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.

When I mentioned Bloodbowl I was explicitly thinking in terms of turns. There's 16 turns in Bloodbowl - 3x that of current 40k.
There's a lot more movement and counter movement between players.
On top of that individual decisions have a lot more depth to them.
In 40k it's basically where do you move and what do you attack.
Bloodbowl is the same, except the order in which you do that matters far more. When resolving an attack, where you push them back to, whether or not you follow up, etc all matter. When moving that has far more impact than 40k, due to the tacklezones you mentioned.

The average turn in Bloodbowl is 2-4 minutes. In 40k it's easily 10x as long. That's a big difference in player engagement.

Tyel wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I completely agree with this assessment. Although I disagree that it's not common.
Games I'm familiar with all have lots more interplay. Bloodbowl, Necromunda, Titanicus, Band of Brothers, Blood Red Skies, Legion, all have far more interactions between players than 40k. I really can't think of any games that have players interacting less than 40k does.

Hmmm.

Thinking about Bloodbowl. I'd say there is more interplay due to tackle zones. By moving a unit next to yours, I'm having an explicit impact on you, theoretically effecting your chances to block, dodge, pass, whatever. Which in turn will make different "turns" more or less likely to succeed. Whereas in 40k, its often more concealed - i.e. I've positioned such that if you move on to an objective (which you probably want to so as to score/deny points), I'll have an optimal turn of shooting and an easy charge in my next turn.

You will only have a optimal turn of shooting if, for whatever reason, I decided to ignore the unit hat is in position to be my biggest threat next turn instead of turning every gun I have into removing it from the board or at least causing so much damage to it that it becomes a non-issue. Again, you cannot actually do anything about it.

 Lance845 wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I completely agree with this assessment. Although I disagree that it's not common.
Games I'm familiar with all have lots more interplay. Bloodbowl, Necromunda, Titanicus, Band of Brothers, Blood Red Skies, Legion, all have far more interactions between players than 40k. I really can't think of any games that have players interacting less than 40k does.

Hmmm.

Thinking about Bloodbowl. I'd say there is more interplay due to tackle zones. By moving a unit next to yours, I'm having an explicit impact on you, theoretically effecting your chances to block, dodge, pass, whatever. Which in turn will make different "turns" more or less likely to succeed. Whereas in 40k, its often more concealed - i.e. I've positioned such that if you move on to an objective (which you probably want to so as to score/deny points), I'll have an optimal turn of shooting and an easy charge in my next turn.

You will only have a optimal turn of shooting if, for whatever reason, I decided to ignore the unit hat is in position to be my biggest threat next turn instead of turning every gun I have into removing it from the board or at least causing so much damage to it that it becomes a non-issue. Again, you cannot actually do anything about it.

And that's my win.
I forced you to divert your attention to that unit because I positioned it in a way that hindered your plan.

Spoletta wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I completely agree with this assessment. Although I disagree that it's not common.
Games I'm familiar with all have lots more interplay. Bloodbowl, Necromunda, Titanicus, Band of Brothers, Blood Red Skies, Legion, all have far more interactions between players than 40k. I really can't think of any games that have players interacting less than 40k does.

Hmmm.

Thinking about Bloodbowl. I'd say there is more interplay due to tackle zones. By moving a unit next to yours, I'm having an explicit impact on you, theoretically effecting your chances to block, dodge, pass, whatever. Which in turn will make different "turns" more or less likely to succeed. Whereas in 40k, its often more concealed - i.e. I've positioned such that if you move on to an objective (which you probably want to so as to score/deny points), I'll have an optimal turn of shooting and an easy charge in my next turn.

You will only have a optimal turn of shooting if, for whatever reason, I decided to ignore the unit hat is in position to be my biggest threat next turn instead of turning every gun I have into removing it from the board or at least causing so much damage to it that it becomes a non-issue. Again, you cannot actually do anything about it.

And that's my win.
I forced you to divert your attention to that unit because I positioned it in a way that hindered your plan.

Did you actually bother to read the example given?

1) They set themselves up to be able to target an objective I am going to go for because it gives victory points.
2) I move onto the objective and get victory points. I shoot the unit set up to shoot me next turn so that they are ineffective at removing me from the objective. They now have less points with which to shoot me next turn and I have eliminated or negated immediate threats.
3) "I loose?"

I am confused about how I lost in any way. I reduced your net dice value and gained points towards victory. If there was a more efficient path towards victory/other option I would preferably have noticed and done that instead. The way to notice is basic math and flow charts since the game state at that point is static and there isn't anything you can do about it.

Please explain this.

Gladly.

He said that he positions in a way that if you want to go onto an objective, you expose yourself to a unit shooting on you/and or charging you.

You answered him that in that case you would focus fire on said unit threathening your point, which is fair.

At the same time though, you are now playing into your opponent's hand. He managed to force your decision on who to focus fire, which we can easily assume that he did so in order to have something else survive.
The amount of hurt you can inflict per turn is a limited resource, and he managed to spend it for you.
He took a unit which wasn't on top of your threath list, and managed to promote it to the top of the list by correctly positioning it.

 Lance845 wrote:

Did you actually bother to read the example given?

1) They set themselves up to be able to target an objective I am going to go for because it gives victory points.
2) I move onto the objective and get victory points. I shoot the unit set up to shoot me next turn so that they are ineffective at removing me from the objective. They now have less points with which to shoot me next turn and I have eliminated or negated immediate threats.
3) "I loose?"

I am confused about how I lost in any way. I reduced your net dice value and gained points towards victory. If there was a more efficient path towards victory/other option I would preferably have noticed and done that instead. The way to notice is basic math and flow charts since the game state at that point is static and there isn't anything you can do about it.

Please explain this.

If they moved with the intent of doing something and failed, ofc they lost. But that's not a demonstration of how the game is static. Each turn in itself has a "best course of actions for that turn" to be taken, sure, but it's like you think the other players doesn't have any capacity to understand how you're going to respond to him and actions are thought out on a per turn basis. Which is completely wrong of course.
They either did a move and planned correctly for the outcome (so whatever the outcome is, "they won" that trade and the rest of the game will determine if that outcome was something required or a mistake) or didn't (in which case "they lose").
In this case, if he threatened the objective with a unit so you would divert your killing power to that unit instead of one with which he expect to win more than he lost, then he won the trade.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

I think we can all agree that decisions made in list-building can help you win or hurt your chances of winning. Perhaps we can all agree that decisions made in the planning phase after you receive the mission and before the die-roll for going first will impact your chances of winning. Contrary to some, though, I find that there are plenty of decisions that I have to make during the execution phase that impact my chances of winning.

I think the main point of contention isn't that decisions don't matter, it's that they're often independent of your opponent's actions or trivial. Winning the game at the list-building stage is a perfect example, or the fact that the missions in 9th are basically all the same which makes the "planning" decisions relatively easy after a while. A sufficiently mobile army like Harlequins, for example, could probably quite reasonably draw up a deployment plan and use it in almost all their games regardless of opponent and mission.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I played a 1500 Matched Play yesterday as part of a tourney warm-up. My opponent went first, and while my list had mobility I still had to adjust my plan as his plan was pretty much a counter to mine. Part of my Turn 1 decision-making was indeed somewhat straight-forward. Which unit(s) would I sacrifice to buy time and space for my killers, as well as garner enough Objective VPs before dying? At the mid-point of the game my opponent was essentially split into two elements, having gone for one of my exposed flanks. I had to decide between bolstering my collapsing flank or doubling down in the centre. Both had risks. I went for the centre. At the same time I had to decide when to go after his warlord (linked to Secondary VPs for me and him). I could have done so in the 3rd Turn, but it would have left my own completely exposed if it failed. I played somewhat conservatively and set myself up for a 4th turn charge, which my opponent himself made more difficult with his own manoeuvring. At the start of my 5th Turn I still had two viable courses of action open to me. One more conservative and one that was more risky but would garner many more VPs. I went for the risky one. These decisions were all made in response to things that my opponent did. I haven't discussed the impact of terrain on my play - plenty of obscuring terrain that was also impassible to me. I had to adapt to and exploit the board. This was true when I was planning but also when I was playing because my opponent was also manoeuvring on that table.

Then there are the positional things you have to do in the game with the details of pile-in, consolidate and model placement. There are procedural things to decide on like fight activation order and stratagem use. I had to make several decisions during that game regarding falling back and stratagem use. I also made some mistakes with model placement, hindering my own manoeuvre while also giving opportunities for my opponent to exploit. Which he did. I was playing a veteran, skillful player and we were certainly interacting with each other.

This is where I have the most problem with this argument. You're using a lot of impressive-sounding terms for what happened during the game but the essence of the decisions being made are just not that difficult. This is one of the problem I have with a lot of the 40k "coaching" people. They like to use important-sounding terms for things but that often just masks how simplistic the game is at its core and how little difficulty there is in the decision making process.

Your second paragraph highlights this even better. There's nothing deeply tactical about piling-in or consolidation. Once you either figure out for yourself or someone tells you the best move is not to get into base-to-base when you charge to allow yourself maximum flexibility when you pile-in and consolidate, or how tri-pointing works, there's no longer any tactical decision to make, it's just a thing you do that you're almost always in complete control of. There's very little opponent interaction to consider. Similarly with model placement in general. Your opponent can't really interact with your own moves in your own turn and pre-measuring allows you to make sure you're perfectly set within rapid fire range while still being in cover, or outside of their theoretical maximum charge range while still being able to shoot. As a player you need to be aware of the concepts but acting on them is then a matter of rote execution rather than having to make any real decision.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
You don't play against their decisions.

You do. It just isn't at the level or kind that you desire.

I've dropped two convergence of dominion into my opponent's backfield within range of their unit holding an objective and part way to a dreadnought. Their shooting is decent enough that left alone they will wipe the unit on the objective. Either my opponent redirects the dreadnought to deal with them ( as the Eradicators are dead ) or he pushes further in to the previous goal. Ideally he must melee them to remove them. Which is the right choice? Either way he must respond to what I have done.

That feels like your opponent just forgot something could deep strike. It's a tactical blunder, yes, but such a simple one to avoid (again, because DS is almost always a 9" bubble and there's no way for you to decide to take a bigger risk to try to drop closer, for example). An army without screens, or even back-field shooting, is probably not that great if it's planning to hold its own deployment zone. That's especially true if using the new smaller board sizes.

Mezmorki wrote:@lance @candadian 5th


Conceptually, you can boil any tactical challenge down into a solvable puzzle if given sufficient time. There are frequently moments of needing to decide what the best course of action is with imperfect information and without knowing your opponent's exact intentions/plans. So a "theoretically solvable" situation is nevertheless one where a player faces a tough choice. Perhaps your experience of the game is different than mine, but I seem to encounter these choices often enough.

I don't think that's correct. What makes tactical problems impossible to unequivocally "solve" are the unknown variables. 40k doesn't really have any, especially because the dice rolls can be boiled down to statistical averages/likelihoods and those rolls are often so heavily modified as to be virtually definite anyway. If my decision hinges on what my opponent does to react to it, or is based on a decision my opponent may have already made but hasn't revealed yet, then, in principle, there may be no "correct" solution. Instead, there's just the most statistically effective decision taking into account all your opponent's options and that's assuming you even know what those options are! You could take that "most correct" decision and end up being completely wrong because your opponent out-thought you after considering your options better than you considered theirs.

This is why a game like X-Wing can have more meaningful decisions in a single turn than an entire game of 40k. Decisions are made in the Planning phase but only executed later in an initiative-based order which means I have to decide on my approach before anything happens, then modify that as the board state becomes clearer. I need to account for my opponent's likely decisions while still thinking about whether they'll do something unexpected precisely because it's unexpected. There are genuine decisions to be made about spending tokens to modify either offensively or defensively or what actions to take in the first place. All of these decisions are often taken without complete information.

Mezmorki wrote:
As a side note, I see AA system suggested as a way to increase the tactical depth of the game. While this creates a layer of decision making (what unit do I activate when), it's still broadly in the realm of tactical decisions really just becoming logistical optimization moves. It's not really any more or less deep, it's just more complicated and obscured.

"Complicated [decisions] and obscured [information]" sound like two of the major contributors to adding tactical depth so I have no idea how you arrived at your conclusion.

Spoletta wrote:Gladly.

He said that he positions in a way that if you want to go onto an objective, you expose yourself to a unit shooting on you/and or charging you.

You answered him that in that case you would focus fire on said unit threathening your point, which is fair.

At the same time though, you are now playing into your opponent's hand. He managed to force your decision on who to focus fire, which we can easily assume that he did so in order to have something else survive.
The amount of hurt you can inflict per turn is a limited resource, and he managed to spend it for you.
He took a unit which wasn't on top of your threath list, and managed to promote it to the top of the list by correctly positioning it.

Of course. The, "I shoot you with my laser", "I but I activate my laser proof shield!", oh! but then I use my laser proof shield EMP device!" defense. Don't bring outside elements into the scenario.

The proposed situation presented the unit ready to shoot at the objective as a victory in and of itself. They knew I would go for an objective and they set themselves up to attack me in advance. But the game doesn't work that way.

Spending it for me might be a fair argument if it wasn't the clearest path to victory anyway. In the proposed scenario he literally gave me victory points. He didn't take the objective and make me fight for it. He didn't reinforce it so that it was unclaimable next turn. He didn't shoot at the units that would be most able to take the objective to reduce their number and make them less likely to claim victory points or easier to remove from the objective afterwards. He just quietly got into position for me to shoot him.

dhallnet wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Did you actually bother to read the example given?

1) They set themselves up to be able to target an objective I am going to go for because it gives victory points.
2) I move onto the objective and get victory points. I shoot the unit set up to shoot me next turn so that they are ineffective at removing me from the objective. They now have less points with which to shoot me next turn and I have eliminated or negated immediate threats.
3) "I loose?"

I am confused about how I lost in any way. I reduced your net dice value and gained points towards victory. If there was a more efficient path towards victory/other option I would preferably have noticed and done that instead. The way to notice is basic math and flow charts since the game state at that point is static and there isn't anything you can do about it.

Please explain this.

If they moved with the intent of doing something and failed, ofc they lost. But that's not a demonstration of how the game is static. Each turn in itself has a "best course of actions for that turn" to be taken, sure, but it's like you think the other players doesn't have any capacity to understand how you're going to respond to him and actions are thought out on a per turn basis. Which is completely wrong of course.
They either did a move and planned correctly for the outcome (so whatever the outcome is, "they won" that trade and the rest of the game will determine if that outcome was something required or a mistake) or didn't (in which case "they lose").
In this case, if he threatened the objective with a unit so you would divert your killing power to that unit instead of one with which he expect to win more than he lost, then he won the trade.

It's not that I don't think they have any capacity to understand it. It's that their understanding doesn't matter. My decision making starts when I get the static game state where my turn begins. Maybe I have less great choices because of how they left things for me but I still have the best choices that I do have given the current game state. This is why first turn advantage is such a big thing. Or strategies... sorry, pre-game plans and list building... that play such a major role in victory. If you can control the game state the opponent has to deal with then even their most optimal moves are not equal to yours and you win. Setting up some threats for me to shoot without them doing anything else is a net loss. Every time. If they are not reducing my effective dice pool value before being blown off the board then you made some poor choices.

 Lance845 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Spoiler:

Gladly.

He said that he positions in a way that if you want to go onto an objective, you expose yourself to a unit shooting on you/and or charging you.

You answered him that in that case you would focus fire on said unit threathening your point, which is fair.

At the same time though, you are now playing into your opponent's hand. He managed to force your decision on who to focus fire, which we can easily assume that he did so in order to have something else survive.
The amount of hurt you can inflict per turn is a limited resource, and he managed to spend it for you.
He took a unit which wasn't on top of your threath list, and managed to promote it to the top of the list by correctly positioning it.

Of course. The, "I shoot you with my laser", "I but I activate my laser proof shield!", oh! but then I use my laser proof shield EMP device!" defense. Don't bring outside elements into the scenario.

The proposed situation presented the unit ready to shoot at the objective as a victory in and of itself. They knew I would go for an objective and they set themselves up to attack me in advance. But the game doesn't work that way.

Spending it for me might be a fair argument if it wasn't the clearest path to victory anyway. In the proposed scenario he literally gave me victory points. He didn't take the objective and make me fight for it. He didn't reinforce it so that it was unclaimable next turn. He didn't shoot at the units that would be most able to take the objective to reduce their number and make them less likely to claim victory points or easier to remove from the objective afterwards. He just quietly got into position for me to shoot him.

dhallnet wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Did you actually bother to read the example given?

1) They set themselves up to be able to target an objective I am going to go for because it gives victory points.
2) I move onto the objective and get victory points. I shoot the unit set up to shoot me next turn so that they are ineffective at removing me from the objective. They now have less points with which to shoot me next turn and I have eliminated or negated immediate threats.
3) "I loose?"

I am confused about how I lost in any way. I reduced your net dice value and gained points towards victory. If there was a more efficient path towards victory/other option I would preferably have noticed and done that instead. The way to notice is basic math and flow charts since the game state at that point is static and there isn't anything you can do about it.

Please explain this.

If they moved with the intent of doing something and failed, ofc they lost. But that's not a demonstration of how the game is static. Each turn in itself has a "best course of actions for that turn" to be taken, sure, but it's like you think the other players doesn't have any capacity to understand how you're going to respond to him and actions are thought out on a per turn basis. Which is completely wrong of course.
They either did a move and planned correctly for the outcome (so whatever the outcome is, "they won" that trade and the rest of the game will determine if that outcome was something required or a mistake) or didn't (in which case "they lose").
In this case, if he threatened the objective with a unit so you would divert your killing power to that unit instead of one with which he expect to win more than he lost, then he won the trade.

It's not that I don't think they have any capacity to understand it. It's that their understanding doesn't matter. My decision making starts when I get the static game state where my turn begins. Maybe I have less great choices because of how they left things for me but I still have the best choices that I do have given the current game state. This is why first turn advantage is such a big thing. Or strategies... sorry, pre-game plans and list building... that play such a major role in victory. If you can control the game state the opponent has to deal with then even their most optimal moves are not equal to yours and you win. Setting up some threats for me to shoot without them doing anything else is a net loss. Every time. If they are not reducing my effective dice pool value before being blown off the board then you made some poor choices.

No. I GET what you are TRYING to say. I am saying that what YOU are saying is 1) Not the situation he presented and 2) Doesn't actually exist in 40k.

MY decisions are always about making the best moves I can make given the board when I can start making moves. Yes. My opponent DOES determine what that game state looks like for me by the end of their turn. (And I in turn decide what that looks like for them).

But,(and this part is really the crux of it) if my math and flow chart are good, the best choice I can make is STILL the best choice I can make whether he fed it to me or not. There is no "trap" for me to fall into. Either I am acting optimally with my 5 turns or I am not.

Again, this is why list building, strategy, and first turn advantage are so powerful and tactics are not.

 Lance845 wrote:
No. I GET what you are TRYING to say. I am saying that what YOU are saying is 1) Not the situation he presented and 2) Doesn't actually exist in 40k.

MY decisions are always about making the best moves I can make given the board when I can start making moves. Yes. My opponent DOES determine what that game state looks like for me by the end of their turn. (And I in turn decide what that looks like for them).

But,(and this part is really the crux of it) if my math and flow chart are good, the best choice I can make is STILL the best choice I can make whether he fed it to me or not. There is no "trap" for me to fall into. Either I am acting optimally with my 5 turns or I am not.

Ok, you still don't understand.

No one talked about trap choices.
There is no trap to make you fall into.
That's not the purpose.
We always assume that everyone always makes the best move.

You have a certain list of priorities, and my job as your opponent is to mess with them.
If your priority is to kill unit A because it is a counter to your list, I will take unit B and position it in a way that makes it even more dangerous to your plan than unit A is.

Now, you either kill unit A or you kill unit B.
There is no trap choice here.
There is no good choice here.
I forced you in a situation where there isn't a clear priority.

I took your optimal outcome and rescaled it.
You will still play your turn in the best mathematical way you can, but if before you could achieve 10, now you can at most achieve 7.

You will act optimally for 5 turns, that's the basic assumption. That's why I redefine what "optimal" means for you. That's what playing 40K means.

Spoletta wrote:
That's what playing 40K means.

That's what playing any IGOUGO system means tbh. If we are denying that the interactions are delayed by virtue of the nature of how the game is structured (I do stuff in my turn to be in a better place during my next turn and put you in a worse spot during yours), then there is mostly nothing left to discuss anymore.

Spoletta wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
No. I GET what you are TRYING to say. I am saying that what YOU are saying is 1) Not the situation he presented and 2) Doesn't actually exist in 40k.

MY decisions are always about making the best moves I can make given the board when I can start making moves. Yes. My opponent DOES determine what that game state looks like for me by the end of their turn. (And I in turn decide what that looks like for them).

But,(and this part is really the crux of it) if my math and flow chart are good, the best choice I can make is STILL the best choice I can make whether he fed it to me or not. There is no "trap" for me to fall into. Either I am acting optimally with my 5 turns or I am not.

Ok, you still don't understand.

I do understand. Lets see if I can convince you.

No one talked about trap choices.
There is no trap to make you fall into.
That's not the purpose.
We always assume that everyone always makes the best move.

K. It is a trap choice but it seems we have a disconnect on what that means. We will get to it in a second.

You have a certain list of priorities, and my job as your opponent is to mess with them.
If your priority is to kill unit A because it is a counter to your list, I will take unit B and position it in a way that makes it even more dangerous to your plan than unit A is.

Now, you either kill unit A or you kill unit B.
There is no trap choice here.
There is no good choice here.
I forced you in a situation where there isn't a clear priority.

This is part of what makes it a trap. Do I try to remove the unit that is a threat in ALL scenarios because it's a counter to my entire list or the unit that is a threat right now because of it's current positioning. I do math, I check the flow chart, I make the best decision I can make given the current state of the game. That choice might be a gakky one where something gets sacrificed either way, but in the end there is a best choice to be made.

I took your optimal outcome and rescaled it.
You will still play your turn in the best mathematical way you can, but if before you could achieve 10, now you can at most achieve 7.

Here is the thing. I don't ever bother to think that "I could have achieved 10 if only he didn't do x". That doesn't matter. It literally is a non factor in any decision I make. "What could have been" is meaningless next to what is. I can, if acting optimally, get 7. And if I don't act optimally, I get less. My job is to act optimally.

You will act optimally for 5 turns, that's the basic assumption. That's why I redefine what "optimal" means for you. That's what playing 40K means.

Right. YES. Thank you! Now you are starting to see what I have been saying this entire time.

Let me use your terms to extrapolate this out for others to see too.

Lets assume all players always act optimally, and that both players have equivalent lists and strategies that are a match on the field.

Both players are capable of achieving 10 on turn 1. Then they roll to see who goes first and the first player doesn't just achieve 10, but, in acting optimally, have set you up to only get 7 at best. And you do. So you get 7, and you do your best to make sure he can only get 7 in return. And he does. And so on and so forth...

All other elements being equal the player who goes first wins because they get to determine the game state for the second player while diminishing their resources when acting optimally.

There is no deep tactical decision making or player to player interaction here. This is about logistics, math, and priorities. How can I give myself the maximum possible net gain while giving my opponent the worst possible maximum net gain. In a lot of ways thats removing models so they have less resources to make gains with and the balance of power cannot shift. In other ways it's giving the opponent "no win choices" or bad positioning. Again, my old nid list was all about taking control of the board so the opponent had to play on my terms.

As you said, "That's what playing 40k means". It's not a tactical game. It's shallow, it's solvable, and it's skewed towards 1 particular kind of understanding, pre game planning, and the luck of going first. Thats 40k Baby!

I want to step away from the terminology for a moment here.

I think what we're all trying to define and understand (or reach consensus on) is the degree to which there are "meaningful choices" to make during the course of play (post-deployment) that will notably impact your success or failure. I think we're fundamentally debating this notion - and let me see if I can characterize the two sides correctly:

=======================================

One camp (Lance, Canadian 5th, etc.) is asserting that there are no (or extremely few) meaningful choices because the options available to you at any moment have an optimal solution, dependent on two element:

(a) Math and using statistical knowledge to maximize potential AND
(b) "The flowchart" which dictates what you should do with each unit each turn.

As a consequence of the two above items, the game is deemed to be devoid (or nearly devoid) of player interaction (since each person's turn is just solving an optimization puzzle) and overall lacks meaningful choices - because the choices are "obvious" because of (a) and (b) above.

=======================================

The other camp is asserting that there are meaningful choices to make, or at least enough meaningful choices that they do matter to the outcome of the game. This camp recognizes the following:

(1) Uncertainty in the die rolls and needing to commit actions (i.e. movement before shooting) can can force a choice and/or put players into sub-optimal situations - and that these uncertainties can make it difficult to know what is the better/worse move.

(2) One cannot always predict what their opponent will do because of (1) (above) and also because of their opponent having plans/ideas that aren't always apparent to you. This is an instance of interactivity (manifested on the table) because each player's plan for the turn is based on the current board state, which is directly dictated by the choices your opponent made on their prior turn.

(3) That there are, at any decision point, clearly better or worse moves, and that uncertainty ((1) and (2) above) can make some decisions hard to answer "correctly" - which requires some gut-level judgement calls.

=======================================

Are those fair assessments of the two sides?

 Mezmorki wrote:

Spoiler:

I want to step away from the terminology for a moment here.

I think what we're all trying to define and understand (or reach consensus on) is the degree to which there are "meaningful choices" to make during the course of play (post-deployment) that will notably impact your success or failure. I think we're fundamentally debating this notion - and let me see if I can characterize the two sides correctly:

=======================================

One camp (Lance, Canadian 5th, etc.) is asserting that there are no (or extremely few) meaningful choices because the options available to you at any moment have an optimal solution, dependent on two element:

(a) Math and using statistical knowledge to maximize potential AND
(b) "The flowchart" which dictates what you should do with each unit each turn.

As a consequence of the two above items, the game is deemed to be devoid (or nearly devoid) of player interaction (since each person's turn is just solving an optimization puzzle) and overall lacks meaningful choices - because the choices are "obvious" because of (a) and (b) above.

=======================================

The other camp is asserting that there are meaningful choices to make, or at least enough meaningful choices that they do matter to the outcome of the game. This camp recognizes the following:

(1) Uncertainty in the die rolls and needing to commit actions (i.e. movement before shooting) can can force a choice and/or put players into sub-optimal situations - and that these uncertainties can make it difficult to know what is the better/worse move.

(2) One cannot always predict what their opponent will do because of (1) (above) and also because of their opponent having plans/ideas that aren't always apparent to you. This is an instance of interactivity (manifested on the table) because each player's plan for the turn is based on the current board state, which is directly dictated by the choices your opponent made on their prior turn.

(3) That there are, at any decision point, clearly better or worse moves, and that uncertainty ((1) and (2) above) can make some decisions hard to answer "correctly" - which requires some gut-level judgement calls.

=======================================

Are those fair assessments of the two sides?

I do not disagree with this assessment of the debate. I would only add that While 1 and 2 can make the math difficult, it doesn't make it not math. Being good at 40k is about being good at that math. 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive of a and b. It's just talking about it.

Your reasoning is correct, your conclusions are wrong.

Indeed, we are now on the same plane of thinking. We interact with each other trying to hinder the other guys plan and making it less optimal. That's a good step for this discussion.

Were you start getting wrong, is where you assume that doing so is so easy that anyone can do it on the fly. You even demonstrated by yourself that your argument is wrong.
As you said, if everyone always can implement the perfect clan to counter the opponent's plan, the player going first would always win, minus some games where dices really hate you. We have plenty of numbers showing that such a statement is very wrong, there is about an equal share of wins between going first and going second. There is a slight advantage in going first, but not on the scale of what you are implying.

Someone could retort that what is acting there is list imbalance, but you just need to look at the numbers on specific matchups to understand that such a point is mathematically invalid.

So we can all agree that players are not capable of always finding the best course of action.

That is, because formulating correctly your turn is anything but easy. There are so many elements that you have to take into account, that you can end up with a bad plan, a good plan or an excellent plan.

There isn't just a distinction between correct and incorrect plan. There are almost infinite gradations of quality in how you play your turn. No one can play it "perfectly".

Sounds good.

So my next question has to do with this "flow chart" that we speak of.

When I think of decisions that have "depth", I feel that depth is a function of how many layers/levels of factors need to be considered in making a decision. Each additional layer or factor that is an input into a given decision adds depth.

With respect to the flow chart, ideally such a chart accounts or asks questions about the specifics of each situation and set of factors that need to be considered. I'd love to see such a more robust chart developed, because I think when you came down to making it genuinely effective as a decision-tool (and not a thought experiment) that there would be more factors in play than you are giving credit for. You might be moving through factors in the decision process quicker than your realize given your comfort and experience with the game.

----------------------------------------------------

In terms of meaningfulness, I think more meaningful choices are ones that have a stronger (and usually clearer) linkage to victory or defeat in the game.

Perhaps I'm just not as good of a player - but when I loose a game, I always try to reflect on how I could've played it better. And I feel like I can usually identify a moment or two when I made a bad decision (or a sub-optimal choice) that was a contributing factors. List building and deployment mistakes are also often contributing factors - but that doesn't erase the impact of in-game mistakes (or seen the other way around my opponent outplaying me).

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:

Spoiler:

I want to step away from the terminology for a moment here.

I think what we're all trying to define and understand (or reach consensus on) is the degree to which there are "meaningful choices" to make during the course of play (post-deployment) that will notably impact your success or failure. I think we're fundamentally debating this notion - and let me see if I can characterize the two sides correctly:

=======================================

One camp (Lance, Canadian 5th, etc.) is asserting that there are no (or extremely few) meaningful choices because the options available to you at any moment have an optimal solution, dependent on two element:

(a) Math and using statistical knowledge to maximize potential AND
(b) "The flowchart" which dictates what you should do with each unit each turn.

As a consequence of the two above items, the game is deemed to be devoid (or nearly devoid) of player interaction (since each person's turn is just solving an optimization puzzle) and overall lacks meaningful choices - because the choices are "obvious" because of (a) and (b) above.

=======================================

The other camp is asserting that there are meaningful choices to make, or at least enough meaningful choices that they do matter to the outcome of the game. This camp recognizes the following:

(1) Uncertainty in the die rolls and needing to commit actions (i.e. movement before shooting) can can force a choice and/or put players into sub-optimal situations - and that these uncertainties can make it difficult to know what is the better/worse move.

(2) One cannot always predict what their opponent will do because of (1) (above) and also because of their opponent having plans/ideas that aren't always apparent to you. This is an instance of interactivity (manifested on the table) because each player's plan for the turn is based on the current board state, which is directly dictated by the choices your opponent made on their prior turn.

(3) That there are, at any decision point, clearly better or worse moves, and that uncertainty ((1) and (2) above) can make some decisions hard to answer "correctly" - which requires some gut-level judgement calls.

=======================================

Are those fair assessments of the two sides?

I do not disagree with this assessment of the debate. I would only add that While 1 and 2 can make the math difficult, it doesn't make it not math. Being good at 40k is about being good at that math. 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive of a and b. It's just talking about it.

Yes, being good at math is really important to be good at 40k, and?

That's the same for chess.
Are you going to tell me that chess has no interaction and players have no way to influence the outcome?

Spoletta wrote:
Your reasoning is correct, your conclusions are wrong.

Indeed, we are now on the same plane of thinking. We interact with each other trying to hinder the other guys plan and making it less optimal. That's a good step for this discussion.

Were you start getting wrong, is where you assume that doing so is so easy that anyone can do it on the fly.

What I have said, in fact, is that there isn't anything else to it. I never said any baby could do it. In fact let me go quote myself.

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't think the argument has been made that it's so simple that any 3 year old could do it or that it's done correctly 100% of the time by super geniuses.

The argument that has been made is that there isn't anything else to it. Just because the "tactics" or as someone else called it and I am inclined to agree, logistics, of 40k are made up of simple formulae and flow charts doesn't mean everyone does it perfectly every time. But it also doesn't make the individual choices any more complex. 40k IS won by good list building as part of a solid strategy with a firm understanding of the logistics of the game.

A comparison I have been mulling over is magic the gathering. In magic if you CAN attack and it costs you nothing to attack then not attacking is a loosing move. At every single opportunity where you can remove the opponents health or resources you need to be doing that to win. You don't trade a monster for a monster. But if you can get a hit in without loosing a monster then you sure as gak need to be attacking. 40k isn't any different. The models are resources. They come with dice every turn that can remove your dice. You need to take every opportunity to maximize your dices impact and remove theirs. Which goes back into understanding the value of dice, which is simplified into more dice is always better and making sure that you always throw more dice every turn than your opponent widens the gap between your victory and their defeat.

Where do you deep strike? Where you will have the biggest impact and remove the most dice.

Should you move into the mid field? If you don't they will and when they do they will use that chance to remove your dice.

And again, this is in big part because of how little player to player interactivity there is in the game. When I attack I attack with everything. When you attack you attack with everything. Any opportunity for me to step in and interact with your turn is novelty at best and primarily made up of no brainer decisions. "Should I deepstrike my Deathmarks in response to you deepstriking?" Yes. Thats why you put them in the list to begin with. You cannot have deep tactical decision making if your every choice in the game is defined by your strategy and the logistics of the game state.

You even demonstrated by yourself that your argument is wrong.
As you said, if everyone always can implement the perfect clan to counter the opponent's plan, the player going first would always win, minus some games where dices really hate you. We have plenty of numbers showing that such a statement is very wrong, there is about an equal share of wins between going first and going second. There is a slight advantage in going first, but not on the scale of what you are implying.

Based on the above I think you have a misunderstanding of my argument. But even besides that, we don't have plenty of numbers showing that. All the numbers show that first turn advantage is very real and very alive. And when it's not there are clear distinctions in superior armies/list building/strategies. If tactics made more of a difference then inferior armies could beat superior armies with superior tactics. But they mostly can't. And the numbers just show that.

Someone could retort that what is acting there is list imbalance, but you just need to look at the numbers on specific matchups to understand that such a point is mathematically invalid.

So we can all agree that players are not capable of always finding the best course of action.

That is, because formulating correctly your turn is anything but easy. There are so many elements that you have to take into account, that you can end up with a bad plan, a good plan or an excellent plan.

There isn't just a distinction between correct and incorrect plan. There are almost infinite gradations of quality in how you play your turn. No one can play it "perfectly".

Again, you have misunderstood my arguments. I hope I helped to clear that up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:

Spoiler:

I want to step away from the terminology for a moment here.

I think what we're all trying to define and understand (or reach consensus on) is the degree to which there are "meaningful choices" to make during the course of play (post-deployment) that will notably impact your success or failure. I think we're fundamentally debating this notion - and let me see if I can characterize the two sides correctly:

=======================================

One camp (Lance, Canadian 5th, etc.) is asserting that there are no (or extremely few) meaningful choices because the options available to you at any moment have an optimal solution, dependent on two element:

(a) Math and using statistical knowledge to maximize potential AND
(b) "The flowchart" which dictates what you should do with each unit each turn.

As a consequence of the two above items, the game is deemed to be devoid (or nearly devoid) of player interaction (since each person's turn is just solving an optimization puzzle) and overall lacks meaningful choices - because the choices are "obvious" because of (a) and (b) above.

=======================================

The other camp is asserting that there are meaningful choices to make, or at least enough meaningful choices that they do matter to the outcome of the game. This camp recognizes the following:

(1) Uncertainty in the die rolls and needing to commit actions (i.e. movement before shooting) can can force a choice and/or put players into sub-optimal situations - and that these uncertainties can make it difficult to know what is the better/worse move.

(2) One cannot always predict what their opponent will do because of (1) (above) and also because of their opponent having plans/ideas that aren't always apparent to you. This is an instance of interactivity (manifested on the table) because each player's plan for the turn is based on the current board state, which is directly dictated by the choices your opponent made on their prior turn.

(3) That there are, at any decision point, clearly better or worse moves, and that uncertainty ((1) and (2) above) can make some decisions hard to answer "correctly" - which requires some gut-level judgement calls.

=======================================

Are those fair assessments of the two sides?

I do not disagree with this assessment of the debate. I would only add that While 1 and 2 can make the math difficult, it doesn't make it not math. Being good at 40k is about being good at that math. 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive of a and b. It's just talking about it.

Yes, being good at math is really important to be good at 40k, and?

That's the same for chess.
Are you going to tell me that chess has no interaction and players have no way to influence the outcome?

We already did the chess thing and why chess has lots of player to player interaction. Chess is very different from 40k.

Ok thanks for the clarification I can now see that you don't assume that anyone can do it. Fine.

You kind of oversimplify it when you say that it is all about impacting enemy dices more than yours, which is false (in your defense, it was true in older editions).

Also, your point on first turn wins is wrong. Lesser factions semi regularly win over better factions, even when going second. 40% of the time maybe, but they do semi regularly.

By the way, you will agree with me that since making a good turn isn't automatic, it means that a good player which is more skilled in planning a good turn, influences the outcome of the game.

Good player wins over bad player.
And that's it. That's all the point that was being made. We called it tactics, we called it planning we called it whatever, but in the end the point is that a good player makes good decisions during the game that can win him the game.

Do we finally agree on it?

Spoletta wrote:

Also, your point on first turn wins is wrong. Lesser factions semi regularly win over better factions, even when going second. 40% of the time maybe, but they do semi regularly.

Have you based these figures on tournament results?
Because that's not necessarily what 40% winrate means. Tournaments are extremely self balancing. The ones that lose get moved lower on the tables to fight other losers, and the winners move up to fight other winners.
That means after the first game or two, everyone is going to be fighting against similarly powerful lists/factions/players and games will quick approach 50/50 winrate.

But back to the topic at hand. I think most people are principally agreed, but are just arguing over semantics regarding whether a decision is a tactic or so easy as to be rendered useless.
I definitely don't think 40k is that simple. You can't produce an effective flowchart for actions. You can't forget that your opponent is also a human being working to exactly the same goal as you. They will likely have multiple threatening units. They may have some units which are less threatening but easier to kill, or more potential to deal damage later, or any number of similar complications.
If 40k truly could be reduced to simple flowcharts you should be able to produce an 'AI' flowchart to play against and get roughly 50/50 wins.

Isn't your argument that the game is solvable by math and thus shallow ?

Because the solvable part is wrong, even if we ignore anything else, dice are involved and will undeniably at some point skew the outcome and make it not solvable (even if you can determine probables outcomes, they won't always happen).
But also, games with really basic rules without randomness like reversi/othello (and more complex ones like chess), still aren't solved as far as I can tell. Are their rules simples ? Yes. Are they shallow ? By your argument yes but otherwise, it's mainly a matter of opinion.

But I guess, all this have been said already.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Sounds good.

So my next question has to do with this "flow chart" that we speak of.

When I think of decisions that have "depth", I feel that depth is a function of how many layers/levels of factors need to be considered in making a decision. Each additional layer or factor that is an input into a given decision adds depth.

I think this is where the disconnect is between the two sides. What you're describing is complexity, rather than depth. You could have this flow chart with 100 layers but if each of those layers is a known factor and trivial to calculate/evaluate then all your added complexity does is add time to the decision-making process and a fairly trivial extra possibility of making a wrong decision. It's like adding up the sums of numbers: 1+2+3+4... up to 100. It's annoying to calculate going through each step but not really difficult.

I think depth has very little to do with the number of layers in the flow chart (though it probably does require a minimum number, which likely isn't that large) but rather the conditionality of it. That's where things like hidden information become so important, because that adds an extra branch, often at the same level as many other branches, rather than simply another thing to consider underneath a point in the chart. So you could have a completely linear flow chart with 100 factors, each on its own level that doesn't really add tactical depth but maybe only have 15-20 factors in another chart that are interdependent perhaps only spanning 3-4 levels and still end up with a more tactically deep game. If you could model this flow chart effectively it may even have branches that feed back into one another or points that lead you back up the structure rather than always down ever deeper until you reach the correct decision.

But isn't any game in theory just a reoccurring "flowchart" ?
I mean, you'll check your possible moves towards the win conditions in the first step, then in second step impacted by your first step and the response from your opponent after said first step, etc, until you find a chain of steps giving you a win/draw.
This is more or less how any game works. The reality of this being actually realisable or not is often not based on the rules themselves. Some games are solvable if played on smaller boards and aren't on standard ones. The basic rules didn't change though. Does the "depth" or whatever of the game changed with the size of the board ? Maybe, it's again a matter of opinion.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Sounds good.

So my next question has to do with this "flow chart" that we speak of.

When I think of decisions that have "depth", I feel that depth is a function of how many layers/levels of factors need to be considered in making a decision. Each additional layer or factor that is an input into a given decision adds depth.

I understand why you think of that as depth. But what you are actually talking about is complexity. 40k is a very complex game.

Like before these are terms defined in game design and when I am using them I am using them in that context. A complex game has many moving parts that can help to hide correct choices. But just because the equation is ((4*8)/2)-14=2 doesn't actually make it any different from 1+1=2. The end result is the same. You just had to take a bunch of extra steps to get there.

What makes game play "deep" is multiple outcomes that inherently cannot be clearly valued because their value is based on a number of unknowns that can include changing states of the game, opponents resources, and other factors.

For instance, in apocalypse 40k your opponent has a hand of cards. And you don't know what they are or what they do. They also place orders on detachments face down at the same time that you do. So you can't know if your orders are "correct" against theirs. The mechanics are not complex. It's INCREDIBLY simple. But it's also really deep. Trying to anticipate how they will act and make the best of that situation with your own plans requires deep tactical thinking that CAN'T be just arithmetic. It becomes algebra. a+b=c. And you try to come up with a plan (a) that will make (c) be a victory for you but (b) is going to be revealed by your opponent and you just don't and can't know it's value. You have to guess.

And I am not saying apoc is a great game. I am just saying how much better it is than 40k in it's tactical depth because it has any depth at all.

With respect to the flow chart, ideally such a chart accounts or asks questions about the specifics of each situation and set of factors that need to be considered. I'd love to see such a more robust chart developed, because I think when you came down to making it genuinely effective as a decision-tool (and not a thought experiment) that there would be more factors in play than you are giving credit for. You might be moving through factors in the decision process quicker than your realize given your comfort and experience with the game.

You have to break it down to what actually adds value and trim the fat. Thats why I was saying you were making it more complex then it actually is. When you are looking at a particular part of the board you are looking at units with movement ranges, gun ranges, and abilities. Inherently by these restrictions they can only interact within a certain sphere of influence on the board. So I don't need to pay attention to the whole board when making decisions for them. Who are they in range of? Where can they do the most damage? Once I have picked a target, statistically, is their damage enough to eliminate the threat? No? Then can I double up with another unit and focus fire? While my turn may be made up of multiple decisions with dozens of units, realistically, all fat being trimmed, I am probably actually making something like 4-6 decisions and then adjusting the other pieces to support them or falling back on simplistic "rules of thumb" (shoot the anti tank gun on this unit at the tank that is in range). Because focus firing is too powerful not to.

----------------------------------------------------

In terms of meaningfulness, I think more meaningful choices are ones that have a stronger (and usually clearer) linkage to victory or defeat in the game.

I think meaningful choices have impact. That impact doesn't necessarily have to lead directly to victory, or even be clear. If in dnd I am given a choice between using 2 different skills to solve a problem and my net bonus with each is equivalent, and there are no further implications based on which skill I use, then the choice is meaningless. It's pure flavor text. I do this one because I want to there is no advantage or disadvantage either way and nothing to gain by one or loose by another.

In Witcher 3 you make a LOT of choices often with very murky understanding of the consequences. But they do ALL have consequences. And that makes all the choices meaningful Every step of the way in the Red Baron storyline is full of choices that come back in some way later. And we are not even talking about wether you win or loose. Simply that consequence exists and impact occurs.

In terms of this discussion people want deep, meaningful, tactical decisions. That means I need to have unknowns so that I can play against my opponent, and they can react in ways I cannot necessarily account for. And that those decisions I make have a meaningful impact in the way the game moves forward. Your calculations in 40k have impact. They are meaningful. But they are shallow. And making them more complex doesn't make them any more deep. Which takes some of the satisfaction out of them when you start getting good at the math.

Perhaps I'm just not as good of a player - but when I loose a game, I always try to reflect on how I could've played it better. And I feel like I can usually identify a moment or two when I made a bad decision (or a sub-optimal choice) that was a contributing factors. List building and deployment mistakes are also often contributing factors - but that doesn't erase the impact of in-game mistakes (or seen the other way around my opponent outplaying me).

I am not trying to comment on any particular players skill or intelligence. I haven't played you. I can't tell you what I think you are doing right or wrong. From this discussion alone I think you are paying too much attention to complexity factors that don't actually impact the equation and you could use some practice in simplifying the math.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also you're not seriously implying X-Wing has the same lack of depth as 40k are you?

No, not at all. Just taking everything in context. I enjoy X-Wing, but I didn't really care to ride the edge on it. It became a better casual game with Star Wars enthusiasts rather than a competitive leader around here.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
We have posters here that admit they regularly forget to use entire units.

I admit to forgetting units I have in deepstrike from time to time...because I am pretty mentally engaged. Whether or not that is because I'm an imbecile or not has yet to be measured.

LOL there's nothing to be mentally engaged about. Assuming little to no melee, I could literally just tell my opponent to roll my saves for me while I do an extra half an hour of work (I'm able to work from home for one job for context).

The fact you're forgetting units while doing nothing shows not only why you'd think 40k has any complexity or depth, but why the typical player here that defends IGOUGO might actually do so: you'd forget units and lose! You want an easy mode game that's determined basically by the units you're bringing and going first!

It's honestly sorta pathetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

If 40k truly could be reduced to simple flowcharts you should be able to produce an 'AI' flowchart to play against and get roughly 50/50 wins.

You could, and that's how lacking of any complexity or depth 40k is.

dhallnet wrote:
But isn't any game in theory just a reoccurring "flowchart" ?
I mean, you'll check your possible moves towards the win conditions in the first step, then in second step impacted by your first step and the response from your opponent after said first step, etc, until you find a chain of steps giving you a win/draw.

No, no, no and a thousand times no. This is getting quite frustrating now. It's as if people aren't bothering to read the discussion. The difference in some games is the information required to construct this mythical flowchart is partially hidden and therefore you cannot practically construct it with any sense of certainty. 40k's "flowchart" is one that has almost all of the pertinent detail known at any given time. Tactically deep games obscure this information to force players to make choices based on an evaluation of probabilities rather than a knowledge of certainties.

Yes, dice provide a level of uncertainty that prevents things ever being completely solvable but part of the skill of designing armies in 40k is removing variance through the stacking of modifiers and re-rolls to remove randomness from dice rolls. Also, many other games include dice rolls on top of their greater tactical depth so that factor swings both ways.

Okay, so I think we can finally say; "Yes, at the very least some tactics exist in the game, even if only fractionally to a level that some of the respondents feel like it doesn't."

Is that fair?

Can we finally proceed to the OP's original request of discussing these situations that the people that do feel like they exist can have a meaningful discussion over?

 Lance845 wrote:

What makes game play "deep" is multiple outcomes that inherently cannot be clearly valued because their value is based on a number of unknowns that can include changing states of the game, opponents resources, and other factors.

For instance, in apocalypse 40k your opponent has a hand of cards. And you don't know what they are or what they do. They also place orders on detachments face down at the same time that you do. So you can't know if your orders are "correct" against theirs. The mechanics are not complex. It's INCREDIBLY simple. But it's also really deep. Trying to anticipate how they will act and make the best of that situation with your own plans requires deep tactical thinking that CAN'T be just arithmetic. It becomes algebra. a+b=c. And you try to come up with a plan (a) that will make (c) be a victory for you but (b) is going to be revealed by your opponent and you just don't and can't know.

You could add 10 other layers of randomness, obfuscating the results of your actions and/or changing the state of the board, it wouldn't mean it's more tactical. Depending of your definition of "tactical". It's just that you made the best choices you could make with the data you had and the rest is out of your control. It's quite debatable if this would create a more interesting game "tactically".

 Lance845 wrote:

You have to break it down to what actually adds value and trim the fat. That's why I was saying you were making it more complex then it actually is. When you are looking at a particular part of the board you are looking at units with movement ranges, gun ranges, and abilities. Inherently by these restrictions they can only interact within a certain sphere of influence on the board. So I don't need to pay attention to the whole board when making decisions for them. Who are they in range of? Where can they do the most damage? Once I have picked a target, statistically, is their damage enough to eliminate the threat? No? Then can I double up with another unit and focus fire? While my turn may be made up of multiple decisions with dozens of units, realistically, all fat being trimmed, I am probably actually making something like 4-6 decisions and then adjusting the other pieces to support them or falling back on simplistic "rules of thumb" (shoot the anti tank gun on this unit at the tank that is in range). Because focus firing is too powerful not to.

It's simplistic. You are going to look at if you can do something (in all your examples, it's killing stuff but it's not limited to that) without giving up something in return and if you can't, giving back the least amount possible. And for that, most chances are that you'll have to look at the whole board.

 Lance845 wrote:
In terms of this discussion people want deep, meaningful, tactical decisions. That means I need to have unknowns so that I can play against my opponent, and they can react in ways I cannot necessarily account for. And that those decisions I make have a meaningful impact in the way the game moves forward. Your calculations in 40k have impact. They are meaningful. But they are shallow. And making them more complex doesn't make them any more deep. Which takes some of the satisfaction out of them when you start getting good at the math.

The simplest example of tactical choice is your opponent doing something you didn't expect him to do because your "calculations" implied it wasn't a good choice. Meanwhile this game being ruled by randomness, his choice might become a good one. It's not more or less interesting than doing something without knowing its outcome. At least you can weight your chances and make a bet.
Even moving a simple miniature towards any part of the board, is a tactical choice. You don't move your pieces without purposes. Are they predictible ? Yes or maybe not. How do you know when I'm planning to bring my reserves on the board ? Or where I will land them ? A flow chart ? Calculations ?
It's exactly the kind of stuff you're asking for. These aren't supposed to be known during deployement and are unknown stuff variables you have to react to. Are there enough of those ? Maybe, maybe not, again it's just opinions at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

dhallnet wrote:
But isn't any game in theory just a reoccurring "flowchart" ?
I mean, you'll check your possible moves towards the win conditions in the first step, then in second step impacted by your first step and the response from your opponent after said first step, etc, until you find a chain of steps giving you a win/draw.

No, no, no and a thousand times no. This is getting quite frustrating now. It's as if people aren't bothering to read the discussion. The difference in some games is the information required to construct this mythical flowchart is partially hidden and therefore you cannot practically construct it with any sense of certainty. 40k's "flowchart" is one that has almost all of the pertinent detail known at any given time. Tactically deep games obscure this information to force players to make choices based on an evaluation of probabilities rather than a knowledge of certainties.

Yes, dice provide a level of uncertainty that prevents things ever being completely solvable but part of the skill of designing armies in 40k is removing variance through the stacking of modifiers and re-rolls to remove randomness from dice rolls. Also, many other games include dice rolls on top of their greater tactical depth so that factor swings both ways.

The discussion is 12 pages long mate. So if you guys want to keep talking between yourselves, you can just do that in a mailing list or something that isn't a public board. Otherwise you can just answer the question asked or not.
So yeah, games that hides the results from you or change their states without your input exists, why do you think it makes them more "tactical" escapes me though and, again, it's debatable if they make for a more interesting game. Also the evaluation of probabilities is one of the first thing you have to do in this game, mitigating bad dice rolls during army building (if you can in the first place, not all armies are reliable) and/or by how you play, doesn't mean the randomness doesn't exist anymore or aren't choices you've made.

dhallnet wrote:

The simplest example of tactical choice is your opponent doing something you didn't expect him to do because your "calculations" implied it wasn't a good choice. Meanwhile this game being ruled by randomness, his choice might become a good one. It's not more or less interesting than doing something without knowing its outcome. At least you can weight your chances and make a bet.
Even moving a simple miniature towards any part of the board, is a tactical choice. You don't move your pieces without purposes. Are they predictible ? Yes or maybe not. How do you know when I'm planning to bring my reserves on the board ? Or where I will land them ? A flow chart ? Calculations ?
It's exactly the kind of stuff you're asking for. These aren't supposed to be known during deployement and are unknown stuff variables you have to react to. Are there enough of those ? Maybe, maybe not, again it's just opinions at this point.

There is a difference between randomness and player agency. (to get into another game design element).

In shoots and ladders or life you are not really making any decisions (shoots and ladders isn't actually a game btw... it's a whole other thing). You roll the die/spin the spinner, move to the spot, and do the thing. There is no player agency there. In order for the choics to be tactical the players have to have agency over their decisions. It's not random. You are making it out to be random because you are just adding a pile of unknowns and then saying "well if they don't know anything then it might as well be anything!". It's a balance.

My decisions have to have some level of knowns so that I have agency. And it has to have some level of unknowns so that it's not solvable. Especially if these are known unknowns. I know what orders can be issued. I know he has 3 detachments each of which have been issued an order. I know that that unit is mostly tau fire warriors, so the chance of it being Assault where he moves twice and charges is slim to none, the chance that it's the one where you don't move and shoot with a +1 is high, and the chance that is move and shoot is in the middle. There are enough knowns by looking at the board and understanding his pieces, unknowns by obscured information, and known unknowns by knowing the potential within the known unknowns for me to make some kinds of logical decisions. But the PLAYER is the one making those choices and he can pull some surprises on me. He may double move to get them out of the way. It's not a possibility I can completely disregard.

Or another example. Tetris. You know what piece is coming next, and you know what the game state is and you know what piece you have. You have a strategy in how you want to position pieces optimally, and you tactically place pieces to work towards your strategy. But the random unknown of what piece comes AFTER the next piece means you have to keep adjusting to the situation at hand. Tetris is a fantastically made game. Games have game play. Gameplay is a series of interesting choices. You make no choices in Shoots and Ladders, therefore it's got no game play, therefore it's not a game. It's just a tool to teach kinds about some game mechanics.