Switch Theme:

Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in nl
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 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.

Balanced rule? Ok, whatever you want to call it, I prefer the game when people declare targets before measuring ranges.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.



I understand the sentiment. But sure, starting with “You want...” is insulting. It is usually best to refrain from telling other people what they are thinking ...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/08 20:03:23


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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.


Do it then. Make it and play games with it. Show us rubes how simple 40K is.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






dhallnet wrote:

 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 ?


You know that I have influence where my models are and I have no influence where my models are not. This is the last time I respond to this or any other bad faith nonsense arguments you put here. This has been a pretty good discussion all things considered for way more pages than these things tend to go. And this kind of bull crap does nothing but poke at people because you have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

 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).


On your turn your units have their sphere of influence. They can move x distance and shoot y distance from there. Can your lascans reach a spot where they can shoot a tank you want shot? Yes. Do it. No. Shoot something else.

 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).


The head designer of 40k right now is Robbin Cruddace who is responsible for both the 5th and 6th ed tyranid codexes. The one where everyone thought it could not possibly get any worse and then he wrote the next one as if to prove them wrong. The one where the Pyrovores ability blew up the entire table because he doesn't understand punctuation and sentence structure. This is the guy who was in charge as they transitioned into 8th, put out a bunch of FAQs to correct all the books heading into 8th, and DIDN'T correct that thing about the pyrovores. Frankly, I could not give a single feth what the incompetent ass clowns that design 40k intend about anything.

 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.


I am not dismissing it. I act on what I can act on when I can act on it. When I can't I can't. You keep arguing it's a factor I need to incorporate into my tactical decision making. But if I actually have no agency to act against it, then how?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/08 20:43:30



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Do it then. Make it and play games with it. Show us rubes how simple 40K is.


...You mean "play any other wargame"?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




 Lance845 wrote:

You know that I have influence where my models are and I have no influence where my models are not. This is the last time I respond to this or any other bad faith nonsense arguments you put here. This has been a pretty good discussion all things considered for way more pages than these things tend to go. And this kind of bull crap does nothing but poke at people because you have nothing of value to add to the discussion.
[...]
I am not dismissing it. I act on what I can act on when I can act on it. When I can't I can't. You keep arguing it's a factor I need to incorporate into my tactical decision making. But if I actually have no agency to act against it, then how?


It's rich to be told that I'm using bad faith non sense argument when you managed to say something and its contrary previously and you've been told as much multiple times. But I guess in your opinion, placing yourself into some figure of authority allows you to do so. I don't really care if you keep replying or not, I'm just trying to figure out something.

YOU CAN ACT ON IT. You deciding to put something somewhere and thus not having anything somewhere else, is YOUR own choice and how you managed your assets.
You recognise that you can prevent him from landing somewhere, but hey, since he can land somewhere else, it doesn't matter. Go figure.
Yes, there is probably no state in a normal game where you can forbid him to land his stuff. However it doesn't make it a "no choice". You just don't have that option. It's like in chess when your opponent convert a pawn. Would you say you couldn't act on that as if there wasn't a whole game being played, just that singular moment when he turned a pawn into whatever ?
It's the same for everything else, where you can or cannot move, what you can or cannot shot, what you can score or not, is the result (mostly) of player's choices (these choices might be innegaly distributed between board actions and pre game stuff though, due to the nature of the game). There just is no state during the game where you can simply stalemate your opponent, you can just make his choices less interesting. Doesn't mean that because he can do "something", you have no input in what he does. Which is what you've been saying (as far as I understand) for a few pages.

On your turn your units have their sphere of influence. They can move x distance and shoot y distance from there. Can your lascans reach a spot where they can shoot a tank you want shot? Yes. Do it. No. Shoot something else.

Can they do it without dying next turn ? Does it even matter ? Should I shoot the thing right in front of me or spend a ressource to advance and shot the thing my opponent hid ? Do I have the ressource to shoot with them and still hold that objective over there ?

You can keep making finite check lists, doesn't mean they are valid.

 Lance845 wrote:
The head designer of 40k right now is Robbin Cruddace who is responsible for both the 5th and 6th ed tyranid codexes. The one where everyone thought it could not possibly get any worse and then he wrote the next one as if to prove them wrong. The one where the Pyrovores ability blew up the entire table because he doesn't understand punctuation and sentence structure. This is the guy who was in charge as they transitioned into 8th, put out a bunch of FAQs to correct all the books heading into 8th, and DIDN'T correct that thing about the pyrovores. Frankly, I could not give a single feth what the incompetent ass clowns that design 40k intend about anything.

Then don't talk about 40K design's in the first place. I just answered your "the mission is to hide stuff" BS, I didn't ask for your opinion on Cruddace or tyranids past issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Do it then. Make it and play games with it. Show us rubes how simple 40K is.


...You mean "play any other wargame"?

No, designing a flow chart, following it and winning games.

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2021/03/08 21:37:30


 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Yeah no, if you get intimidated in 40k you're just a bad player. Bad units don't just suddenly become a threat LOL

Actually no. Being intimidated does not necessarily mean one is a bad player. Intimidation can come from presence, charisma, aggressive language, etc., not necessarily what is actually happening on the table.

 jeff white 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.

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

Subtle as is in someone developed a skill that allows them to premeasure without pulling out a tool, and thus bypass the rule against measuring outside of certain circumstances without being obvious?

 jeff white wrote:
The second quoted passage is not mine. I like chess.

So it is. I though it was when I made the quote, but sometimes when one goes fancy with a quote it gets goofed up. Changed.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/08 21:38:48


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






dhallnet wrote:

YOU CAN ACT ON IT. You deciding to put something somewhere and thus not having anything somewhere else, is YOUR own choice and how you managed your assets.


Nobody has free reign of 100% of the board. In MY deployment zone with my models I can space them to prevent deepstrikes. In my mid field I can do the same. Beyond my front line I cannot. As my resources diminish my ability to do so diminishes. In places, I can position myself to prevent deepstrikes. In others, I have no agency.

So.

On My Turn. I Can Block Out Deep Strikes In My Space. And If My Opponent Decides To Deep Strike Some Place Else. I Have No Agency Over That Decision And Can Do Nothing About It.

Do you get it? I make the decisions I can make where I can make them. And when I can't I don't. And I don't think about the fact that my enemy COULD deepstike in areas I cannot control, because I cannot control whether they do or don't. And if they do my options are using units that can respond to deepstrikes, abilities that can respond to deepstrikes, and strats that can respond to deepstrikes. All of which are easy calculations. And then I get shot or whatever and then I allocate wounds and roll dice for saves and maybe remove models.

So since I have now talked about all those options 4 times now. What am I missing? What is the decision point that I don't have mapped up there? What else is there to pay attention to? Or are you just telling me that I should emphasize more that I am supposed to be paying attention to it on any level? You are apparently the expert here who knows I am missing something. Educate me.

You recognise that you can prevent him from landing somewhere, but hey, since he can land somewhere else, it doesn't matter. Go figure.
Yes, there is probably no state in a normal game where you can forbid him to land his stuff. However it doesn't make it a "no choice".


Thanks for repeating what I said.

You just don't have that option. It's like in chess when your opponent convert a pawn. Would you say you couldn't act on that as if there wasn't a whole game being played, just that singular moment when he turned a pawn into whatever ?
It's the same for everything else, where you can or cannot move, what you can or cannot shot, what you can score or not, is the result (mostly) of player's choices (these choices might be innegaly distributed between board actions and pre game stuff though, due to the nature of the game). There just is no state during the game where you can simply stalemate your opponent, you can just make his choices less interesting. Doesn't mean that because he can do "something", you have no input in what he does. Which is what you've been saying (as far as I understand) for a few pages.


I don't know how to help you understand what I have been saying at this point. You literally are not reading what I am writing. Or willfully ignoring the points I am making.

 Lance845 wrote:
The head designer of 40k right now is Robbin Cruddace who is responsible for both the 5th and 6th ed tyranid codexes. The one where everyone thought it could not possibly get any worse and then he wrote the next one as if to prove them wrong. The one where the Pyrovores ability blew up the entire table because he doesn't understand punctuation and sentence structure. This is the guy who was in charge as they transitioned into 8th, put out a bunch of FAQs to correct all the books heading into 8th, and DIDN'T correct that thing about the pyrovores. Frankly, I could not give a single feth what the incompetent ass clowns that design 40k intend about anything.

Then don't talk about 40K design's in the first place. I just answered your "the mission is to hide stuff" BS, I didn't ask for your opinion on Cruddace or tyranids past issues.


Go back. Read the side note where I mentioned it. Read it all the way through. Then understand why I say this next sentence.

No.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

Lance845 wrote:Nobody has free reign of 100% of the board. In MY deployment zone with my models I can space them to prevent deepstrikes. In my mid field I can do the same. Beyond my front line I cannot. As my resources diminish my ability to do so diminishes. In places, I can position myself to prevent deepstrikes. In others, I have no agency.

Well, unless you're dumb enough to try and Outflank with your whole army (then find out you can't because tournament rules) and your opponent has plenty of Infiltrating Kroot which would stop your units from coming on from Reserves by being on your deployment line. (Reference)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/08 21:51:18


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Charistoph wrote:
Lance845 wrote:Nobody has free reign of 100% of the board. In MY deployment zone with my models I can space them to prevent deepstrikes. In my mid field I can do the same. Beyond my front line I cannot. As my resources diminish my ability to do so diminishes. In places, I can position myself to prevent deepstrikes. In others, I have no agency.

Well, unless you're dumb enough to try and Outflank with your whole army (then find out you can't because tournament rules) and your opponent has plenty of Infiltrating Kroot which would stop your units from coming on from Reserves by being on your deployment line. (Reference)


I do LOVE that guys gak eating grin in that picture.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in nl
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 Charistoph wrote:
Spoiler:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Yeah no, if you get intimidated in 40k you're just a bad player. Bad units don't just suddenly become a threat LOL

Actually no. Being intimidated does not necessarily mean one is a bad player. Intimidation can come from presence, charisma, aggressive language, etc., not necessarily what is actually happening on the table.

 jeff white 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.

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

Subtle as is in someone developed a skill that allows them to premeasure without pulling out a tool, and thus bypass the rule against measuring outside of certain circumstances without being obvious?
Spoiler:

 jeff white wrote:
The second quoted passage is not mine. I like chess.

So it is. I though it was when I made the quote, but sometimes when one goes fancy with a quote it gets goofed up. Changed.

Not quite, but you might be getting closer.

   
Made in us
Norn Queen






@dhallnet

While you are busy telling me what else there is to think about with deep strikes try tackling all of these too.

Spoiler:
 Lance845 wrote:
 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.


I would love for you or Mez or Yarium to come back and explain to me how there is anything else to these situations as presented. What factors are we all missing? What complications exist in each of them that make them so crippling that you can't decide what to do? Or can you explain where you have agency to do anything at all?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/08 22:24:14



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




 Lance845 wrote:

On My Turn. I Can Block Out Deep Strikes In My Space. And If My Opponent Decides To Deep Strike Some Place Else. I Have No Agency Over That Decision And Can Do Nothing About It.

You forced him to make a suboptimal choice in his next turn. You made him take that decision. You did something during your turns about him doing something else in his. I don't know how many time we can reformulate this though.
Your opponent had no other choice, like trading a queen instead of being check mate, you knowing that he will trade the queen because it's the only thing to do, doesn't mean it's meaningless or that you didn't work toward this goal before while taking into account your opponents moves. You are somewhat able to recognise that yet most of your point has been "there are no interactions, you play against the game". And why ? Because your opponent still has an option you can't impede. Even though you, yourself, made sure it's the worst one.
You basically limited him to two choice, one meaning he gives up his pieces, but since you recognise he won't, it doesn't matter. Sure, that choice itself doesn't matter, because everyone is able to determine that since he can't land anywhere else, he will land in his DZ instead of losing his units. We're talking about all the other choices that lead to this one though.


Do you get it? I make the decisions I can make where I can make them. And when I can't I don't. And I don't think about the fact that my enemy COULD deepstike in areas I cannot control, because I cannot control whether they do or don't. And if they do my options are using units that can respond to deepstrikes, abilities that can respond to deepstrikes, and strats that can respond to deepstrikes. All of which are easy calculations. And then I get shot or whatever and then I allocate wounds and roll dice for saves and maybe remove models.

My point is that you still didn't change your conclusion that was "I can't interact even though I did interact to be in that spot" or "my interactions are meaningless even though I have this flow chart telling me that I have to do them in order to win". Which is the center of the debate, not that you can't have such a perfect play that your opponent is left with no options. You do what you do in order to win and you do these particularly and not others because your opponent did something else. Which you yourself recognise again.

Still no interactions though, because flow chart (your choices), start of turn (opponent's choices), yada yada. Get it ?

So since I have now talked about all those options 4 times now. What am I missing? What is the decision point that I don't have mapped up there? What else is there to pay attention to? Or are you just telling me that I should emphasize more that I am supposed to be paying attention to it on any level? You are apparently the expert here who knows I am missing something. Educate me.

Please don't try to pass on to me the position you were (are) taking when I point it to you.

You said something along the lines of "There is no deep tactical decision making or player to player interaction here." about how players proceed during the game. So I guess forcing your opponent to land in his DZ instead of an objective isn't a player interaction ? Since you are just following a "flow chart" and ofc keeping him away was the best choice (since you always make the right one), so yep, no interaction to see there. If we abstract them, they can't exist !

You still have no issue with this ?

If you litteraly didn't move your pieces, the same results would have happened ? No and if you remove the "we don't make mistakes" part of your agument, it flies out the window with a bang.
We always do mistakes anyway, they are just harder to make in certain games rather than others. You're still making choices (no chance to make mistakes if you don't) and are still interacting with your opponent.

Thanks for repeating what I said.

It's almost like I was reformulating your point.

I don't know how to help you understand what I have been saying at this point. You literally are not reading what I am writing. Or willfully ignoring the points I am making.

First, don't feel obligated to "help me" ()if it annoys you.
Second, you probably can't because it seems the conclusion you obtain from your point is flawed.
What you're saying seem to be that since there are only 50 cases to solve during a turn instead of 50 millions, it can easily be "charted" and as such there are no tactics or player interactions (and yeah, the numbers are pulled out of my bottom). Which doesn't make sense. While "we" could probably come up with a decent flow chart allowing most people to win against most players given enough ressources (it's the case for many games after all), even if we're talking about two players that are perfect and always make the right choices multiple turns ahead and in a row, they themselves should be able to recognise that and change stuff in order to not end with a draw since this game allows it (like taking a bet regarding probabilities) to the contrary of some others. Unless the outcome depends of multiple games, in which case, maybe a draw is satisfactory.
And if you wanted to increase the amount of possibilities, you could probably just tweak parameters that already exists (board size or shape, unit count, number of objectives, dunno), rules would be the same but the game would be harder to "chart". Choices would have as much "meaning" than before and still the game would be harder to solve, thus in your opinion increasing interactivity I guess ?
Like a bunch of games are solvable or not depending on the size of the board used.

Anyway, have a good day/evening/night/whatever, I'm not expecting anything to come out from this


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:
@dhallnet

While you are busy telling me what else there is to think about with deep strikes try tackling all of these too.


Yeah, I pass. I think we stated everyone's points enough times already.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/03/08 23:57:32


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I am left wondering if you could get an AI to play 40k in a genuinely "its a solved game, here is the maths" way. Although since just crunching ten thousand "Lelith attacking SM Captain" results to get a curve broke Excel this evening, I suspect I'd need something more powerful for all those if statements.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






dhallnet wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

On My Turn. I Can Block Out Deep Strikes In My Space. And If My Opponent Decides To Deep Strike Some Place Else. I Have No Agency Over That Decision And Can Do Nothing About It.

You forced him to make a suboptimal choice in his next turn. You made him take that decision. You did something during your turns about him doing something else in his. I don't know how many time we can reformulate this though.
Your opponent had no other choice, like trading a queen instead of being check mate, you knowing that he will trade the queen because it's the only thing to do, doesn't mean it's meaningless or that you didn't work toward this goal before while taking into account your opponents moves. You are somewhat able to recognise that yet most of your point has been "there are no interactions, you play against the game". And why ? Because your opponent still has an option you can't impede. Even though you, yourself, made sure it's the worst one.
You basically limited him to two choice, one meaning he gives up his pieces, but since you recognise he won't, it doesn't matter. Sure, that choice itself doesn't matter, because everyone is able to determine that since he can't land anywhere else, he will land in his DZ instead of losing his units. We're talking about all the other choices that lead to this one though.


My opponent had lots of choices. They have all over the field they could drop and they could choose not to drop it. Where they drop it is, if they are good, based on optimizing it's usefulness. Maybe it's waiting till my resources are depleted. Or I make a mistake or over stretch. Or they just get it on the field because they need the reinforcements. I can't MAKE them do ANYTHING. I can only hand them back the game state I leave them with.


Do you get it? I make the decisions I can make where I can make them. And when I can't I don't. And I don't think about the fact that my enemy COULD deepstike in areas I cannot control, because I cannot control whether they do or don't. And if they do my options are using units that can respond to deepstrikes, abilities that can respond to deepstrikes, and strats that can respond to deepstrikes. All of which are easy calculations. And then I get shot or whatever and then I allocate wounds and roll dice for saves and maybe remove models.

My point is that you still didn't change your conclusion that was "I can't interact even though I did interact to be in that spot" or "my interactions are meaningless even though I have this flow chart telling me that I have to do them in order to win". Which is the center of the debate, not that you can't have such a perfect play that your opponent is left with no options. You do what you do in order to win and you do these particularly and not others because your opponent did something else. Which you yourself recognise again.


Ah I see. Here is the disconnect. My interactions are not with my opponent. They are with the game state. My opponent on his turn is handed back a static game state with which they make all their moves. I wasn't saying I am incapable of doing actions. I said I was incapable of interacting with the other player. Again, 40k is about interacting with the opponents pieces. Not the opponent. The opponent isn't capable of meaningful reactions so I CAN'T interact with them.

Still no interactions though, because flow chart (your choices), start of turn (opponent's choices), yada yada. Get it ?

So since I have now talked about all those options 4 times now. What am I missing? What is the decision point that I don't have mapped up there? What else is there to pay attention to? Or are you just telling me that I should emphasize more that I am supposed to be paying attention to it on any level? You are apparently the expert here who knows I am missing something. Educate me.

Please don't try to pass on to me the position you were (are) taking when I point it to you.

You said something along the lines of "There is no deep tactical decision making or player to player interaction here." about how players proceed during the game. So I guess forcing your opponent to land in his DZ instead of an objective isn't a player interaction ?


Correct.

Since you are just following a "flow chart" and ofc keeping him away was the best choice (since you always make the right one),


I didn't say that I always make the right one. I said it's what the game is.

so yep, no interaction to see there. If we abstract them, they can't exist !

You still have no issue with this ?


Yes. I still have no issue with this. Interactions with the player and interactions with the pieces are different things. You can literally walk away from the table in 99% of all cases in 40k and a dice roller app could roll your saves and it makes no difference. Thats because I am not interacting with you the player. Only the game board as presented to me.

If you litteraly didn't move your pieces, the same results would have happened ? No and if you remove the "we don't make mistakes" part of your agument,


Again. I never said that.

it flies out the window with a bang.
We always do mistakes anyway, they are just harder to make in certain games rather than others. You're still making choices (no chance to make mistakes if you don't) and are still interacting with your opponent.


Again, wrong. On both counts.

Thanks for repeating what I said.

It's almost like I was reformulating your point.

I don't know how to help you understand what I have been saying at this point. You literally are not reading what I am writing. Or willfully ignoring the points I am making.

First, don't feel obligated to "help me" ()if it annoys you.
Second, you probably can't because it seems the conclusion you obtain from your point is flawed.
What you're saying seem to be that since there are only 50 cases to solve during a turn instead of 50 millions, it can easily be "charted"


The number of cases has no bearing on this. I had a kind of lengthy paragraph about the difference between depth and complexity. 50 or 50 millions is complexity. Not depth. It doesn't matter how complex it is. You simplify the equation with the variables that matter and you optimize your moves as best you can. Good players optimize better. Easy or not also isn't a thing I bring up. It's what you keep defaulting to. I said there is nothing else to it. Not that it was easy.

and as such there are no tactics or player interactions (and yeah, the numbers are pulled out of my bottom).


I said there were no DEEP tactics. And I said there are ALMOST no player interactions. I believe the actual quote was "player interactions are next to null". Again, you are having trouble reading what I am writing and you are ignoring what I am writing to put your own spin on it.

Which doesn't make sense.


You're right. When you completely misquote me and mischaracterize everything I have been saying then the end result of my argument, as presented by you, makes no sense.

While "we" could probably come up with a decent flow chart allowing most people to win against most players (it's the case for many games after all), even if we're talking about two players that are perfect and always make the right choices multiple turns ahead and in a row, they themselves should be able to recognise that and change stuff in order to not end with a draw since this game allows it (like taking a bet regarding probabilities) to the contrary of some others. Unless the outcome depends of multiple games, in which case, maybe a draw is satisfactory.


If all other factors were equal, which they are not. Armies are incredibly unbalanced. Lists are unbalanced. Strategies vary wildly in effectiveness against each other. Somebody gets to go first.

And if you wanted to increase the amount of possibilities, you could probably just tweak parameters that already exists (board size or shape, unit count, number of objectives, dunno), rules would be the same but harder to "chart". Choices would have as much "meaning" than before and still the game would be harder to solve, thus increasing interactivity I guess ?


No. Because complexity is not depth.

Like a bunch of games are solvable or not depending on the size of the board used.


That has never been a thing to my knowledge and I can't think of any reason why it would be.

Anyway, have a good day/evening/night/whatever, I'm not expecting anything to come out from this


Not if you keep doing what your doing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/09 00:10:02



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




 Lance845 wrote:
That has never been a thing to my knowledge and I can't think of any reason why it would be.

Then keep learning.

Not if you keep doing what your doing.

Yep ofc, all my fault.

   
Made in us
Norn Queen






dhallnet wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
That has never been a thing to my knowledge and I can't think of any reason why it would be.

Then keep learning.


Educate. Give an example of a game that becomes unsolvable simply because the board gets bigger.

Not if you keep doing what your doing.

Yep ofc, all my fault.



If you misquoting me isn't your fault then I don't know whos fault it could possibly be.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






When my brain recovers a bit I'm going to post some thoughts about tactics (I'm done arguing with others and want to focus on my OP a bit more)

BTW, Goonhammer released another series on unit roles starting last week:

https://www.goonhammer.com/start-competing-unit-roles-in-9th-edition-introduction/

It's a bit more focused on list building, but it provides an interesting conceptual framework for thinking about what unit types are good at what things and how to use those units on the field.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Not a prob; I thought someone else brought these up and so didn't feel I needed to respond.

So first off; a battle plan is more than just "what is the most basic thing I need to do to be victorious?". I would say that a Battle Plan is a strategy. What do I want to do? My current list's battle plan is "tie up your front line with a lethal unit turn after turn, giving me the space to claim objectives while you struggle to do so". You can scope out my list in the GSC Tactics thread on the other sub-forum. Now, if my opponent didn't figure that out from looking at my list, either because they didn't understand my strategy, or they don't know what GSC can do, then it is fair to say that this is hidden information. Even if my opponent does know what they can do, they may not be used to or accustomed to this. For example, in the example I posted earlier, you yourself said you don't know what Dark Eldar can do, and that forces you to change tactics. Not being as familiar with a list or its capabilities as my opponent means that I have agency in trying to anticipate my opponent's next moves, and in trying to counter them.

For deep strikers, I think others brought this up, but I have agency in trying to counter their deep strike, or in choosing to not pay attention to it. You ask "well I can't do anything about it"... but you CAN. You can zone areas out. You can position in ways that the deep striking unit is less effective against your units, or try to make it that they can't go anywhere in parts of the board, or try to find a balance between - and each of these has benefits and weaknesses that you have to guess on how it will affect you. My last game had my opponent send an Ancient into reserves to appear on the board on turn 4. He only needed to appear in my deployment zone to get off Deploy Scramblers to get 10 victory points. I either had to give up army efficacy to try and zone him out, or I had to make sure that giving up the 10 points for his scramblers was going to be worth it. The game was a TIGHT one, so this could have major bearing on the game's conclusion!

For forgetting about things or making mistakes, let's look at that example I posted before. If this were part of a larger battle, this issue may not have happened had a mistake not been made, or a dice roll gone really badly. But once it has, well, you only live in the hear and now, so you have to adapt to unusual circumstances. I don't know about you, but when a unit survives when it shouldn't have, that gives me a lot of agency. Again, in one of my recent games, a unit of Aberrants survives when it shouldn't have, and my opponent was later kicking himself for not devoting even more to that fight to ensure that the unit got pasted, but he was thinking it wasn't necessary and so didn't. Adapting to unique and unexpected situations gives me agency.

As for the thing with the Tanglefood Grenade, you're looking at the wrong side. You did the thing, and it didn't work, and now your opponent has a unit where it shouldn't be. You have agency in needing to choose how to react to this. Stay put and take a risk that your forces are able to kill the attackers? Or retreat to shoot them but lose position? The actual answer may not be clear cut, just like how you didn't know the right answer in the example - each situation is complex and unique. That gives me agency as it's up to ME and no one else to make the call as to what to do - right or wrong, I have to live with that consequence.

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




 Lance845 wrote:

Educate. Give an example of a game that becomes unsolvable simply because the board gets bigger.

Read my previous answerS, there is an example somewhere.

If you misquoting me isn't your fault then I don't know whos fault it could possibly be.

I guess I was talking with myself all along.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/09 01:19:49


 
   
Made in nl
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Tyel wrote:
I am left wondering if you could get an AI to play 40k in a genuinely "its a solved game, here is the maths" way. Although since just crunching ten thousand "Lelith attacking SM Captain" results to get a curve broke Excel this evening, I suspect I'd need something more powerful for all those if statements.

Yes, a sufficiently powerful reinforcement learning AI like AlphaGo Zero could both teach itself (most of) the rules and learn to win at 40k, with the winning conditions being the things it must be taught directly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mezmorki wrote:
Something I've been mulling over for a while is that when it comes to talking about tactics in 40K, 99% of the time the discussion revolves around what units to pick or what to put in an army, or what wargear options to take. Go look at the tactics forum here or nearly anywhere else. And it made me realize that very little discussion takes place around actual table-level tactical choices. We talk about "what" to put in an army, but rarely talk about "how" to best use a given unit.

I think that when we're talking about army lists, we are really talking about our "strategy" and how we envision a given list being used to accomplish the mission's objectives. Deep strike unit X onto objective Y, flank with unit Z, etc. These strategies are, by nature, fairly broad and idealistic. And as the saying goes no plan survives contact with the enemy!

So the question is this (and hence why I'm asking this here in general and not in the tactics forum): What are the sorts of table-level tactical discussions that could be had, and why don't those seem to happen more? Is it a function of table-level tactics being relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about?

I saw a post where someone said a top-level player could do well with nearly any army. If that's the case, and list building isn't a factor, what is a top level player doing that others aren't? Surely that must be table-level tactics? If so, what is there to say about it?


In regards to the OP, I have bolded the two sets of questions.
Yes, I think that this is Lance’s big issue maybe, if I read his posts correctly, that player one can walk away from the game completely while player two takes her or his turn.

As for the next set of questions...
Perhaps this case is overstated. Nearly any army perhaps implies a coherent army composition. In this way, so called “list building” (more naturally “deck building”) remains a factor, as it is relative opposing lists and opposing players. We may ask what these great players are doing to win with less optimal army composition.

It may have been suggested that they are playing to objectives to score points, managing resources in order to do so. At the same time, these players are expert in the rules and their combo dynamics, buffs and penalties and so on, maximising these influences in order to make suboptimal army comp perform optimally.

Personally, I see all of this as meta level considerations, effectively off table, perhaps most dependent on experience and an ability to remember rules at the necessary times. Very little actually unfolds on the table, so these plans and consequent player interactions can be seen as effectively taking place in the heads of the players with the models themselves serving as chits more or less as mnemonic devices to track the evolution of the flow chart map of interactions made possible by prior limiting choices.

As in chess, there are main line openings and strong or weak mid game development of these openings. A sufficiently tutored player can play in silence, blindfolded, using only letters and numbers to specify moves. There is no interaction between players beyond results of previous moves. And as in chess, good players can win with suboptimal lists/armies, for instance while using only rooks without bishops, or by starting without pawns or queens. Tactics? Given the distinction between pre game list building strategy and in game interactive tabletop tactics that seems to be active, here, not so much. There is strategy, strategic objectives, and with this overview on opening, mid and end game all together, little tactics... sure, sometimes player one will bait two with a piece, in order to gain an advantage in so called “ gambits” but even these are well known to tutored players, so responses are mostly already known , and the trick then becomes remembering what the optimal response is from prior study.

And of course, it is normal for one player to leave the table as the other player takes a turn... maybe in 40k, we would like to see something more or different?

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/03/09 05:47:27


   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Pardon me, but chess doesn't really strike me as a game where players have no agency.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Do it then. Make it and play games with it. Show us rubes how simple 40K is.


...You mean "play any other wargame"?


That is not so simple. First you need money to actually buy models for the other game, and second you need people playing those other games in your area.


Pardon me, but chess doesn't really strike me as a game where players have no agency.

That depends on the level, and if you are playing to actually win. If you play to actually win, then the most sound thing to do is to memorize openings. Even the greats do it, and those that don't have to are genius tier players that are few and far in between, so advice for those kind of players are not suited for the general chess playing population.

That is like having a 200lb, 6 foot tall 16 year old in wrestling. Sure he can skip a lot of training and tactics, and plain over power the majority of other players, but advice given to him by his trainers will not work for everyone, who is not his size and weight.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






I mean, having money to buy any other wargame is so little of an issue usually that you can most likely buy 2 different forces of any other game.

I got into a WW2 game with my buddy recently. Similar model count to 40k, in 15mm miniatures. I bought a single box of infantry for 28$, it contained 130 plastic miniatures. 3 boxes of vehicles for 30$ each and I had more than enough for a 1500 point game. That amount of money gets you like 150pts of GW miniatures.

Then you just need literally one friend.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yeah, it's pretty rare that you can afford 40k but somehow not afford one of the many, many cheaper games out there. Getting players can be a problem. However, I don't think that was quite the point AnomanderRake was making.
   
Made in nl
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Tactics might involve opening the hobby to more home brew 3D prints and 3rd party minis... off topic but on point I guess.

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 jeff white wrote:
Tactics might involve opening the hobby to more home brew 3D prints and 3rd party minis... off topic but on point I guess.


................why?

Almost every game that is tactically deeper and mroe balanced than 40k does this by being much much much MUCH more restrictive in what you can take and how you can field it. None of this crazy model by model customization. .

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in at
Dakka Veteran




I kinda like the examples of 40k and chess.

40k you have a very limited amount of turns and you get to activate everything at once without the opponent having the ability to stop you in-between activations. Which leads to what Lance is talking about.

After my turn the optimal choices for the opponent is many times clearly visible to both of us and he will if capable execute those moves. There really isn't any baiting or deep tactics to turn the game around later. You have to start scoring ASAP and if you don't you lose. Which forces early engagement and dictates what the players have to do. You don't really need a super computer to calculate the most optimal way to make your turn because the game will be decided in 1-3 turns so you don't need to account for anything after that. You play against the game state and not really the player. You could quite easily swap between multiple opponents of the same skill level each turn and your game wouldn't really change anything compared to having one player. Just get them 5min to learn to board state.

In chess there might be an optimal way to play but unless you are a super computer or play against one or have studied the game for your whole life it isn't really the case. For a more average player out there that doesn't have half the moves memorized and barely knows all the game rules(even good 40k players barely go through a game without messing up at least one rule) the game have way more depth. The opponent have to choose one piece to move and can't move every single piece. You don't know which piece he will move because he might have a plan 15 turns later. So what he moves changes what you do because you have another plan later on and this could in theory go on for an infinite amount of turns. If chess were like 40k and you moved all pieces and only up to 5 times in total it would really be easy to know what your turn would look like after your opponents turn if the goal was to score points instead of getting a checkmate X turns later.

40k may look deep but the limited turns, and thus the amount of actions, in combination with the mission design makes the game very shallow when it comes to tactics.

I would say games like GWs own middle earth game have much more tactics involved. Game length is more random but you still have some agency over it most of the time. So you can have games with very many turns that allow for more complex maneuvers. You have the option to try not score primary and try to get a win or draw due to secondaries unlike 40k that forces you to engage in turn 1 and 2 or you just lose. You don't know who will get to activate first in each turn so you don't know what the optimal move or counter move will be everytime you do something.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/13 18:18:51


 
   
Made in nl
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Enjoy the exalt Klickor, lovely essay, that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
Tactics might involve opening the hobby to more home brew 3D prints and 3rd party minis... off topic but on point I guess.


................why?

Almost every game that is tactically deeper and mroe balanced than 40k does this by being much much much MUCH more restrictive in what you can take and how you can field it. None of this crazy model by model customization. .

The issue in that context was cost plus no model no rules BS.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/13 21:17:47


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Klickor wrote:
I kinda like the examples of 40k and chess.

40k you have a very limited amount of turns and you get to activate everything at once without the opponent having the ability to stop you in-between activations. Which leads to what Lance is talking about.

After my turn the optimal choices for the opponent is many times clearly visible to both of us and he will if capable execute those moves. There really isn't any baiting or deep tactics to turn the game around later. You have to start scoring ASAP and if you don't you lose. Which forces early engagement and dictates what the players have to do. You don't really need a super computer to calculate the most optimal way to make your turn because the game will be decided in 1-3 turns so you don't need to account for anything after that. You play against the game state and not really the player. You could quite easily swap between multiple opponents of the same skill level each turn and your game wouldn't really change anything compared to having one player. Just get them 5min to learn to board state.

In chess there might be an optimal way to play but unless you are a super computer or play against one or have studied the game for your whole life it isn't really the case. For a more average player out there that doesn't have half the moves memorized and barely knows all the game rules(even good 40k players barely go through a game without messing up at least one rule) the game have way more depth. The opponent have to choose one piece to move and can't move every single piece. You don't know which piece he will move because he might have a plan 15 turns later. So what he moves changes what you do because you have another plan later on and this could in theory go on for an infinite amount of turns. If chess were like 40k and you moved all pieces and only up to 5 times in total it would really be easy to know what your turn would look like after your opponents turn if the goal was to score points instead of getting a checkmate X turns later.

40k may look deep but the limited turns, and thus the amount of actions, in combination with the mission design makes the game very shallow when it comes to tactics.

I would say games like GWs own middle earth game have much more tactics involved. Game length is more random but you still have some agency over it most of the time. So you can have games with very many turns that allow for more complex maneuvers. You have the option to try not score primary and try to get a win or draw due to secondaries unlike 40k that forces you to engage in turn 1 and 2 or you just lose. You don't know who will get to activate first in each turn so you don't know what the optimal move or counter move will be everytime you do something.



Chess is fine when you have 6 types of "units" and both players have the exact same limitations.

Some games of Warhammer are like when you have only pawns - there isn't a lot of room for decisions, because no one came with a plan that went beyond "do one thing".

40K gives probably the most choice out of any tabletop game on how you want to approach it. Either you can sit back and let loose with withering firepower while cackling like a maniac or deploy a raiding force to try and control the field or any number of combinations you can conceive.

Additionally, there is no "VIP" mission in 40K that emulates what chess is. Imagine if you had to play a game where the winner was determined by who kills the opponent's VIP. No deepstrike within 12" of the VIP. The VIP cannot be targeted past 12".

How do you think that would change how people approach their list and the game?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/13 22:01:40


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

Sounds like fun
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: