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.

Beer and pretzels games tend to be light on rules and strategy. And themed around quick and easy to set up ? Lots of randomness as well.

Does 40k ever actually fit that. I feel it’s just a forge the narrative phrase that 40k players use to try and explains away issues in the game.

Even the randomness of 40k has been more and more eroded with a lot more sure ways to deal avg damage to more consistent highs.

 Blackie wrote:

 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.

No it wouldn't, it would turn it into a game instead of a glorified model putting away simulator. I'm having a hard time forming a response because the idea of someone wanting a game with literally no skill ceiling is so strange to me that I can't think of where to begin with how bad of an idea it is. You're basically asking that 40k becomes Snakes/Chutes and Ladders but without any snakes/chutes or ladders

I have no idea about what Snake/Chutes and Ladders is but I've always said that players' choices and skills should matter in 40k. And I mean choices outside listbuilding, which in fact are still players' choices.

If you think that current 40k (or any other older version of 40k actually) is a game with literally no skill ceiling ok, that's your opinion and I disagree. I might feel we're playing a different game then. Assuming you're actually still playing of course .

I'm not really asking about anything, I love 40k as it is. I just think it has its flaws, and it's mostly down to the fact that dice rolling is too heavy, making rolls almost pointless since they are too predictable. Heavy dice rolling with guaranteed result are a problem, but overall I definitely like the game mechanics. In the past players didn't throw that many dice and they didn't have easy access to fix the results, game was more random and smooth.

The OP stated "restrictions are good the for game" and I agree, since the second main problem of 40k is having too many options to choose from (and I mean actual units and wargear, not rules) and there has to be a limit somehow. Capping the flyers to 1 every 1000 points was a step in the right direction.

Smaller armies rosters and limited dice rolling are the only things I miss from old editions of 40k.

You said a noob needs to be able to beat a veteran. The only way this could happen is by removing player skill as a factor, either skill in list building or skill in in game decisions. There's no way around that.

 Sim-Life wrote:
You said a noob needs to be able to beat a veteran. The only way this could happen is by removing player skill as a factor, either skill in list building or skill in in game decisions. There's no way around that.

I see where he's coming from though. When I play blood-bowl, or whatever with Mrs.deadnight, who absolutely is not a gamer and absolutely does not have 20 years of ttg experience, from my pov its actually quite nice that my experience/skill doesn't simply give me an auto-win at it, that with the luck/random factor being as strong as it is - my ork team (axe devil's jagwaaaaghs) love knocking themselves out. It means she can engage with me on an even level and do well without coaching or me holding her hand. And that despite all my experience I can engage with her as an equal on a level playing field. Ultimately it's an enjoyable evening for us both.

It's actually not a bad thing at all to bake that into a game and allow casual players to.engage strongly. Especially when most of thr player base leans towards casual and Especially for people who value the social side of a game more so than the absolute -competitiveness and conpetitive-at-all-cost.

 Sim-Life wrote:
You said a noob needs to be able to beat a veteran. The only way this could happen is by removing player skill as a factor, either skill in list building or skill in in game decisions. There's no way around that.

By limiting it, not removing it entirely. A veteran plays better but might be unlucky, which is enough grounds to give the noob a chance to compete for winning the game. That's it. In a game like poker, which I adore, in order to let than happen the noob has to be really extremely lucky, which is something I wouldn't want for 40k. In fact, on average, the most skilled player already wins regularly against a noob and would still have more chances to win even if we would go back to 3rd-5th editions' amount of dice rolling, which was way lower than now and allowed more randomness to the game. Like it should be: better odds, but no guaranteed results.

40k is a game in which dice are rolled for evertything: hit, wound, armour, other saves, charge, number of shots, number of damage, to determine if an ability/power/stratagem works at all, etc... if randomness doesn't matter or has little impact to the game why rolling for everything (and with that amount of dice) in the first place? Why not playing using averages and pre-determined results instead of rolling the dice?

Hmmm. I'd say in heads up poker a noob just needs to be relatively lucky. If I get the better hand than you any time you draw something half decent, there's not much you can do beyond just not play at all. This isn't to say there isn't skill in it - there's a huge amount and better players usually win - but sometimes the cards just say no.

Dice can do that in 40k (or Bloodbowl) - but equally there's a lot you are in control of.

Movement and positioning for instance largely isn't controlled by dice. If I can shoot my anti-X into your X, while keeping my Y hidden from your anti-Y, the odds are heavily skewed in my favour. If I know approximately what I'd expect to die in both your and my turns, I can engineer I have stuff on objectives and keep scoring while you'll be surprised to find you don't and there's nothing you can do.

This usually prompts the whinge that a lot of skill in 40k is just mastering "tricks". The optimal way of messing with someone using a flyer-base for instance. A noob might hit on it by pure fluke - an expert will do it to you every time.

The bottom line is this is at its core a wargame. And that means tactics and strategy. It means the players have to have their agency.

Chutes and ladders is a non-game with zero decisions to make given to childen ages 3-5 to teach them dice rolling/spinner mechanics. Its not a game because it has no gameplay. Skill doesnt matter. Anyone can win. Its pure luck.

40k is closer to chutes and ladders than not. It just has a very extended set up in which players make choices that heavily impact the balance of the board. After that the decision making is borderline juvenile. Its complex, in a draconian way, but not deep. And that complexity prevents a noob from beating a vet. But so does the size of your wallet. Because its odd as hell knowledge of inscrutable bs that influences your list building that impacts who wins the game.

Thats not beer and pretzels. Thats not what your claiming to want blackie. And its sure as hell not good for a noob.

 Lance845 wrote:

Chutes and ladders is a non-game with zero decisions

40k is closer to chutes and ladders than not.

[40K] players make choices that heavily impact the balance of the board.

Seriously, which one is it? One one hand you're saying 40K has absolutely no decisions that matter, but then say those decisions heavily impact the board. Your argument is an oxymoron.

These are all important parts of the game:
- faction choice
- list choices
- terrain choices
- mission selection
- deployment placement
- who has first turn
- movement
- shooting
- hth capabilities
- pile in
- consolidation
- going all-in at the right time
- going all-in at the wrong time
- pushing forward with too much
- pushing forward with too little
- not prepping your units during deployment and prior setup so you can go all-in at the right time
- having enough firepower
- not having enough firepower
- having enough melee
- not having enough melee
- over-exposing a unit
- under-exposing a unit
- screening out deepstrikers properly
- not screening out deepstrikers properly


The list goes on and on. I can see where you're coming from if you're facing AdMech with no terrain, but that's a choice. Choose not to face AdMech and/or add more terrain. No faction has a 100% win rate. it comes down to all those factors and the dice rolls.

Seriously brainpsyk. Read what i wrote. List building is not game play. Decisions made pre game are not game play.

Thats not an oxymoron. You just have to read the whole sentence.

The game has no meaningful choices. Not no choices. No meaningful choices.

Which is why they can be calculated woth a flow chart. Which is why they are juvenile.

The first 6 things on your list are not game play.

The last 9 are mostly the same. Screening is ongoing, but your decision to screen started before you placed your first model onto the table.

Going all in or pushing forward is 4 things on your list whose answer is solved with tje flow chart. Which one statistically kills more models? Which one statistically gets you vp? Do that. Its not rocket science. And the opponent cannot stop you.

4 of the remaining 5 are just the phases of the game and the 5th is list building.

Your grabbing at straws.

 Lance845 wrote:
The game has no meaningful choices. Not no choices. No meaningful choices.

Which is why they can be calculated woth a flow chart. Which is why they are juvenile.

Sometime, I would like to see this flow chart. I would like to keep a copy with me and use it in every game to play my statistically best game every time.

 Octopoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The game has no meaningful choices. Not no choices. No meaningful choices.

Which is why they can be calculated woth a flow chart. Which is why they are juvenile.

Sometime, I would like to see this flow chart. I would like to keep a copy with me and use it in every game to play my statistically best game every time.

My brother has made one. If you have more points in "the zone" (he has never described what "the zone" is), you shoot/fight. If you have less points, you move out of "the zone" (and presumably into another zone, to make it so you have more points in that other zone).

He has consistently defeated me in the majority of games we play, so I'm guessing that it's working and that this is the flowchart people keep talking about.

 Octopoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The game has no meaningful choices. Not no choices. No meaningful choices.

Which is why they can be calculated woth a flow chart. Which is why they are juvenile.

Sometime, I would like to see this flow chart. I would like to keep a copy with me and use it in every game to play my statistically best game every time.

TBF for my Slaanesh Daemons it really is flow-charty, because my army does one thing and does it exceedingly well, so EVERY SINGLE DECISION is focused on doing that one thing. I'll write it out for you:

(1) Is the enemy in Charge Range?
- IF Yes, then charge and kill him.
- IF NO, see (2)

(2) IS ENEMY SHOOTY
- IF YES, then see (3)
- IF NO, then see (4)

(3) CAN THE ENEMY WIPE A KEEPER IN ONE SHOOTING PHASE:
- IF YES, then see (5)
- IF NO, then see (6)

(4) IS THE ENEMY FASTER THAN YOU:
- IF YES, then you are not playing Warhammer 40k as Slaanesh Daemons have some of the fastest models in the game.
- IF NO, move to bring them in your charge range without being in their charge range and return to (1)

(5) CAN THE KEEPERS HIDE:
- If YES, hide behind Obscuring terrain until (5) is either NO or (1) is YES.
- If NO, move closer and return to (1).

There you go, all threads return to (1) with clear decisions to be made and all of them done obviously before the game even starts based on a few obvious criteria.

What I do is sort of mentally roughly multiply the effectiveness of a gun against a target, and the strategic value of nuking a target. Like I could wipe out a vanquisher russ with a few rokkits from a green tide list, or I could use them to finish off some guardsmen screening the big stuff. If I let the guardsmen stick around by taking the optimal target then I’m delayed a turn, and maybe save a single boy from being popped. If I kill the guardsmen my army can move up faster but the russ will just shred a single boy.

Back in the day with my Guard it was a simple case of applying the least possible amount of force for the most return on investment.

Biggest threat were rushing transports, usually Rhinos filled with Marines. S5 weapons could get them, so we start with Heavy Bolters and try to immobilise as many as possible. Once we're out of HBs to shoot, onto the S6 multi-lasers, then the S7 Autocannons and Plasma Guns (and if you were playing properly those were your main squad weapons), then S9 Lascannons (because you didn't take Missile Launchers in Guard armies) and then, if you were desperate, Ordnance weapons.

A simply hierarchy of Strength. Do that until you either win, or are in combat, then you get to choose between cauterising the wound (run away from the unit engaged, and shoot the bejesus out them once they're done with your unit), or swarm swarm swarm, and drown 'em in bodies.

Seriously @Lance845, you're making oxymoronic claims, and not backing them up at all.

The game has no meaningful choices. Not no choices. No meaningful choices.

Really, so it doesn't matter whether you choose AdMech or GSC? It doesn't matter if you deploy out in the open or behind terrain?

You can win or lose the game by getting any one item in that list wrong. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

How is setting up terrain not part of the game? How are missions not part of the game? They are all still part of the game , same as reading up on strategies and moves in chess. It's knowing the game and being prepared.

In all seriousness, pick any one item from the list. All else being equal, I'll give you a scenario where that list item wins or loses the game.

For simplicity's sake, I'll pick the first 2:

1 - AdMech vs. GSC. Any AdMech army played at an equal level to GSC will win most of the time. So Faction matters.
2 - Blood Angels as a shooting army will lose to Blood Angels as a Melee army. So list matters.


Here's another freebie

Going all in or pushing forward is 4 things on your list whose answer is solved with tje flow chart. Which one statistically kills more models?

Soooooooo wrong...
#1 - killing models doesn't matter as much as scoring objectives. I don't care about getting tabled as long as I'm scoring my VPs
#2 - by that reasoning, exposing your entire army turn 1 to kill off my bait unit(s) because it kills the most models leaves you entire army open to my return fire as IG, you just lost.

You're not understanding the difference between Strategy and Tactic. You're just actively ignoring the definition that Lance goes by, and saying their view of it is incorrect. Pretty poor faith argument all together.

It's been a hot minute since I've played 40k, but last I did, my flowchart was pretty damn simple.

Strategy. Ultramarines, with Dreadnoughts, footslogging primaris of all sorts, and some other stuff. I fight the shooty and I shoot the fighty. Worked out pretty well for me.

The tactics. Assessing board state, applying my strategy as best as I can to the board state in the most mathematically efficient ways to score points. There's very little moment-to-moment responding to what my foe is doing. I wait for my turn, and respond in the best way with what's left in my army. There's no "Aha, because you did this action, I spring a trap suddenly in a way you couldn't have foreseen!" It's just going through the motions of applying effective means of victory against a static board, then having it done to me.

 Thadin wrote:
You're not understanding the difference between Strategy and Tactic. You're just actively ignoring the definition that Lance goes by, and saying their view of it is incorrect. Pretty poor faith argument all together.

It's been a hot minute since I've played 40k, but last I did, my flowchart was pretty damn simple.

Strategy. Ultramarines, with Dreadnoughts, footslogging primaris of all sorts, and some other stuff. I fight the shooty and I shoot the fighty. Worked out pretty well for me.

The tactics. Assessing board state, applying my strategy as best as I can to the board state in the most mathematically efficient ways to score points. There's very little moment-to-moment responding to what my foe is doing. I wait for my turn, and respond in the best way with what's left in my army. There's no "Aha, because you did this action, I spring a trap suddenly in a way you couldn't have foreseen!" It's just going through the motions of applying effective means of victory against a static board, then having it done to me.

Thank you Thadin. You're a champ. I appreciate you.

@brain. Your army choice is pre game. Its not game play. Its game set up. Terrain is pre game. Its not game play. Its set up.

 Thadin wrote:
You're not understanding the difference between Strategy and Tactic. You're just actively ignoring the definition that Lance goes by, and saying their view of it is incorrect. Pretty poor faith argument all together.

Not at all. In fact, I *listen* (it's a practiced skill)

So let's take what you have written.

 Thadin wrote:

Strategy. Ultramarines, with Dreadnoughts, footslogging primaris of all sorts, and some other stuff. I fight the shooty and I shoot the fighty. Worked out pretty well for me.

So faction, army list, shooting, hth and tactics matter. Gotcha. We're 100% in agreement here

 Thadin wrote:

The tactics. Assessing board state, applying my strategy as best as I can to the board state in the most mathematically efficient ways to score points.

So you're examining the board, making decision on how to move, who to shoot, who to melee, and target priority. Sounds like you're having to make meaningful decisions here. Question, on "mathematically efficient" - if you can reasonably kill 4 models this turn, do you kill the 3 Eradicators you can see and have range now, or the 4 Bladeguard veterans that can do anything to you for 2 turns?

If can reasonably kill 15 Necron warriors (of 20) by exposing 2 units to return fire (and potentially losing both those units) do you do it knowing your opponent has a rez orb nearby?

 Thadin wrote:
There's very little moment-to-moment responding to what my foe is doing. I wait for my turn, and respond in the best way with what's left in my army.

So each turn your are assessing the board, applying your strategy, figuring out how best to apply it, which unit(s) to kill, how to move to achieve those kills. Sounds like you are making decisions and acting on those decisions because they meaningfully impact the game. We're still in 100% agreement here

 Thadin wrote:
There's no "Aha, because you did this action, I spring a trap suddenly in a way you couldn't have foreseen!" It's just going through the motions of applying effective means of victory against a static board, then having it done to me.

yet above, you're making decisons and doing things that meaningfully impact the game. You just don't realize it, probably because a lot of these things have become second nature, rather than things you have to actively think about.

You're doing it again. You're calling the strategy of how my army functions best, a tactic.

Tactic. I see 3 Eradicators on the enemy side. I consider that the bulk of my killing power is vehicles/high wound models that are efficient targets for Eradicators. I target them first. There's really nothing deep to that.

I see an enemy unit poised to move on to objectives, or is likely to do the most damage in return if I leave them alone. I answer this threat. The enemy has minimal ways to respond to my actions. In turn, I have minimal ways to respond to the threat unless it's my turn, where I am not interacting with the threat, I am applying my offensive math to it's defenses.

Your foe, or you, making a mistake and capitalizing on that mistake when it's your turn to swing your whole army at them isn't a tactic.

Breaking up peoples posts is also very annoying. Try to not do it.

@brainpsyk If you want to appear as though you're actually listening you should probably reign in the sarcastic tone.

As stated, not all decisions are meaningful. Just because you made the decision to move and shoot the most optimal target doesn't mean that's meaningful and engaging gameplay. You can play most games of 40k on auto-pilot. I don't think I've ever started a turn of 40k by sitting in silence and trying to work out how to best play out my turn because as H.B.M.C said weapon strength determines what you shoot your gun at. Theres no meaningful decision in choosing to shoot a tank with a lascannon because theres almost no reason to ever shoot infantry with it.

Decision making in 40k is the illusion of choice.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Decision making in 40k is the illusion of choice.

feth yes! Thank you!

I am so glad you understand the concept of the illusion of choice. So good!

 Sim-Life wrote:
@brainpsyk If you want to appear as though you're actually listening you should probably reign in the sarcastic tone.

As stated, not all decisions are meaningful. Just because you made the decision to move and shoot the most optimal target doesn't mean that's meaningful and engaging gameplay. You can play most games of 40k on auto-pilot. I don't think I've ever started a turn of 40k by sitting in silence and trying to work out how to best play out my turn because as H.B.M.C said weapon strength determines what you shoot your gun at. Theres no meaningful decision in choosing to shoot a tank with a lascannon because theres almost no reason to ever shoot infantry with it.

Decision making in 40k is the illusion of choice.

Yep, 40k was my first wargame and i've tried other since (infinity and Malifaux) and in both these games, most of my turns start with me assessing my options and deciding on what angle is best for me. 40k i just chat with people in the LGS as i move stuff then start shooting.

40k is a great ruleset for having social conversations and spectacle fights. Though, stratagems to increase the mental load of things to remember (But again, not make meaningful choices, because you just remember the best one to use for the current situation)

 Thadin wrote:
40k is a great ruleset for having social conversations and spectacle fights. Though, stratagems to increase the mental load of things to remember (But again, not make meaningful choices, because you just remember the best one to use for the current situation)

I was actually talking to a friend about this the other day about how we were both tired of 40k and we both arrived at the conclusion that when it gets to a certain point (probably after turn 2) you don't even decide what strats to use, you just default to keeping CP for the reroll strat.

So, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everyone on this board is in perfect agreement that 40K sucks. It has no depth, no meaningful choices, no tactics or strategy or whatever you want to call that.

Sure.

What now? You say you're playing other rulesets. Great! Go play them, then? And maybe quick gakking where we're eating?

You say you want to hold GW accountable and make them change. Great! Go talk to them? And maybe quit gakking where we're eating?

As long as what you're doing is just telling us that we're wrong for liking what we have, or even for tolerating what we have and making the best of it, we're unlikely to treat your commentary on the forums dedicated to playing the game you don't want to play as "in good faith."

 Octopoid wrote:
So, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everyone on this board is in perfect agreement that 40K sucks. It has no depth, no meaningful choices, no tactics or strategy or whatever you want to call that.

Sure.

What now? You say you're playing other rulesets. Great! Go play them, then? And maybe quick gakking where we're eating?

You say you want to hold GW accountable and make them change. Great! Go talk to them? And maybe quit gakking where we're eating?

As long as what you're doing is just telling us that we're wrong for liking what we have, or even for tolerating what we have and making the best of it, we're unlikely to treat your commentary on the forums dedicated to playing the game you don't want to play as "in good faith."

You don't have to respond to this thread, or read it, if you don't want to. But as long as threads get started with the idea that the game could be better then people who want to have that talk are going to participate by identifying root cause and suggesting solutions.

Don't tell other people not to participate in a conversation just because they are correctly identifying issues and their scope with something you like. Nobody is saying you don't get to like a bad thing. I like lots of bad things. My liking it doesn't make it any less bad.

 Thadin wrote:
You're doing it again. You're calling the strategy of how my army functions best, a tactic.

Tactic. I see 3 Eradicators on the enemy side. I consider that the bulk of my killing power is vehicles/high wound models that are efficient targets for Eradicators. I target them first. There's really nothing deep to that.

I see an enemy unit poised to move on to objectives, or is likely to do the most damage in return if I leave them alone. I answer this threat. The enemy has minimal ways to respond to my actions. In turn, I have minimal ways to respond to the threat unless it's my turn, where I am not interacting with the threat, I am applying my offensive math to it's defenses.

Your foe, or you, making a mistake and capitalizing on that mistake when it's your turn to swing your whole army at them isn't a tactic.

You're coming around

The decision to shoot the 3 Eradicators is a meaningful decision because it's not the most mathematically efficient. How you move to target them is important, how much you commit to killing them is important, which is what we've been saying all along. Sometimes the decisions are small, and it's true that not all decisions are meaningful. At the same time, that doesn't mean *all* decisions are meaningless (which several people have stated). Even small decisions add up.

While mistakes aren't a tactic, how you capitalize on them absolutely is. If they overextended, do you go all-in? If they didn't push their advantage, how do you capitalize on that? Brian of Tabletop Titans won against Nick Nanavati of Art of War after Nick's AdMech wiped 50% of Brian's army turn 1. This was before Orks, and Brian wasn't playing DE or AdMech. How? Nick didn't press his advantage and Brian won on points, by deciding not to give up, and figuring out what it would take to win and then doing it.

Thinking decisions don't matter or are just illusions means we lose the game the moment anything goes wrong. But the better players figure it out then play it out. That's how they take weaker armies and list and win against tougher armies and lists. They reduce the game to the decisions, and make it less about the dice and armies. That's why decisions are there, and are important

 Sim-Life wrote:

As stated, not all decisions are meaningful. Just because you made the decision to move and shoot the most optimal target doesn't mean that's meaningful and engaging gameplay. You can play most games of 40k on auto-pilot. I don't think I've ever started a turn of 40k by sitting in silence and trying to work out how to best play out my turn because as H.B.M.C said weapon strength determines what you shoot your gun at. Theres no meaningful decision in choosing to shoot a tank with a lascannon because theres almost no reason to ever shoot infantry with it.

Decision making in 40k is the illusion of choice.

I would say the amount of in-game decision making has a heavy amount to do with the type of list you've built. Some units really are point-and-shoot. Other units much less so, and board context matters to a much greater extent. Some people really like making "point and shoot" lists though. That's literally what most "netlists" aspire to be, the "I win" button.

You don't have to build lists like that though, and you'll probably have a more engaging game if you don't.

I would love to watch brain take a game design class and argue with the teacher that the illusion of choice doesn't exist because its still a choice.