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.

 Yarium wrote:
I can't say I agree at all here. By that kind of thinking, not only does no game have tactics (even Chess is potentially solvable, which only hasn't been because of our own ability to make computations and coming out right), but indeed the only reason that human existence is troubling is because we don't have perfect omniscience.

That's like saying "the future can be entirely predetermined due to the laws of physics, so there is no such thing as choice". While maybe (only maybe!) technically true, in reality you don't and can't have access to perfect information, and so have to make choices based on your limited understanding. Ergo, unless you have perfect information in 40k and perfect understanding, you also can only make guesses in a timely fashion as to what course of action is best.

If a computer can be taught to do something its not tactics. It is just brut force combo crunching.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
I can't say I agree at all here. By that kind of thinking, not only does no game have tactics (even Chess is potentially solvable, which only hasn't been because of our own ability to make computations and coming out right), but indeed the only reason that human existence is troubling is because we don't have perfect omniscience.

That's like saying "the future can be entirely predetermined due to the laws of physics, so there is no such thing as choice". While maybe (only maybe!) technically true, in reality you don't and can't have access to perfect information, and so have to make choices based on your limited understanding. Ergo, unless you have perfect information in 40k and perfect understanding, you also can only make guesses in a timely fashion as to what course of action is best.

If a computer can be taught to do something its not tactics. It is just brut force combo crunching.

That is not true.

By moving x piece into y position it understands what options it is giving you. YOU choose which option you take and it responds.

When I move a unit into a certain position I understand what options it gives you too. And if 40k wasn't a shallow mess that might make moving that unit there a tool I can use to get you to react in ways that favor me. It's not. So the only reason for me to move the unit into that position is because it lets me put it's offense to maximum effect while minimizing your own in your inevitable retaliation.

 Slowroll wrote:
You find out, life is this game of inches. So is 40k. Because in either game, life or 40k, the margin for error is so small.

I think this is an important point as well. Those us who have been playing a long time take for granted that we're measuring things down to fractions of an inch. A lot of the game is hedging your bets, both in terms of die rolls and probabilities, but also in terms of measurement.

Consider a generic scenario where you have a strong melee unit positioned such that you can charge one of two enemy units and prevent that enemy unit from charging your own line or returning fire. There are a bunch of factors that go into making this choice:

(1) Which target am I more likely to get into charge range with? If the juicier target is further away, is it worth the risk of a longer charge?

(2) Which target is the bigger threat to me? And does which one I charge have a bearing on my success in assault? What are my risks?

(3) If I charge one unit, what other units are my other nearby forces able to target? Do I concentrate fire locally to have a chance to wipe out the enemy unit I charge, or do I charge one and shoot at the other enemy ui to soften them up so their retaliation is less?

We could keep going. Certainly, there is a layer of math hammer that can tell you the likely outcomes of certain scenarios, but there is still always the element of risk. What happens if you take the risky option? What are the consequences of playing it safe?

Developing skill in strategy/tactics game is very often a matter of heuristics - it's about developing rules of thumb that help us short-cut to possible solutions for very complex problems. We might have heuristics that say "kill the biggest threat first" ... but the battlefield is usually more complex than that. What if you don't have enough firepower in range to kill the biggest thing first - and your forced to split fire. What then?

 Mezmorki wrote:
We might have heuristics that say "kill the biggest threat first" ... but the battlefield is usually more complex than that. What if you don't have enough firepower in range to kill the biggest thing first - and your forced to split fire. What then?

Then measure value. If I can do enough damage to a "imperial knight" that it brings down it's stats enough to reduce it's impact on that field is the math hammer impact of that equivalent to the average number of guns I could remove otherwise by instead shooting at other targets? Pick the one most likely to cause the most damage to my enemies ability to do damage and then do that. 1 shot from a lascanon can kill 1 grot or take a potential chunk out of a knight. It's super easy to decide where that lascanon goes. Where can the bolters do the most damage? Shoot at that.

No matter how often people say it's very complex it really isn't. Hey, that unit you have is good in a fight or at least good for tying up my guns with a charge. Their move is 6". So I need to end my turn 14+ inches away to make sure they have a bad chance at succeeding in a charge. What targets can I shoot at while being at that 14+" range? Shoot them. If I can still shoot them at 17" then be 17" away and shoot. And when you fail your charge I can turn my guns on you and then charge myself with a much better chance at success.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
And saying "well the right answer is obvious" means either;

a) the right answer actually is obvious, but I'm a dummy, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.

b) the right answer actually isn't obvious, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.

C) the internet has always been populated by large numbers of individuals who base a large amount of their self-worth on proclaiming themselves to be genius level experts on a given topic but also coincidentally too far beyond the pleb-tier concerns associated with participating in that subject to ever be bothered to produce any kind of proof that theyre as good at it as they claim to be.

Even if we aren't geniuses do you dispute that there is a best play to make for any given play that can be made and that such plays can be solved with mathematics and some amount of computational power? This is all it takes to prove our point, not the assertion that we ourselves will always make the correct play.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 Slowroll wrote:
You find out, life is this game of inches. So is 40k. Because in either game, life or 40k, the margin for error is so small.

I think this is an important point as well. Those us who have been playing a long time take for granted that we're measuring things down to fractions of an inch. A lot of the game is hedging your bets, both in terms of die rolls and probabilities, but also in terms of measurement.

Consider a generic scenario where you have a strong melee unit positioned such that you can charge one of two enemy units and prevent that enemy unit from charging your own line or returning fire. There are a bunch of factors that go into making this choice:

(1) Which target am I more likely to get into charge range with? If the juicier target is further away, is it worth the risk of a longer charge?

(2) Which target is the bigger threat to me? And does which one I charge have a bearing on my success in assault? What are my risks?

(3) If I charge one unit, what other units are my other nearby forces able to target? Do I concentrate fire locally to have a chance to wipe out the enemy unit I charge, or do I charge one and shoot at the other enemy ui to soften them up so their retaliation is less?

We could keep going. Certainly, there is a layer of math hammer that can tell you the likely outcomes of certain scenarios, but there is still always the element of risk. What happens if you take the risky option? What are the consequences of playing it safe?

Developing skill in strategy/tactics game is very often a matter of heuristics - it's about developing rules of thumb that help us short-cut to possible solutions for very complex problems. We might have heuristics that say "kill the biggest threat first" ... but the battlefield is usually more complex than that. What if you don't have enough firepower in range to kill the biggest thing first - and your forced to split fire. What then?

These 'tactics' can be boiled down to a flowchart and a table to expected values. You can always, if you're quick/skilled enough or have a program/precalculated table, answer any questions such as what is the expected value for any given charge [in this case the expected value of the models removed multiplied by the chance to make the charge]. It will be a very rare case, and often one which only comes up when you're badly behind, where you must make the risky plays because they are your only way back into the game but you can mitigate this by using the above flowcharts and tables of values and thus should only be here due to hot/cold dice showing up for critical actions by you and your opponent.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 Slowroll wrote:
You find out, life is this game of inches. So is 40k. Because in either game, life or 40k, the margin for error is so small.

I think this is an important point as well. Those us who have been playing a long time take for granted that we're measuring things down to fractions of an inch. A lot of the game is hedging your bets, both in terms of die rolls and probabilities, but also in terms of measurement.

Consider a generic scenario where you have a strong melee unit positioned such that you can charge one of two enemy units and prevent that enemy unit from charging your own line or returning fire. There are a bunch of factors that go into making this choice:

(1) Which target am I more likely to get into charge range with? If the juicier target is further away, is it worth the risk of a longer charge?

(2) Which target is the bigger threat to me? And does which one I charge have a bearing on my success in assault? What are my risks?

(3) If I charge one unit, what other units are my other nearby forces able to target? Do I concentrate fire locally to have a chance to wipe out the enemy unit I charge, or do I charge one and shoot at the other enemy ui to soften them up so their retaliation is less?

We could keep going. Certainly, there is a layer of math hammer that can tell you the likely outcomes of certain scenarios, but there is still always the element of risk. What happens if you take the risky option? What are the consequences of playing it safe?

Developing skill in strategy/tactics game is very often a matter of heuristics - it's about developing rules of thumb that help us short-cut to possible solutions for very complex problems. We might have heuristics that say "kill the biggest threat first" ... but the battlefield is usually more complex than that. What if you don't have enough firepower in range to kill the biggest thing first - and your forced to split fire. What then?

So, ignoring those people that say Tactics don't exist, I think they do and I'd love to see a series of posts by you talking about some of these different topics. I think there is a lot to discuss and would enjoy doing so. We can just ignore the inevitable "tactics don't exist" folks by assuming that they don't exist as well

There are some wild assertions in this thread.

Removing enemy models is no longer the point of 9th edition 40K. A game can be won with exactly 0 enemy models killed assuming you have aggressive enough movement options and enough obsec. The Canoptek Necrons list with Obsec is weighted more towards a playstyle like this than towards attrition, and it wins quite a lot of games versus very competent opponents. The hordes of guardsmen with Move! Move! Move! is even more weighted towards this playstyle, and it will blow some competitive lists out of the water. As long as this playstyle exists, there is an open question about how much you should invest in it versus something like the traditional attrition style.

No Tactics in 40K is also silly. Models can utilize obscuring terrain to get shots on enemy models without getting replied against by other models due to the angle of the attack. Because of this, a unit can be placed to bait the enemy into moving into a position that makes this strategy viable in a subsequent turn. Do you think this is too easy to be called a tactic? Do you think this tactic is not viable on the tabletop? I'm confident I can defend against either of those challenges.

LiMunPai wrote:
There are some wild assertions in this thread.

Removing enemy models is no longer the point of 9th edition 40K. A game can be won with exactly 0 enemy models killed assuming you have aggressive enough movement options and enough obsec. The Canoptek Necrons list with Obsec is weighted more towards a playstyle like this than towards attrition, and it wins quite a lot of games versus very competent opponents. The hordes of guardsmen with Move! Move! Move! is even more weighted towards this playstyle, and it will blow some competitive lists out of the water. As long as this playstyle exists, there is an open question about how much you should invest in it versus something like the traditional attrition style.

Agreed. The way 40k scores missions in 9th opens the door for new strategies. You can absolutely list build and deploy for something like this and win games by acting on this strategy. This strategy is not tactics.

No Tactics in 40K is also silly. Models can utilize obscuring terrain to get shots on enemy models without getting replied against by other models due to the angle of the attack. Because of this, a unit can be placed to bait the enemy into moving into a position that makes this strategy viable in a subsequent turn. Do you think this is too easy to be called a tactic? Do you think this tactic is not viable on the tabletop? I'm confident I can defend against either of those challenges.

I disagree. The way targeting works makes it so if I can see and shoot you you can see and shoot me. But worse, each MODEL has to be able to see you in order to shoot but you only need to be able to see one of mine to shoot the entire unit. Due to that, trying to hide behind walls or whatever is actually a huge disadvantage. If you are talking about obscuring in that it provides you a -1 to hit, then it's a no brainer. Il take the -1 to hit for my guys every time thank you very much. You cannot bait the enemy if you cannot react to them. Players have to be able to react in order for tactics to exist. The IGOUGO turn structure that 40k has makes it basically impossible.

Apocalypse has very good terrain rules IMO and a much better tool set for tactical decision making. Not just what orders you are giving to your various detachments but what order you activate those detachments in and to what effect you employ those orders.

LiMunPai wrote:
Removing enemy models is no longer the point of 9th edition 40K. A game can be won with exactly 0 enemy models killed assuming you have aggressive enough movement options and enough obsec.

Please, show me a list designed to win this way and then a game where this actually happens. Yes, the game is more objective-focused than ever, but many of the best secondary objectives involve killing things so you're handicapping yourself if you don't have a plan to remove enemy models and reduce the amount of incoming firepower.

The Canoptek Necrons list with Obsec is weighted more towards a playstyle like this than towards attrition, and it wins quite a lot of games versus very competent opponents.

Does it now? How does it beat tournament level Harlequins, Daemons, DG, and SoB? How does it stop them from pushing in and achieving their goals if all it wants to do is camp objective markers? Also, this kind of gameplan is a strategy and not a tactic.

The hordes of guardsmen with Move! Move! Move! is even more weighted towards this playstyle, and it will blow some competitive lists out of the water.

The keyword here is some. This is a skew list that will go 3 - 2 but that can't win tournaments unless it gets extremely lucky and faces exactly the right match-ups. Also another strategy. The tactic would be knowing when you use that order and when to do something else.

Models can utilize obscuring terrain to get shots on enemy models without getting replied against by other models due to the angle of the attack.

Unless the enemy army can do stuff like move 30"+ and still shoot and assault afterward. Like WS, RW, and Harlequins can all do. Or deep strike like DG, Daemons, DW can all do. You can't hide on a board that can be traversed in a single turn so your 'tactic' does nothing unless you combine it with large screens and at that point you're investing so much that pursuing this 'tactic' requires you to build your strategy around it.

Because of this, a unit can be placed to bait the enemy into moving into a position that makes this strategy viable in a subsequent turn.

Bait only works if your opponent is bad. Do you think you'll be baiting anybody who just went 4-0 and is looking for a shot at taking the tournament?

LiMunPai wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Spoiler:

LiMunPai wrote:
There are some wild assertions in this thread.

Removing enemy models is no longer the point of 9th edition 40K. A game can be won with exactly 0 enemy models killed assuming you have aggressive enough movement options and enough obsec. The Canoptek Necrons list with Obsec is weighted more towards a playstyle like this than towards attrition, and it wins quite a lot of games versus very competent opponents. The hordes of guardsmen with Move! Move! Move! is even more weighted towards this playstyle, and it will blow some competitive lists out of the water. As long as this playstyle exists, there is an open question about how much you should invest in it versus something like the traditional attrition style.

Agreed. The way 40k scores missions in 9th opens the door for new strategies. You can absolutely list build and deploy for something like this and win games by acting on this strategy. This strategy is not tactics.

No Tactics in 40K is also silly. Models can utilize obscuring terrain to get shots on enemy models without getting replied against by other models due to the angle of the attack. Because of this, a unit can be placed to bait the enemy into moving into a position that makes this strategy viable in a subsequent turn. Do you think this is too easy to be called a tactic? Do you think this tactic is not viable on the tabletop? I'm confident I can defend against either of those challenges.

I disagree. The way targeting works makes it so if I can see and shoot you you can see and shoot me. But worse, each MODEL has to be able to see you in order to shoot but you only need to be able to see one of mine to shoot the entire unit. Due to that, trying to hide behind walls or whatever is actually a huge disadvantage. If you are talking about obscuring in that it provides you a -1 to hit, then it's a no brainer. Il take the -1 to hit for my guys every time thank you very much. You cannot bait the enemy if you cannot react to them. Players have to be able to react in order for tactics to exist. The IGOUGO turn structure that 40k has makes it basically impossible.

You can kill the unit you are shooting at for no reply from that unit. I was mostly talking about mutually supporting units being prevented from replying. Obscuring terrain of 5 inch height completely blocks LOS, so you can certainly use it to not be shot. A unit like the Silent King does this all the time with his 2 Menhirs and good movement by getting just enough LOS to touch the furthest corner of a tank, shooting it to death with the 2 Menhirs, them being in a position to not get shot back by other units due to the aforementioned obscuring terrain. I have done this and seen this done on multiple occasions, so it's certainly possible.

It's mostly army list and has been for most of the game's existence. We'd have people arguing "It's all about how you use the list!!!1!" even if we got a new Imperial Knight codex and suddenly all Knights were just 100 points, and no other army was as good.

At some point the denial gets pretty absurd.

I think if 40k could be crunched into oblivion by super computers you would approach certain solutions - or atleast, "this sequence of choices should optimise your chances of winning" - but I'm not sure that's what the majority of players do.

Say my opponent has one unit on an objective which will earn him points/deny me points - but also a unit that's going to do a load of damage if I ignore it. Which is the bigger concern? I'm sure there *is* a statistically best thing to do - but most people get a feeling based on playing out lots of games, not by crunching the maths through thousands or millions of scenarios and then hoping the dice come up average. They don't have some sort of augmented vision where they mentally select a unit and then the expected distribution of outcomes pops up based on what they target.

I think Chess and computers is a good example. Okay computers are better than humans - but does that effect games between me and you? If I employ a particular set of opening moves, is that not a tactic? Just saying "its a solved game, get good noob" doesn't actually help anyone get good.

So here is the question.

If you CAN do that and have the advantage or not do that and have a disadvantage which one do you do? Does 2+2=4?

Edit: Duplicate Post

Tyel wrote:
If I employ a particular set of opening moves, is that not a tactic?

It's a strategy actually. You use certain opening moves in Chess to try to force the midgame into a state where you can find advantages. If you make opening moves without a plan for the mid-game you're just bad.

Tyel wrote:
Just saying "its a solved game, get good noob" doesn't actually help anyone get good.

I have not seen anyone say you should "get good" or that having this discussion is being done in such a way as to make you get better.

It's a discussion about the nature of the game we are playing. Which does, in fact, help people to be better at playing it if for no other reason then you have a better understanding of the elements in play.

Pretending the game has more depth then it does wont help you. In fact it will hurt you. You will look at the equation like it's an over whleming complex thing that cannot possibly be solved. It can be solved. The individual components of the equation are very simple. Good players do recognize the elements in the formula and gamble on the law of averages and act in accordance.

Remember when people were like... "Why would I take las canons over High Rate of Fire weapons to kill tanks? The HROF guns peel off wounds more reliably!"

Well... they did the math and it turns out the answer was really simple and won games.

LiMunPai wrote:


No Tactics in 40K is also silly. Models can utilize obscuring terrain to get shots on enemy models without getting replied against by other models due to the angle of the attack. Because of this, a unit can be placed to bait the enemy into moving into a position that makes this strategy viable in a subsequent turn. Do you think this is too easy to be called a tactic? Do you think this tactic is not viable on the tabletop? I'm confident I can defend against either of those challenges.

One of the reasons 40k is tactically shallow is because the players have almost all the information they need at all times. That means you can't bait a competent opponent because there's no hidden information for them to have to make a judgement call about. If an opponent moves to shoot one of your units and fails to notice this puts them in a bad position they're just a bad opponent because that information is available to them when they move. Games with more tactical depth achieve this in many cases by not giving players perfect information (often by using alternating activation) which then requires them to make judgement calls for which the correct answer is not always possible to determine.

Slipspace wrote:

LiMunPai wrote:


No Tactics in 40K is also silly. Models can utilize obscuring terrain to get shots on enemy models without getting replied against by other models due to the angle of the attack. Because of this, a unit can be placed to bait the enemy into moving into a position that makes this strategy viable in a subsequent turn. Do you think this is too easy to be called a tactic? Do you think this tactic is not viable on the tabletop? I'm confident I can defend against either of those challenges.

One of the reasons 40k is tactically shallow is because the players have almost all the information they need at all times. That means you can't bait a competent opponent because there's no hidden information for them to have to make a judgement call about. If an opponent moves to shoot one of your units and fails to notice this puts them in a bad position they're just a bad opponent because that information is available to them when they move. Games with more tactical depth achieve this in many cases by not giving players perfect information (often by using alternating activation) which then requires them to make judgement calls for which the correct answer is not always possible to determine.

If you do threaten this tactic with something like Inceptors or Lokhust Destroyers that can deepstrike in or very high mobility units, you can often cut off avenues of movement for your opponent if they don't want to subject themselves to this. Sometimes, that restricted movement is enough of a problem that they would be better off accepting the losses from the unrepliable shooting, but it's going to be a risk/reward based judgement call.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
So here is the question.

If you CAN do that and have the advantage or not do that and have a disadvantage which one do you do? Does 2+2=4?

It depends on how much setup you need to do to pull off the tactic. Sometimes you'll have to forgo output by keeping your shooting unit in a response position early on in order to threaten pulling this off later. That decision would have to be made at the table where the risk/reward and geometry can be evaluated.

No. If you are in the position to do it you either do it or don't. It's not calculus. Either your big expensive unit is at risk or it isn't. It's either cutting swathes through the enemies army or it isn't. Every turn it isn't your points are not paying for themselves. If it dies then your points are gone. 2+2. Whats the best course of action in the moment.

Don't make it out to be more complicated than it is.

LiMunPai wrote:
If you do threaten this tactic with something like Inceptors or Lokhust Destroyers that can deepstrike in or very high mobility units, you can often cut off avenues of movement for your opponent if they don't want to subject themselves to this. Sometimes, that restricted movement is enough of a problem that they would be better off accepting the losses from the unrepliable shooting, but it's going to be a risk/reward based judgement call.

This 'judgement call' will often boil down to simple math. The formula would be something like the expected value of letting unit A sit there unopposed for another turn compared to the extra value you expect to give up by putting yourself into the position to kill unit A but giving Units B and C a more optimal target than the one they would otherwise have. You do this pretty easily with some basic calculations. It does get a little messier if one of those units is scoring, but you can also do that math.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

LiMunPai wrote:
Removing enemy models is no longer the point of 9th edition 40K. A game can be won with exactly 0 enemy models killed assuming you have aggressive enough movement options and enough obsec.

Please, show me a list designed to win this way and then a game where this actually happens. Yes, the game is more objective-focused than ever, but many of the best secondary objectives involve killing things so you're handicapping yourself if you don't have a plan to remove enemy models and reduce the amount of incoming firepower.

The Canoptek Necrons list with Obsec is weighted more towards a playstyle like this than towards attrition, and it wins quite a lot of games versus very competent opponents.

Does it now? How does it beat tournament level Harlequins, Daemons, DG, and SoB? How does it stop them from pushing in and achieving their goals if all it wants to do is camp objective markers? Also, this kind of gameplan is a strategy and not a tactic.

The hordes of guardsmen with Move! Move! Move! is even more weighted towards this playstyle, and it will blow some competitive lists out of the water.

The keyword here is some. This is a skew list that will go 3 - 2 but that can't win tournaments unless it gets extremely lucky and faces exactly the right match-ups. Also another strategy. The tactic would be knowing when you use that order and when to do something else.

Models can utilize obscuring terrain to get shots on enemy models without getting replied against by other models due to the angle of the attack.

Unless the enemy army can do stuff like move 30"+ and still shoot and assault afterward. Like WS, RW, and Harlequins can all do. Or deep strike like DG, Daemons, DW can all do. You can't hide on a board that can be traversed in a single turn so your 'tactic' does nothing unless you combine it with large screens and at that point you're investing so much that pursuing this 'tactic' requires you to build your strategy around it.

Because of this, a unit can be placed to bait the enemy into moving into a position that makes this strategy viable in a subsequent turn.

Bait only works if your opponent is bad. Do you think you'll be baiting anybody who just went 4-0 and is looking for a shot at taking the tournament?

I think many of the arguments you make are mitigating, but they don't defeat my argument. I don't think I'm going to deal with them individually, and it will just be up to the thread to use their head to decide if they are relevant or not. I think most of them aren't particularly relevant since I'm arguing for strategies that will work sometimes rather than trying to present a single source solution to the game.

The bait argument you make is just a misunderstanding. I'm using bait as a synonym for incentivize here. It could very well be a good idea for the opponent to move into the corner shooting for scenario tempo reasons.

 Lance845 wrote:
No. If you are in the position to do it you either do it or don't. It's not calculus. Either your big expensive unit is at risk or it isn't. It's either cutting swathes through the enemies army or it isn't. Every turn it isn't your points are not paying for themselves. If it dies then your points are gone. 2+2. Whats the best course of action in the moment.

Don't make it out to be more complicated than it is.

Your assessment would be more correct in 8th. When killing isn't the main path to success then the choices change quite a bit.

I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.

These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

LiMunPai wrote:
If you do threaten this tactic with something like Inceptors or Lokhust Destroyers that can deepstrike in or very high mobility units, you can often cut off avenues of movement for your opponent if they don't want to subject themselves to this. Sometimes, that restricted movement is enough of a problem that they would be better off accepting the losses from the unrepliable shooting, but it's going to be a risk/reward based judgement call.

This 'judgement call' will often boil down to simple math. The formula would be something like the expected value of letting unit A sit there unopposed for another turn compared to the extra value you expect to give up by putting yourself into the position to kill unit A but giving Units B and C a more optimal target than the one they would otherwise have. You do this pretty easily with some basic calculations. It does get a little messier if one of those units is scoring, but you can also do that math.

I think this is a bit dismissive of statistical analysis. Something may be a good idea under statistical averages, but a spike could lose you the game. Risk/Reward statistical analysis isn't a straightforward math problem.

Now, it's possible a machine learning tool could solve for something like this. I think this is proof that machines can enact strategies rather than proof that strategy isn't present because a computer can do it.

LiMunPai wrote:
I think many of the arguments you make are mitigating, but they don't defeat my argument.

If most of your arguments can be mitigated by somebody who hasn't played in over a year due to COVID your arguments might not be as strong as you assume them to be.

The bait argument you make is just a misunderstanding. I'm using bait as a synonym for incentivize here. It could very well be a good idea for the opponent to move into the corner shooting for scenario tempo reasons.

A good player will either capitalize on your positioning by taking the attack offered or by realizing that you're sitting back and not pressing to claim space on the board and winning that way. Any 'tactic' that has you slinking around cover and setting up fire lanes is likely way too defensive for 9e tournament level play.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.

These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.

This also means you've invested points into an army that will likely end up winning games in the loser bracket as you simply have too many bad match-ups to win a tournament. Your tactics can at best somewhat mitigate your poor list but are statistically unlikely to allow you to beat a player who just brought a better army.

LiMunPai wrote:
I think this is a bit dismissive of statistical analysis. Something may be a good idea under statistical averages, but a spike could lose you the game.

A spike can always lose you the game in 40k. You have to plan around likely outcomes while trying to keep a reserve that can deal with spikes while also understanding that there are going to be games that you 'should have won' that you lose due to the dice. This is just 40k in general and applies to literally every play you can make that involves dice.

Now, it's possible a machine learning tool could solve for something like this. I think this is proof that machines can enact strategies rather than proof that strategy isn't present because a computer can do it.

You're confused. Nobody has argued that strategy in 40k doesn't exist. The argument is that the game is too shallow for tactics to exist. Try reading the thread before making such claims.

So if there are no tactics, what happens should two players face each other using the same list?

If I'm playing a game with alternating activations, and I include cheap, gakky units to burn activations for so I can try to bait my opponent's units out of position and force him to activate more important units before I do, how is that "tactics" rather than "Strategy"?

I know the answer to this, because the answer is obviously "thing I like is Tactics, thing I don't like is Strategy" but I'm really not seeing a whole lot of a distinction here.

Also, it's good to know 8th-9th are the most tactical editions of 40k yet, because AFAIK it's the one that allows you the ability to make decisions, ever, at all, during your opponent's turn and react to them.

Heroic Intervention, Activation during the fight phase and defensive stratagems ain't much, but they're a whole hell of a lot more than the...basically no decisions you got to make in your opponent's turn 5th thru 7th.

 Mezmorki wrote:
So if there are no tactics, what happens should two players face each other using the same list?

It very likely comes to whoever gets the first turn winning with the state of 9e thus far. Are you going to argue that being better at rolling a six-sided die is a tactic now?

 Mezmorki wrote:
So if there are no tactics, what happens should two players face each other using the same list?

Generally speaking, the player who goes first wins.

If 2 equal armies arrive and they are each, at 2k points, capable of removing 400 points from the enemies army a turn then the first turn advantage will create an ever widening gap between the 2 armies.

Turn 1 2k v 2k
P1 2k removes 400 points
P2 1600 removes 320.

Turn 2. 1680 v 1600
P1 1680 removes 336
P2 1264 removes 253

Turn 3. 1427 v 1264
P1 1427 removes 285
P2 979 removes 196

And so on...

the_scotsman wrote:
If I'm playing a game with alternating activations, and I include cheap, gakky units to burn activations for so I can try to bait my opponent's units out of position and force him to activate more important units before I do, how is that "tactics" rather than "Strategy"?

It isn't but choosing when to use them for maximum effect in-game is a tactic, one that your foe can counter by activating their own units and trying to pin units you've yet to activate. Deploying chaff and moving them with the rest of your army during your monolithic turn in 40k isn't a tactic because there is zero elements of risk to your plan.

Heroic Intervention, Activation during the fight phase and defensive stratagems ain't much, but they're a whole hell of a lot more than the...basically no decisions you got to make in your opponent's turn 5th thru 7th.

These acts are also no-brainer levels of obvious too. If your unit wins or forces a draw on an objective you heroically intervene every time if it doesn't check to see if you get any bonuses that activate when you charge or intervene and if you really can't sway the battle stay put. Goonhammer has run the math for some of the defensive strats so if yours has been mathed out you can just check a chart to see if a defensive strat is worth popping.

the_scotsman wrote:
If I'm playing a game with alternating activations, and I include cheap, gakky units to burn activations for so I can try to bait my opponent's units out of position and force him to activate more important units before I do, how is that "tactics" rather than "Strategy"?

I know the answer to this, because the answer is obviously "thing I like is Tactics, thing I don't like is Strategy" but I'm really not seeing a whole lot of a distinction here.

Also, it's good to know 8th-9th are the most tactical editions of 40k yet, because AFAIK it's the one that allows you the ability to make decisions, ever, at all, during your opponent's turn and react to them.

Heroic Intervention, Activation during the fight phase and defensive stratagems ain't much, but they're a whole hell of a lot more than the...basically no decisions you got to make in your opponent's turn 5th thru 7th.

Your personal inability to understand the difference between tactics and strategy doesn't mean there are not differences.