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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


The problem is you thinking that the players are to blame in your continued - endless, eternal, everlasting, nonperishable - attempts to defend GW from anything and everything they do (except your small pet peeves, like AdMech, Lasguns on Sergeants, etc.).

Players do need to shoulder some of the blame and some of the responsibility too. That's not wrong. That's not absolving gw either. In my experience a bit of work on the front end, not playing as 'hard' as possible* on the bleeding edge of the competitive expression of the game where we know it breaks down, and playing with like minded folks resolves a lot of issues.

* with the caveat that it's a gw game and often playing softly isn't a guarantee of not having any issues either...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And I love the subtle inclusion of "perfectly" in front of "balanced". No one's asking for perfect balance because no one here is a complete idiot.

Well... not everyone.

The issue though is when people then say the balance they want and demand is 'good enough' because, as you say perfect balance doesn't exist.

all well and good in theory but every time I've asked what 'good enough' actually means and looks like in the real world, I get the exact same unicorn - there is so little daylight between 'good enough' and 'perfect balance', they might as well be the same thing.

We've seen warmachine touted here for example. I mean, I loved that game and it's balance was OK, but it had issues. If you had cryx or legion you were laughing. In comparison, retribution had far less of an easy ride. If 40k had warmachines level of balance, you'd see no difference in the online chatter regarding game
problems or balance issues.

So, to turn it round, if 'good enough' is what is wanted, how much imbalance is actually OK as a component of 'good enough'?

 Sim-Life wrote:


Thats because its not the players fault. We play by the rules GW sells us as a product. Its to them to make the product work, not us.

What to do with a product is entirely on the customer though. GW sells miniatures and rules, if people buy them in satisfying numbers for the company then it's a good job for GW, regardless of the actual state of its games. Sometimes (most of the times?) a not completely unbalanced game sells more than a totally balanced one. If the company gets the desired profit the product works and works very well. Don't forget we're talking about a luxury product, how much that product worths it's entirely subjective.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

If you want to go with those analogies, when a governments rules are bad it means revolt, revolution, and war.

GWs rules are bad.

It's time for a new regime.

Yeah, do you find GW totally unsatisfying and can't accept playinig outside strict a RAW context? Buy from someone else or find another hobby. It's extremely simple.

 Lance845 wrote:

Voss wrote:

brainpsyk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

1) the value of player decision making hasn't changed. The game is still won or lost in the list building as far as this conversation is concerned.

#1 is demonstrably false, as the Ork list that won SoCal hasn't won every single solitary tournament since then, much less every single solitary game across the entire world.

And I think it's important for people to remember that GW is under absolutely no obligation to create a game you like or even a perfectly balanced game.

It isn't important. Its actually one of the least important things said so far in this thread. Supporting the idea that GW shouldn't put out a quality product and that customers shouldn't like the products they buy is just... bizarre.

Agreed. Not only is that statement asinine, but I am going to address his first point as well. It is in fact demonstrably true. Every. Single. Time. that anyone talks about anything that happens in any tourny or anyone discusses any issue that they have in any game the very first thing anyone mentions is their list. There are exactly zero discussions about the tactical game of cat and mouse that turned the tide and won a game. Nobody discusses the tactical brilliancy of anyone who wins any tourny of 40k ever. They discuss their list and the STRATEGY they came up with for utilizing it. Tactics and strategy are 2 very different things. Look them up if you need to. There is borderline zero meaningful tactical decisions in 40k. Which means it's all strategy and list building. That doesn't mean any one list will win every situation. But it does mean games are generally decided before they start. Especially when coupled with first turn advantage.

That statement is more than just asinine. Go over to BoLS, look up the last Chaos player that placed in the top 3. How was that accomplished? Is Chaos OP? What about Richard Siegler and his Tau list from a month or 3 ago. Are Tau OP? As was mentioned, all you have access to is the list, not how it was played, not how many times the player practiced with that list, not the deployment strategies. Nothing. So you can't have a meaningful conversation about what really happened most of the time. People just say "list is OP. NERF BAT!! BALANCE!!" Try learning chess, then go play a Chess Grandmaster. You'll get your A$$ handed to you. Then compare the lists (ya, ridiculous isn't it), then you'll realize there's more to it than just the list.

There are exactly zero discussions about the tactical game of cat and mouse that turned the tide and won a game.

Really? Then you're not even looking. There are several talks about how games went & how they played out. Not enough? Go over to the B&C, Space Wolves, and look up TiguriusX . He talks about his tournament deployment, army lists, strategies, what when right & wrong, etc. Go watch some of the recap of the SN Battle Reports open. Go watch the SoCal open about the buggy list. There's a lot of talk about how & why they are deploying & how the game went, etc. Go look at how the Ork played deployed to limit what the DE could do if they went first. Go look at what the DE player did in case he went second. Go watch the DE player's 1st turn as he maneuvered to limit the ork alpha strike, and then realize what happened with the bad dice rolls. Also go look at how the players placed terrain, and what an impact that had.

For something simpler, go watch Tabletop Titans on youtube. They constantly talk about their in-game strategies and tactics, what went right & wrong, what they would change, etc,. Go watch Stephen of Vanguard Tactics talk about how he built his list to score on the primary and secondaries while getting tabled so his opponents still think they're in the game. The game is in the list, but it's also in the strategy, in the tactics, the deployments, if/when stratagems are used and in the dice.

Again, you're just not looking. Or worse, there is those players that think they can just buy a unit, equip them wrong, deploy them wrong, move them wrong, not focus on objectives, shoot the wrong target, charge the wrong target, pile in and consolidate wrong, use the wrong stratagems on the wrong units and should still have a 50-50 chance of winning.

You have your opinion, it is not suddenly "more" true than before let alone someone elses. People have different opinions and that is EXACTLY why it is not "the players fault" because there is such a multitude of ways to play this game.

Read that again, but s l o w l y...

You're saying people have their own opinions, but none is more true than anybody else's, but people aren't allowed to have their opinion, except for GW, who isn't allowed to have their own opinion! Seriously?

I never said GW shouldn't put out a quality product. I just believe they have. It's not perfect, but it's among the best they've ever done, and they've just made it better with a Dataslate.

And the statement that "nobody owes you anything" isn't opinion, it's a fact. Just like some people believe the earth is flat, or the world owes them something, they're wrong. And that too, is a fact. The sooner you accept that, the happier you will be.

@brainpsk You do not seem to understand the terminology at all.

Here.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/796555.page

This is a thread where we got into the thick of it in what the difference is between strategy, which is everything you are talking about in your post, and meaningful tactics, which 40k does not really have.

These are the text book definitions.


tac·tic
/ˈtaktik/
Learn to pronounce
noun
plural noun: tactics

an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.

strat·e·gy
/ˈstradəjē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: strategy; plural noun: strategies

a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.

The "tactics" of 40k amount to shooting your anti infantry guns at the infantry and your anti tank guns at the tanks. They are accomplished by a flow chart. Players can be better or worse at recognizing the flow chart and acting on it. They can make missteps where they choose non-optimized choices. But, and this is important, they are not doing that against the opponent. They are doing it against a mostly static game state in which their opponent has next to no ability to interact with whatever you are doing. Meaningful tactics don't exist in 40k.

And again, that means it's all strategy. A big component of which is list building.

See this




Quick and concise.

In 40k you sit there and wait for your turn when the opponent hits you with their entire army.

When it's your turn, you employ your strategy by moving into optimal positions and pointing your weapons at optimized priority targets. Can you get a VP? Then do it. Can you not? Then you remove as many models as possible from the enemy to reduce their ability to get VP on their turn. Preferably you do both.

Thats it. Thats the tactical depth of 40k. There is no deception. There is no cat and mouse. There is no meaningful choice or depth. 40k is so paper thin it's see through.

 Lance845 wrote:
There isn't enough nuance to have tactical decisions that matter. You don't hear about them because they don't exist.

You don't hear about them, because they require a ton of context in the moment that is based around the specific terrain, mission, and armies in play at the time.

No, there isn't some grand gesture where someone is going to state how they pulled some crazy maneuver to outwit the opponent. 40K is a thousand small decisions that add up.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
There isn't enough nuance to have tactical decisions that matter. You don't hear about them because they don't exist.

You don't hear about them, because they require a ton of context in the moment that is based around the specific terrain, mission, and armies in play at the time.

No, there isn't some grand gesture where someone is going to state how they pulled some crazy maneuver to outwit the opponent. 40K is a thousand small decisions that add up.

1000 small simplistic decisions against the current game state. Not the opponent. Can you shoot a priority target with a gun thats good against them? Yes? Do it. No? Shoot whatever is best thats in range.

 Lance845 wrote:
1000 small simplistic decisions against the current game state. Not the opponent. Can you shoot a priority target with a gun thats good against them? Yes? Do it. No? Shoot whatever is best thats in range.

You follow the logic that if you didn't make a move directly following an opponent's move then it isn't worthwhile and it isn't tactics. Any simpleton can move a unit back from a melee unit. People like to pretend that they'd massively outwit an opponent that's on an equal skill level and it just isn't reality.

Fantasy was my jam. You could set up redirecting units so when they charged they'd go out of position. The reality of it? You needed the correct unit to accomplish that task ( small and cheap light cavalry ).

It's a lot easier to represent choices in a game like X-Wing when you have 3 to 8 models a piece

And the conversions still heavily involve units:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
1000 small simplistic decisions against the current game state. Not the opponent. Can you shoot a priority target with a gun thats good against them? Yes? Do it. No? Shoot whatever is best thats in range.

You follow the logic that if you didn't make a move directly following an opponent's move then it isn't worthwhile and it isn't tactics. Any simpleton can move a unit back from a melee unit. People like to pretend that they'd massively outwit an opponent that's on an equal skill level and it just isn't reality.

That is not my logic.

My logic is that because your actions are uninterrupted, because the opponent has no say in how your entire army gets to perform, you are not playing against a person. You are playing against the math of the game. You take turns playing against that math and establishing the new status quo before passing the buck. There is no give and take. There is no weighing your options against what the opponent might do (a central, vital, element needed for meaningful tactical game play).

It's not strictly alternating activations (though that is a great way to introduce actual tactics). It's the dynamic of your choices having a cost outside of the randomness of dice rolls and your own ability to recognize a mathematical optimization.

You bring up xwing. Where your tactical decision making in how your ships move is based on trying to out maneuver an opponent who is trying to out maneuver you. You don't get to act with all your ships unimpeded by the opponent. Your performance is entirely down to the how capable you and your opponent are at reading and playing against each other. A better player can crush a better list by never giving the opponent a clean shot. 40k doesn't have a single shred of that.

 Lance845 wrote:


In 40k you sit there and wait for your turn when the opponent hits you with their entire army.

When it's your turn, you employ your strategy by moving into optimal positions and pointing your weapons at optimized priority targets. Can you get a VP? Then do it. Can you not? Then you remove as many models as possible from the enemy to reduce their ability to get VP on their turn. Preferably you do both.

Thats it. Thats the tactical depth of 40k. There is no deception. There is no cat and mouse. There is no meaningful choice or depth. 40k is so paper thin it's see through.

Oversimplification.

I would say:

In 40k, while your opponent is hitting the units in your army which aren't hidden behind obscuring terrain or kept in reserve with the units in his army which aren't using battlefield actions to complete objectives or holding territory, you are watching him to try to figure out which of his units will move toward objectives and which aura-bearing characters are accompanying them so that you can figure out which of your units you will need to use to most effectively thwart that strategy, and whether they will need aura and strategem support.

When your turn comes, you attempt to implement the plan you devised based on those observations, which may include sacrificing some of your units to screen others from charges, or to tempt your opponent away from an objective. It will also involve ensuring that your aura support is where it needs to be to not only provide the strongest synergy, but to ensure that this synergy is used where it's needed most; it will also include using enough of your limited strategems to achieve your goal, but not so many that you find yourself short on subsequent turns.

Now I realize that in previous editions when every unit in the game had an equal capacity to pin every other unit in the game; when multiple units could catch a single unit in a crossfire; when you had to decide whether to move or to shoot because you couldn't do both; when you had to decide how to position a vehicle so that side guns could hit what they needed to hit vs presenting the strongest armour to the greatest threat that all of these decisions FELT more like to YOU like tactics than any of the things that I list in the paragraphs above. But just because they FELT more like tactics (to YOU), that doesn't make it objectively true.

Because deciding whether my aura character buffs the unit that is trying to achieve an objective for me, or deny one from you is every bit as objectively tactical as any of the "to move or to shoot cuz I can't do both" decisions of editions gone by regardless of how it feels (to YOU).

It's also worth noting that the definition of tactics you quoted above includes the word strategy, which means from an actual LANGUAGE perspective, the two words are similar enough to be classified as synonyms by people in the business of writing dictionaries despite the efforts of a select few members of the online community to attach connotative meanings to each of the words in order to advance a particular narrative based on their personal feelings about which of two equally valid points of view is more objectively true.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
1000 small simplistic decisions against the current game state. Not the opponent. Can you shoot a priority target with a gun thats good against them? Yes? Do it. No? Shoot whatever is best thats in range.

You follow the logic that if you didn't make a move directly following an opponent's move then it isn't worthwhile and it isn't tactics. Any simpleton can move a unit back from a melee unit. People like to pretend that they'd massively outwit an opponent that's on an equal skill level and it just isn't reality.

That is not my logic.

My logic is that because your actions are uninterrupted, because the opponent has no say in how your entire army gets to perform, you are not playing against a person. You are playing against the math of the game. You take turns playing against that math and establishing the new status quo before passing the buck. There is no give and take. There is no weighing your options against what the opponent might do (a central, vital, element needed for meaningful tactical game play).

It's not strictly alternating activations (though that is a great way to introduce actual tactics). It's the dynamic of your choices having a cost outside of the randomness of dice rolls and your own ability to recognize a mathematical optimization.

You bring up xwing. Where your tactical decision making in how your ships move is based on trying to out maneuver an opponent who is trying to out maneuver you. You don't get to act with all your ships unimpeded by the opponent. Your performance is entirely down to the how capable you and your opponent are at reading and playing against each other. A better player can crush a better list by never giving the opponent a clean shot. 40k doesn't have a single shred of that.

Because X-Wing has so few units, but you can't accomplish some maneuvers without specific upgrades and ships.

Some armies in 40K are just super straightforward. People who take lists with no redeploy or other kinds of flexibility are very one dimensional and they'll have a very different experience than someone who is able to capitalize on the developing board state.

 Lance845 wrote:
@brainpsk
Quick and concise.

In 40k you sit there and wait for your turn when the opponent hits you with their entire army.

When it's your turn, you employ your strategy by moving into optimal positions and pointing your weapons at optimized priority targets. Can you get a VP? Then do it. Can you not? Then you remove as many models as possible from the enemy to reduce their ability to get VP on their turn. Preferably you do both.

Thats it. Thats the tactical depth of 40k. There is no deception. There is no cat and mouse. There is no meaningful choice or depth. 40k is so paper thin it's see through.

Interesting video, and it fits in quite well with my understanding.

The army list is part of the strategy. But how you use your units during a game turn is tactics. For example, I take Chimeras and Hellhounds in my IG list. Why? It's part of my strategy to improve my mobility and take objectives. My tactic is to throw those 2 units out first so my opponents take the bait and shoot those instead of my TCs. Then my TCs and Manticores take out the tank killing units that got exposed to take out my chimera. The strategy is to trade-up. The tactic is how you accomplish it.

* A tactic I also use is to place a screening infantry unit 4.1 inches in front of my TCs, so you have to charge them and not my TC, and if I spread out far enough, they can't wrap my infantry to pile/consolidate into my TCs
* Another tactic I use is to throw a cheap unit off to the side, so my opponent can either go after them (and get out of position) or leave me in an advantageous position for the following turn. You'll find that a lot of inexperienced players will expose an entire unit (or 3!) to wipe out one of yours. So place your unit where the 1-2 models of the enemy unit can see them, but will expose themselves to charging anr/or return fire by doing so.

How many of you believe flanking is a thing in 40K? Because it is. My strategy is "the swirl", but as I move up one side of the board, my tactic is to look for positions where I can take advantage of my opponent over-reaching or over-exposing, and them making them pay for it with my ranged weaponry.

I'm learning that all those nuances are what the top players have mastered. They've mastered the list building to accomplish their objectives (like you can't shoot an enemy off the board with a HtH army, or compete in HtH with IG...), the strategy of how they want the game to play out, then the tactics to make their strategy play out they way they want to.

How many of you have a 5-turn game plan starting the moment mission is chosen and the objectives & terrain are laid down? (I can barely do 2 turns right now, on a good day with a gallon of caffeine in me). I still get baited by killing the best unit in front of me, rather than focusing on the unit that's going to win my opponent the game 2 turns down the road. That's my opponent's strategy & tactics beating my strategy & tactics.

While your opponent is moving & shooting, are you looking at what they are trying to accomplish? Where they are going to move next? What units will they send out next?

This is spot on:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You don't hear about them, because they require a ton of context in the moment that is based around the specific terrain, mission, and armies in play at the time.

No, there isn't some grand gesture where someone is going to state how they pulled some crazy maneuver to outwit the opponent. 40K is a thousand small decisions that add up.

Every turn you're battling your opponent and their army. Are they conservative, or overly aggressive. What if they swap their playstyle the next turn, what impact will that have on my strategy? Can I make them go one way or the other to my advantage? If you're not playing your opponent, you're being played by them.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


In 40k you sit there and wait for your turn when the opponent hits you with their entire army.

When it's your turn, you employ your strategy by moving into optimal positions and pointing your weapons at optimized priority targets. Can you get a VP? Then do it. Can you not? Then you remove as many models as possible from the enemy to reduce their ability to get VP on their turn. Preferably you do both.

Thats it. Thats the tactical depth of 40k. There is no deception. There is no cat and mouse. There is no meaningful choice or depth. 40k is so paper thin it's see through.

Oversimplification.

I would say:

In 40k, while your opponent is hitting the units in your army which aren't hidden behind obscuring terrain or kept in reserve with the units in his army which aren't using battlefield actions to complete objectives or holding territory, you are watching him to try to figure out which of his units will move toward objectives and which aura-bearing characters are accompanying them so that you can figure out which of your units you will need to use to most effectively thwart that strategy, and whether they will need aura and strategem support.

Any amount of "trying to figure out" that you are doing is a waste of your brain power. Trying to predict where he will move what units in conjunction with other units is a matter of waiting. You could literally walk away from the table, eat a sandwich, and come back to see where they ended up and it would get you exactly the same result as any amount of "trying to figure out" that you wasted your thoughts doing.

When your turn comes, you attempt to implement the plan you devised based on those observations, which may include sacrificing some of your units to screen others from charges, or to tempt your opponent away from an objective. It will also involve ensuring that your aura support is where it needs to be to not only provide the strongest synergy, but to ensure that this synergy is used where it's needed most; it will also include using enough of your limited strategems to achieve your goal, but not so many that you find yourself short on subsequent turns.

Again, any plan you devised mid their turn was a waste of your time. It doesn't matter what plan you created during their movement phase. What matters is the plan you come up with in your movement phase after all your losses have been removed, the melees are over, and the turn is yours. You cannot create a plan for your turn until you know what resources you have at your disposal. It's now your opponents turn to go eat a sandwich.

Now I realize that in previous editions when every unit in the game had an equal capacity to pin every other unit in the game; when multiple units could catch a single unit in a crossfire; when you had to decide whether to move or to shoot because you couldn't do both; when you had to decide how to position a vehicle so that side guns could hit what they needed to hit vs presenting the strongest armour to the greatest threat that all of these decisions FELT more like to YOU like tactics than any of the things that I list in the paragraphs above. But just because they FELT more like tactics (to YOU), that doesn't make it objectively true.

No. 40k NEVER FELT like anything tactically deep to me. Previous editions were more COMPLICATED. But that complication is not depth. I want DEPTH. 40k has never had depth.

Because deciding whether my aura character buffs the unit that is trying to achieve an objective for me, or deny one from you is every bit as objectively tactical as any of the "to move or to shoot cuz I can't do both" decisions of editions gone by regardless of how it feels (to YOU).

Again. A misunderstanding of my feelings. I get that you THINK thats some kind of meaningful tactics. But it's not. It's a flow chart of optimized actions that is only impeded by your own ability to calculate it.

It's also worth noting that the definition of tactics you quoted above includes the word strategy, which means from an actual LANGUAGE perspective, the two words are similar enough to be classified as synonyms by people in the business of writing dictionaries despite the efforts of a select few members of the online community to attach connotative meanings to each of the words in order to advance a particular narrative based on their personal feelings about which of two equally valid points of view is more objectively true.

Lets see how this logic holds up.

cul·ture
/ˈkəlCHər/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
all
biology
horticulture
noun
noun: culture; plural noun: cultures

1.
the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
"20th century popular culture"
h
Similar:
the arts

The definition of Culture includes the word manifestations which means the two words are so similar so as to be synonyms.

So like.. A cultist cultures a deamon from the warp.

Yup. Totally works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Because X-Wing has so few units, but you can't accomplish some maneuvers without specific upgrades and ships.

No. Its because Xwing has player interaction.

Some armies in 40K are just super straightforward. People who take lists with no redeploy or other kinds of flexibility are very one dimensional and they'll have a very different experience than someone who is able to capitalize on the developing board state.

There is no developing board state. There is only the current board state at the start of your turn. Nothing else matters because you have no ability to interact with it at any other time.

PenitentJake wrote:It's also worth noting that the definition of tactics you quoted above includes the word strategy, which means from an actual LANGUAGE perspective, the two words are similar enough to be classified as synonyms by people in the business of writing dictionaries despite the efforts of a select few members of the online community to attach connotative meanings to each of the words in order to advance a particular narrative based on their personal feelings about which of two equally valid points of view is more objectively true

Absolutely not. I might agree that people spend too much time nitpicking their relevance in terms of tabletop games, but from an actual real-world military perspective this is utterly and abjectly wrong in all possible ways. It is an extremely necessary distinction of language.

That you think its an 'online community' issue is kind of frightening.
But I encourage you to share this view with military folks. It should be enlightening.

 Lance845 wrote:

It's also worth noting that the definition of tactics you quoted above includes the word strategy, which means from an actual LANGUAGE perspective, the two words are similar enough to be classified as synonyms by people in the business of writing dictionaries despite the efforts of a select few members of the online community to attach connotative meanings to each of the words in order to advance a particular narrative based on their personal feelings about which of two equally valid points of view is more objectively true.

Lets see how this logic holds up.

cul·ture
/ˈkəlCHər/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
all
biology
horticulture
noun
noun: culture; plural noun: cultures

1.
the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
"20th century popular culture"
h
Similar:
the arts

The definition of Culture includes the word manifestations which means the two words are so similar so as to be synonyms.

So like.. A cultist cultures a deamon from the warp.

Yup. Totally works.

This is an incorrect application of the logic. The section you're looking to apply here is "manifestations of human intellectual achievement". Not just the singular word "manifestation". But also, "A cultist [maintains in conditions suitable for growth*] a daemon from the warp" (*a definition of culture) does 100% work, interestingly enough!


But anyways, if a tactic is a "strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end", then a strategy is just a tactic waiting for a plan. But more importantly, a synonym for tactic is "stratagem", which 40k 9th edition is chock full of! Perhaps too many, according to some. I guess nobody can argue 40k 9th edition lacks tactics.

If I said "40k lacks strategies carefully planned to achieve a specific end!" you would forgive somebody for not knowing that I'm talking about tactics and not strategies, right?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
There isn't enough nuance to have tactical decisions that matter. You don't hear about them because they don't exist.

You don't hear about them, because they require a ton of context in the moment that is based around the specific terrain, mission, and armies in play at the time.

No, there isn't some grand gesture where someone is going to state how they pulled some crazy maneuver to outwit the opponent. 40K is a thousand small decisions that add up.

Daedelus is correct. Tactics DO exist in 40k. They are just harder to have a conversation about without proper context. Also, because of the tendency towards misunderstanding and disingenuousness in online forums, they don't show up as much as mathhammer and Strat-combos in dialogue.

 Lance845 wrote:

No. 40k NEVER FELT like anything tactically deep to me. Previous editions were more COMPLICATED. But that complication is not depth. I want DEPTH. 40k has never had depth.

Well, since you know what you want, and 40k doesn't provide it, why do you keep playing 40k?

ccs wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

No. 40k NEVER FELT like anything tactically deep to me. Previous editions were more COMPLICATED. But that complication is not depth. I want DEPTH. 40k has never had depth.

Well, since you know what you want, and 40k doesn't provide it, why do you keep playing 40k?

I don't think he does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
A better player can crush a better list by never giving the opponent a clean shot.

And do you think this is actually a good thing for a game? One involving dice in particular?

 Blackie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
A better player can crush a better list by never giving the opponent a clean shot.

And do you think this is actually a good thing for a game? One involving dice in particular?

Yes. Note that Lance said "can" not "will always". List building should matter, to the extent that an absolutely terrible list should struggle against a very good, well-designed list even with a large player skill gap. The difference in games with good tactical depth is the skill gap accounts for more of the final result than in less tactically deep games, such that better players can more easily overcome weaknesses created at the list building stage.

I'm a bit confused why you seem to think this is a bad thing. The logical conclusion of your stance is that list building is the only thing that should matter.

But if you go with the "can" route instead of "will always" even the current edition of 40k allows a better player to crush an opponent without giving him a clean shot. It happens.

To me, more than listbuilding, it's the dice rolling that should matter a lot, in a way that even a noob can compete with a much better player assuming lists are basically on par. If a noob or a pure beer and pretzel player has no chance against a skilled competitive player (still assuming both lists are equally good) that's a terrible game design IMHO.

To be clear in a version of 40k I like things that matter are: randomness of dice rolling, listbuilding, players' skills. In this order. My biggest complain about 9th isn't about depth, but about the massive dice rolling and the tools to "fix/enhance" the dice rolling, making 40k the game of averages or even above averages. That's the real issue, I think players choices during the game already play a big part in 40k, I definitely don't feel the need to add more depth.

 Blackie wrote:

To be clear in a version of 40k I like things that matter are: randomness of dice rolling, listbuilding, players' skills. In this order.

This explains sooooo much about your attitude towards the game.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

To be clear in a version of 40k I like things that matter are: randomness of dice rolling, listbuilding, players' skills. In this order.

This explains sooooo much about your attitude towards the game.

Wasn't it clear before? But yeah, to me it's amusing to see what people expect from a dice game.

 Blackie wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

To be clear in a version of 40k I like things that matter are: randomness of dice rolling, listbuilding, players' skills. In this order.

This explains sooooo much about your attitude towards the game.

Wasn't it clear before? But yeah, to me it's amusing to see what people expect from a dice game.

So how do you derive balance from randomness with no mitigation? They game would have to be so random as to be meaningless.

Well if you want balance first thing to do is get rid of GW from the equation. You can't have rule writer be same guys who benefit from imbalance for sake of model sales.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

To be clear in a version of 40k I like things that matter are: randomness of dice rolling, listbuilding, players' skills. In this order.

This explains sooooo much about your attitude towards the game.

Wasn't it clear before? But yeah, to me it's amusing to see what people expect from a dice game.

So how do you derive balance from randomness with no mitigation? They game would have to be so random as to be meaningless.

Who said no mitigation? Or totally random?

Consider Necromunda: there you have models like Van Saar that have +1BS which is a massive upgrade, except you're basically firing single shots with no modifiers or re-roll everytime. So it can happen, and it happens quite frequently, that even a well kitted bunch of dudes fails to do something by missing several shots during a turn. In 40k that doesn't happen because each unit let the player roll a bazillion of dice, which can also be easily modified. That's what I mean when I say I'd like to increase randomness. Units that fire 30 shots with access to re-rolls and modifiers should fire 10 instead, with no access to re-rolls or modifiers outside extremely limited exceptions, making the game more unpredictable without changing anything to the core mechanics.

My ideal game would be determined by 40% dice rolling, 30% list building, 30% players' decisions. At the moment to me it feels like it's 20% dice rolling, 50% list building, 30% players' decisions.

A game that is based on dice rolling can't really be balanced, it can only achieve a reasonable amount of balance. But what amount of balance is satisfying or even just acceptable is totally subjective. If I wanted to play a really balanced game, something that is mostly (if not entirely) based on players' skills, I'd play chess. Or football.

Game play is a series of interesting choices. Dice rolls are not choices. They are a mechanic for random number generation. While list building does include interesting choices its not game play because it happens pre game. Its game set up.

Basically your ideal game is only 30% gameplay. Do you realize how crazy that is? How bad it is?

MINIMUM the game should be 60% player choices 20% list 20% dice. Any additional game play is better. But bare minimum the players should be driving the experience.

Did Blackie's bad take glitch the thread?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Did Blackie's bad take glitch the thread?

Forum has been weird here, too.

Yup. Page 10 is a lie.

Perpetual page 9.

Praise Tzeentch!

 Lance845 wrote:
Game play is a series of interesting choices. Dice rolls are not choices. They are a mechanic for random number generation. While list building does include interesting choices its not game play because it happens pre game. Its game set up.

Basically your ideal game is only 30% gameplay. Do you realize how crazy that is? How bad it is?

MINIMUM the game should be 60% player choices 20% list 20% dice. Any additional game play is better. But bare minimum the players should be driving the experience.

Nah, it would turn 40k into poker .

To me it's still a garage hammer beer and pretzel experience between friends and family and should stay that way .

I think players' choices are already a thing in current 40k and I wouldn't like to increase additional imbalance when a more skilled player faces a noob or someone that doesn't play very often. Noob needs to have the chance to compete with the veteran, always, that's where (a reasonable amount of) randomness kicks in.

In poker there's also randomness but a noob stands basically no chance against a veteran player.