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.
2021/03/03 20:16:20
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
I think the opportunity to KEEP the big sweeping move opportunities but have a bit more dynamic is to focus more on a reaction-type system. Players take their turn in the normal IGOUGO fashion, but there are opportunities to perform reaction moves (that in turn affect your own options when your own turn rolls around). Classic 40K had "Go to Ground." We've built on this with ProHammer to add reactive fire to the game (with various tradeoffs involved in the decision) a couple of different charge reactions, better overwatch (true overwatch). All of this still IGOUGO, but it makes turs a little bit more interactive and engaging for non-active player, but still lets the active player do their big sweeping maneuvers.
This is a very good point, and many AA players have pointed out that there are different types and levels of AA. Kill Team, for example, is a bit of a hybrid as movement is IGOUGO, but it still has activations for shooting, etc. So I'm sure it is possible to strike a balance; personally, the only thing about the game in its current state that I find sub-par is the imbalance between model ranges, and that may end up being addressed by the end of the edition for all we know.
It's a phased activation system that it the best (at least on paper) approach I've seen for playing 40K with an AA-like system that doesn't require some massive rework to codexes and special rules. It basically shakes up the normal process and makes it a bit more interactive.
I think the opportunity to KEEP the big sweeping move opportunities but have a bit more dynamic is to focus more on a reaction-type system. Players take their turn in the normal IGOUGO fashion, but there are opportunities to perform reaction moves (that in turn affect your own options when your own turn rolls around). Classic 40K had "Go to Ground." We've built on this with ProHammer to add reactive fire to the game (with various tradeoffs involved in the decision) a couple of different charge reactions, better overwatch (true overwatch). All of this still IGOUGO, but it makes turs a little bit more interactive and engaging for non-active player, but still lets the active player do their big sweeping maneuvers.
This is a very good point, and many AA players have pointed out that there are different types and levels of AA. Kill Team, for example, is a bit of a hybrid as movement is IGOUGO, but it still has activations for shooting, etc. So I'm sure it is possible to strike a balance; personally, the only thing about the game in its current state that I find sub-par is the imbalance between model ranges, and that may end up being addressed by the end of the edition for all we know.
It's a phased activation system that it the best (at least on paper) approach I've seen for playing 40K with an AA-like system that doesn't require some massive rework to codexes and special rules. It basically shakes up the normal process and makes it a bit more interactive.
As kiro points out in their reply to that post - it is definitely a thing that takes longer to do. AA games by nature tend to take a bit longer to play (I had a good chuckle about how someone earlier in this thread claimed that due to the low number of battlerounds each model makes means 40k is like tic tac toe because I thought of Infinity, where the median number of actions your average model makes in the game's 4 rounds is most likely "Zero" due to how Cheerleading works in Infinity) and the low modification version of the system where you go through and alternate each phase of the turn takes a WHILE.
the "rallying' mechanic is something of a hybrid between Apocalypse and Necromunda, because we found trying to go straight for Apocalypse (where you activate whole detachments) resulted in the game being basically identical to 40k as it is now, and going for Necromunda style (where characters can activate 1 unit) made co-ordination between multiple units impossible.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2021/03/03 20:36:54
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
It's a phased activation system that it the best (at least on paper) approach I've seen for playing 40K with an AA-like system that doesn't require some massive rework to codexes and special rules. It basically shakes up the normal process and makes it a bit more interactive.
I think this demonstrates that it's really difficult because different players want dramatically different systems.
No offence to Scotsman, but that type of system is one of the worst I've ever used (in games like Killteam) and I prefer 40k's current system. I go into more depth about why within that thread. I also suggest something I would prefer.
When my uni society plays apocalypse games, we use a form of AA where each team can activate 3-4 units a turn (one per player on the team). Each unit goes through the phases exactly like normal. They're not even required to keep pace with the other units activating at the same time (although that's more just to smooth over 4 people all going at once).
It works well enough and it keeps stuff moving back and forth quickly, something that's super important for an apocalypse game but still matters for regular 40k.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/03 20:37:14
2021/03/03 20:42:12
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
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?
This group exists in every game. Go play LOL - practically no reason to play a ranged champion anymore because essentially every melee champion can jump on you from a screens length. 40k is no different now - melee units threatening a charge at the max range of your guns is common. It is not nonsense. It isn't tactical though. Getting units into melee should be a challenge - because the reward is so high. 40k gives it to you by automatic.
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post: We are trivializing the small amount of tactics that exist. They are so basic and amount to aim your weapons at this unit until it is dead and rinse and repeat. That is tactics to you?
absolutely spot on with this.
.
2021/03/03 20:51:02
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
You are planning for a tournament, and are worried about facing an Admech gunline (2 squads of Robots, 3 squads tracked troop dudes, Cawl, doggies, Termite drill w/Electropriests). Your store has a history of light terrain gaming tables, so you know that Obscuring terrain will be present, but likely just 2 pieces. You're bringing a Chaos list. Your list's claim to fame is that it has Terminators that get a near-guaranteed charge (Honour the Prince, one dice is automatically a 6), but you know this Admech force can screen with his doggies, and retreat them in response to a charge using a strat. Your other forces are mostly geared towards getting in and charging as well, so your shooting is mostly limited to a unit of Oblits, Havocs, and a Baleflamer from your Lord Discordant.
Allow yourself to have whatever secondaries and additional forces you want for the following scenarios (since it's so hard to come up with everything), and fill in the gaps where you think you need to. How do you Deep Strike your Emperor's Children Terminators this turn? What do they do? Assume Admech have taken Grind Them Down, Deploy Scramblers, and Linebreaker.
2 Scenarios;
#1 - You got the first turn. Admech dogs hid turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. You lost two units to his firepower turn 1, but the Lord Discordant is (barely) alive, though can likely charge his lines this turn as well. If Admech stays on both objectives this turn, he'll score at least 10 points on Primary. He scored 1 turn of Grind Them Down (3), a Priest with a buff aura scrambled his deployment zone, and he did not score Linebreaker turn 1.
#2 - You got the second turn. Admech hid his dogs turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. His second turn he moved his dogs to spread out, encircling his army as best as he could to push out your deep strike areas, and he brought in his Termite Drill with Electropriests hidden by the drill, who deployed Scramblers in your deployment zone. He killed two of your units turn 1, and another two on turn 2, leaving you without your Oblits, Havocs, or Lord Discordant. At this point, you need to get onto some more objectives as well to stop Admech scoring 15 on his turn for holding more than you. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. He scored Grind Them Down both turns 1 and 2, he has deployed 2 scramblers so far (his deployment zone and yours), and the Priests and Termite Drill also scored him a turn of Linebreaker.
Unfortunately - and I think this is why such conversations don't appear, rather than the lack of tactical depth - I don't play CSM, and so offering insight is a bit difficult.
Realistically - for scenario 2 - if he's got a full screen up and you've lost your ranged threat+discordant, then I'm not really sure what you can hope for. It seems like a good example why deep striking is such a gamble in modern 40k.
I guess you could shoot twice - but I don't think terminator shooting is anything to get overly excited about. Unless I'm missing something obvious. (I'm sure Sonic Terminators aren't that far away.)
Precisely because I don't *know* I'm reduced to say in both scenarios: "throw them into that screen and hope your opponent has a terrible turn 2/3 so you can connect with those (presumably?) shooty robots and tracked guys". Which I can't say is the optimal play - but without that knowledge that comes from playing lots of games, I'm sort at a loss. My knowledge is that Admech gunlines are amongst the best in the game, and you really need to shut them by getting something into contact with them.
You could I guess go after (or prepare for) the Priests - but then you'll likely be out of the game for many turns while they pound you into dust. Depending on the scenario it might not be the worst idea though, because they'll loathe to break up their castle - so they'll have 2 objectives but you should also have 2 objectives.
2021/03/03 20:51:52
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Pulp Alley is a Necromunda-scale game typically set in Indiana Jones-style pulp fiction, but it has a really neat way of dealing with the 'bittiness' of alternating action systems. Basically a player has an initiative, and the player with the initiative chooses which unit acts next regardless of which player actually controls that action, which each unit having a set number of actions per turn. Players can lose the initiative if they fail an action, like investigating a plot point model on the battlefield (the equivalent of an action in 40k these days I think) or by losing a fight, so the player forced to act with a unit has an opportunity to try and force a fight. This is a really neat way of getting players to interact, to shape the game, and fight over the advantages that having the initiative confers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/03 21:02:53
2021/03/03 20:56:27
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Tyel wrote: Precisely because I don't *know* I'm reduced to say in both scenarios: "throw them into that screen and hope your opponent has a terrible turn 2/3 so you can connect with those (presumably?) shooty robots and tracked guys".
I don't play these guys exactly either, but I've played against a mean Admech gunline like that. The main question, I think, boils down to the question of whether it's better to go offensive or defensive here. It's not an easy call, especially because you're already losing from the sounds of it. If it was a regular tourney? I might try to go for a hail-mary offensive play to win. If it was a team tourney, I might go defensive and even though I'd likely lose, maybe I can reduce how much I would lose by.
Galef wrote: If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
2021/03/03 20:57:16
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
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.
Sssshh! He's hoping people forget that. Seriously, I'm surprised people are still chatting with the troll. His argument has boiled down to "If you define tactics the way I define them, then there are no tactics." and not "let's talk about the OP's subject matter". I would encourage everyone to just proceed with more scenarios, because I'll keep chatting about them for sure!
Heck, let's do another one
------------
You are planning for a tournament, and are worried about facing an Admech gunline (2 squads of Robots, 3 squads tracked troop dudes, Cawl, doggies, Termite drill w/Electropriests). Your store has a history of light terrain gaming tables, so you know that Obscuring terrain will be present, but likely just 2 pieces. You're bringing a Chaos list. Your list's claim to fame is that it has Terminators that get a near-guaranteed charge (Honour the Prince, one dice is automatically a 6), but you know this Admech force can screen with his doggies, and retreat them in response to a charge using a strat. Your other forces are mostly geared towards getting in and charging as well, so your shooting is mostly limited to a unit of Oblits, Havocs, and a Baleflamer from your Lord Discordant.
Allow yourself to have whatever secondaries and additional forces you want for the following scenarios (since it's so hard to come up with everything), and fill in the gaps where you think you need to. How do you Deep Strike your Emperor's Children Terminators this turn? What do they do? Assume Admech have taken Grind Them Down, Deploy Scramblers, and Linebreaker.
2 Scenarios;
#1 - You got the first turn. Admech dogs hid turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. You lost two units to his firepower turn 1, but the Lord Discordant is (barely) alive, though can likely charge his lines this turn as well. If Admech stays on both objectives this turn, he'll score at least 10 points on Primary. He scored 1 turn of Grind Them Down (3), a Priest with a buff aura scrambled his deployment zone, and he did not score Linebreaker turn 1.
#2 - You got the second turn. Admech hid his dogs turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. His second turn he moved his dogs to spread out, encircling his army as best as he could to push out your deep strike areas, and he brought in his Termite Drill with Electropriests hidden by the drill, who deployed Scramblers in your deployment zone. He killed two of your units turn 1, and another two on turn 2, leaving you without your Oblits, Havocs, or Lord Discordant. At this point, you need to get onto some more objectives as well to stop Admech scoring 15 on his turn for holding more than you. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. He scored Grind Them Down both turns 1 and 2, he has deployed 2 scramblers so far (his deployment zone and yours), and the Priests and Termite Drill also scored him a turn of Linebreaker.
Realistically to present this type of puzzle you need to present a full image of the board state, two complete army lists, how much CP each player has left. This works best if you steal a scenario from a real battle report as then you can also show what actually happened and how it worked out. With the above example, we're still given far too little information to actually make a sound call as to what the optimal choice would be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mezmorki wrote: So, what we might, ultimately, be getting at, is that (1) 40K is a game heavily contingent on pre-game planning and deployment (strategy); (2) that while there are tactical decisions to make in the game, (3) due to the structure of the mission, board size, game length, there are relatively limited opportunities for "changing your strategy" mid-game in ways that actually impact the result. Perhaps that's where the game's greatest weakness lies. It's not a matter of not having tactics, it is rather a matter that shifting strategies is pretty difficult.
I agree with this but would also like to add that the strategies that can be shifted to are all picked from a pretty shallow pool and often making the right call is simply a matter of knowing the rules well enough to not fall into a trap. As such I think it's fair to say that, from the perspective of a skilled player, tactics don't exist in any kind of exciting or particularly meaningful way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/03 21:00:36
2021/03/03 21:02:50
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
I think the opportunity to KEEP the big sweeping move opportunities but have a bit more dynamic is to focus more on a reaction-type system. Players take their turn in the normal IGOUGO fashion, but there are opportunities to perform reaction moves (that in turn affect your own options when your own turn rolls around). Classic 40K had "Go to Ground." We've built on this with ProHammer to add reactive fire to the game (with various tradeoffs involved in the decision) a couple of different charge reactions, better overwatch (true overwatch). All of this still IGOUGO, but it makes turs a little bit more interactive and engaging for non-active player, but still lets the active player do their big sweeping maneuvers.
This is a very good point, and many AA players have pointed out that there are different types and levels of AA. Kill Team, for example, is a bit of a hybrid as movement is IGOUGO, but it still has activations for shooting, etc. So I'm sure it is possible to strike a balance; personally, the only thing about the game in its current state that I find sub-par is the imbalance between model ranges, and that may end up being addressed by the end of the edition for all we know.
And Slayer, while I probably should ignore you, since the obvious (and unnecessarily) hostile tone of your post implies that it will be futile to do otherwise, I'll give it a shot for the sake of diplomacy. Yes, I have watched football, and yes I understand that there is a defense. I even understand that for some football fans, defensive stars are their actual heroes, even if the vast majority of fans seem to place more importance on those who play offense.
Surely though, you can feel the difference in rhythm between the two games, which is the actual point I'm making. And while I don't have many friends that are soccer fans, I do have a great many who are hockey fans (I'm Canadian, so go figure). I get into this debate with all of them too- they fail to understand how a long-cycle, slow rhythm provides a different type of satisfaction than constant back and forth engagement.
And if you want to get technical, there is a defensive component in 40k as well; you have to roll saves, you can deny my psychic powers and you get to fight in hand to hand. You can also use some reaction strats- overwatch, various cancel actions, etc. In fact in some Tau builds, there are still ways to get more than one unit to overwatch per turn. And sure, none of these defensive activities are as involved as what the active player is doing, but they are there. And you may notice, I've never said the "argument sucks" to any of the AA advocates who choose to ignore this; nor have I felt inclined to ask any of them if they've ever seen a game of 40k.
But that's because I try to understand and respond to the points they are making rather than nit-pick the semantics. To be fair, there have been a handful of times where I've suggested that aligning semantics may facilitate a smoother discussion, but it's rare that I have to because most people here are fairly articulate, even when I happen to disagree with them, and I usually get the point they are making, even when I feel the point has been imperfectly made.
No, your comparison to football was completely inaccurate and wrong, full stop. There's no "rhythm" to achieve when the opponent is shooting at you and you do nothing but...well, nothing. The fact you even came to that conclusion is quite honestly mind boggling unless you have, in fact, never watched a game of American Football. This isn't about preferences. This is about being wrong to begin with for your comparisons.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2021/03/03 21:19:35
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
You are planning for a tournament, and are worried about facing an Admech gunline (2 squads of Robots, 3 squads tracked troop dudes, Cawl, doggies, Termite drill w/Electropriests). Your store has a history of light terrain gaming tables, so you know that Obscuring terrain will be present, but likely just 2 pieces. You're bringing a Chaos list. Your list's claim to fame is that it has Terminators that get a near-guaranteed charge (Honour the Prince, one dice is automatically a 6), but you know this Admech force can screen with his doggies, and retreat them in response to a charge using a strat. Your other forces are mostly geared towards getting in and charging as well, so your shooting is mostly limited to a unit of Oblits, Havocs, and a Baleflamer from your Lord Discordant.
Allow yourself to have whatever secondaries and additional forces you want for the following scenarios (since it's so hard to come up with everything), and fill in the gaps where you think you need to. How do you Deep Strike your Emperor's Children Terminators this turn? What do they do? Assume Admech have taken Grind Them Down, Deploy Scramblers, and Linebreaker.
2 Scenarios;
#1 - You got the first turn. Admech dogs hid turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. You lost two units to his firepower turn 1, but the Lord Discordant is (barely) alive, though can likely charge his lines this turn as well. If Admech stays on both objectives this turn, he'll score at least 10 points on Primary. He scored 1 turn of Grind Them Down (3), a Priest with a buff aura scrambled his deployment zone, and he did not score Linebreaker turn 1.
#2 - You got the second turn. Admech hid his dogs turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. His second turn he moved his dogs to spread out, encircling his army as best as he could to push out your deep strike areas, and he brought in his Termite Drill with Electropriests hidden by the drill, who deployed Scramblers in your deployment zone. He killed two of your units turn 1, and another two on turn 2, leaving you without your Oblits, Havocs, or Lord Discordant. At this point, you need to get onto some more objectives as well to stop Admech scoring 15 on his turn for holding more than you. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. He scored Grind Them Down both turns 1 and 2, he has deployed 2 scramblers so far (his deployment zone and yours), and the Priests and Termite Drill also scored him a turn of Linebreaker.
Unfortunately - and I think this is why such conversations don't appear, rather than the lack of tactical depth - I don't play CSM, and so offering insight is a bit difficult.
Realistically - for scenario 2 - if he's got a full screen up and you've lost your ranged threat+discordant, then I'm not really sure what you can hope for. It seems like a good example why deep striking is such a gamble in modern 40k.
I guess you could shoot twice - but I don't think terminator shooting is anything to get overly excited about. Unless I'm missing something obvious. (I'm sure Sonic Terminators aren't that far away.)
Precisely because I don't *know* I'm reduced to say in both scenarios: "throw them into that screen and hope your opponent has a terrible turn 2/3 so you can connect with those (presumably?) shooty robots and tracked guys". Which I can't say is the optimal play - but without that knowledge that comes from playing lots of games, I'm sort at a loss. My knowledge is that Admech gunlines are amongst the best in the game, and you really need to shut them by getting something into contact with them.
You could I guess go after (or prepare for) the Priests - but then you'll likely be out of the game for many turns while they pound you into dust. Depending on the scenario it might not be the worst idea though, because they'll loathe to break up their castle - so they'll have 2 objectives but you should also have 2 objectives.
uhhh Choas terms can all take combi weapons. Just imagine 40 plamsa or 20 melta shots. It utterly dominates - they just have no reliable turn 1 deployment for them. Once they get 3 wounds - it is going to be a top build provided they keep the shoot twice stratagem.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2021/03/03 21:22:10
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Spoletta wrote: Having many variables doesn't make it not solvable.
Solving for the hidden variables would be difficult. Even if you had every card ranked for every possible board and hand state the fact that you know so little about your opponent's hands could easily make the game unsolvable.
Consider that from the start of a standard game you get to pick from a pool of 10 cards and your opponents all do the same, thus you've seen 10 of 137 cards in the projects deck as have your opponents. As the values of cards change based on which other cards you see and which cards your opponents have you can't yet accurately judge the value of your cards. You can make an educated guess and probably formulate a basic plan with what you know but your error bars on card values will be massive. Once players buy cards, usually between 2 and 6 cards, the rest goes to the discard pile leaving the main deck holding 97 cards. A first turn isn't usually huge as income is low and many cards can't yet be played so you might see each player play out 1 or 2 cards and take an action, you know 3 to 6 of your opponent's cards, have twice that in unknown cards in players hands and roughly that same number of discarded cards. Playing the draft variant - for maximum player interaction - you're then dealt 4 cards, you pick 1 and pass three over, pick one of them, and so on. Thus you see 9 of 16 cards creating 5 more hidden cards. This isn't to add in any political maneuvers and prisoner's dilemma scenarios at the table where your optimal play might only be optimal if another player does or doesn't take an action.
Due to the hidden knowledge, the constant fluctuation of the value of your cards, even within a round of play, and your optimal plays being dependant on your opponent's plays I don't think this style of game can be solved in the way that a game without hidden information can be.
2021/03/03 21:24:01
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
It sure would be cool if we had more to do on defense. Like when a unit gets targeted they could lie prone or dive for cover. Or at the very least - we could have chance to cast defensive powers...defensively.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2021/03/03 21:25:51
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Daedalus81 wrote: It is also massively stripped down. Activating a knight in 40K a bit different than activating a knight in Apoc.
Activating a Knight in 40k is just moving and shooting some number of weapons. It's no more or less interesting than activating anything else, actually, it is less because unlike 3 units that equal the points of a knight you have fewer options for how to control space with a knight.
2021/03/03 21:29:13
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
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.
Sssshh! He's hoping people forget that. Seriously, I'm surprised people are still chatting with the troll.
His argument has boiled down to "If you define tactics the way I define them, then there are no tactics." and not "let's talk about the OP's subject matter". I would encourage everyone to just proceed with more scenarios, because I'll keep chatting about them for sure!
Heck, let's do another one
------------
You are planning for a tournament, and are worried about facing an Admech gunline (2 squads of Robots, 3 squads tracked troop dudes, Cawl, doggies, Termite drill w/Electropriests). Your store has a history of light terrain gaming tables, so you know that Obscuring terrain will be present, but likely just 2 pieces. You're bringing a Chaos list. Your list's claim to fame is that it has Terminators that get a near-guaranteed charge (Honour the Prince, one dice is automatically a 6), but you know this Admech force can screen with his doggies, and retreat them in response to a charge using a strat. Your other forces are mostly geared towards getting in and charging as well, so your shooting is mostly limited to a unit of Oblits, Havocs, and a Baleflamer from your Lord Discordant.
Allow yourself to have whatever secondaries and additional forces you want for the following scenarios (since it's so hard to come up with everything), and fill in the gaps where you think you need to. How do you Deep Strike your Emperor's Children Terminators this turn? What do they do? Assume Admech have taken Grind Them Down, Deploy Scramblers, and Linebreaker.
2 Scenarios;
#1 - You got the first turn. Admech dogs hid turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. You lost two units to his firepower turn 1, but the Lord Discordant is (barely) alive, though can likely charge his lines this turn as well. If Admech stays on both objectives this turn, he'll score at least 10 points on Primary. He scored 1 turn of Grind Them Down (3), a Priest with a buff aura scrambled his deployment zone, and he did not score Linebreaker turn 1.
#2 - You got the second turn. Admech hid his dogs turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. His second turn he moved his dogs to spread out, encircling his army as best as he could to push out your deep strike areas, and he brought in his Termite Drill with Electropriests hidden by the drill, who deployed Scramblers in your deployment zone. He killed two of your units turn 1, and another two on turn 2, leaving you without your Oblits, Havocs, or Lord Discordant. At this point, you need to get onto some more objectives as well to stop Admech scoring 15 on his turn for holding more than you. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. He scored Grind Them Down both turns 1 and 2, he has deployed 2 scramblers so far (his deployment zone and yours), and the Priests and Termite Drill also scored him a turn of Linebreaker.
Realistically to present this type of puzzle you need to present a full image of the board state, two complete army lists, how much CP each player has left. This works best if you steal a scenario from a real battle report as then you can also show what actually happened and how it worked out. With the above example, we're still given far too little information to actually make a sound call as to what the optimal choice would be.
Firstly, @Yarium, if you think disagreement = trolling that's entirely on you. I think I've engaged just fine with this thread, albeit in opposition to the OP. I also note the scenario presented on page 2 barely got any replies to it, so either there's something lacking with the presentation or there may be something in the idea 40k lacks tactical depth which leads to a lack of tactical discussion. I don't think we can be too definitive from one example though.
Anyway, I agree with Canadian 5th. Real-game examples are better as is more information. That's exactly how the X-Wing examples I mentioned earlier were formulated. It also makes them much more applicable to a real-world scenario rather than some gamey, artificial situation (chess puzzles are often like that).
That said, in scenario #1 it seems you're in a good position to bring your Terminators down and get into your opponent's lines since his cavalry aren't in the way to screen/retreat. If possible I'd probably use the Lord Discordant to charge the dogs. Either he holds and likely dies or flees and abandons the objective. Both are wins. Ideally you try to kick the AdMech off the castled objective but at the very least you want to claim two objectives yourself to equalise the primary. Holding them back would give the Ad Mech player a chance to bring his screen into play. I'd be more worried about the fact your army's ranged output is only capable of killing 4 Kataphrons in a turn though, since it means clearing the screen is almost impossible.
In scenario #2 you've likely already lost. Apparently you don't have the firepower to kill the drill or the Priests and you still need to deal with the cavalry somehow. You're also apparently bad at screening since there's a drill in your backfield but let's let that one slide. Presumably a list with such poor shooting should be capable of dealing with the Priests in combat, as long as you activate that unit first to prevent an interrupt.
In both scenarios you probably want Engage on All Fronts as one of your secondaries and possibly scramblers for the easy points. At any rate, two things are apparent from this example:
1. The Chaos list seems pretty bad in general, lacking shooting and apparently lacking speed to deliver whatever close combat punch it has presumably given up its shooting for. This has put it on the back foot before the game even begins. This reinforces the point many people were making about the importance of on-the-table tactics versus pre-game list-building.
2. In the examples of tactical choices given above you'll note there's hardly any input from the opponent. It's entirely about what the Chaos player can do and all we assume is the AdMech player will use the retreat strat on his cavalry. This highlights the illusion of choice another poster mentioned earlier in this thread. If the AdMech player has the CPs and it's safe to use the strat there's no reason not to and it therefore isn't a choice at all. The Chaos player can look at the board state and be confident it won't change as he executes whatever plan he comes up with, save in the ways he plans to make it change through his own actions. This type of near-perfect information is exactly why people like me say 40k lacks tactical depth. There's too little interaction between me and my opponent.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/03/03 21:32:00
2021/03/03 21:34:59
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
PenitentJake wrote: It has more to do with how much I get to do on my turn than enjoying the down time. Resolving the actions of a single unit just isn't enough for me. I like moving/ shooting/ fighting with my whole army enough that I'm willing to wait for my opponent to do that too.
Most AA systems aren't just single unit activations so you get to activate - or not activate - some chunk of your force each time you get an action. You can also still set up combos 40k style but you need to be more clever about it as your opponent will likely get a chance to interrupt your plans, this leads to better tactical play.
These discussions come up all the time. The comparison I always use is the difference between American football and Soccer; in the later, action is back and forth, back and forth, back and forth all freakin game and part way in, I'm getting whiplash from swinging from one end of the field to the other. In the former, you get 4 downs so you can build a drive.
Football is a game where most of the time on the clock is spent not playing the game; the same cannot be said for Hockey, Soccer, Basketball, and other such timed sports.
Also, there is very much a tempo to a game of hockey. Much of that tempo is spent trying to establish control of the puck in your opponent's zone and/or prevent them from getting control of your zone, this is the back and forth that you seem to dislike. This tempo can break down in a few ways, either a team establishes control of the puck and setups a cycle looking to generate a scoring chance, or the play is broken and you have a rush. Once you have control the tempo then becomes one of passing, versus holding, versus shooting and it can vary based on how organized your opponent is, your own line's playstyle, what the score in the game is, and how tired your line is compared to the opposition. To say that a game of hockey - or even soccer - is all back and forth shows a profound ignorance of these sports.
Mezmorki wrote: I think the opportunity to KEEP the big sweeping move opportunities
These sorts of actions should be rare and only happen in a rout of your foe. Real-life battles - at least close-fought ones of the type we want in a wargame - often play out far more messily than what you seem to think is a selling point in 40k.
It sure would be cool if we had more to do on defense. Like when a unit gets targeted they could lie prone or dive for cover. Or at the very least - we could have chance to cast defensive powers...defensively.
Indeed. There's a lot that could be done in 40k even with an IGOUGO system, though a lot of the really cool stuff - like having effects on hits and making wounds far rarer than they currently are - could easily break the current system as player 1 could debuff your army. A fix might be that player one gets has a penalty to their attacks that vastly limits how effective they can be in a turn one blitz, but that's just a spitballed idea without a lot of thought behind it and might swing things too much towards player 2.
Slipspace wrote: Anyway, I agree with Canadian 5th. Real-game examples are better as is more information.
Or at least a full army-list, picture of the current game-state, and each player's current CP. 40k is so much about positioning and fractions of an inch that any kind of freeform text rendition of a scenario is either worthless or would take more effort to type than mocking up a complete map of the gamestate in paint would.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/03/03 21:47:04
2021/03/03 22:01:18
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Mezmorki wrote: Something I've been mulling over for a while is that when it comes to talking about tactics in 40K, 99% of the time the discussion revolves around what units to pick or what to put in an army, or what wargear options to take. Go look at the tactics forum here or nearly anywhere else. And it made me realize that very little discussion takes place around actual table-level tactical choices. We talk about "what" to put in an army, but rarely talk about "how" to best use a given unit.
I think that when we're talking about army lists, we are really talking about our "strategy" and how we envision a given list being used to accomplish the mission's objectives. Deep strike unit X onto objective Y, flank with unit Z, etc. These strategies are, by nature, fairly broad and idealistic. And as the saying goes no plan survives contact with the enemy!
So the question is this (and hence why I'm asking this here in general and not in the tactics forum): What are the sorts of table-level tactical discussions that could be had, and why don't those seem to happen more? Is it a function of table-level tactics being relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about?
I saw a post where someone said a top-level player could do well with nearly any army. If that's the case, and list building isn't a factor, what is a top level player doing that others aren't? Surely that must be table-level tactics? If so, what is there to say about it?
Table level tactics are pretty broad until you hit the board. They also vary mission by mission and by deployment. You're left saying things like 'prioritize your enemy's biggest damage threats', 'focus on taking objective over securing kills', 'be aware of consolidate/pile ranges when moving against melee armies', 'use cover'. Which aren't particularly difficult or groundbreaking until you actually have to use them.
It's a lot more difficult to talk specific tactics than it is to talk specific lists so lists get more air time.
2021/03/03 22:10:02
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
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.
Sssshh! He's hoping people forget that. Seriously, I'm surprised people are still chatting with the troll. His argument has boiled down to "If you define tactics the way I define them, then there are no tactics." and not "let's talk about the OP's subject matter". I would encourage everyone to just proceed with more scenarios, because I'll keep chatting about them for sure!
Heck, let's do another one
------------
You are planning for a tournament, and are worried about facing an Admech gunline (2 squads of Robots, 3 squads tracked troop dudes, Cawl, doggies, Termite drill w/Electropriests). Your store has a history of light terrain gaming tables, so you know that Obscuring terrain will be present, but likely just 2 pieces. You're bringing a Chaos list. Your list's claim to fame is that it has Terminators that get a near-guaranteed charge (Honour the Prince, one dice is automatically a 6), but you know this Admech force can screen with his doggies, and retreat them in response to a charge using a strat. Your other forces are mostly geared towards getting in and charging as well, so your shooting is mostly limited to a unit of Oblits, Havocs, and a Baleflamer from your Lord Discordant.
Allow yourself to have whatever secondaries and additional forces you want for the following scenarios (since it's so hard to come up with everything), and fill in the gaps where you think you need to. How do you Deep Strike your Emperor's Children Terminators this turn? What do they do? Assume Admech have taken Grind Them Down, Deploy Scramblers, and Linebreaker.
2 Scenarios;
#1 - You got the first turn. Admech dogs hid turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. You lost two units to his firepower turn 1, but the Lord Discordant is (barely) alive, though can likely charge his lines this turn as well. If Admech stays on both objectives this turn, he'll score at least 10 points on Primary. He scored 1 turn of Grind Them Down (3), a Priest with a buff aura scrambled his deployment zone, and he did not score Linebreaker turn 1.
#2 - You got the second turn. Admech hid his dogs turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. His second turn he moved his dogs to spread out, encircling his army as best as he could to push out your deep strike areas, and he brought in his Termite Drill with Electropriests hidden by the drill, who deployed Scramblers in your deployment zone. He killed two of your units turn 1, and another two on turn 2, leaving you without your Oblits, Havocs, or Lord Discordant. At this point, you need to get onto some more objectives as well to stop Admech scoring 15 on his turn for holding more than you. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. He scored Grind Them Down both turns 1 and 2, he has deployed 2 scramblers so far (his deployment zone and yours), and the Priests and Termite Drill also scored him a turn of Linebreaker.
Realistically to present this type of puzzle you need to present a full image of the board state, two complete army lists, how much CP each player has left. This works best if you steal a scenario from a real battle report as then you can also show what actually happened and how it worked out. With the above example, we're still given far too little information to actually make a sound call as to what the optimal choice would be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mezmorki wrote: So, what we might, ultimately, be getting at, is that (1) 40K is a game heavily contingent on pre-game planning and deployment (strategy); (2) that while there are tactical decisions to make in the game, (3) due to the structure of the mission, board size, game length, there are relatively limited opportunities for "changing your strategy" mid-game in ways that actually impact the result. Perhaps that's where the game's greatest weakness lies. It's not a matter of not having tactics, it is rather a matter that shifting strategies is pretty difficult.
I agree with this but would also like to add that the strategies that can be shifted to are all picked from a pretty shallow pool and often making the right call is simply a matter of knowing the rules well enough to not fall into a trap. As such I think it's fair to say that, from the perspective of a skilled player, tactics don't exist in any kind of exciting or particularly meaningful way.
And yet, the vast majority of players are not skilled players and fail utterly at tactics a skilled player apparently wouldn't even think of as exciting or particularly meaningful.
This is the thing that often gets me about the '40k has very shallow tactics' thing is that; if that's true, why are people still so bad at it?
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?
Because that's just as stupid. The idea that Frontline Gaming got GW to change table sizes in order to sell new mats is even less likely than it being a result of people who play melee armies complaining. Did they use insider info to their advantage, yes it's highly likely they did. But it's asinine to think they were responsible for the change.
They changed the table size to match the kill team boards. It's not a grand conspiracy, it's likely a quirk of some international package shipping law.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/03 22:14:20
2021/03/03 22:17:09
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
It sure would be cool if we had more to do on defense. Like when a unit gets targeted they could lie prone or dive for cover. Or at the very least - we could have chance to cast defensive powers...defensively.
Indeed. There's a lot that could be done in 40k even with an IGOUGO system, though a lot of the really cool stuff - like having effects on hits and making wounds far rarer than they currently are - could easily break the current system as player 1 could debuff your army. A fix might be that player one gets has a penalty to their attacks that vastly limits how effective they can be in a turn one blitz, but that's just a spitballed idea without a lot of thought behind it and might swing things too much towards player 2.
Well, we did have exactly that option with the "go to ground" in 5th-7th edition
And FWIW, ProHammer has ramped up these "response actions" quite a bit to give the player on defense some decisions. To lay out a few specifics:
(*) ProHammer has an option for old-school style overwatch. You can place a unit on overwatch and it will fire during the "first fire" phase of your opponents shooting phase next turn. So that's one tactical choice added: Do I shoot now on my turn or defer until a better target maybe moves into range (or does putting something on overwatch change your opponent's plan!)
(*) Speaking of first fire: Units that don't move shoot first (relevant in a moment), alternating with any units on overwatch. After all first fire + overwatch shooting attacks are resolved, we go to normal shooting.
(*) In normal shooting, a unit hit by normal fire may take reactive fire OR go to ground (or do nothing). Reactive fire returns fire and resolves wounds simultaneously with the shooting unit. The downside is that if you take reactive fire you suffer in close combat AND your shooting next turn is limited to snap fire only. But it frequently is a tricky choice. Reactive fire itself has some limitations (limits on the number of shots per model, limited range, etc.)
(*) When getting charged, units receiving the charge (defending) have a choice whether to stand and shoot (which triggers reactive fire unless they already shot this turn) or to hold the line and fight normally. This creates some interesting situations where you might be trying to setup multiple charges so that you draw out reactive fire against fodder units (or really tough units) to protect more fragile melee units. Reactive fire hinders your CC abilities. Granted in most cases it can be clear cut which way to go, but sometimes it's a tricky choice when unit's are evenly matched.
(*) When you force an enemy unit to break in melee (and fallback), you have a choice of whether to pursue or consolidate, contingent on a leadership test. Pursuit isn't quite as lethal and there are trade offs involved.
(*) More broadly, we've limited split fire (can only split fire once per unit on a successful Ld test) - so frequently there is head scratching about how much fire to apply to what target.
(*) ProHammer also uses declared fire - meaning you need to do declare all your shooting targets first, and then resolve them. This makes it much more difficult (tactical) as you can't take the "wait and see" approach to sequencing shooting.
(*) Last - there is the option to play with NO premeasuring (which we've started to do). This adds uncertainty to whether certain actions will be successful or not (crap, I'm out of range!) which means that you need to commit to making moves or declaring fire without knowing exactly how it will go. Since you can't pre-measure you can't make such cut optimal decisions all of the time. This adds a lot of important judgement calls to the gameplay - and while maybe not "tactics" is still an element of skill and risk management.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/03 22:19:27
Spoletta wrote: Having many variables doesn't make it not solvable.
Solving for the hidden variables would be difficult. Even if you had every card ranked for every possible board and hand state the fact that you know so little about your opponent's hands could easily make the game unsolvable.
Consider that from the start of a standard game you get to pick from a pool of 10 cards and your opponents all do the same, thus you've seen 10 of 137 cards in the projects deck as have your opponents. As the values of cards change based on which other cards you see and which cards your opponents have you can't yet accurately judge the value of your cards. You can make an educated guess and probably formulate a basic plan with what you know but your error bars on card values will be massive. Once players buy cards, usually between 2 and 6 cards, the rest goes to the discard pile leaving the main deck holding 97 cards. A first turn isn't usually huge as income is low and many cards can't yet be played so you might see each player play out 1 or 2 cards and take an action, you know 3 to 6 of your opponent's cards, have twice that in unknown cards in players hands and roughly that same number of discarded cards. Playing the draft variant - for maximum player interaction - you're then dealt 4 cards, you pick 1 and pass three over, pick one of them, and so on. Thus you see 9 of 16 cards creating 5 more hidden cards. This isn't to add in any political maneuvers and prisoner's dilemma scenarios at the table where your optimal play might only be optimal if another player does or doesn't take an action.
Due to the hidden knowledge, the constant fluctuation of the value of your cards, even within a round of play, and your optimal plays being dependant on your opponent's plays I don't think this style of game can be solved in the way that a game without hidden information can be.
Hidden knowledge doesn't make things unsolvable, just harder to solve.
There will always be one move which is statistically better than the other ones.
2021/03/03 22:18:44
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
ERJAK wrote: And yet, the vast majority of players are not skilled players and fail utterly at tactics a skilled player apparently wouldn't even think of as exciting or particularly meaningful.
This is the thing that often gets me about the '40k has very shallow tactics' thing is that; if that's true, why are people still so bad at it?
There are a few reasons:
1) Most players only play 1 or fewer games per week.
2) Most players don't even grasp the game's rules let alone any interactions between them - see tripointing and making unarmed attacks as an example.
3) Most players don't think that hard about the game as it's a casual hobby for them and not something where improving their gameplay is a priority.
The average 40k player is like an Iron LoL player but worse because they also have the ability to misplay rules and will play vastly fewer games of 40k than even a very casual player will play of LoL in the same span.
2021/03/03 22:22:54
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
And yet, the vast majority of players are not skilled players and fail utterly at tactics a skilled player apparently wouldn't even think of as exciting or particularly meaningful.
This is the thing that often gets me about the '40k has very shallow tactics' thing is that; if that's true, why are people still so bad at it?
Spoletta wrote: Hidden knowledge doesn't make things unsolvable, just harder to solve.
There will always be one move which is statistically better than the other ones.
This is true, but you can't solve for the value of a card which is dependent on which cards another player has. For example, a card you play that raises the O2 level has a chance to change nothing for your opponents, but it could also enable another player to play a card without taking another action first. So while you could apply a modifier to your card value based on the information you have it will be extremely vague - especially in the early turns where you have much less information to work with. You also can't solve for a player in 4th with no shot at a win playing spoiler and trying to hamper the player in first more than they're trying to improve their own chances of taking 2nd or 3rd.
The level of player interaction combined with the hidden info makes the game unsolvable; just one or the other wouldn't have this effect.
2021/03/03 22:39:59
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
And yet, the vast majority of players are not skilled players and fail utterly at tactics a skilled player apparently wouldn't even think of as exciting or particularly meaningful.
This is the thing that often gets me about the '40k has very shallow tactics' thing is that; if that's true, why are people still so bad at it?
For a number of reasons.
1. They don't actually think about the game much. Often this means they don't even fully know the rules. Sometimes it means they don't really see 40k as a hugely competitive endeavour in the first place and treat it more as a social event. It often means they get blindsided by stratagems they didn't know existed. Personally I hate stratagems for that reason - you shouldn't have to memorise a whole bunch of information about other people's armies to play well.
2. They write bad army lists. Since 40k places so much emphasis on the army list rather than tactics on the table this is a major barrier for most people getting better. Most players don't try to collect the most competitive stuff for their army. Instead they get the units that look cool, then maybe start trying to build a decent list from there. If you're behind before the game starts there's little incentive to get better. Most players also don't sink lots of money into the game to chase the meta so they can have a perfectly competitive army one moment, and a pile of trash after an edition or Codex change.
3. A lot of people seem to be bad at self-appraisal and learning from their mistakes. Even among players who I know are trying to improve their problem is often that they refuse to acknowledge their own errors and blame outside influences or concoct reasons why they lost other than their own lack of skill. Often this manifests in players declaring certain units or armies broken, or lamenting bad dice every single game rather than reflecting on their losses properly.
4. Linked to that, some people frown upon the very idea of taking 40k seriously. They'd go so far as to call tri-pointing "gamey" or poor sportsmanship, for example.
2021/03/04 00:59:56
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
A month ago I was Deputy Comd for a Mech Brigade HQ on a computer assisted exercise. I will briefly describe something and ask you to characterize it. For the last two days I was the Comd. Our mission had transitioned to guarding the right flank of the Division. Frontage was stretched beyond norms. My orders to the units were roughly;
“X Bde will guard the Division right flank...I will delay enemy Brigade-sized elements for two hours. I will destroy battalion sized elements. I will accept risk in the north. I will not allow penetration of the xx Easting....We will guard three up with Recce screening South and East. The guard forces will provide warning and destroy up to coy sized elms within resources. Guard battalions will fix enemy battalions. I will use Bde CounterMoves to destroy enemy battalions and neutralize enemy brigades....”
In the CAX the enemy did try to penetrate on two axis (what we had assessed as Most Dangerous). I deployed the CMoves on the main enemy thrust, but kept a small reserve in case what I assessed to the the enemy fixing force turned out to be his main effort after all. Enemy was destroyed (well, rendered combat ineffective).
How would you characterize my words in quotes in your lexicon?
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2021/03/04 01:09:09
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Lance,A month ago I was Deputy Comd for a Mech Brigade HQ on a computer assisted exercise. I will briefly describe something and ask you to characterize it. For the last two days I was the Comd. Our mission had transitioned to guarding the right flank of the Division. Frontage was stretched beyond norms. My orders to the units were roughly;
“X Bde will guard the Division right flank...I will delay enemy Brigade-sized elements for two hours. I will destroy battalion sized elements. I will accept risk in the north. I will not allow penetration of the xx Easting....We will guard three up with Recce screening South and East. The guard forces will provide warning and destroy up to coy sized elms within resources. Guard battalions will fix enemy battalions. I will use Bde CounterMoves to destroy enemy battalions and neutralize enemy brigades....”
In the CAX the enemy did try to penetrate on two axis (what we had assessed as Most Dangerous). I deployed the CMoves on the main enemy thrust, but kept a small reserve in case what I assessed to the the enemy fixing force turned out to be his main effort after all. Enemy was destroyed (well, rendered combat ineffective).
How would you characterize my words in quotes in your lexicon?
Those are all strategic level decisions and as a commander that is the level, you should be working at.
Tactics are what a Lt. or Sgt. will use when their section is in the field. Things like training their soldiers to avoid isolated cover and avoid cresting rises so they can employ those tactics on the next exercise or deployment. There are no such elements to a game of 40k.
2021/03/04 03:14:54
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Lance,A month ago I was Deputy Comd for a Mech Brigade HQ on a computer assisted exercise. I will briefly describe something and ask you to characterize it. For the last two days I was the Comd. Our mission had transitioned to guarding the right flank of the Division. Frontage was stretched beyond norms. My orders to the units were roughly;
“X Bde will guard the Division right flank...I will delay enemy Brigade-sized elements for two hours. I will destroy battalion sized elements. I will accept risk in the north. I will not allow penetration of the xx Easting....We will guard three up with Recce screening South and East. The guard forces will provide warning and destroy up to coy sized elms within resources. Guard battalions will fix enemy battalions. I will use Bde CounterMoves to destroy enemy battalions and neutralize enemy brigades....”
In the CAX the enemy did try to penetrate on two axis (what we had assessed as Most Dangerous). I deployed the CMoves on the main enemy thrust, but kept a small reserve in case what I assessed to the the enemy fixing force turned out to be his main effort after all. Enemy was destroyed (well, rendered combat ineffective).
How would you characterize my words in quotes in your lexicon?
Those are all strategic level decisions and as a commander that is the level, you should be working at.
Tactics are what a Lt. or Sgt. will use when their section is in the field. Things like training their soldiers to avoid isolated cover and avoid cresting rises so they can employ those tactics on the next exercise or deployment. There are no such elements to a game of 40k.
Bingo.
You laid out your strategy. The troops then use their tactics to execute it in pursuit of mission objectives.
The strategy is your over all plan. Tactics are the individual moves you make in pursuit of specific goals. It's really not that difficult. It's also LITERALLY the dictionary definition. This isn't MY lexicon. It's the English language.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2021/03/04 04:00:17
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Would you be surprised to learn that the doctrine manual that provided guidance is called “Brigade Tactics?”
What I laid out was my mission and concept of operations. It’s a plan, not a strategy. Strategy is at a much higher level on a very different time scale. If you are in contact with the enemy you are in the realm of tactics. A Corps might talk about Operations.
Planning is important. But if you are making a plan for troops in contact you are talking about tactics. Corporations talk about strategy - it’s s powerful word. That’s fine. You can call your plan for a game of 40k your strategy, but at the end of the day it’s a tactical plan. It might be an awesome plan based on your visualization of how the game will unfold. But it’s a visualization of tactics. You can’t make that plan without a deep understanding of tactics.
Again, you can call it what you want. You seem to equate planning with Strategy and execution with Tactics. If i said my Brigade conops was strategy it would elicit some chuckles from my colleagues. If I was feeling grand I might talk about my design, but really it was just a plan. A tactical plan.
Is the planning stage of a 40k game important? Absolutely! But you can’t make that plan without knowing the tactics. The plan is tactics visualized.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/04 04:00:54
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
0030/03/04 04:28:54
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Strategy and tactics aren't confined to any particular level of organization and are crucially dependent on context. Squad level tactics, company level tactics, brigade level tactics, etc, and each level can develop it's own operational strategy.
"The plan is tactics visualized." That's an intetesting statement. I think there's a degree of resolution implied there, whereas a strategy is a high level plan without the details necessarily worked out.
Deployment - Necrons vs a prototypical White Scars list. I'm not going to bother modeling everything - just the key pieces though almost all the WS army is on the board. This mission is Hold 1/Hold 2, so I will focus on scoring at least 10 and prevent my opponent from getting "more".
Spoiler:
WS Turn 1 - Nothing to note - WS move up
Spoiler:
Necrons Turn 1 - I backpedal Warriors #1 to be out of range of the incoming VV. The Night Scythe pivots and runs along the board edge to avoid coming into range of as many attack bikes as possible. I focus on damaging the far right Infiltrators.
Spoiler:
WS Turn 2 - VV engage and everything else moves into place. The lone attack bike moves to prevent leaving the objective totally up for grabs.
Spoiler:
Necrons Turn 2 - I teleport Warriors 1 off. My Night Scythe pivots and drops off Lychguard. I am now in position for Linebreaker and I also control essentially permanently control two objectives. VV1 has been drawn too far in and its only best option may be to sit where they are and hope there's enough stretch in other units. The other Infiltrators if alive can cap and objective so they're going to be high priority depending how shooting and combat goes.
Spoiler:
This was all under the premise where I didn't really care what else I killed. As long as I was able to make a hole for deepstriking / Night Scythe then those units would be priority and every move was to make the opponent's units as useless as possible.
2021/03/04 07:22:55
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Spoletta wrote: Hidden knowledge doesn't make things unsolvable, just harder to solve.
There will always be one move which is statistically better than the other ones.
This is true, but you can't solve for the value of a card which is dependent on which cards another player has. For example, a card you play that raises the O2 level has a chance to change nothing for your opponents, but it could also enable another player to play a card without taking another action first. So while you could apply a modifier to your card value based on the information you have it will be extremely vague - especially in the early turns where you have much less information to work with. You also can't solve for a player in 4th with no shot at a win playing spoiler and trying to hamper the player in first more than they're trying to improve their own chances of taking 2nd or 3rd.
The level of player interaction combined with the hidden info makes the game unsolvable; just one or the other wouldn't have this effect.
I'm pretty sure that you can still solve it, but we would have to go into the technicalities of a game I know only by name, so I will just drop this.
