Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2021/03/15 05:51:21
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Klickor wrote: Ofc you try to make meaningful choices in all games but the time limit and the way the game works with scoring and killing changes what kind of decisions you can make. In many games you can set up moves for rewards later on and not focus as much on the current turn. In 40k "tactics" often comes down to "how do I score as much as possible this turn and kill as much of the opponent while doing so?". What you will actually do 1 or 2 turns later doesn't matter much compared to what you do NOW!
This limits any possible tactical depth. The decisions are still very important from turn to turn but each decision is usually very simple and short sighted, limited in scope.
Sorry man, your previous posts were interesting and made for good discussion, but this one is just wrong.
Like, 100% wrong.
In 40K you play your turn thinking one or 2 turns ahead. What happens during this turn doesn't really matter a lot, you may end up with almost zero points scored and no enemy units killed, but setting up a very good next turn.
You always have a general plan of how much you will score at the end of the game and how much he will score, and try to follow that as much as possible.
Thinking turn by turn in 9th just means being bad.
You don't really NEED to think ahead though. You know what your opponent brought. You already know whats in reserves. It isn't rocket science, let alone high school science.
If you think that knowing what your opponent's forces are is enough to make it "Not even high school science" to foresee your opponent movements, please show me your multiple chess world titles, its clear that you got lot of them.
Which by the way it wouldn't even prove your point, since planning in 40k is harder than planning in chess because what you want to do and what happens are not the same due to the nature of dice.
2021/03/15 06:50:58
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Spoletta wrote: Which by the way it wouldn't even prove your point, since planning in 40k is harder than planning in chess because what you want to do and what happens are not the same due to the nature of dice.
If move by move planning in 40k is so required why do we get the following quotes from the Goonhammer team analyzing a 1k points tournament?
The basic battle plan here is fairly obvious. On Incursions smaller tables, two full Warrior bricks can dominate a huge proportion of it...
Large, durable infantry blocks are more likely to overwhelm the opponent’s tools in Incursion, and the same is true of big monsters...
As all these lists are showing, linear, proactive strategies to overwhelm the enemy are better than ever in Incursion.
[W]e see the tools from the Eternal Expansionist build used to construct an even more extreme version of the plan from the Warrior list – overwhelm the enemy. Here, with their pre-game move, ObSec and either built-in or Chronomancered invulns, the Canoptek elements here can slam into the opponent’s army pretty much straight out of the gate, and potentially cut them off from being able to achieve anything much at all all game.
Thanks to For the Greater Good, try and charge one and there’s a good chance all of them will be unloading, and if you don’t engage with them then they’ll gradually rack up chip damage over the course of the game...
2021/03/15 09:03:36
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Spoletta wrote: Which by the way it wouldn't even prove your point, since planning in 40k is harder than planning in chess because what you want to do and what happens are not the same due to the nature of dice.
If move by move planning in 40k is so required why do we get the following quotes from the Goonhammer team analyzing a 1k points tournament?
The basic battle plan here is fairly obvious. On Incursions smaller tables, two full Warrior bricks can dominate a huge proportion of it...
Large, durable infantry blocks are more likely to overwhelm the opponent’s tools in Incursion, and the same is true of big monsters...
As all these lists are showing, linear, proactive strategies to overwhelm the enemy are better than ever in Incursion.
[W]e see the tools from the Eternal Expansionist build used to construct an even more extreme version of the plan from the Warrior list – overwhelm the enemy. Here, with their pre-game move, ObSec and either built-in or Chronomancered invulns, the Canoptek elements here can slam into the opponent’s army pretty much straight out of the gate, and potentially cut them off from being able to achieve anything much at all all game.
Thanks to For the Greater Good, try and charge one and there’s a good chance all of them will be unloading, and if you don’t engage with them then they’ll gradually rack up chip damage over the course of the game...
Did you seriouly bring Goonhammer into this?
You took a source which has DOZENS of articles on 40k tactics, and took out a few sentences regarding an obscure 40k gamemode to prove your point that tactics don't exist?
Are you this desperate to prove your point?
Ok, let me put another nail on your absurde point's coffin.
A GT has just been won by a player which brought a list which wasn't meta in the least. This player is known as one of the best 40K players, but this obviously doesn't count since this game is extremely easy and players don't make a difference, right?
So, why didn't someone with a better list win?
Please explain.
2021/03/15 09:05:36
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
The influence of dice doesn't really change much in what you do. It changes the outcomes of the game drastically sometimes but if my unit on the left suddenly fails 10 out of 10 3+ saves it doesn't change too much what I will or have to do. I just have one unit less to do it with. I am already committed to a plan most of the time and don't have the time to get a new unit over there to replace it because I won't have any back up plans for such an anomaly in dice rolls.
A good player will have some units close by most of the time if the dice rolls goes slightly away from average but you can't do anything about huge spikes. If you try to you will in most cases lose somewhere else on the table instead 9 times out of 10 so you just don't bother.
Dice mostly just change target priorities. Especially since the most brutal dice failure on your own turn usually happens in the charge phase and ir is too late to do anything about. If you fail a sub 7" charge with a reroll on a crucial unit it doesn't suddenly create any meaningful choices for any player. Your turn is going to end and the opponent have the obvious choice of just screwing you over now while having more resources left than he had expected. The situation changed but the tactics is still the same.
There are some early dice rolls like litanies, advances (for units that can charge or shoot after) and even some psychic powers(mostly the buffs/debuffs) that change how you actually play and do stuff. But for the rest you are already committed to an action before knowing the dice and the best you can do is plan for slightly below average rolls and hope it isn't just lower rolls than that. You have already moved everything before you roll any dice for powers, shooting, charging or melee. If you shoot well you can't then relocate you melee guys so they can charge something else or if you fail to kill something you had like a 95% to kill but really had to kill you can't move up anything else now. It's too late.
Since the game is mostly binary in how you deal with things, you kill a unit or not and you score points now or they are "gone", what the dice rolls usually doesn't change much the available decisions.
Many games have multiple ways to deal with stuff. You can pin, suppress, knock down, curse/debuff, lower morale/cause panic etc that give additional effects rather than just kill things that will change how you or your opponent deals with things. "That unit is out for action this turn, do I still try to put more lead in to them while they are vulnerable or do I try to put another unit temporarily out of the fight while I try to get a positional advantage?". In 40k it's more "damn, he saved them all, just have to shoot with this unit as well then".
Movemen/LoS/Terrain is also mostly just binary as well. Either you see or you don't. You can either move in it or cant. In many situations the cover doesn't even matter either. A unit of eradicators with chapter master rerolls that barely see a unit 6 terrain pieces away hiding behind a barricade still hit at worst 75% of the time and their ap4-5 probably negates most if not all saves even in cover. There are no flanking or outnumber bonuses either in the game. Which makes movement all about killing and scoring.
The prevalence of charge/shoot after advance together with only a d6 advance usually makes movement very binary. You either advance anyway because it's free movement due to no targets or special rules that negate the penalty or you don't because loosing the ability to attack for a chance to roll a 1 on the extra movement isn't worth it unless you really need to get to an objective this turn. If you instead got a guaranteed 6" bonus when advancing(or maybe just double move if base move below 6") and had more bonuses for flanking etc it would set up more interesting situations. Also removing or nerfing most if not all advance and shoot/charge bonuses. Do you move 6 and shoot or move to 12 to get in position for later? Now you go 6 and shoot or 6+d6 and shoot/charge anyway.
There are so many things in current 40k that are just shallow compared to its previous editions or almost any other game out there.
Ok, let me put another nail on your absurde point's coffin.
A GT has just been won by a player which brought a list which wasn't meta in the least. This player is known as one of the best 40K players, but this obviously doesn't count since this game is extremely easy and players don't make a difference, right?
So, why didn't someone with a better list win?
Please explain.
I don't think anyone have argued in this thread that Strategy, list building, good decision making, able to do quick math, rules knowledge, meta knowledge and good mechanical play aren't important factors in winning the game. All of those are skills important to have. The winner of that GT probably did well on most if not all those points I just brought up. He sure as hell didn't come up with a total random list made by a RNG, walked in blind totally oblivious to the rules, without any strategy at all and played mechanically sloppy and crushed them purely with his tactical brilliance.
Like the battle report you linked earlier with Tyranids vs Death Guard. That was one of the most shallow tactical 40k games I have seen a report off. It was a good report and showed why the better player(Tyranid) won. But it didn't prove your point at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/15 09:19:24
2021/03/15 09:21:09
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
The influence of dice doesn't really change much in what you do. It changes the outcomes of the game drastically sometimes but if my unit on the left suddenly fails 10 out of 10 3+ saves it doesn't change too much what I will or have to do. I just have one unit less to do it with. I am already committed to a plan most of the time and don't have the time to get a new unit over there to replace it because I won't have any back up plans for such an anomaly in dice rolls.
A good player will have some units close by most of the time if the dice rolls goes slightly away from average but you can't do anything about huge spikes. If you try to you will in most cases lose somewhere else on the table instead 9 times out of 10 so you just don't bother.
Dice mostly just change target priorities. Especially since the most brutal dice failure on your own turn usually happens in the charge phase and ir is too late to do anything about. If you fail a sub 7" charge with a reroll on a crucial unit it doesn't suddenly create any meaningful choices for any player. Your turn is going to end and the opponent have the obvious choice of just screwing you over now while having more resources left than he had expected. The situation changed but the tactics is still the same.
There are some early dice rolls like litanies, advances (for units that can charge or shoot after) and even some psychic powers(mostly the buffs/debuffs) that change how you actually play and do stuff. But for the rest you are already committed to an action before knowing the dice and the best you can do is plan for slightly below average rolls and hope it isn't just lower rolls than that. You have already moved everything before you roll any dice for powers, shooting, charging or melee. If you shoot well you can't then relocate you melee guys so they can charge something else or if you fail to kill something you had like a 95% to kill but really had to kill you can't move up anything else now. It's too late.
Since the game is mostly binary in how you deal with things, you kill a unit or not and you score points now or they are "gone", what the dice rolls usually doesn't change much the available decisions.
Many games have multiple ways to deal with stuff. You can pin, suppress, knock down, curse/debuff, lower morale/cause panic etc that give additional effects rather than just kill things that will change how you or your opponent deals with things. "That unit is out for action this turn, do I still try to put more lead in to them while they are vulnerable or do I try to put another unit temporarily out of the fight while I try to get a positional advantage?". In 40k it's more "damn, he saved them all, just have to shoot with this unit as well then".
Movemen/LoS/Terrain is also mostly just binary as well. Either you see or you don't. You can either move in it or cant. In many situations the cover doesn't even matter either. A unit of eradicators with chapter master rerolls that barely see a unit 6 terrain pieces away hiding behind a barricade still hit at worst 75% of the time and their ap4-5 probably negates most if not all saves even in cover. There are no flanking or outnumber bonuses either in the game. Which makes movement all about killing and scoring.
The prevalence of charge/shoot after advance together with only a d6 advance usually makes movement very binary. You either advance anyway because it's free movement due to no targets or special rules that negate the penalty or you don't because loosing the ability to attack for a chance to roll a 1 on the extra movement isn't worth it unless you really need to get to an objective this turn. If you instead got a guaranteed 6" bonus when advancing(or maybe just double move if base move below 6") and had more bonuses for flanking etc it would set up more interesting situations. Also removing or nerfing most if not all advance and shoot/charge bonuses. Do you move 6 and shoot or move to 12 to get in position for later? Now you go 6 and shoot or 6+d6 and shoot/charge anyway.
There are so many things in current 40k that are just shallow compared to its previous editions or almost any other game out there.
Thanks for proving my point.
I agree with your analysis. Since you have to commit to your turn during the movement phase, planning it is actually much harder than it looks, since you have to commit in a way that both optimizes your resources AND provides fall back plans in case that the dices don't do what you want. I tried to make everyone else understand this earlier in the thread, but in fell on deaf ears. Thanks for giving a more detailed analysis than mine on that point, maybe that this time they will understand.
As has been stated many times in this and other threads, the game is won or lost during the movement phase.
One of the flaws of this game, is that the resolution of the turn lasts too long. You spend too much time with mechanical resolutions compared to the important moments where you are actually influencing the outcome, reason why I really like the Apoc ruleset.
This still doesn't bring any water to your point about turns being planned without thinking about the next turns, which keeps being very wrong. I mean, you can play by thinking only on a turn by turn basis, and that is an acceptable approach for new players. Just don't expect to win doing that.
I don't think anyone have argued in this thread that Strategy, list building, good decision making, able to do quick math, rules knowledge, meta knowledge and good mechanical play aren't important factors in winning the game. All of those are skills important to have. The winner of that GT probably did well on most if not all those points I just brought up. He sure as hell didn't come up with a total random list made by a RNG, walked in blind totally oblivious to the rules, without any strategy at all and played mechanically sloppy and crushed them purely with his tactical brilliance.
Like the battle report you linked earlier with Tyranids vs Death Guard. That was one of the most shallow tactical 40k games I have seen a report off. It was a good report and showed why the better player(Tyranid) won. But it didn't prove your point at all.
Please know what you are defending.
It has been stated multiple times in this thread, that if 2 competent players play, it only matters the list and who goes first.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/15 09:23:50
0017/04/03 11:10:29
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
The influence of dice doesn't really change much in what you do. It changes the outcomes of the game drastically sometimes but if my unit on the left suddenly fails 10 out of 10 3+ saves it doesn't change too much what I will or have to do. I just have one unit less to do it with. I am already committed to a plan most of the time and don't have the time to get a new unit over there to replace it because I won't have any back up plans for such an anomaly in dice rolls.
A good player will have some units close by most of the time if the dice rolls goes slightly away from average but you can't do anything about huge spikes. If you try to you will in most cases lose somewhere else on the table instead 9 times out of 10 so you just don't bother.
Dice mostly just change target priorities. Especially since the most brutal dice failure on your own turn usually happens in the charge phase and ir is too late to do anything about. If you fail a sub 7" charge with a reroll on a crucial unit it doesn't suddenly create any meaningful choices for any player. Your turn is going to end and the opponent have the obvious choice of just screwing you over now while having more resources left than he had expected. The situation changed but the tactics is still the same.
There are some early dice rolls like litanies, advances (for units that can charge or shoot after) and even some psychic powers(mostly the buffs/debuffs) that change how you actually play and do stuff. But for the rest you are already committed to an action before knowing the dice and the best you can do is plan for slightly below average rolls and hope it isn't just lower rolls than that. You have already moved everything before you roll any dice for powers, shooting, charging or melee. If you shoot well you can't then relocate you melee guys so they can charge something else or if you fail to kill something you had like a 95% to kill but really had to kill you can't move up anything else now. It's too late.
Since the game is mostly binary in how you deal with things, you kill a unit or not and you score points now or they are "gone", what the dice rolls usually doesn't change much the available decisions.
Many games have multiple ways to deal with stuff. You can pin, suppress, knock down, curse/debuff, lower morale/cause panic etc that give additional effects rather than just kill things that will change how you or your opponent deals with things. "That unit is out for action this turn, do I still try to put more lead in to them while they are vulnerable or do I try to put another unit temporarily out of the fight while I try to get a positional advantage?". In 40k it's more "damn, he saved them all, just have to shoot with this unit as well then".
Movemen/LoS/Terrain is also mostly just binary as well. Either you see or you don't. You can either move in it or cant. In many situations the cover doesn't even matter either. A unit of eradicators with chapter master rerolls that barely see a unit 6 terrain pieces away hiding behind a barricade still hit at worst 75% of the time and their ap4-5 probably negates most if not all saves even in cover. There are no flanking or outnumber bonuses either in the game. Which makes movement all about killing and scoring.
The prevalence of charge/shoot after advance together with only a d6 advance usually makes movement very binary. You either advance anyway because it's free movement due to no targets or special rules that negate the penalty or you don't because loosing the ability to attack for a chance to roll a 1 on the extra movement isn't worth it unless you really need to get to an objective this turn. If you instead got a guaranteed 6" bonus when advancing(or maybe just double move if base move below 6") and had more bonuses for flanking etc it would set up more interesting situations. Also removing or nerfing most if not all advance and shoot/charge bonuses. Do you move 6 and shoot or move to 12 to get in position for later? Now you go 6 and shoot or 6+d6 and shoot/charge anyway.
There are so many things in current 40k that are just shallow compared to its previous editions or almost any other game out there.
Thanks for proving my point.
I agree with your analysis. Since you have to commit to your turn during the movement phase, planning it is actually much harder than it looks, since you have to commit in a way that both optimizes your resources AND provides fall back plans in case that the dices don't do what you want.
What it means is once you have moved your decision making is basically done. This isn't about difficulty. This is about complexity and depth of choice. How difficult it is to do the math and assess your flow chart is going to be different on a person to person basis. I am sure there are plenty of people who have an easier time of it then I do. I am also sure from this thread that I have an easier time of it than others. Either way, the choices are not complex (Though the game does give it it's all to create as much rules complexity as possible) and there is no depth to those choices. Which is why it can be broken down so easily.
I tried to make everyone else understand this earlier in the thread, but in fell on deaf ears. Thanks for giving a more detailed analysis than mine on that point, maybe that this time they will understand.
As has been stated many times in this and other threads, the game is won or lost during the movement phase. One of the flaws of this game, is that the resolution of the turn lasts too long. You spend too much time with mechanical resolutions compared to the important moments where you are actually influencing the outcome, reason why I really like the Apoc ruleset.
I don't disagree with this bit.
This still doesn't bring any water to your point about turns being planned without thinking about the next turns, which keeps being very wrong. I mean, you can play by thinking only on a turn by turn basis, and that is an acceptable approach for new players. Just don't expect to win doing that.
You CAN'T plan for the next turn. You don't have the vast majority of the variables and you have no ability to influence them outside of your turn. You can formulate vague ideas of what you would LIKE to happen. But planning for how many models are going to be in x, y, z positions before you have even started shooting let alone the opponent is a fools errand.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/15 13:40:41
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2021/03/15 13:20:43
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Klickor wrote: Ofc you try to make meaningful choices in all games but the time limit and the way the game works with scoring and killing changes what kind of decisions you can make. In many games you can set up moves for rewards later on and not focus as much on the current turn. In 40k "tactics" often comes down to "how do I score as much as possible this turn and kill as much of the opponent while doing so?". What you will actually do 1 or 2 turns later doesn't matter much compared to what you do NOW!
This limits any possible tactical depth. The decisions are still very important from turn to turn but each decision is usually very simple and short sighted, limited in scope.
Sorry man, your previous posts were interesting and made for good discussion, but this one is just wrong.
Like, 100% wrong.
In 40K you play your turn thinking one or 2 turns ahead. What happens during this turn doesn't really matter a lot, you may end up with almost zero points scored and no enemy units killed, but setting up a very good next turn.
You always have a general plan of how much you will score at the end of the game and how much he will score, and try to follow that as much as possible.
Thinking turn by turn in 9th just means being bad.
You don't really NEED to think ahead though. You know what your opponent brought. You already know whats in reserves. It isn't rocket science, let alone high school science.
If you think that knowing what your opponent's forces are is enough to make it "Not even high school science" to foresee your opponent movements, please show me your multiple chess world titles, its clear that you got lot of them.
Which by the way it wouldn't even prove your point, since planning in 40k is harder than planning in chess because what you want to do and what happens are not the same due to the nature of dice.
Difference with chess is the opponent is allowed to counter what I do. Show me what you're countering on your opponent's turn outside a few minimal Stratagems.
40k is easy. Just get over it.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2021/03/15 13:22:39
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
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.
Note that Infinity, a game that has been here listed as vastly more tactical than 40k, has a standard game length of 3 turns.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2021/03/15 13:27:53
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
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.
Note that Infinity, a game that has been here listed as vastly more tactical than 40k, has a standard game length of 3 turns.
The counterpoint to that is there are theoretically a vastly greater number of actions, because each enemy model can theoretically react in "real time" to any action you perform. So, in a purely contrived hypothetical, you could be looking at making 15 actions and your opponent making 15 reactions for each of those actions.
Not that I necessarily agree with any of this, this is just the thought process I foresee people going through to defend their point.
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.
Note that Infinity, a game that has been here listed as vastly more tactical than 40k, has a standard game length of 3 turns.
The counterpoint to that is there are theoretically a vastly greater number of actions, because each enemy model can theoretically react in "real time" to any action you perform. So, in a purely contrived hypothetical, you could be looking at making 15 actions and your opponent making 15 reactions for each of those actions.
Not that I necessarily agree with any of this, this is just the thought process I foresee people going through to defend their point.
While this is true, personally I have been dissatisfied by Infinity because it seems like the median number of actions your Infinity model makes in a game is more often than not "Zero." It's very much a game with "Death Star" style play baked in due to how activations work, though the squad system in the game makes the lower-value models at least pretend to be a piece that exists in the game, because they get to move around for free while you take actions with the 1-2 members of the squad that actually matter (the ones holding special weaponry)
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2021/03/15 13:38:01
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
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.
Note that Infinity, a game that has been here listed as vastly more tactical than 40k, has a standard game length of 3 turns.
The counterpoint to that is there are theoretically a vastly greater number of actions, because each enemy model can theoretically react in "real time" to any action you perform. So, in a purely contrived hypothetical, you could be looking at making 15 actions and your opponent making 15 reactions for each of those actions.
Not that I necessarily agree with any of this, this is just the thought process I foresee people going through to defend their point.
While this is true, personally I have been dissatisfied by Infinity because it seems like the median number of actions your Infinity model makes in a game is more often than not "Zero." It's very much a game with "Death Star" style play baked in due to how activations work, though the squad system in the game makes the lower-value models at least pretend to be a piece that exists in the game, because they get to move around for free while you take actions with the 1-2 members of the squad that actually matter (the ones holding special weaponry)
Which is all well and good and a very interesting assessment of the way Infinities mechanics effect game play. It has no actual bearing on a discussion of 40k and it's mechanics and game play. As already pointed out, pointing at that game and saying there are only 3 turns, which are in fact composed of a great many player to player interactions isn't a strong argument against the singular data point that 40k only has 5 turns with almost null player to player interaction. Comparing apples to oranges.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2021/03/15 13:46:22
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
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.
Note that Infinity, a game that has been here listed as vastly more tactical than 40k, has a standard game length of 3 turns.
The problem with 40k being 5 turns isn't the turn number itself. It is what you can do in those turns and even more what you have to do. If the game only had end of game scoring, or at least each objective was worth more the later in the game it is, the way you play the game opens up a bit more. Or let you max more secondaries turn 1 and 2 and then be free of them in the later turns to do something else. You have to start scoring some secondaries already in turn 1 and most often you have to position yourself turn 1 so that you can start or negate turn 2 primary scoring. Most primary/secondary objectives also have a limit on how much you can score them each turn so you are forced to play into them every turn until they are maxed out. Which is often taking 4-5 turns to do. With only 5 turns and the "forced" actions of the early turns you are very limited in the actual available actions that can lead to victory. Over half the games I see being played are also "over", we have a victor just not the final score, by the end of turn 3 due to the forced mission structure which further cuts down on what you can do when in reality you can't even count on having the full five turns to "play".
I have no idea what you can do in infinity in those 3 turns but you are probably more free in what you do with your actions and have more actions available.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/15 13:47:46
2021/03/15 14:17:06
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
I massively disagree that end of game scoring makes the game more 'free and open.' A mission that does not in any way stop you from performing the optimal actions to destroy the opposing army may as well not exist at all. Which, as someone who played throughout fifth and sixth, they basically did not exist. If we ever got to the end of the game without one player simply conceding as they were most of the way tabled, we would laugh and try to remember what winning via the mission actually entailed, cracking open the book and leafing over to the page where the mission was, having not consulted it at all during the game.
Missions in fifth were a rare "tie breaker" essentially.
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.
Note that Infinity, a game that has been here listed as vastly more tactical than 40k, has a standard game length of 3 turns.
The counterpoint to that is there are theoretically a vastly greater number of actions, because each enemy model can theoretically react in "real time" to any action you perform. So, in a purely contrived hypothetical, you could be looking at making 15 actions and your opponent making 15 reactions for each of those actions.
Not that I necessarily agree with any of this, this is just the thought process I foresee people going through to defend their point.
While this is true, personally I have been dissatisfied by Infinity because it seems like the median number of actions your Infinity model makes in a game is more often than not "Zero." It's very much a game with "Death Star" style play baked in due to how activations work, though the squad system in the game makes the lower-value models at least pretend to be a piece that exists in the game, because they get to move around for free while you take actions with the 1-2 members of the squad that actually matter (the ones holding special weaponry)
Which is all well and good and a very interesting assessment of the way Infinities mechanics effect game play. It has no actual bearing on a discussion of 40k and it's mechanics and game play. As already pointed out, pointing at that game and saying there are only 3 turns, which are in fact composed of a great many player to player interactions isn't a strong argument against the singular data point that 40k only has 5 turns with almost null player to player interaction. Comparing apples to oranges.
Then it makes sense to say that. The post I was responding to boiled down to "with only 5 turns you don't have enough actions with each unit for 40k to ever be tactical." I disagree with that sentiment. I think 40k could have the potential to be more tactical even with only 5 turns, I think the problem the game currently has stems primarily from how utterly, devastatingly deadly it is, and that's what generally limits the number of actions you get to take with any given unit. Making 40k alt-activation thus increasing "player vs player interactions" while keeping it as deadly as it is does not make it more tactical - one only needs to try out a game of "Grimdark Future" to learn that.
You can have a structure that is primarily "IGOUGO" and you just need to have interesting, meaningful choices for the inactive player to make for it to be engaging and tactical. Infinity's ARO system....almost gets there, IMO? I still found that most of the time, really only one of the options for AROs was far and away the best option to always take, and usually they only mattered if I got exceptionally lucky, or had set a unit up as a dedicated "ARO guy, the guy whose job it is to do AROs and do them really good" Your average mook unit who just stands around all game and is there to provide an action token and a warm body to stand on stuff generally just dies to your opponent's super hero/super unit who sucks up most of his action points. But even then, "ARO Guy" generally doesn't have a choice. There's always a 'best option' for him to do during your opponent's turn, that's not a choice the player is making. "Hmm, my heavy machine gun dude has an ARO, should I do any of these half dozen options, or should I shoot? Yeah, I think shoot."
40k's inactive player systems - the stratagem system, the fight phase, and heroic interventions - aren't enough to really make the game interesting for the inactive player.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/15 14:28:52
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2021/03/15 14:29:41
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
the_scotsman wrote: I massively disagree that end of game scoring makes the game more 'free and open.' A mission that does not in any way stop you from performing the optimal actions to destroy the opposing army may as well not exist at all.
In the current game it ofc wouldn't do much with only end of game scoring due to the tiny table, massive mobility and lethality of armies. It would as you say just be about tabling.
But if we were to go back to earlier editions game design a bit you could allow a different game plan being a viable tactic. Playing more of an avoidance game and try to conserve as many units as possible until the last turn of the game and try to get the objectives then would for example be a viable tactic while now it isn't at all. You could still try if you want to in 9th but you will be guaranteed to lose. Wouldn't necessary be more fun than how it is now but at least it would allow more tactics. I think it is an improvement to have scoring during the game and not just the old end of game scoring. Not so sure that having almost all scoring be done that way in every game though. Especially the part which neatly splits it up so most of them forces you to score them over 4 to 5 out of the 5 turns, especially the Primary always being so.
Right now we only have one primary objective, just with slightly different deployment angles, that always work the same way. So the game becomes much more about who have the best strategy to win this one mission and the best list built to execute said strategy than adopting on the fly due to different conditions. The tactics on the table top isn't as important since you don't have to adapt much if you put in enough work in the strategy and list department in the first place.
I love the MESBG mission system when compared to the system we have in 40k. So much more varied in primary objective, deployment and end state(when the game ends)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/15 14:36:07
2021/03/15 14:39:50
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
I would challenge you to set up a game of fifth edition 40k, play one of the shittier missions - say "The Emperor's Will" if I remember the name correctly, with 1 objective in either player's DZ - and try to play some "alternative strategy" where you preserve your forces to play to the mission, and see if you don't end up tabled or nearly tabled.
The game is, in general, deadlier now than it was in previous editions. But missions where you get to score in early turns are not the problem, at all, in any way. Even though it usually took until turn 5 or 6 in 5th to table an enemy, the missions that scored at the end rarely if ever matered because...you'd just get to turn 5 or 6 when the game ended and a player would be nearly or totally tabled. Just because players are now tabled by turn 3 or 4 instead of 5 or 6 doesn't mean the current missions are more or less about tabling, because missions in older eds just didn't exist.
A board game, where you don't get to make hardly any choice except for "what faction do I want to play" sometimes, is much more tactical than a wargame where you spend a ton of time customizing your army, building it, and painting it. That's by design. I don't think you actually can design a wargame where there is a meaningful difference between one force and another, without sacrificing a huge amount of the tactical interaction between players that you'd have with a knife-edge balanced board game.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2021/03/15 14:46:57
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
I meant some design elements. Not ALL. Mostly meant less deadly, less mobility and the larger tables with 1-2 extra turns. More core rules and a little less special rules. And perhaps something a bit inbetween the old and the new mission design. Would probably make the game a bit more tactical than it is now. It would ofc depend on the exact changes though. Don't doubt GW could try to do what I just wrote and make the game play much less tactical at the same time.
I still think you can have a lot of tactical interaction and elements in a wargame. Maybe not as easy to implement or as deep as in a good board game but you can get vastly better than current 9th ed 40k for sure.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/15 14:49:02
2021/03/15 15:01:42
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Klickor wrote: Ofc you try to make meaningful choices in all games but the time limit and the way the game works with scoring and killing changes what kind of decisions you can make. In many games you can set up moves for rewards later on and not focus as much on the current turn. In 40k "tactics" often comes down to "how do I score as much as possible this turn and kill as much of the opponent while doing so?". What you will actually do 1 or 2 turns later doesn't matter much compared to what you do NOW!
This limits any possible tactical depth. The decisions are still very important from turn to turn but each decision is usually very simple and short sighted, limited in scope.
Sorry man, your previous posts were interesting and made for good discussion, but this one is just wrong.
Like, 100% wrong.
In 40K you play your turn thinking one or 2 turns ahead. What happens during this turn doesn't really matter a lot, you may end up with almost zero points scored and no enemy units killed, but setting up a very good next turn.
You always have a general plan of how much you will score at the end of the game and how much he will score, and try to follow that as much as possible.
Thinking turn by turn in 9th just means being bad.
You don't really NEED to think ahead though. You know what your opponent brought. You already know whats in reserves. It isn't rocket science, let alone high school science.
If you think that knowing what your opponent's forces are is enough to make it "Not even high school science" to foresee your opponent movements, please show me your multiple chess world titles, its clear that you got lot of them.
Which by the way it wouldn't even prove your point, since planning in 40k is harder than planning in chess because what you want to do and what happens are not the same due to the nature of dice.
Difference with chess is the opponent is allowed to counter what I do. Show me what you're countering on your opponent's turn outside a few minimal Stratagems.
The fact that he is able to react (which you can do in 40K too, just in bigger batches), does in no way matter to his point.
He said that knowing what forces are on the table means that you don't need to think ahead.
You know? This is the usual statement by someone who simply is bad at the game and doesn't want to admit it, so he prefers to think that he loses because his list/faction/units/luck/first turn suck.
But you know what? You have been saying stuff like "It's easy", "He is wrong" "Lol, that was obvious"... a bit too much.
Since everything is so easy to you, it means that you are truly a great player, much better than me! Please show us your GT wins or equivalent.
2021/03/15 15:27:56
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
40k is only as deadly as it is because it is IGOUGO. The vast majority of units are not able to, on their own, remove an entire unit from the game in 1 round of doing stuff. It takes an effort of multiple units focusing on a singular unit to do that.
Yes, some units can. But it's a vast minority and often comes with huge points investment.
The turn structure is one of the root causes of the vast majority of 40ks issues.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2021/03/15 15:30:18
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Honestly I think the issue with the game is it is too short and the lethality is too high.
If the game had more turns and lethality was turned down. You could have actual strategy taking place in games outside of list building.
With the current state of the game. Gimmicks that put units into position to deal deathblows are about all that matters outside of units that are just too durable to kill in 1 turn.
I mean...the game is fun - Because I enjoy killing units and going for tables. There isn't much actual strategy going on. A very minimal amount.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2021/03/15 15:43:17
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Mezmorki wrote: So if there are no tactics, what happens should two players face each other using the same list?
Generally speaking, the player who goes first wins.
If 2 equal armies arrive and they are each, at 2k points, capable of removing 400 points from the enemies army a turn then the first turn advantage will create an ever widening gap between the 2 armies.
Lance845 wrote: 40k is only as deadly as it is because it is IGOUGO. The vast majority of units are not able to, on their own, remove an entire unit from the game in 1 round of doing stuff. It takes an effort of multiple units focusing on a singular unit to do that.
Yes, some units can. But it's a vast minority and often comes with huge points investment.
The turn structure is one of the root causes of the vast majority of 40ks issues.
I invite you to try playing either Grimdark Future or current 40k with an alt activation turn structure. You'll find it's just about exactly as deadly.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2021/03/15 16:14:33
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Strategy is the plan
Tactics is how you accomplish the plan
Building your list is a tactic. Why you are building your list is the strategy.
Playing the game is a tactic. Why you are playing the game is a strategy.
"I have to deploy in cover" is a strategy. Selecting a unit of Intercessors and placing them in cover is the tactic.
"I need to take that objective to score points" is a strategy. Selecting a unit, moving them onto the objective is the tactic.
"That big grubin' is gonna slaughter my army unless I shoot it first" is a strategy. Using a Devastator squad to shoot the model off the table is a tactic.
Kara Sloan shoots through Time and Design Space for a Negative Play Experience
2021/03/15 16:18:18
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Tamwulf wrote: Strategy is the plan
Tactics is how you accomplish the plan
Building your list is a tactic. Why you are building your list is the strategy.
Playing the game is a tactic. Why you are playing the game is a strategy.
"I have to deploy in cover" is a strategy. Selecting a unit of Intercessors and placing them in cover is the tactic.
"I need to take that objective to score points" is a strategy. Selecting a unit, moving them onto the objective is the tactic.
"That big grubin' is gonna slaughter my army unless I shoot it first" is a strategy. Using a Devastator squad to shoot the model off the table is a tactic.
You're 10 pages late, we've already defined strategy as "bad, infantile, frivolous" and everything in 40k as "strategy" and tactics as "good, smart, galaxy brained, amazing" and everything in Game I Like.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2021/03/15 16:20:15
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
the_scotsman wrote: You're 10 pages late, we've already defined strategy as "bad, infantile, frivolous" and everything in 40k as "strategy" and tactics as "good, smart, galaxy brained, amazing" and everything in Game I Like.
LOL Feels pretty accurate.
2021/03/15 16:24:29
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Mezmorki wrote: So if there are no tactics, what happens should two players face each other using the same list?
Generally speaking, the player who goes first wins.
If 2 equal armies arrive and they are each, at 2k points, capable of removing 400 points from the enemies army a turn then the first turn advantage will create an ever widening gap between the 2 armies.
So you finally agree that players make the difference.
I am so glad you are able to ignore what I actually write. IF 2 EQUAL ARMIES. If one player is unfamiliar with how his army works then both his list building and his strategy for that list will not be equal. I also never said that players don't make a difference. This wasn't a discussion on individuals. This was a discussion on the tactical decisions individuals make. I know... it's difficult to keep up.
End of the discussion.
Well then I guess we can count on you not being here anymore. So long! I hope you enjoyed it while you decided to participate.
Lance845 wrote: 40k is only as deadly as it is because it is IGOUGO. The vast majority of units are not able to, on their own, remove an entire unit from the game in 1 round of doing stuff. It takes an effort of multiple units focusing on a singular unit to do that.
Yes, some units can. But it's a vast minority and often comes with huge points investment.
The turn structure is one of the root causes of the vast majority of 40ks issues.
I invite you to try playing either Grimdark Future or current 40k with an alt activation turn structure. You'll find it's just about exactly as deadly.
If you look back through my post history or participated in these discussion with me before you would know that I have been playing and testing various versions of AA40k since 7th ed. I know exactly how it works in a AA turn structure. Again, 1 unit has a hard time completely removing another unit from the game in a single activation. Which means that unit gets to actually do something. 40k in IGOUGO is a series of focus firing exercises that delete entire units from the board before they get a chance to do anything. IGOUGO makes the game more deadly. Or at the very least makes the impact of it's deadliness more severe.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/15 16:27:50
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2021/03/15 16:39:25
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Well then I guess we can count on you not being here anymore. So long! I hope you enjoyed it while you decided to participate.
Yes, I'm pretty much done here.
My point was that the player made the difference (call it tactic/strategy/cookies/whatever). The game is not only about lists, going first and obvious decisions.
Since it is now a more or less accepted thing, I see no reason to repeat again for 12 pages the same points.
Thank you for the discussion. It was heated, at times snarky, but in the end enjoyable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/15 16:40:20
2021/03/15 16:43:25
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
You could skip AA and just have a damage phase like Apoc that way units can still act before removing models, but...that would make the game deadlier as well since more models will do more shooting ( and will skew away from melee ), so maybe not...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/15 16:43:40
2021/03/15 16:50:44
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Daedalus81 wrote: You could skip AA and just have a damage phase like Apoc that way units can still act before removing models, but...that would make the game deadlier as well since more models will do more shooting ( and will skew away from melee ), so maybe not...
Apocalypse works not only because of its end-of-turn damage phase, but because of its alternating activations of detachments and especially the reduction in lethality/damage of units' weapons that are also specialized for a particular role (i.e. anti-infantry or anti-tank, rarely both like with many 40k weapons these days like plasma, disintegrators, etc.). With GW having continuously increased the damage and AP of units' weapons in 40k, simply tacking on AA or an end-of-turn damage phase will not be enough to keep most units on the battlefield in turns 2 and 3. Weapons need to be dialed back, with more defined and balanced roles (i.e. you would need weapons like lascannons for anti-tank, and not rely on saturation of fire from smaller "all-purpose" arms).
