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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Thanks Jeff. I appreciate that you could see what I was trying to say.

Reducing table size is especially bad since it de facto devalues Range Profiles and Movement stats, which is one of the best way to actually weight skill difference between two players.
What a stupid change, if I wanted to have an AoS mid brawl experience I would have played that game

You can thank melee only players for this. They wanted to hit things with guns with swords and this is what you get. A game where the strongest army in the game melees farther than you can shoot (quinns). Now you have the reverse problem. Why bring guns when I can melee you turn 1 and ignore your firepower with rules that completely ignore most weapons perks. Invunes and -1 to hit and wound.

What's this nonsense? 'Melee players' (whoever that mythical group is supposed to include) didn't influence squat, let alone make this happen. GW's new default board size took everyone* by surprise and there's no rhyme or reason to it.

*almost everyone. Some of the playtest groups obviously knew and the predatory gangs like Frontline were certainly posed to sell new gaming mats early. Its certainly easier to 'fill up' the board with the handful of terrain pieces in tournaments at this size (but still doesn't really fix the Planet Bowling Ball problem). Why not blame them if you're going to randomly accuse people that aren't GW for changes to GW rules?

 Lance845 wrote:

This is the part we disagree on and so I am going to elaborate on the words I am using and the context in which I am using them so that maybe I can clear things up.

There is a concept in game design called the illusion of choice. It happens when you purposefully or unintentionally present the players with any kind of decision in which there are clearly correct answers and clearly incorrect answers. Or advantages and disadvantages. Or anything where one answer is "right" and the others are "wrong".

Do you offer comprehensive workshops on what is "right" and "wrong" for 40K players? I'd love to be able to do all the math beforehand and win before ever making a decision.

What those goonhammer articles are doing is spelling out the variables in the equation and showing you the answers.

The goons have an article on tripointing too. But once you understand the concept it's not a question any more. You have the answer to the equation. If you can tri point then you tri point. To be able to and not is choosing wrong and you will suffer for it.

By your logic, would would you say that Chess being a "solved game" (by advanced AI's) means that is it no longer a tactical game for ordinary humans? I feel like you are saying that "40K is a solved game" (or even that it is conceptually "solvable") and therefore has no "real choice" within it.

 Mezmorki wrote:
By your logic, would would you say that Chess being a "solved game" (by advanced AI's) means that is it no longer a tactical game for ordinary humans? I feel like you are saying that "40K is a solved game" (or even that it is conceptually "solvable") and therefore has no "real choice" within it.

Yes, this is exactly what we've been saying. Just because any given lump of electrified fat can't solve the problem doesn't mean it's a complex problem, it just makes it a problem that requires a certain amount of computational power (or a lot of time) to solve. When you get right down to it Chess, Go, and 40k are games that have as little complexity as solving pi to x places.

Games like Infinity, MtG, even Yu-Gi-Oh are leagues beyond 40k in terms of complexity and the reason is hidden information. In 40k there is no hidden information as even dice rolls will fall along a known probability curve.

 Mezmorki wrote:
By your logic, would would you say that Chess being a "solved game" (by advanced AI's) means that is it no longer a tactical game for ordinary humans? I feel like you are saying that "40K is a solved game" (or even that it is conceptually "solvable") and therefore has no "real choice" within it.

No.

We went over the chess thing before.

The difference between chess and 40k is that in chess you are actually playing against your opponent. When I move a piece moving that piece impacts my opponent in a way that represents so much more than it does in 40k. I can place my queen or bishop or knight in a vulnerable place as bait and then pounce on the opponent when they fall for it. There is a LOT of tactical depth in chess because it's nothing but you interacting with your opponent. There is room in chess for long term planning. 10 moves down the line and playing the opponent into your strategies using your tactics. There are no 10 moves in 40k. You're lucky if you get 4 before one player is so obviously the winner you might as well end the game then and there.

A computer can solve it, yes. But it does so in part through brute force computation and in part by making sure it doesn't make moves that gain no advantage. It can't fall for a ploy because it can calculate ahead so it's impossible to put the computer in a no win situation.

There are no ploys in 40k. You just march your strategy forward as efficiently as you can. There are books after books after book on chess opening, mid games, and end games. How they interact. The pros and cons of each. The gambits they represent. There is a LOT of you making tactical decisions in chess. There just isn't in 40k. Again, I wish there was, but there just isn't. There will never be a book on 40k "tactics" with the breadth of content of even a single professional chess book because there just isn't enough content to fill it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
By your logic, would would you say that Chess being a "solved game" (by advanced AI's) means that is it no longer a tactical game for ordinary humans? I feel like you are saying that "40K is a solved game" (or even that it is conceptually "solvable") and therefore has no "real choice" within it.

Yes, this is exactly what we've been saying. Just because any given lump of electrified fat can't solve the problem doesn't mean it's a complex problem, it just makes it a problem that requires a certain amount of computational power (or a lot of time) to solve. When you get right down to it Chess, Go, and 40k are games that have as little complexity as solving pi to x places.

Games like Infinity, MtG, even Yu-Gi-Oh are leagues beyond 40k in terms of complexity and the reason is hidden information. In 40k there is no hidden information as even dice rolls will fall along a known probability curve.

I understand your position on this. But where I draw the line is the interaction with my opponent. Chess has tactical decision making because it's a move you make not against the pieces or the game but the opponent. 40k isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lets put it this way. You have about as many "turns" in a game of 40k as you do in a game of tic tac toe. How much depth can you squeeze out of that?

 Lance845 wrote:
I understand your position on this. But where I draw the line is the interaction with my opponent. Chess has tactical decision making because it's a move you make not against the pieces or the game but the opponent. 40k isn't.

Likewise, I understand your point. I just feel that any game as solved as Chess is shouldn't be counted as a complex game. A game of Chess played optimally has a fixed outcome of white winning in a fixed unchanging series of moves. 40k at least has the variables of terrain and armies to spice things up but they're just more math and not any real complexity.

Not Online!!! wrote:
You can disagree all you want , the removal of templates and encouragement of blobbing via aura has not improved the Game in an on Tablet tactics manner.

And los blocking with Transport is an excercise in futility with the at nowadays found in an average list.

I have the feeling that you haven't played lately. I have that feeling towards quite a few people in this thread actually...

Here's a question for you: what game in your view can't be reduced to a series of optimal non-tactical moves given sufficient time to math an optimal solution?

Twilight Imperium.

Terraforming Mars.

Kemet.

These are 3 games on my book shelf that incorporate both strategy and tactics that i doubt could be boiled down to flow charts and math. There is too much player to player interaction.

Lets put it this way. You have about as many "turns" in a game of 40k as you do in a game of tic tac toe. How much depth can you squeeze out of that?

Let's not put it that way. If we tripled the number of turns in a 40k game would it suddenly become a deep game?

Mmm, not sure if the comparison to TTT can be made. So much happens in those 5 turns. Many movements, actions, attacks and choices that to reduce it down to a flowchart or just a mathematical equation feels like actively trying to simplify something that will not be simplified effectively.

I've lost encounters by the smallest of margins, a unit moved a little to far or not enough. Choosing to target one thing that was in my face when the target further back was the real threat. Yeah things like dice swinging one way or another is always a factor and often a good plan can fall to tatters due to bad luck. To say nothing about terrain and odd lines of sight. But adapting to that is what has kept 40K engaging for me up to this point.

Yeah creating a decent list is great. But depending on other factors such as my opponents choices and the terrain that great list may not be able to function at full efficiency.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Here's a question for you: what game in your view can't be reduced to a series of optimal non-tactical moves given sufficient time to math an optimal solution?

Any TCG where you don't know the state of your opponent's hand and where balance is close enough for more than one deck to have the potential to be optimal is almost certainly unsolvable. MtG is Turning complete and while that doesn't translate into its gameplay it can literally be used to solve Chess/Go/40k.

Euro-style board games like Catan or Lords of Waterdeep are equally unsolvable due to hidden information, player interaction, and the way each turn is a series of small steps with multiple possible outcomes.

Computer games like League of Legends are questionably solvable. There could be a meta state where the draft is perfectly solved and AI can play each champion to a degree where any imbalance ensures that one team will always win, but the hidden information, ability to ban champions, and the ability for counterplay likely makes it unsolvable.

40k is just a simple puzzle game next to the above list.

 Xenomancers wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Thanks Jeff. I appreciate that you could see what I was trying to say.

Reducing table size is especially bad since it de facto devalues Range Profiles and Movement stats, which is one of the best way to actually weight skill difference between two players.
What a stupid change, if I wanted to have an AoS mid brawl experience I would have played that game

You can thank melee only players for this. They wanted to hit things with guns with swords and this is what you get. A game where the strongest army in the game melees farther than you can shoot (quinns). Now you have the reverse problem. Why bring guns when I can melee you turn 1 and ignore your firepower with rules that completely ignore most weapons perks. Invunes and -1 to hit and wound.

again, pointing out, not to xeno because I know you're really just not interested in listening, but the competitive harlequin setup does generally involve arming the harlequins with EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE GUN UPGRADE, running them in the shootiest masque, and if you can help it, staying inside your transports and shooting out of them.

Not exactly the indictment about how those horrible horrible melee players have ruined the sanctity of your guns simulator.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Twilight Imperium.

Terraforming Mars.

Kemet.

These are 3 games on my book shelf that incorporate both strategy and tactics that i doubt could be boiled down to flow charts and math. There is too much player to player interaction.

There's too much player to player interaction in...terraforming mars, as opposed to a head to head wargame?

Besides building your gak on the same map and occasionally hocking asteroids at eachother, terraforming mars is DAMN close to a competitive solitaire eurogame.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Any TCG where you don't know the state of your opponent's hand and where balance is close enough for more than one deck to have the potential to be optimal is almost certainly unsolvable. MtG is Turning complete and while that doesn't translate into its gameplay it can literally be used to solve Chess/Go/40k.

Except that so many decks rely on landing the pieces you need and the level of interaction boils down to whether they can block enough and get their combo out before yours. My favorite - the ruin crab!

T1 crab
T2 crab, play fetch, crack fetch, play crab
T3 play crab, play fetch, play glimpse.
40 cards milled by turn 3

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Except that so many decks rely on landing the pieces you need and the level of interaction boils down to whether they can block enough and get their combo out before yours. My favorite - the ruin crab!

T1 crab
T2 crab, play fetch, crack fetch, play crab
T3 play crab, play fetch, play glimpse.
40 cards milled by turn 3

That's just one format. How about French, Pauper, EDH, Modern, Vintage, Legacy, Draft, Sealed, Two-Headed Giant, Planeschase, Pioneer, etc. all in potentially Bo3 and Bo1 formats.

Just because one format can feel solved doesn't mean that the game itself is solved or even solvable.

Terraforming mars is almost nothing but anticipating what my opponents are going to do and heading them off or undermining them.

If their strat is to drag the game out for other VP i can terraform like mad to undermine their strategy. I constantly watch their resources to see if they are going for chains of terraforming bonuses on the various tracks. Milestones and awards are absolutely a element of the game you actively compete and can influence other players with. I watch their energy, money, hand size, and titanium to anticipate what they might trade for in colonies. And if you ever play with turmoil the politics game adds basically an entire side game of strategy and tactics to how you can mess with your opponents.

Anyone who thinks terraforming mars is a solitaire game has no idea what they are doing when they are playing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention the placing tiles on the board is a game in and of itself where your interactions with the other players can screw you out of vp or flat out steal it from your opponents. I am litterally blown away that you would think so little of the player to player interaction.

the_scotsman wrote:
There's too much player to player interaction in...terraforming mars, as opposed to a head to head wargame?

Besides building your gak on the same map and occasionally hocking asteroids at eachother, terraforming mars is DAMN close to a competitive solitaire eurogame.

The fact that you think competitive solitaire is a valid way to describe Terraforming Mars shows that you have zero clue what you're talking about either due to your own lack of skill or due to a lack of experience with the game. With just the base game the entire game is about reading what your opponents are going to do and planning your tempo around that. If you play with drafting on you then also have to balance picking for your own strategy versus cutting key parts of what your opponents are going for. Toss in the awards, the way your play interacts with other cards (Predators is straightforward, Pets is a bit less so, Monorails is even less clear) and you get an extremely deep game.

The issue here, I suspect, is that scottsman thinks interacting with your opponents pieces is the same thing as interacting with your opponent.

It's easy for someone who sees things that way to think 40k has a ton of player interaction while something like Terraforming Mars does not.

But it's the opposite thats true. 40k is a game where all you do is interact with pieces. The opponent has almost no say in anything you do. While TM's action economy and resource management means in order to play well you have no choice but to interact with them on basically every level. You have to plan your moves based on what you think their moves might be. Do something too soon and you could be handing them an advantage. Act too late and they may take something out from under you. You need to prioritize not just what you can do but based around what they can do.

It's the difference between playing against the game and playing against the opponent that I have been banging on about.

I'm beginning to understand now. So building a list is tactics, and playing the game is strategy. It's becoming clear now.

 Lance845 wrote:
Terraforming mars is almost nothing but anticipating what my opponents are going to do and heading them off or undermining them.

If their strat is to drag the game out for other VP i can terraform like mad to undermine their strategy. I constantly watch their resources to see if they are going for chains of terraforming bonuses on the various tracks. Milestones and awards are absolutely a element of the game you actively compete and can influence other players with. I watch their energy, money, hand size, and titanium to anticipate what they might trade for in colonies. And if you ever play with turmoil the politics game adds basically an entire side game of strategy and tactics to how you can mess with your opponents.

Anyone who thinks terraforming mars is a solitaire game has no idea what they are doing when they are playing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention the placing tiles on the board is a game in and of itself where your interactions with the other players can screw you out of vp or flat out steal it from your opponents. I am litterally blown away that you would think so little of the player to player interaction.

That is still 100% mathematically solvable though.
You can always run an alghoritm to find the "optimal choice", even when you need to interact with the opponent.

All games are mathematically solvable.

I played bridge at international level. That is a game where you need to play with the unknown factor of what your 2 opponents will do, AND the unknown factor of what your team mate will do!

And yet let me tell you that almost all of it is running percentages in your head.

Spoletta wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Terraforming mars is almost nothing but anticipating what my opponents are going to do and heading them off or undermining them.

If their strat is to drag the game out for other VP i can terraform like mad to undermine their strategy. I constantly watch their resources to see if they are going for chains of terraforming bonuses on the various tracks. Milestones and awards are absolutely a element of the game you actively compete and can influence other players with. I watch their energy, money, hand size, and titanium to anticipate what they might trade for in colonies. And if you ever play with turmoil the politics game adds basically an entire side game of strategy and tactics to how you can mess with your opponents.

Anyone who thinks terraforming mars is a solitaire game has no idea what they are doing when they are playing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention the placing tiles on the board is a game in and of itself where your interactions with the other players can screw you out of vp or flat out steal it from your opponents. I am litterally blown away that you would think so little of the player to player interaction.

That is still 100% mathematically solvable though.
You can always run an alghoritm to find the "optimal choice", even when you need to interact with the opponent.

All games are mathematically solvable.

I played bridge at international level. That is a game where you need to play with the unknown factor of what your 2 opponents will do, AND the unknown factor of what your team mate will do!

And yet let me tell you that almost all of it is running percentages in your head.

Bridge has far fewer conditions on when you can and should play your cards. Terraforming Mars has a cost, possible additional requirements, a game board, rewards which often vary by game state, groups of 2 actions per round leading to complexity of when to take an action within a round, actions granted by cards, fixed cost actions , interactions between cards, an every filling track for O2 and heat which both ends the game and allows or disallows cards to be played. Bridge is checkers to this game's chess.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Terraforming mars is almost nothing but anticipating what my opponents are going to do and heading them off or undermining them.

If their strat is to drag the game out for other VP i can terraform like mad to undermine their strategy. I constantly watch their resources to see if they are going for chains of terraforming bonuses on the various tracks. Milestones and awards are absolutely a element of the game you actively compete and can influence other players with. I watch their energy, money, hand size, and titanium to anticipate what they might trade for in colonies. And if you ever play with turmoil the politics game adds basically an entire side game of strategy and tactics to how you can mess with your opponents.

Anyone who thinks terraforming mars is a solitaire game has no idea what they are doing when they are playing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention the placing tiles on the board is a game in and of itself where your interactions with the other players can screw you out of vp or flat out steal it from your opponents. I am litterally blown away that you would think so little of the player to player interaction.

That is still 100% mathematically solvable though.
You can always run an alghoritm to find the "optimal choice", even when you need to interact with the opponent.

All games are mathematically solvable.

I played bridge at international level. That is a game where you need to play with the unknown factor of what your 2 opponents will do, AND the unknown factor of what your team mate will do!

And yet let me tell you that almost all of it is running percentages in your head.

Bridge has far fewer conditions on when you can and should play your cards. Terraforming Mars has a cost, possible additional requirements, a game board, rewards which often vary by game state, groups of 2 actions per round leading to complexity of when to take an action within a round, actions granted by cards, fixed cost actions , interactions between cards, an every filling track for O2 and heat which both ends the game and allows or disallows cards to be played. Bridge is checkers to this game's chess.

Having many variables doesn't make it not solvable.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Here's a question for you: what game in your view can't be reduced to a series of optimal non-tactical moves given sufficient time to math an optimal solution?

Putting aside the fact this has been answered already (from the wargaming side I'd add almost any sufficiently complex game using AA due to player-player interaction) this question misses the point. The question isn't whether a game is solved or not, it's whether it's sufficiently complex that two human beings playing the game can't mathematically solve it themselves in the time given. Tic-tac-toe, is trivially solvable for humans. Chess is not, which is why humans continue to play it even though chess engines have been able to beat humans for decades.

The point people are making about 40k is that its tactical complexity is more towards the tic-tac-toe end of the spectrum than the chess end of the spectrum as the optimum moves are often not difficult for players to determine. That's why you can have really deep, extensive discussion about the tactics of chess games while the same can't be said about 40k, as evidenced by this thread and the lack of such discussion elsewhere.

I think the problem with this discussion is that one side is arguing that tactics is zero.
I think this is objectively false.
Why does a move being determinably optimal mean it's not a valid decision for the player? Literally the whole point of a game is to enact what you think is the optimal play to win.

Noughts and Crosses may have minimal tactical interplay, but it's there.
40k definitely has more tactical interplay than that, I can't imagine that's actually up for the debate.
So arguing that 40k has zero tactics just seems stupid to me. I don't think 40k is the most tactically deep game on the market, far from it, but it's not a trivial solution. Otherwise, why isn't it the same list winning every tournament?
If 40k was so easy to solve, why isn't the hardcore tournament community solving their games?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think the problem with this discussion is that one side is arguing that tactics is zero.

And I think you're wrong. I don't think anyone has said 40k has literally zero tactics and it would be helpful if people would stop building that strawman. What people have said is the tactics in 40k are not so complex and deep that they require extensive analysis like in other games. Ultimately they boil down to fairly simple principles or extremely specific scenarios that are unlikely to be repeatable.

The fact nobody on the "40k is tactically complex" side of the argument has yet to present a scenario to analyse is quite telling, IMO. I remember about a year ago there were a series of posts on the official X-Wing forum with a snapshot of a game state with a lot of deep discussion about options for both players. They were some of the most interesting threads on that board. The absence of such things for 40k is probably an indicator of the relative tactical complexity of the two games.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You can disagree all you want , the removal of templates and encouragement of blobbing via aura has not improved the Game in an on Tablet tactics manner.

And los blocking with Transport is an excercise in futility with the at nowadays found in an average list.

I have the feeling that you haven't played lately. I have that feeling towards quite a few people in this thread actually...

Au contraire it could also be that my local strategical meta still is behind in some manners or that knights are really liked still.

And you haven't disputed anything other than proclaimed that you disagree.
Fine, show me the possible tactical interesting interaction on a small nu gw standard table tm with gw plates tm with no interactivity encouraged beyond sit on objective more or less because there's no weakpoint to tanks f.e. anymore so no reward for potentially exposing an AT unit to get a clear shot.

Name one change that increased tactical complexity and onfield decision making since 8th or 9th.

 Lance845 wrote:
First lets clear up the terms.

Tactics is what you use at the table level. How you react to different situations in hopes of accomplishing certain goals. "I am going to place this unit here to try and bait that unit into moving into x position"

Strategy is your broad strokes over all plan before the game begins. Thats your list building and even your deployment.

"These units will sit in the back to protect my deployment zone and provide fire support while x,y,z will blitz into the enemy lines to stir things up".

40k basically has no tactics. It's all strategy. And that is why it's difficult to discuss and why almost all of the conversation revolves around list building.

In order to have any meaningful tactics the players have to be able to interact with each other in meaningful ways. But 99.9% of the time your strategy is your best bet with a singular clear obvious thing for you to do. And thats mostly remove enemy models as quickly as possible so they have less models to shoot back at you on the next turn. You feed them unfavorable targets if you can. You shoot your principle targets if you can. You tie up x unit if you can.

The game has no tactical depth. Thats the problem.

It seems to me that people absolutely are making the argument that 40k has essentially zero tactics.

Your point about X-wing discussions is interesting. I wonder how a similar discussion for 40k would play out.

Slipspace wrote:
The fact nobody on the "40k is tactically complex" side of the argument has yet to present a scenario to analyse is quite telling, IMO. I remember about a year ago there were a series of posts on the official X-Wing forum with a snapshot of a game state with a lot of deep discussion about options for both players. They were some of the most interesting threads on that board. The absence of such things for 40k is probably an indicator of the relative tactical complexity of the two games.

There's a scenario on page 2.

You can make tactical threads about x-wing because you can limit the scenario to half a dozen models.

You can do chess quizzes only when discussing about a similar amount of pieces. Surely not with a full board for each player.

You can discuss what to do with 2-3 units in 40K too, but it has no meaning, because small scale tactics in 40K are close to nill. If what Lance means by saying that there are no tactics, actually means that there are no SMALL SCALE tactics, then I can agree. Once you have committed certain forces to a certain scenario, you can only alter the outcome from outside the scenario or alter someone else's scenario.

On the other hand, 40K has a big focus on large scale tactics. Where the skill of the player really shows is in how they manage the interactions between the scenarios on the battlefields. Where to retreat, where to fight, where to send reinforcements... army level maneuvers, not unit level.

Now, you can also discard all that kind of thinking and go for a one trick pony list like Lance's nid list. You have a sound plan and put all your effort toward it. No flexibility, only efficency. It either works and you win, or it fails and you lose.
That's one way to play, but surely not the only one... nor the most competitive one.