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.

 Lance845 wrote:
There is a difference between randomness and player agency. (to get into another game design element).

Yes but it feels like in most of your arguments to why in your opinion the game is shallow, player agency is just left aside and insisting that the game lacks randomness (or hidden information, which is pretty close to randomness to me, depending on the amount of information hidden).
So I'm a bit confused here.

dhallnet wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
There is a difference between randomness and player agency. (to get into another game design element).

Yes but it feels like in most of your arguments to why in your opinion the game is shallow, player agency is just left aside and insisting that the game lacks randomness (or hidden information, which is pretty close to randomness to me, depending on the amount of information hidden).
So I'm a bit confused here.

It's because the primary issue is that the game has NO hidden information at the point where I am making my decisions. The only "hidden" element has nothing to do with the other player and their decisions. It's to do with the result of dice rolls. Which is why you play against the game. Not the player.

 Lance845 wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
There is a difference between randomness and player agency. (to get into another game design element).

Yes but it feels like in most of your arguments to why in your opinion the game is shallow, player agency is just left aside and insisting that the game lacks randomness (or hidden information, which is pretty close to randomness to me, depending on the amount of information hidden).
So I'm a bit confused here.

It's because the primary issue is that the game has NO hidden information at the point where I am making my decisions.

That sounds a lot like an opinion rather than a fact though.
Again, as an example, you don't know when your opponent is going to deploy his reserves and where. You don't even know during deployment what he has in reserves if anything at all.
You don't know if he will make all his saves against your shooting or not or if you're even going to score enough hits to pursue your course of actions (ok your edit made this part less relevant). Or maybe use a reroll to throw a wrench into your plan, or rather than use the strat you thought he would, keep his CP to do something else later.
You just have rough ideas and decided these were pseudo known items.

And again, it's debatable if an unknown is more interesting than possibilities. How much would Tetris change if you had the probabilities for the pieces after the next one rather than just not know it ? Would it be worse or better ? (edit : the answer is nothing since you actually do know the possibilities as there is a finite number of pieces).

All this is taste dependant and the results of choices made during design, would the game be more interesting/less shallow/whatever if a player could hide his victory conditions for example ?

You're starting to sound like the one true scotsman here.

1. There are no tactics.
2. There are tactics, but they don't matter because they don't have hidden information.
3. There are tactics, and they have hidden information, but your decisions don't impact your opponent's decisions.
4. There are tactics, and they have hidden information, and your decisions do impact your opponent's decisions, but you don't have agency...

^^^^

Yeah exactly. I was about to post about moving goal posts.

In a similar vein:

The game is so simple this flow chart says exactly what to do.

Okay, the flow chart can't say exactly what to do because there is too much complexity. But the game is still shallow.

Okay depth comes from having a lot of uncertainty, which can't be captured by this flow chart because it's too complex....

No.

Things like when they deploy their reserves don't matter to me until they have been deployed. This is looking at the complexity and thinking it's a value add component of the calculation. These are not a part of the equation because they are a part of the game I have no agency in.

Look, it's my turn.

1) I KNOW what the primary objective is. I know what my secondaries are. I know what your secondaries are. My goal every turn is to get the most points I can while minimizing the chance that you can equal or exceed the number of points I gained. What agency do I have over what, if anything, he places in reserves? What can I do about it? Is it nothing? I guess it's nothing. Moving on.

Side note: Now lets say we made secondaries hidden. Great! Now we have added a level of obscured information that means I can't know what your actual aims are at any given point. But thats not the game we have and it's only 1 specific element of the game so lets move on.

So I grab objectives as I can, I deplete your resources as best I can (removing effective dice pool value so that you are less capable of effecting me and changing the balance of power), and where possible to the above aim I hinder you getting VP. In a lot of ways this involves killing models and reducing your dice pool so you can't regain lost ground as easily.

Every decision I make in regards to that is based on known factors. Even my one known unknown is the dice and how they will land. But I minimize that by stacking bonuses and focus firing into correct targets. Can the dice gods decide against me anyway? Yup. What agency does ANY player have in that besides stacking bonuses? Is it none? Okay this is a element where I gamble against the game. Not the player.

2) So you deepstrike next turn... okay. Where is my agency in that? I can position my guys in my turn to close gaps so you can't deepstrike where I don't want you to. Done. And what else? Do I have an ability I can activate in response to your deepstike AND you deepstruck in a way that allows me use it? Well... then I use it. So Deep! So Tactical!

You are looking at complexity and wondering how you will ever do the equation. Simplify the equation.


It's almost like game design is an entire field of study and you just now being introduced to these elements might not have fully grasped their impact and consequences. That probably comes across as me talking down to you. It's not meant to be. It's meant to highlight that you not understanding the difference between randomness and obscured information means just that. You don't understand. And that doesn't mean my goal posts have shifted. It means you don't understand. Everyone starts somewhere. I am happy to discuss it. Don't accuse me of back pedaling or shifting goal posts. Ask me to explain.

What about the hidden information of your opponent's battle plan? If you say that's trivial or that it's not deep it doesn't matter, because that's still creating agency by unknowns that you have to anticipate and interact with.

What about the hidden information about what impact your opponent's deep strikers, when they come down, will do? If you say that's trivial or that it's not deep it doesn't matter, because that's still creating agency by unknowns that you have to anticipate and interact with.

What about that stratagem that you forgot existed that actually allowed your opponent's optimal decision to be something else that you didn't anticipate? If you say that's trivial or that it's not deep it doesn't matter, because that's still creating agency by unknowns that you have to then resolve the new board state that was uniquely created.

What about that charge from reserves that was supposed to fail because you had a Tanglefoot Grenade, but against the odds succeeded? If you say that's trivial or that it's not deep it doesn't matter, because that's still creating agency by unknowns that you have to anticipate and interact with.



You're just saying that there's not ENOUGH agency, not that it doesn't exist, (edit: and you seem to be doing so in a way that says "unless I can literally interact with every piece of what my opponent does, there's not enough agency for me"). And that's fine. That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Enjoy the game.

Can we please discuss an actual tactical situation now?

 Yarium wrote:
What about the hidden information of your opponent's battle plan? If you say that's trivial or that it's not deep it doesn't matter, because that's still creating agency by unknowns that you have to anticipate and interact with.

I know what objectives give them VPs which win the game. If their plan is anything but getting VPs then it literally doesn't mater. They already lost the game. But even further, on my turn they have no agency to interact with me... sooo.. how does it change the initial goal? I get as many VPs as possible. I minimize their ability to get VPs in return. When does that change?

What about the hidden information about what impact your opponent's deep strikers, when they come down, will do? If you say that's trivial or that it's not deep it doesn't matter, because that's still creating agency by unknowns that you have to anticipate and interact with.

What agency do I have in that? He deep strikes, he shoots or whatever, I roll saves and then models get removed. What is my ability to interact with that element of his turn?

What about that stratagem that you forgot existed that actually allowed your opponent's optimal decision to be something else that you didn't anticipate? If you say that's trivial or that it's not deep it doesn't matter, because that's still creating agency by unknowns that you have to then resolve the new board state that was uniquely created.

Me forgetting that a part of the game exists is my fault. Thats me failing to account for the known elements of the game in my equation.

What about that charge from reserves that was supposed to fail because you had a Tanglefoot Grenade, but against the odds succeeded? If you say that's trivial or that it's not deep it doesn't matter, because that's still creating agency by unknowns that you have to anticipate and interact with.

I did the thing I could do by deploying the tanglefoot grenade. What other agency do I have in that?

You're just saying that there's not ENOUGH agency, not that it doesn't exist, (edit: and you seem to be doing so in a way that says "unless I can literally interact with every piece of what my opponent does, there's not enough agency for me"). And that's fine. That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Enjoy the game.

Can we please discuss an actual tactical situation now?

These are tactical situations you want to discuss. Discuss them. What about them? What tactical decision can you make in any of the situations that you are presenting? I am not saying I need to be able to interact on every level at every turn. I am saying I should be able to react in ANY capacity.

jeff white wrote:I don’t like premeasuring, as peeps just lay the ruler out to use to choose what units will shoot at, rather than declaring targets then checking to be sure that they are in range. Subtle difference but one that does add to tension imho... and though a seemingly simple skill, it is one that will sometimes fail e.g when the chosen unit really must be shot at and ends up a half inch out of range...

The thing is premeasuring exists. It might be allowed in the rules or not, but it exists. Those who can measure by eye are premeasuring as they go, and some became good enough at it to be those few millimeters out of range for a proper counter. A measuring device is just a more obvious way of doing it, and one that those who cannot measure by eye can utilize.

 Lance845 wrote:
It's because the primary issue is that the game has NO hidden information at the point where I am making my decisions. The only "hidden" element has nothing to do with the other player and their decisions. It's to do with the result of dice rolls. Which is why you play against the game. Not the player.

Then you must really hate Chess. It has no randomness (unless you're dealing with a player who doesn't know what they're doing). All the available information outside of a player's plan is right there in the open so much that masters can predict wins several moves in to the game.

And player decisions do matter. A player can be intimidated or mislead. That's how Poker works. That's how traps in Chess develop. Now, the more experienced two opposing players are, the easier it is to "play the game" because both of you will know how the steps go, but then also there is the chance that a gamble will work, where you play against the game because you are hoping you get enough 6s to accomplish a sub goal that changes the flow of the game. It is this part which is playing against the player, if you can break their plans with those gambles.

Hmm Lance the impression that you are giving now is that you consider a game comprised out of a single turn.

You try to optimize THIS turn and not looking at what will happen in the next turns.

Your comment about deepstrikers highlights that. That is something that you have to take into account in THIS turn, because if you didn't account for it now and didn't leave some defense in your deploy (or didn't screen them out) in the next turn you will be in big trouble.

When you said that complexity isn't that high because each unit has only a sphere of influence determined by its move and range, that again means that you are not thinking about it in game terms but in turn terms. All unit have potential impact on all the board and can occupy any position on the board at a certain point. 5 turns are enough for that.

Plans in 40K have to be made spanning several turns, not a single one. Obviously if you had only to mathematically solve this single turn and then the game has ended, it would indeed be quite a shallow game.

The game has 5 turns.

 Charistoph wrote:

jeff white wrote:I don’t like premeasuring, as peeps just lay the ruler out to use to choose what units will shoot at, rather than declaring targets then checking to be sure that they are in range. Subtle difference but one that does add to tension imho... and though a seemingly simple skill, it is one that will sometimes fail e.g when the chosen unit really must be shot at and ends up a half inch out of range...

The thing is premeasuring exists. It might be allowed in the rules or not, but it exists. Those who can measure by eye are premeasuring as they go, and some became good enough at it to be those few millimeters out of range for a proper counter. A measuring device is just a more obvious way of doing it, and one that those who cannot measure by eye can utilize.

jeff white wrote:It's because the primary issue is that the game has NO hidden information at the point where I am making my decisions. The only "hidden" element has nothing to do with the other player and their decisions. It's to do with the result of dice rolls. Which is why you play against the game. Not the player.

Then you must really hate Chess. It has no randomness (unless you're dealing with a player who doesn't know what they're doing). All the available information outside of a player's plan is right there in the open so much that masters can predict wins several moves in to the game.

And player decisions do matter. A player can be intimidated or mislead. That's how Poker works. That's how traps in Chess develop. Now, the more experienced two opposing players are, the easier it is to "play the game" because both of you will know how the steps go, but then also there is the chance that a gamble will work, where you play against the game because you are hoping you get enough 6s to accomplish a sub goal that changes the flow of the game. It is this part which is playing against the player, if you can break their plans with those gambles.

Yeah no, if you get intimidated in 40k you're just a bad player. Bad units don't just suddenly become a threat LOL

Spoletta wrote:
Hmm Lance the impression that you are giving now is that you consider a game comprised out of a single turn.

You try to optimize THIS turn and not looking at what will happen in the next turns.

Your impression is wrong. By trying to set things up to minimize your ability to get VPs, by removing as many models as possible from you, by making optimal moves, I try to make your next turn keep myself in a better position out of the 2 of us. That is an ongoing thing that defines the entire pace of the game across all turns.

Your comment about deepstrikers highlights that. That is something that you have to take into account in THIS turn, because if you didn't account for it now and didn't leave some defense in your deploy (or didn't screen them out) in the next turn you will be in big trouble.

I specifically said.

 Lance845 wrote:

2) So you deepstrike next turn... okay. Where is my agency in that? I can position my guys in my turn to close gaps so you can't deepstrike where I don't want you to. Done. And what else? Do I have an ability I can activate in response to your deepstike AND you deepstruck in a way that allows me use it? Well... then I use it.

Which is me taking it into account in the only ways that I can.

When you said that complexity isn't that high because each unit has only a sphere of influence determined by its move and range, that again means that you are not thinking about it in game terms but in turn terms. All unit have potential impact on all the board and can occupy any position on the board at a certain point. 5 turns are enough for that.

Plans in 40K have to be made spanning several turns, not a single one. Obviously if you had only to mathematically solve this single turn and then the game has ended, it would indeed be quite a shallow game.

The game has 5 turns.

I am saying the decision I make THIS turn are based on the game state I have when my turn begins. And based on the depletion of your resources, maximizing my vp, minimizing your VP what I do with those units THIS turn is based on their sphere of influence. The broad ill defined what I want to do with my guys is the strategy I made before the game. What I am doing with them in turn 3 after your turn has wrapped up is based on whatever way you have left me the game state when that turn begins. You can't plan for that until you know all the variables. And you don't know all the variables until that turn begins.

 Lance845 wrote:
It's almost like game design is an entire field of study and you just now being introduced to these elements might not have fully grasped their impact and consequences.

I know what these terms are. FWIW, since credentials seem to be getting called into question in this thread, I've had a fairly significant board game published which I designed (no it was not self-published), I've had multiple other designs looked at by many of the same publishers of games referenced in this very discussion, and I've had peer reviewed journals reach out to me regarding a number of my blog posts on design, a blog which I've been running for nearly a decade now.

Please don't presume my level of knowledge.

Regarding shifting goal posts, then I will ask you to explain. You have said the game has no tactics, or no deep tactics, or no meaningful tactics, or some variation of that. You have said that the tactics are trivial and obvious and can be boiled down to a flow chart. You have said that randomness doesn't really matter since it's all just statistics and math. You say tactical choices must be predicated on some additional uncertainty. You say tactics require your opponent's decisions and choices to matter and affect your own. You seem to seem to saying something like chess is a good example of a tactical game, and yet also recognizing that it is "solved" yet still tactical. I don't feel like you are apply the same standard to 40K. How does chess being solved have tactics and yet 40K being "solved" (in your estimation) mean it doesn't have tactics? You define depth as having more factors in a decision, but then say having more factors just adds more complexity (not depth).

People have presented plenty of cases and situations where a decision point is obscured or difficult, or where it is complex enough for there not to be an easy answer, or where your opponent might do something unexpected, or where the odds might not go in your favor (or conversely where you can successfully mitigate them), and you seem to be just hand waving it all away. If your reaction to these situations and the ensuring choices you have to make aren't "tactical" then what are they? And if they are instead "logistical optimizations" then isn't that the exact same thing as chess or nearly any other game?

FWIW - and I know this isn't a sanctioned usage of the term (or maybe it is), but we talk about "tactics" in a game (any game), I tend to view the "tactic" as being something akin to a best practice or to use an earlier term a heuristic or rule of thumb. The tactics in 40K are fairly straight forward, things like "focusing firing" critical targets, pressing objectives, disrupting back lines, screening, etc. You can get down to a finer grain with things like tri-pointing, model position, using LoS blocking terrain, etc. With 8th and 9th, there are also tactical practices related to how and when you use command points. These are all tactical instruments/techniques that players can use during play, post-deployment.

And while you might go in with a game plan that suggests Unit X will disrupt the back line, or Unit Y will push an objective, a turn or two into the game through a combination of die roll uncertainty and uncertainty from your opponent, there are often adjustments that need to be made to the game plan and the tactics. Maybe the unit you were going to deep strike to disrupt the back line actually needs to be dropped onto an objective because your opponent unexpectedly threw more units at it than you thought, or their shooting went better than predicted. Many things can cause you to re-evaluate your plan, prompt new decisions, and in turn require you to shift your employed tactics.

I agree with you that you can boil each of these decision points down into a flow chart (I actually wrote a blog article years ago about goal trees and decision depth in game design). But just because you can make a flow chart out of it, it doesn't mean that it's always trivial to do so or that everyone is readily able to even do that. There is a lot of specific knowledge in 40K, and the more experienced a player is the more likely it is that their have heuristic knowledge they can quickly deploy to help solve these complex problems quickly.

I say all of this, with the recognition that these in-game choices only account for a small fraction of the overall victory equation. 10%? 15%? Either way, when both players have a competent and capable lists, and both players are subject to an average die roll outcomes (includes for first turn), there is still that 10% or 15% that "can" be the deciding factor in the game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

jeff white wrote:I don’t like premeasuring, as peeps just lay the ruler out to use to choose what units will shoot at, rather than declaring targets then checking to be sure that they are in range. Subtle difference but one that does add to tension imho... and though a seemingly simple skill, it is one that will sometimes fail e.g when the chosen unit really must be shot at and ends up a half inch out of range...

The thing is premeasuring exists. It might be allowed in the rules or not, but it exists. Those who can measure by eye are premeasuring as they go, and some became good enough at it to be those few millimeters out of range for a proper counter. A measuring device is just a more obvious way of doing it, and one that those who cannot measure by eye can utilize.

jeff white wrote:It's because the primary issue is that the game has NO hidden information at the point where I am making my decisions. The only "hidden" element has nothing to do with the other player and their decisions. It's to do with the result of dice rolls. Which is why you play against the game. Not the player.

Then you must really hate Chess. It has no randomness (unless you're dealing with a player who doesn't know what they're doing). All the available information outside of a player's plan is right there in the open so much that masters can predict wins several moves in to the game.

And player decisions do matter. A player can be intimidated or mislead. That's how Poker works. That's how traps in Chess develop. Now, the more experienced two opposing players are, the easier it is to "play the game" because both of you will know how the steps go, but then also there is the chance that a gamble will work, where you play against the game because you are hoping you get enough 6s to accomplish a sub goal that changes the flow of the game. It is this part which is playing against the player, if you can break their plans with those gambles.

Yeah no, if you get intimidated in 40k you're just a bad player. Bad units don't just suddenly become a threat LOL

Way to avoid his point.

I will ask the question directly. I already did actually, but it was accurately dodged.

Do you consider chess a shallow game?

 Mezmorki wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It's almost like game design is an entire field of study and you just now being introduced to these elements might not have fully grasped their impact and consequences.

I know what these terms are. FWIW, since credentials seem to be getting called into question in this thread, I've had a fairly significant board game published which I designed (no it was not self-published), I've had multiple other designs looked at by many of the same publishers major of games referenced in this discussion, and I've had peer reviewed journals reach out to me regarding a number of my blog posts on design, a blog which I've been running for nearly a decade now.

Please don't presume my level of knowledge.

That wasn't a comment to you. That was a comment to dhallnet who specifically said he didn't understand the difference between randomness and obscured information.

Regarding shifting goal posts, then I will ask you to explain. You have said the game has no tactics, or no deep tactics, or no meaningful tactics, or some variation of that. You have said that the tactics are trivial and obvious and can be boiled down to a flow chart. You have said that randomness doesn't really matter since it's all just statistics and math. You say tactical choices must be predicated on some additional uncertainty. You say tactics require your opponent's decisions and choices to matter and affect your own. You seem to seem to saying something like chess is a good example of a tactical game, and yet also recognizing that it is "solved" yet still tactical. I don't feel like you are apply the same standard to 40K. How does chess being solved have tactics and yet 40K being "solved" (in your estimation) mean it doesn't have tactics? you define depth has having more factors, but then say having more factors just adds more complexity (not depth).

Okay, so I didn't say depth has more factors. It was presented to me (by you I think) that depth involves having more factors. I said depth comes from unknowns obscuring value. As an example, Twilight Imperium has a number of public objectives that everyone can see and everyone can score and they can SEE you making moves to score them. But it also has a limited number of hidden objectives. And those your opponents do not know. They can't know when you do x if you are doing it for a small advantage like trading for resources or because it's a hidden objective that could score you the winning VP. That hidden information allows for deep tactical interactions because the value of a give move is dependent on variables you cannot know. And those choices matter to everyone at the table, and can be impacted by everyone at the table.

Chess isn't 40k because in chess you are not making moves against the game. You make moves against the player. To me, that is where the line is drawn. In 40k, because all the elements are known, it's not a factor of the opponent. It's a factor of the only unknown, the dice.

People have presented plenty of cases and situations where a decision point is obscured or difficult, or where it is complex enough for there not to be an easy answer, or where your opponent might do something unexpected, or where the odds might not go in your favor (or conversely where you can successfully mitigate them), and you seem to be just hand waving it all away. If your reaction to these situations and the ensuring choices you have to make aren't "tactical" then what are they? And if they are instead "logistical optimizations" then isn't that the exact same thing as chess or nearly any other game?

They are "tactical" in that they are decisions you are making towards individual goals. They are shallow, simplistic, and ultimately unsatisfying because there are optimal choices and sub optimal choices that can be calculated because all variables are known.

At least in chess if I move my knight I have no idea what piece they will move to respond. It's a known unknown. Which allows for player to player interactions and deep tactical decision making. 40k is devoid of THAT.

FWIW - and I know this isn't a sanctioned usage of the term (or maybe it is), but we talk about "tactics" in a game (any game), I tend to view the "tactic" as being something akin to a best practice or to use an earlier term a heuristic or rule of thumb. The tactics in 40K are fairly straight forward, things like "focusing firing" critical targets, pressing objectives, disrupting back lines, screening, etc. You can get down to a finer grain with things like tri-pointing, model position, using LoS blocking terrain, etc. With 8th and 9th, there are also tactical practices related to how and when you use command points. These are all tactical instruments/techniques that players can use during play, post-deployment.

Agreed. Now that we have laid these tactics all out, how difficult is it REALLY to determine when you use any of them? Not how complex is the equation. When is there not a optimal choice?

And while you might go in with a game plan that suggests Unit X will disrupt the back line, or Unit Y will push an objective, a turn or two into the game through a combination of die roll uncertainty but uncertainty from your opponent, there are often adjustments that need to be made to the game plan and the tactics. Maybe the unit you were going to deep strike to disrupt the back line actually needs to be dropped onto an objective because your opponent unexpectedly threw more units at it than you thought, or their shooting went better than predicted. Many things can cause you to re-evaluate you plan, prompt new decisions, and in turn require you to shift your employed tactics.

Agreed. How is that not solved with the math and flow chart? What agency does the opponent have to stop you? If you CAN deepstrike on the objective and the objective is the optimal move whats stopping you but your own ability to recognize it?

You I agree with you that you can boil each of these decision points down into a flow chart (I actually wrote a blog article years ago about goal trees and decision depth in game design). But just because you can make a flow chart out of it, it doesn't mean that it's always trivial to do so or that everyone is readily able to even do that. There is a lot of specific knowledge in 40K, and the more experienced a player is the more likely it is that their have heuristic knowledge they can quickly deploy to help solve these complex problems quickly.

Agreed. I never said it was something everyone can do day 1. I said there wasn't anything else to it.

I say all of this, with the recognition that these in-game choices only account for a small fraction of the overall victory equation. 10%? 15%? Either way, when both players have a competent and capable lists, and both players are subject to an average die roll outcomes (includes for first turn), there is still that 10% or 15% that "can" be the deciding factor in the game.

Okay.

Okay, here's a situation to discuss. Hopefully this is finally a full-on enough example to satisfy. This is taken from another battle report, but to reduce complexity, I'm going to ask to go just by what's in the photo. Pretend this is the whole battle in this photo.



Current score: 0-0 (it's the second turn)

Secondaries;
Imperium - Domination (there's just the 1 objective), Grind Them Down, Bring It Down
Drukhari - Domination, Titan Hunter, Linebreaker

Imperium's turn. The Imperial Knight has a Chainsword on the other arm. No player has a Warlord (guess it's a casual game and they didn't think they needed one). There's a unit of 5 Skitarri Rangers with the default Galvanic Rifles in the Admech Transport, which is just out of range of the objective. There are 3 units of Kabalite Warriors. One disembarked from the Venom that's to the far right of the image (somewhat clipped off the image), while the other two still have Kabalite Warriors within them. All 3 units have a Blaster in them, but otherwise are only basically armed.

What do you do?


(EDIT: Yes, the Knight failed to do any damage turn 1. It rolled a 1 for shots, and none of its shots did anything. The Admech Transport is at 1 wound remaining)

 Lance845 wrote:
Things like when they deploy their reserves don't matter to me until they have been deployed. This is looking at the complexity and thinking it's a value add component of the calculation. These are not a part of the equation because they are a part of the game I have no agency in.

They do because he doesn't deploy them just so they are on the table, he is going to try to achieve something with those and you have to keep them in mind while they are out of the board. Otherwise you're just asking to have your plans destroyed. It's not like you can't influence by your actions where he is going to deploy them and thus put you in a better sport to deal with it. It's not just your opponent's agenda here.
You thinking denying your opponent an optimal use of its assets isn't a tactical choice, is probably an (or rather THE) issue, depending on what tactical means. Or even worse, not interesting. In this case, a lot of games are failing at being interesting.

 Lance845 wrote:
Every decision I make in regards to that is based on known factors. Even my one known unknown is the dice and how they will land. But I minimize that by stacking bonuses and focus firing into correct targets. Can the dice gods decide against me anyway? Yup. What agency does ANY player have in that besides stacking bonuses? Is it none? Okay this is a element where I gamble against the game. Not the player.

You are the one deciding how many ressources you're allocating to making sure you achieve your goal and thus mitigating randomness(at least, if you play the game with decent terrain, as otherwise the issue is wildly minimised). Also, the stuff you decided to shoot out of the game, isn't here because the game decided it. Your opponent decided it was the best answer to the problems you could cause in the area. Sure, you are resolving your actions by comparing a bunch of stats. Which stats however (or rather, what values) are compared is a player's choice, not the game's.

 Lance845 wrote:
Side note: Now lets say we made secondaries hidden. Great! Now we have added a level of obscured information that means I can't know what your actual aims are at any given point.

And what does it achieve ? Mostly nothing. It would change the scope of the game from, "achieving your objectives, depleting the opponent's ressources and hindering his ability to score", to "meet your victory conditions, deplete your opponent's ressources and find his secondaries". You would still try to stop him, not only because he would have to expose them at some point, but just by the virtue of knowing the lists of secondaries and making deductions (since for you, these aren't guesses but known facts) or, simpler, just by trying to deplete his ressources.
If you can't think that affecting where your opponent is going to deploy his reserves is deep enough, I don't see how creating a mechanic where you could end a game on a line like "Oh you won because you had this secondary and I didn't know it ? So deep ! So tactical !" would be better.

Meanwhile, on another tangent, this game's community kinda already stated it disliked random/hidden victory conditions (not an opinion shared by everyone but a common one) which seem to go against the goal of a designer. Which is an understandable stance as losing a game due to something being hidden often doesn't feel fun. Maybe then we would have to add more turns to the game, so players would have more time to guess and then act. But then, you're probably, as a designer, stretching one of your constraints, which is making sure a game can be played in an afternoon (which is btw an answer to "why more games rather than better ones ?", because bluntly, it's better to have a game people can play than one they wish they could).

Anyhow, you didn't state "how" it makes the game better, FACTUALLY. Just "I don't know his secondaries, cool". While in the end, it would probably just change a bit how players deal with the game and we would be back to "it's a defined state because blahblahblah".

It looks like you put more value on certain concepts than others while they are, imho, pretty similar unless under specific conditions (or sometimes just detrimental if these conditions aren't right).

I am too unfamiliar with these units to make any comment without research. I have never played against D Eldar in my meta.

At first glance, probably a great idea to get as many units as possible tied up in melee so that the knight can only engage any of them in a minimal way. Note, thats not get into a fight with the knight. It's get into a fight with that transport and it's occupants. While the knight can shoot at units it is engaged with, it's can't shoot units that are engaged with other units. So remove it's effective dice pool asap by just making those dice unable to do anything at all.

 Lance845 wrote:
That wasn't a comment to you. That was a comment to dhallnet who specifically said he didn't understand the difference between randomness and obscured information.

I also never said you were moving goal posts... so ?

 Lance845 wrote:
At least in chess if I move my knight I have no idea what piece they will move to respond. It's a known unknown. Which allows for player to player interactions and deep tactical decision making. 40k is devoid of THAT.

And this is exactly the stuff that confuses me.
You have no idea in chess what they are going to do but in 40K, oh hey, it's easy you know, it's a shallow game.
The "skill" to plan what your opponent is going to do is the same though, if we suppose you have the same understanding of both games and reduce randomness to certain outcomes.

dhallnet wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Things like when they deploy their reserves don't matter to me until they have been deployed. This is looking at the complexity and thinking it's a value add component of the calculation. These are not a part of the equation because they are a part of the game I have no agency in.

They do because he doesn't deploy them just so they are on the table, he is going to try to achieve something with those and you have to keep them in mind while they are out of the board. Otherwise you're just asking to have your plans destroyed. It's not like you can't influence by your actions where he is going to deploy them and thus put you in a better sport to deal with it. It's not just your opponent's agenda here.
You thinking denying your opponent an optimal use of its assets isn't a tactical choice, is probably an (or rather THE) issue, depending on what tactical means. Or even worse, not interesting. In this case, a lot of games are failing at being interesting.

Yeah. And I already said that. I can place my guys to make no room for his guys to be deep striked where I have influence over that. Where I don't have influence over that I don't have any agency in that decision. So it doesn't matter what I do and it's not a consideration beyond knowing that it could happen.

 Lance845 wrote:
Every decision I make in regards to that is based on known factors. Even my one known unknown is the dice and how they will land. But I minimize that by stacking bonuses and focus firing into correct targets. Can the dice gods decide against me anyway? Yup. What agency does ANY player have in that besides stacking bonuses? Is it none? Okay this is a element where I gamble against the game. Not the player.

You are the one deciding how many ressources you're allocating to making sure you achieve your goal and thus mitigating randomness(at least, if you play the game with decent terrain, as otherwise the issue is wildly minimised). Also, the stuff you decided to shoot out of the game, isn't here because the game decided it. Your opponent decided it was the best answer to the problems you could cause in the area. Sure, you are resolving your actions by comparing a bunch of stats. Which stats however (or rather, what values) are compared is a player's choice, not the game's.

Right. I talked about that with my flow charts like... 7 pages ago. You shoot the guns at the biggest threats where they cause the most damage. You understand the law of averages and statistic and value of your dice pool and allocate it as best you can. The values of your units is a strategic choice you made in your list building. Not a tactical one on the board.

 Lance845 wrote:
Side note: Now lets say we made secondaries hidden. Great! Now we have added a level of obscured information that means I can't know what your actual aims are at any given point.

And what does it achieve ? Mostly nothing. It would change the scope of the game from, "achieving your objectives, depleting the opponent's ressources and hindering his ability to score", to "meet your victory conditions, deplete your opponent's ressources and find his secondaries". You would still try to stop him, not only because he would have to expose them at some point, but just by the virtue of knowing the lists of secondaries and making deductions (since for you, these aren't guesses but known facts) or, simpler, just by trying to deplete his ressources.
If you can't think that affecting where your opponent is going to deploy his reserves is deep enough, I don't see how creating a mechanic where you could end a game on a line like "Oh you won because you had this secondary and I didn't know it ? So deep ! So tactical !" would be better.

Right! Because the mission is a band aid on a bigger issue. The core game has a problem with player to player interactivity and tactical depth. The mission thing is just relieving the symptom. it doesn't cure the disease. I talked about this earlier.

Meanwhile, on another tangent, this game's community kinda already stated it disliked random/hidden victory conditions (not an opinion shared by everyone but a common one) which seem to go against the goal of a designer. Which is an understandable stance as losing a game due to something being hidden often doesn't feel fun. Maybe then we would have to add more turns to the game, so players would have more time to guess and then act. But then, you're probably, as a designer, stretching one of your constraints, which is making sure a game can be played in an afternoon (which is btw an answer to "why more games rather than better ones ?", because bluntly, it's better to have a game people can play than one they wish they could).

No it was simply an aside to point out how an element of 40k can incorporate the factors I was talking about. I did say thats not the game we have so lets move on, because it's not the game we have and it's not even attacking the disease when your dealing with it at the mission level.

Anyhow, you didn't state "how" it makes the game better, FACTUALLY. Just "I don't know his secondaries, cool". While in the end, it would probably just change a bit how players deal with the game and we would be back to "it's a defined state because blahblahblah".

It looks like you put more value on certain concepts than others while they are, imho, pretty similar unless under specific conditions (or sometimes just detrimental if these conditions aren't right).

I place value on player interactivity, player engagement, and player agency. Thats my triangle of power in game design. If I am not interacting with the other players then why are we playing together? If I don't have agency in my decisions then how am I winning except through sheer chance? And if I am not engaged by the game play experience then I find myself distracted and looking at my phone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dhallnet wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
That wasn't a comment to you. That was a comment to dhallnet who specifically said he didn't understand the difference between randomness and obscured information.

I also never said you were moving goal posts... so ?

THAT part was to Mez.

 Lance845 wrote:
At least in chess if I move my knight I have no idea what piece they will move to respond. It's a known unknown. Which allows for player to player interactions and deep tactical decision making. 40k is devoid of THAT.

And this is exactly the stuff that confuses me.
You have no idea in chess what they are going to do but in 40K, oh hey, it's easy you know, it's a shallow game.

No, in 40k I have no agency in what they are going to do so it doesn't matter. In chess where my pieces sit, where they threaten other pieces, how I move a bishop even if it doesn't take one of his pieces... it has a TON of agency on how his every single decision goes. And his actions have agency on me.

I don't know the right things either, so here's my idea:

As Imperium:
- Get the Knight up to the middle, in the direction of the back-left Venom.
- Disembark the Skitarii, move them close as possible to the Warriors.
- Get the Transport close to the Warriors as well.

- Start the shooting with the Thermal Cannon against the front-most Venom. If it goes down, follow up by trying to gun down the occupants that disembark with the Rangers and the Admech transport.
- Otherwise, try to distribute firepower so that it's unlikely that you'll kill off the Warriors, but with the goal of trying to thin them a bit (1 or 2 casualties should be just fine).

- Charge against the back transport with the Knight, and charge the Warriors with the Rangers and the transport, with the intention of tri-pointing them. Would like not to kill them, but rather make it more difficult to shoot at either the surviving Rangers or the transport.

 Lance845 wrote:

People have presented plenty of cases and situations where a decision point is obscured or difficult, or where it is complex enough for there not to be an easy answer, or where your opponent might do something unexpected, or where the odds might not go in your favor (or conversely where you can successfully mitigate them), and you seem to be just hand waving it all away. If your reaction to these situations and the ensuring choices you have to make aren't "tactical" then what are they? And if they are instead "logistical optimizations" then isn't that the exact same thing as chess or nearly any other game?

They are "tactical" in that they are decisions you are making towards individual goals. They are shallow, simplistic, and ultimately unsatisfying because there are optimal choices and sub optimal choices that can be calculated because all variables are known.

At least in chess if I move my knight I have no idea what piece they will move to respond. It's a known unknown. Which allows for player to player interactions and deep tactical decision making. 40k is devoid of THAT.

In Chess there are also optimal and sub-optimal choices that can be calculated because all the variables are also known. If both players are playing a perfect game (every move is optimal) then white (going first) wins. Chess is solved by advanced AI's for all intents and purposes. A master chess player does know, within a pretty narrow range that if they move their knight their opponent has to do X or Y to respond, and one of those is optimal. I don't see how your logic comparing chess and 40K are any different - except that chess has many more back and forth moves over the course of the game (more AA-like).

 Lance845 wrote:

FWIW - and I know this isn't a sanctioned usage of the term (or maybe it is), but we talk about "tactics" in a game (any game), I tend to view the "tactic" as being something akin to a best practice or to use an earlier term a heuristic or rule of thumb. The tactics in 40K are fairly straight forward, things like "focusing firing" critical targets, pressing objectives, disrupting back lines, screening, etc. You can get down to a finer grain with things like tri-pointing, model position, using LoS blocking terrain, etc. With 8th and 9th, there are also tactical practices related to how and when you use command points. These are all tactical instruments/techniques that players can use during play, post-deployment.

Agreed. Now that we have laid these tactics all out, how difficult is it REALLY to determine when you use any of them? Not how complex is the equation. When is there not a optimal choice?

I think you (or Canadian 5th) said early that most turns have only 1 or 2 moments where a decision matters and the answer might not be immediately obvious. I think the excitement and fun and interesting decisions hinge on these moments. Sure, there might only by 5-10 of them over the course of the game, but games can be won or lost on these - and they are a great example of meaningful decisions.

 Lance845 wrote:

And while you might go in with a game plan that suggests Unit X will disrupt the back line, or Unit Y will push an objective, a turn or two into the game through a combination of die roll uncertainty but uncertainty from your opponent, there are often adjustments that need to be made to the game plan and the tactics. Maybe the unit you were going to deep strike to disrupt the back line actually needs to be dropped onto an objective because your opponent unexpectedly threw more units at it than you thought, or their shooting went better than predicted. Many things can cause you to re-evaluate you plan, prompt new decisions, and in turn require you to shift your employed tactics.

Agreed. How is that not solved with the math and flow chart? What agency does the opponent have to stop you? If you CAN deepstrike on the objective and the objective is the optimal move whats stopping you but your own ability to recognize it?

I'm viewing this example as an instance where your opponent's choices and/or randomness on a prior turn prompts you to change your tactical plan. Recognizing that it might need to change and what to change it to could be relatively obvious to answer. Sometime's it is less obvious.

 Yarium wrote:

Spoiler:

Okay, here's a situation to discuss. Hopefully this is finally a full-on enough example to satisfy. This is taken from another battle report, but to reduce complexity, I'm going to ask to go just by what's in the photo. Pretend this is the whole battle in this photo.



Current score: 0-0 (it's the second turn)

Secondaries;
Imperium - Domination (there's just the 1 objective), Grind Them Down, Bring It Down
Drukhari - Domination, Titan Hunter, Linebreaker

Imperium's turn. The Imperial Knight has a Chainsword on the other arm. No player has a Warlord (guess it's a casual game and they didn't think they needed one). There's a unit of 5 Skitarri Rangers with the default Galvanic Rifles in the Admech Transport, which is just out of range of the objective. There are 3 units of Kabalite Warriors. One disembarked from the Venom that's to the far right of the image (somewhat clipped off the image), while the other two still have Kabalite Warriors within them. All 3 units have a Blaster in them, but otherwise are only basically armed.

What do you do?


(EDIT: Yes, the Knight failed to do any damage turn 1. It rolled a 1 for shots, and none of its shots did anything. The Admech Transport is at 1 wound remaining)

It is turn 2 and you are not going to score any primary in this or the next turn.
Your worst scenario is that the transport and the troops inside get killed, leaving you with only the knight, which would cost you the game.

I would try to pop one venom in shooting and then go hyper aggressive with the knight while advancing the transport in the other direction. I will have it retreat for a turn and then come back turn 3, when the knight has had time to reduce the enemy numbers and allow me to deploy my infantry without it being evaporated by venom's fire.
He doesn't have the firepower to take down the knight, so you will outscore him thanks to controlling the point in rounds 4 and 5 and through the points from grind them down.

 Lance845 wrote:
[THAT part was to Mez.

Also I would like to add that I understand the difference (or at least I think so). It just is that sometimes, it isn't a "deep" one

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah. And I already said that. I can place my guys to make no room for his guys to be deep striked where I have influence over that. Where I don't have influence over that I don't have any agency in that decision. So it doesn't matter what I do and it's not a consideration beyond knowing that it could happen.

So you have influence but have no influence ?

 Lance845 wrote:
Right. I talked about that with my flow charts like... 7 pages ago. You shoot the guns at the biggest threats where they cause the most damage. You understand the law of averages and statistic and value of your dice pool and allocate it as best you can. The values of your units is a strategic choice you made in your list building. Not a tactical one on the board.

Sorry I got back to page 8 or 9 only. The tactical choice on the board is to place them in the correct spot. It might be meaningless to you because it seem easy with a quick look "you put your lascans in a spot where they can shoot the big stuff, duh" but it is a choice that you can't just hand wave away. Particularly when the game's state becomes complex (terrain, armies involved, ressources etc).

 Lance845 wrote:
Right! Because the mission is a band aid on a bigger issue. The core game has a problem with player to player interactivity and tactical depth. The mission thing is just relieving the symptom. it doesn't cure the disease. I talked about this earlier.

I rather think that the missions are actually the way the designers are making sure the game is played as they want. It seem pretty clear they don't want too much hidden stuff (even though the amount of rules in newer codex is blurring that) and propose some sort of a "finite state" to the players (because they are removing it over the years).

 Lance845 wrote:

No, in 40k I have no agency in what they are going to do so it doesn't matter. In chess where my pieces sit, where they threaten other pieces, how I move a bishop even if it doesn't take one of his pieces... it has a TON of agency on how his every single decision goes. And his actions have agency on me.

In 40K, where your units are and what they are, is going to impact what your opponent is going to do and vice versa. This is the stuff you dismiss for some reason (look at the deep strikers issue for example). While we can agree that it has less of an impact because there aren't as many combination due to the narrative nature of the game (knives realistically don't destroy tanks meanwhile pawns can take anything in chess for example), it still exists.

 Charistoph wrote:

jeff white wrote:I don’t like premeasuring, as peeps just lay the ruler out to use to choose what units will shoot at, rather than declaring targets then checking to be sure that they are in range. Subtle difference but one that does add to tension imho... and though a seemingly simple skill, it is one that will sometimes fail e.g when the chosen unit really must be shot at and ends up a half inch out of range...

The thing is premeasuring exists. It might be allowed in the rules or not, but it exists. Those who can measure by eye are premeasuring as they go, and some became good enough at it to be those few millimeters out of range for a proper counter. A measuring device is just a more obvious way of doing it, and one that those who cannot measure by eye can utilize.

jeff white wrote:It's because the primary issue is that the game has NO hidden information at the point where I am making my decisions. The only "hidden" element has nothing to do with the other player and their decisions. It's to do with the result of dice rolls. Which is why you play against the game. Not the player.

Then you must really hate Chess. It has no randomness (unless you're dealing with a player who doesn't know what they're doing). All the available information outside of a player's plan is right there in the open so much that masters can predict wins several moves in to the game.

And player decisions do matter. A player can be intimidated or mislead. That's how Poker works. That's how traps in Chess develop. Now, the more experienced two opposing players are, the easier it is to "play the game" because both of you will know how the steps go, but then also there is the chance that a gamble will work, where you play against the game because you are hoping you get enough 6s to accomplish a sub goal that changes the flow of the game. It is this part which is playing against the player, if you can break their plans with those gambles.

About the first quote, it was me... but I think that you miss the subtle difference.

The second quoted passage is not mine. I like chess.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think that Tyel makes an important observation here that may help to clarify the apparent point of contention re interaction ... and offers a concrete counter example in Bloodbowl.

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.

Undoubtedly Bloodbowl has more turns - so to a degree you have more time to do things without needing an instant pay off. If I move a player reasonably deep into your half (lets assume not a gutter runner etc) then there is always a chance I could hand off/pass to him and score. So my opponent has a dilemma of whether they do something about that - or take advantage that any cage I have round the ball must be weaker because one player is a long way off. Or they just focus on bashing my team to bits in the hope that while I may score, I'll be down 3 players in the second half (or carrying a lot of injuries for the rest of the campaign).

Maybe something like this could be emphasised in 40k with leadership aura effects on enemy models, maybe a return to a more sophisticated and significant psychology system?

The fact that strategy focus so much on list building is true. It has been pointed out several times. It comes from two things IMHO. One it is a major component of any game. Two it is one part of the strategy that is very easy to talk about.

People stil talk about other aspects of strategy though.

 jeff white wrote:
I think that Tyel makes an important observation here that may help to clarify the apparent point of contention re interaction ... and offers a concrete counter example in Bloodbowl.

Like he said, it's more concealed in 40K, but it exists (you can impede movement, leave multiple "win" conditions open, etc). The determining difference in BB is that there is a notion of immediate failure ending your turn which doesn't exists in 40K.

 jeff white wrote:

Yeah, now I get a better idea of the people that you hang out with... and I think that you have met with a main point here, that knowing the scoring and how to abuse the rules becomes the point of the game, and the level of player interaction, when what we are after is ideally a different experience.

You're making a bunch of assumptions and running away with them. No premeasure was never a balanced rule and never will be.

 Yarium wrote:
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?

And why not more often.
Maybe there is a common ground in the need to encourage tension between players as moves are being made. Maybe this means that we need more turns, longer opening game and mid game and endgame, so longer games, implying much shorter moves and charges and ranges for most weapons so that there is more time and opportunity for strategies to reveal themselves and for opposing players to counter while using so many units on such small tables. Maybe the easier answer is smaller games with fewer models and finer grained (Prohammer?) rules on same tables? Perhaps played with more turns.

We have also seen a call for more reward for getting into melee, and for recognizing the value in post game reflection.certainly, there is opportunity for player interaction between games. In a sense, this is what we are all doing here, sharing experiences and trying to collaborate on optimising the game for the best next in game experiences. As for rewarding tactical successes like getting into h2h, maybe this can be addressed with longer games and more sophisticated cover, stealth, and other rules. Again, maybe this reward is felt more acutely in smaller games on larger tables, when owning a piece of the board means more...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
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.

If you say so, but, good job on being insulting in any case.