles for only a single unit, then the tactical interaction I have to play around it is to maneuver my flyers to avoid or destroy said unit (either through LOS, DEAD, or range). Now? you can just ploop the flakk missile on any old missile launcher, whenever and wherever you want, provided you have the CP.

yukishiro1 wrote:
9th makes movement more important than it was in 8th.

Agree with this. I can't put my finger on why exactly, but somewhere between smaller tables, new mission, strategic reserves and terrain I have the impression that blocking, flanking or sneaking up the board unseen has become more valuable than it has been in any of the other 4 editions I've played.

 Galas wrote:
Now, we can say that many more "tactical" and "simulation" aspects of the game have been toned down in favour of the "modern" perception of tactics: Builds, more akin to card games ,with combos, etc... much more detached from that sense of "Trying to simulate something" that the original warhammer had.

Yeah exactly - much of the 8th edition changes abstracted major elements of the game more. For me, it's as much a reduction in simulation and immersion as it is in the "intuitiveness" of tactics. Thinking through how to maneuver behind a tank and attack it's weak point is a genuine tactical consideration / factor that was a part of the game for a long time, that's now just "gone."

 Galas wrote:
The biggest loses in the transition of 7th to 8th in respect to the general rules of the game were the morale rules and the terrain ones. Everything else was very much improved.

I have a hard time finding rules in 8th/9th that I didn't find better executed in prior additions. I think there are some "ideas" in 8th/9th should earlier editions would've benefited from (some retrained process for splitting fire for example), simpler casualty/wound allocation, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
9th makes movement more important than it was in 8th.

What do you think makes this the case (genuinely curious!)?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The biggest thing that has always in my eyes impacted 40k as a 'tactical' game is the fact that so many units and weapons have basically unlimited range, or the ability to appear within range to do their stuff.

If anything, 9th is much more tactical than 8th without ITC.

I'm curious why you're filing stratagems under something OTHER than "tactics" as deciding how to use a resource you have on the fly during the game is...kind of definitionally "tactics." Unless you have an exact plan going in how you're going to spend every single command point you have, which seems unusual most of the time.

I see what you're saying, but I think stratagems don't "feel" tactical because there's no counterplay. You play stratagem on unit, unit now has capabilities. The tactics I have to counter that are... well, basically entirely strategic in nature (i.e. deprive you of command points in earlier turns). It's not really a "tactical interaction" so much as just a spontaneous 'blah'.

This is distinct from a unit with actual wargear. Take the example of the Flakk missile from 7th. If you bought Flakk missiles for everyone, then you'll be at a significant disadvantage in points. If you bought Flakk missiles for only a single unit, then the tactical interaction I have to play around it is to maneuver my flyers to avoid or destroy said unit (either through LOS, DEAD, or range). Now? you can just ploop the flakk missile on any old missile launcher, whenever and wherever you want, provided you have the CP.

...The ability for your opponent to respond to something has nothing to do with whether the action is tactical versus strategic.

If I deep strike a unit with a melta gun next to your 3+sv tank, you have absolutely no response as my opponent to stop me from rolling a hit roll, wound roll, and damaging you, besides things you could have done earlier in the battle like reserve that tank or put a screen in front of it.

That's still tactics. It's predictive, but it's also you making a decision on the fly to alter the STRATEGY of your army to account for some capability of my army, the existence of that tank destroying unit. Ad the decision to target that tank in particular, as opposed to any of your other units, is also tactical.

I'm not saying stratagems can't be strategic. You can use CP to buy relics, traits, upgrades etc pregame, that all happens in the strategic layer now you have to commit to it befoe you see the opposing force. You can also include units in your list that you're ALWAYS going to spend a particular strat on, like a deep strike unit you'll always use your "unit is good at charging' stratagem on, or a big shooty unit that will always do the reroll to hit strat or whatever.

But in general, most CP usage tends to be tactical, in the moment decision making.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I see what you're saying, but I think stratagems don't "feel" tactical because there's no counterplay. You play stratagem on unit, unit now has capabilities. The tactics I have to counter that are... well, basically entirely strategic in nature (i.e. deprive you of command points in earlier turns). It's not really a "tactical interaction" so much as just a spontaneous 'blah'.

I agree with this a lot. In my opinion stratagems should really only come in two types: those which provide you with options before the game (kustom jobs, tellyporta, extra warlord traits/relics, tactical reserves, etc) and those which allow you to react to your opponent's actions. Anything else can gladly go away, with the worst offenders being the "turn CP in to damage" stratagems.

the_scotsman wrote:
The biggest thing that has always in my eyes impacted 40k as a 'tactical' game is the fact that so many units and weapons have basically unlimited range, or the ability to appear within range to do their stuff.

If anything, 9th is much more tactical than 8th without ITC.

I'm curious why you're filing stratagems under something OTHER than "tactics" as deciding how to use a resource you have on the fly during the game is...kind of definitionally "tactics." Unless you have an exact plan going in how you're going to spend every single command point you have, which seems unusual most of the time.

The range of weapons was something my group was discussing recently. I'm experimenting with an AA-like turn structure in ProHammer (based on 5th edition) that does address the ability to appear from out of LoS and fire without exposure to return fire. Interesting results so far.

Pardon my ignorance - but what is ITC?

Last - I agree that using stratagems and managing CP resources are important tactical decisions. But the decisions are tactical "management" if you will and not tactical in terms of "position and maneuver." I suppose I'm splitting hairs on the difference, but personally I want the most important tactical decisions to be about what units I position where on the field in relation to your moves, thinking ahead about movement sequences (i.e. Chess-like decision making) and firing order / threat assessment. The CP/stratagem game adds a whole extra layer of considerations onto the base table-level tactics, which sounds great. But when the base table-level tactics get watered down, the CP/stratagem tactics start to steal the show.

The game hasn't been tactical since 5th edition, removing firing arcs, armour facings, the ability to use tanks as a ram is all gone, although 9th edition is making movement mean something again. Mainly due to the lethality of the shooting phase and the attempt to avoid fast, close combat units making it easily into CC.

There is a distinct lack of counter-play in the game because a lot of people don't like the idea of having their moves countered like you see in MtG or other card games, which 40k is moving towards by including combos and the like.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I see what you're saying, but I think stratagems don't "feel" tactical because there's no counterplay. You play stratagem on unit, unit now has capabilities. The tactics I have to counter that are... well, basically entirely strategic in nature (i.e. deprive you of command points in earlier turns). It's not really a "tactical interaction" so much as just a spontaneous 'blah'.

I agree with this a lot. In my opinion stratagems should really only come in two types: those which provide you with options before the game (kustom jobs, tellyporta, extra warlord traits/relics, tactical reserves, etc) and those which allow you to react to your opponent's actions. Anything else can gladly go away, with the worst offenders being the "turn CP in to damage" stratagems.

This sub-thread, especially Unit1126PLL's full post, really highlights specific cases that bother me, and nicely illustrates the difference between table-level tactical decisions versus CP-management tactical decisions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
9th makes movement more important than it was in 8th.

What do you think makes this the case (genuinely curious!)?

the_scotsman wrote:
...The ability for your opponent to respond to something has nothing to do with whether the action is tactical versus strategic.

Right, but it doesn't "Feel" tactical.

Your deepstrike example is off, because there is absolutely something I could've done about that - I could've screened you out, or cast some kind of psychic power on my tank (or, heh, a stratagem) to make it harder to wound / improve its save / give it an invuln, etc.

Let's turn it on its head and say you successfully employed tactics and positioning to pull my screen out of position, you shut down my psyker with a great Deny the Witch using a combination of buffs and positioning your psyker in deny range, and then you execute said deep strike and are shooting with a meltagun. Suddenly, I play the "Armored Ceramite" stratagem (ta-da!, yes it's fabricated but it is an example) to make my tank immune to meltaguns.

Who did the most tactical maneuvering? Who committed the most tactical errors? Who committed the greatest strategic error?

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

There is a distinct lack of counter-play in the game because a lot of people don't like the idea of having their moves countered like you see in MtG or other card games, which 40k is moving towards by including combos and the like.

This i will 100% agree with. It is beyond obnoxious to see people bitch and moan when -

1) A character using an aura or a relic or whatever they included on their list doesn't get to use it because their opponent was able to kill it

2) A stratagem or thing they wanted to use they don't get to use because their opponent paid usually an EXORBITANT amount to stop them from doing it

3) A thing they wanted to die does not die because their opponent made save rolls, used terrain, or just they didn't apply enough offensive power to reasonably kill it.

The person who didn't know their meltagun could be turned off by a strat.

SecondTime wrote:
The person who didn't know their meltagun could be turned off by a strat.

Is that a strategic (i.e. pre-game) error or a tactical one? (imho, obviously strategic, because it's a pre-game knowledge thing).

And this is what I think OP means.

Tactically, he outplayed his opponent. But pre-game factors (list building, stratagem knowledge, etc) were dramatically more important than good tactical play.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
The person who didn't know their meltagun could be turned off by a strat.

Is that a strategic (i.e. pre-game) error or a tactical one? (imho, obviously strategic, because it's a pre-game knowledge thing).

And this is what I think OP means.

Tactically, he outplayed his opponent. But pre-game factors (list building, stratagem knowledge, etc) were dramatically more important than good tactical play.

The line between strategy and tactics is blurry, especially in GW-land. Tactics have to take into account all the "gotcha" stuff GW puts in the game.

SecondTime wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
The person who didn't know their meltagun could be turned off by a strat.

Is that a strategic (i.e. pre-game) error or a tactical one? (imho, obviously strategic, because it's a pre-game knowledge thing).

And this is what I think OP means.

Tactically, he outplayed his opponent. But pre-game factors (list building, stratagem knowledge, etc) were dramatically more important than good tactical play.

The line between strategy and tactics is blurry, especially in GW-land. Tactics have to take into account all the "gotcha" stuff GW puts in the game.

Sure. But the point is that pregame stuff (lists + stratagems) have a greater impact than ingame stuff (tactical play). Now, I do think 9th is an improvement over 8th for reasons mentioned, and I also think 40k has struggled with this for forever, which is also mentioned. But I don't think those refute that general point.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
...The ability for your opponent to respond to something has nothing to do with whether the action is tactical versus strategic.

Right, but it doesn't "Feel" tactical.

Your deepstrike example is off, because there is absolutely something I could've done about that - I could've screened you out, or cast some kind of psychic power on my tank (or, heh, a stratagem) to make it harder to wound / improve its save / give it an invuln, etc.

Let's turn it on its head and say you successfully employed tactics and positioning to pull my screen out of position, you shut down my psyker with a great Deny the Witch using a combination of buffs and positioning your psyker in deny range, and then you execute said deep strike and are shooting with a meltagun. Suddenly, I play the "Armored Ceramite" stratagem (ta-da!, yes it's fabricated but it is an example) to make my tank immune to meltaguns.

Who did the most tactical maneuvering? Who committed the most tactical errors? Who committed the greatest strategic error?

I mean, me. knowing what strats your opponent has is just as important as knowing what units or wargear they have.

I do this all the time in game - if I'm playing Genestealer Cults for example and I know my opponent playing Eldar has a farseer standing next to some Dark Reapers just waiting to use Forewarn and blow away a huge chunk of my deep strike melee bomb, I'll put down a Kelermorph first and ask "Do you want to use Forewarn?"

If he does, I lose my Kelermorph but then I get to deploy my deep strike bomb on turn 2, where they'll deal the optimal amount of damage at the tempo I'd prefer. If he doesn't, I just end my reinforcements step right there, blow away the Farseer with the Kelermorph, and bring the deep strike bomb in turn 3.

you could make the exact same argument for BASICALLY anything in the game as long as you contrive a situation where you DO have a response to something. I said "what about this situation where you don't have a response" and you answered "well, I could have a response to it!"

Something "feeling bad" or "feeling unfair" does not make it not tactics. Your opponent Outflanking his squad of Eradicators is tactics, regardless of whether you find it unfair (and it is) that they can basically appear anywhere on the board and make their points back at will. He still chose to not put them down on the board where you might be able to target them before they could shoot, that is a tactical decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
The person who didn't know their meltagun could be turned off by a strat.

Is that a strategic (i.e. pre-game) error or a tactical one? (imho, obviously strategic, because it's a pre-game knowledge thing).

And this is what I think OP means.

Tactically, he outplayed his opponent. But pre-game factors (list building, stratagem knowledge, etc) were dramatically more important than good tactical play.

The line between strategy and tactics is blurry, especially in GW-land. Tactics have to take into account all the "gotcha" stuff GW puts in the game.

Sure. But the point is that pregame stuff (lists + stratagems) have a greater impact than ingame stuff (tactical play). Now, I do think 9th is an improvement over 8th for reasons mentioned, and I also think 40k has struggled with this for forever, which is also mentioned. But I don't think those refute that general point.

Was there some edition of the game where I wasn't expected to know at least the general capabilities of my opponent's army?

...Also, the person who got tripped up by an incredibly simple, incredibly obvious counter did not "outplay" his opponent, any more than if we repeated that exact convoluted scenario and you looked down at the board and went

"hey, you actually put your dudes down out of range."

Like, I'm sorry it's a simple mistake, but it's just a mistake. You don't get to pretend to be a big galaxy brain tactical mastermind if you make a mistake that rudimentary.

But you miss the point, scotsman.

The point is that the pregame stuff was more important than the play stuff.

The fact that his army has the Armored Ceramite stratagem was more important than the fact that you outmaneuvered him dramatically.

The fact that you brought a meltagun instead of spending those points on, say, a lascannon was dramatically more important than the fact that you got the deepstrike off or you denied his psychic power.

No, you really have always needed to know your opponent's codex. "Mistakes" and all that.

the_scotsman wrote:
Was there some edition of the game where I wasn't expected to know at least the general capabilities of my opponent's army?

There were some editions where you didn't have to memorize 188 stratagems and 30 types of boltguns or whatever it is. You could generally know what a missile launcher or a lascannon or a battlecannon was and get by with analogues (e.g. a fusion gun is a meltagun with +6" in tau, and in Eldar it's just a meltagun. A Brightlance is analogous to a lascannon but more dangerous for heavy vehicles due to the Lance rule, etc).

Nowadays, you'd better remember the difference between a Plasma Carbine (because it's assault), a Plasma Gun (because it's rapid fire), that other Plasma Gun that's also rapid fire but is on Hellblasters and has a lower strength, iirc, and that other other plasma gun that's a heavy weapon but not a plasma cannon but has a higher strength and probably called the plasma caliver or something...

It's much easier to have pre-game stuff determine games these days simply because there's much more to memorize that has an impact and can't be played around with counterplay.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But you miss the point, scotsman.

The point is that the pregame stuff was more important than the play stuff.

The fact that his army has the Armored Ceramite stratagem was more important than the fact that you outmaneuvered him dramatically.

The fact that you brought a meltagun instead of spending those points on, say, a lascannon was dramatically more important than the fact that you got the deepstrike off or you denied his psychic power.

OK, but I'm poking your man here and I think I hear something making kind of a crinkling noise. I don't know of many stratagems that really exist in the actual game that give you blanket immunity to some whole entire category of weapon.

So I guess, in the context of a statagem called "Armored Ceramite" that gives total immunity to meltaguns, I agree with you: That stratagem is bad.

Note for example my negative reaction to Deathwatch still having stratagems keyed to only work against specific xenos armies in the N+R thread: Stuff like that inevitably sucks, and existed much more regularly in the older editions of the game people like to rub themselves raw over. See: Avatar immune to melta weaponry. Ctan immune to phase weaponry. Nemesis weapons not allowing invulnerable saves from specifically Daemons. Everything about 5th ed GK. etc.

the_scotsman wrote:
[OK, but I'm poking your man here and I think I hear something making kind of a crinkling noise. I don't know of many stratagems that really exist in the actual game that give you blanket immunity to some whole entire category of weapon.

Take a recent example that happened to me then. The Tenacious Combatant stratagem for Black Templars comes from their Psychic Awakening stuff. I played against it after the new codex dropped. What does it do? I can't fall back. Period, end of story. Now yes, it happens on a 2+ that can't be rerolled, and only works on Infantry (which actually neither myself nor the BT player knew at the time; he stopped a tank from falling back with it).

But the point is that there's not much I can do about it. I can't easily avoid combat with something, and I can't really "outmaneuver" it (since it's a stratagem) and I can't tactically do.... well, anything. A unit of his is just immune to my shooting for a turn for 2CP and a 2+. Even if I had known about the stratagem, there's not much to do. No tactical counterplay or options. Just sorta... chill in combat and hope he runs out of CP or rolls a 1, or kills me on the wrong turn so I can shoot him.

If he had a unit that I couldn't fall back from, then I could maneuver around that unit or react accordingly. But in this case, any one of his units can have it at any time, so I just have to avoid combat entirely or have something that will just be categorically immune to shooting, basically.

the_scotsman wrote:
So I guess, in the context of a statagem called "Armored Ceramite" that gives total immunity to meltaguns, I agree with you: That stratagem is bad.

Consider my example above. Stratagems like that already exist.

the_scotsman wrote:
Note for example my negative reaction to Deathwatch still having stratagems keyed to only work against specific xenos armies in the N+R thread: Stuff like that inevitably sucks, and existed much more regularly in the older editions of the game people like to rub themselves raw over. See: Avatar immune to melta weaponry. Ctan immune to phase weaponry. Nemesis weapons not allowing invulnerable saves from specifically Daemons. Everything about 5th ed GK. etc.

Stuff like that could be known, though. The Avatar's immunity to melta weapon was ONLY ON THE AVATAR. Not wherever on the board it was needed at the time, as with the hypothetical stratagem. That's the issue with stratagems I am trying to point out - you can't outmaneuver them with clever play, or anything. You can be aware they exist, and adjust your decisions accordingly, but that Armored Ceramite stratagem is on every vehicle simultaneously, while also not (because if I shoot two vehicles, suddenly it's only on one, unless I am playing narrative play...)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Was there some edition of the game where I wasn't expected to know at least the general capabilities of my opponent's army?

There were some editions where you didn't have to memorize 188 stratagems and 30 types of boltguns or whatever it is. You could generally know what a missile launcher or a lascannon or a battlecannon was and get by with analogues (e.g. a fusion gun is a meltagun with +6" in tau, and in Eldar it's just a meltagun. A Brightlance is analogous to a lascannon but more dangerous for heavy vehicles due to the Lance rule, etc).

Nowadays, you'd better remember the difference between a Plasma Carbine (because it's assault), a Plasma Gun (because it's rapid fire), that other Plasma Gun that's also rapid fire but is on Hellblasters and has a lower strength, iirc, and that other other plasma gun that's a heavy weapon but not a plasma cannon but has a higher strength and probably called the plasma caliver or something...

It's much easier to have pre-game stuff determine games these days simply because there's much more to memorize that has an impact and can't be played around with counterplay.

mhm, and when I started in 4th edition every single one of my wolf guard could have any number of the following optional items:

auspex
belt of russ
bionics
chooser of the slain
frag grenades
jump pack
krak grenade
mark of the wulfen
master crafted weapon
meltabombs
runic armor
runic charm
space marine bike
terminator armor
wolf helm of russ
great company banner
wolf pelt
wolf tail talisman
wolf tooth necklace
wolf totem

That is, of course, in addition to the usual weaponry options. At least it's POSSIBLY CONCEIVABLE that I might be able to know the difference between a bolter and a slightly different looking bolter.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Was there some edition of the game where I wasn't expected to know at least the general capabilities of my opponent's army?

There were some editions where you didn't have to memorize 188 stratagems and 30 types of boltguns or whatever it is. You could generally know what a missile launcher or a lascannon or a battlecannon was and get by with analogues (e.g. a fusion gun is a meltagun with +6" in tau, and in Eldar it's just a meltagun. A Brightlance is analogous to a lascannon but more dangerous for heavy vehicles due to the Lance rule, etc).

Nowadays, you'd better remember the difference between a Plasma Carbine (because it's assault), a Plasma Gun (because it's rapid fire), that other Plasma Gun that's also rapid fire but is on Hellblasters and has a lower strength, iirc, and that other other plasma gun that's a heavy weapon but not a plasma cannon but has a higher strength and probably called the plasma caliver or something...

It's much easier to have pre-game stuff determine games these days simply because there's much more to memorize that has an impact and can't be played around with counterplay.

mhm, and when I started in 4th edition every single one of my wolf guard could have any number of the following optional items:

auspex
belt of russ
bionics
chooser of the slain
frag grenades
jump pack
krak grenade
mark of the wulfen
master crafted weapon
meltabombs
runic armor
runic charm
space marine bike
terminator armor
wolf helm of russ
great company banner
wolf pelt
wolf tail talisman
wolf tooth necklace
wolf totem

That is, of course, in addition to the usual weaponry options. At least it's POSSIBLY CONCEIVABLE that I might be able to know the difference between a bolter and a slightly different looking bolter.

I don't think you're getting the point. See my post above.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's much easier to have pre-game stuff determine games these days simply because there's much more to memorize that has an impact and can't be played around with counterplay.

This is exactly what I was getting at.

@the_scotsman

I mean, compare the number of unit entries and the number of weapon profiles in the 5th edition space marine codex vs 9th. There are orders of magnitude more stuff (and their interactions) to keep track of now. And this isn't even accounting for the pile on from stratagems, relics, chapter traits, tactical faction objectives, etc. - which has a multiplying effect on all of it.

I totally agree with you that knowledge of all of this and when to apply it are frequently tactical considerations. But this tactical expertise is not nearly as much about physical board positioning and maneuvering than it is about having an encyclopedic knowledge of all of these possible non-physical non-spatial options and when to execute them.

Older editions were predicated on the notion that what you saw on the table - the units with their wargear and special abilities - was all that you had to work with and contend with. There wasn't this whole other layer of play (command phase) involved that suddenly changed the capabilities of unit A from X into Y.

Perhaps the argument can me made that the game being more complex now is inherently more "deep" ... but I don't automatically subscribe that thinking. I tend to view complexity as something that gets in the way of depth of obfuscating choices, requiring more pre-game knowledge, and/or just adding noise to the experience. Chess, Go, and other abstract games are deep because their simplicity allows for engagement with complex and emergent spatial strategies. Would adding random die rolls to chess, or giving white pieces each a certain set of powers different from black pieces, or having special hand of power cards you could play make the game deeper? In theory, perhaps it could - but it makes depth of play significantly harder to access, and in practical terms is just adding chaos to what was otherwise pure tactics and strategy.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
[OK, but I'm poking your man here and I think I hear something making kind of a crinkling noise. I don't know of many stratagems that really exist in the actual game that give you blanket immunity to some whole entire category of weapon.

Take a recent example that happened to me then. The Tenacious Combatant stratagem for Black Templars comes from their Psychic Awakening stuff. I played against it after the new codex dropped. What does it do? I can't fall back. Period, end of story. Now yes, it happens on a 2+ that can't be rerolled, and only works on Infantry (which actually neither myself nor the BT player knew at the time; he stopped a tank from falling back with it).

But the point is that there's not much I can do about it. I can't easily avoid combat with something, and I can't really "outmaneuver" it (since it's a stratagem) and I can't tactically do.... well, anything. A unit of his is just immune to my shooting for a turn for 2CP and a 2+. Even if I had known about the stratagem, there's not much to do. No tactical counterplay or options. Just sorta... chill in combat and hope he runs out of CP or rolls a 1, or kills me on the wrong turn so I can shoot him.

"Stratagems should only be for tactical reactions to things your opponent tries to do!"

"This stratagem where my opponent was able to tactically react to me declaring fall back was bad!"

There are plenty of potential tactical responses to a maneuver like that, they just apparently weren't the options you had on the table at that time. in 9th ed, you could even ensure that the unit you don't want tied up dies, a process that you have some control over - by removing models from the middle of the squad, you can cause additional casualties by breaking coherency. I know this is immaterial for you, as you've just said that at the time you actually played the rule incorrectly, so like...yeah, I guess when you play the rule wrong the stratagem has a lot less counterplay to it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Was there some edition of the game where I wasn't expected to know at least the general capabilities of my opponent's army?

There were some editions where you didn't have to memorize 188 stratagems and 30 types of boltguns or whatever it is. You could generally know what a missile launcher or a lascannon or a battlecannon was and get by with analogues (e.g. a fusion gun is a meltagun with +6" in tau, and in Eldar it's just a meltagun. A Brightlance is analogous to a lascannon but more dangerous for heavy vehicles due to the Lance rule, etc).

Nowadays, you'd better remember the difference between a Plasma Carbine (because it's assault), a Plasma Gun (because it's rapid fire), that other Plasma Gun that's also rapid fire but is on Hellblasters and has a lower strength, iirc, and that other other plasma gun that's a heavy weapon but not a plasma cannon but has a higher strength and probably called the plasma caliver or something...

It's much easier to have pre-game stuff determine games these days simply because there's much more to memorize that has an impact and can't be played around with counterplay.

mhm, and when I started in 4th edition every single one of my wolf guard could have any number of the following optional items:

auspex
belt of russ
bionics
chooser of the slain
frag grenades
jump pack
krak grenade
mark of the wulfen
master crafted weapon
meltabombs
runic armor
runic charm
space marine bike
terminator armor
wolf helm of russ
great company banner
wolf pelt
wolf tail talisman
wolf tooth necklace
wolf totem

That is, of course, in addition to the usual weaponry options. At least it's POSSIBLY CONCEIVABLE that I might be able to know the difference between a bolter and a slightly different looking bolter.

I don't think you're getting the point. See my post above.

I saw it, I got the point, I disagree with it. It's not more complicated to memorize the many types of wargear that exist now than it was to memorize the many types of wargear that existed in older editions that often were MUCH more abstracted/not represented on the model.