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.
Is it possible that games designed for strategists have as much intrinsic value as those designed for tacticians?
So... this depends on what you mean by value.
Do you mean it can be as good of a GAME?
No. Game play being a series of interesting choices, all else being equal (balance and aesthetics and component quality etc etc..) the more interesting the choices and the better designed where and how they occur the better the game. 40k isn't particularly well balanced, but even outside of that it's game play is so paper thin. It's just not a good game. Not opinion. Fact.
To compare it to another medium, Tremors 3 isn't a good movie. The acting isn't great, the writing isn't fantastic, it's not shot in any great way. It's just not a great piece of cinema.
But if by value you mean your enjoyment?
Absolutely. I LOVE Tremors 3. It not being a good movie doesn't take away it's ability for me to derive enjoyment from it. And 40k being a bad game doesn't and shouldn't take any ounce of enjoyment you derive from it away from you.
It is fact that The Winter Soldier is a better piece of cinema than Iron Man 3. It's shot better, the acting and writing is better, the special effects are better, the story is better. It's just in all ways a better MCU movie. But that doesn't prevent someone from liking IM3 and hating TWS.
Your enjoyment is yours. When I have these discussions this isn't about what you or I LIKE. If we get to my personal preference I will say that. I PREFER AA but it's not the only way to give 40k better game play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arachnofiend wrote: Pretty much impossible to argue with someone who has defined tactics so thinly that chess doesn't have any.
You mean the actual text book definition of tactics? Or do you mean the actual text book definition of game play? These aren't MY, I made this up in my free time, definitions. These are the actual definitions of the words. Sorry if the complexity of the possibilities in chess, when viewed through a technical lens, ended up showing that chess is something other than what you thought it was. Pluto is a planetoid. Not a planet. Just is what it is.
I will say that Chess, and more so Go, are SO complex that for the vast majority of people they are VIRTUALLY tactical. It's more than most people can or do calculate. It's why it took a "super computer" to start beating people. But thats a difference in scale not a difference in kind. Most peoples experience with Chess is tactical. Because both they and their opponent cannot do the math to break it down.
Back to 40k, it's both incredibly complicated in the volume of rules and their inane interactions and incredibly simplistic in it's execution of decisions. There is stupefying amounts of complexity in what you need to know. But the equation of what you should do? Algebra 1 at best. Arithmetic most of the time.
In a fighting game with zero randomness there is always a theoretical correct choice to make, a rock-paper-scissors situation where if you pick one option you take your turn and if you pick the other you get hit.
The difference is when you and your opponent in a fighting game are throwing rock paper scissors at each other your doing it at the same time and you don't know what they are going to do. And it's not simply RPS. It's more like Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock. Because there are a lot more than 3 options with varying degrees of cost and impact. How slow is the action? What hit boxes does it impact? What can the opponent do?
In 40k, on your turn you throw rock. On my turn I can see that you already threw rock. I now get to pick paper. On your turn you can see that I threw paper. You get to choose scissors.
What makes fighting games interesting is that nobody can read minds and know if their opponent is gonna pick rock or paper; they do know that if they pick rock and lose they get knocked down but if they pick scissors and lose they lose the round.
Risk assessment is at the heart of pretty much any valid competitive game. A lot of the risk in 40k comes from dice rolls and the potential to whiff or overkill, but 8th and 9th introduction of stratagems absolutely adds another layer of decision making. The -1 to wound and similar stratagems create a game of chicken where both players are on the hook to decide how much to commit and when, at the same time even! If the attacking player overcommits their biggest guns first then the bulk of their shooting will get wasted in a well-protected squad, if the defender commits to the stratagem too early then the attacker will simply switch to a softer target now that they know the rest of the army can't be protected. There's no pre-game strategy that can "solve" that decision.
Players tend to have like 12-15 points for strats and strats cost 1-3 points. That means somewhere between 4 and 15 points where the other player might break the mold.
4-15 points over the course of several hours.
If that was 15 points over 30 minutes that could be a pretty intense game. But 1 potential interesting choice every 12 minutes over a 3 hour game. I dare you to go sit in a chair and stare at a table for 12 minutes. Let me know how engaging it is.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/13 01:46:12
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
No. Game play being a series of interesting choices, all else being equal (balance and aesthetics and component quality etc etc..) the more interesting the choices and the better designed where and how they occur the better the game. 40k isn't particularly well balanced, but even outside of that it's game play is so paper thin. It's just not a good game. Not opinion. Fact.
Actually, those are opinions, not facts. The simplest difference is
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person’s feelings that cannot be proven.
I think we're all in agreement that 40K isn't well balanced. Art of War had a faction ranking just last week. So I think we agree that's a consensus of opinion, so we'll call it a fact.
Now for the opinion. My opinion is that the game has layers, from (see my earlier post). You say game play is paper thin as a fact. prove it. No blanket statements, no opinions, it must be a logically sound proof and encompass every aspect of the gameplay (we'll exclude pre-game for now), and it cannot include *any* choices or decisions (as facts require neither of these).
No. Game play being a series of interesting choices, all else being equal (balance and aesthetics and component quality etc etc..) the more interesting the choices and the better designed where and how they occur the better the game. 40k isn't particularly well balanced, but even outside of that it's game play is so paper thin. It's just not a good game. Not opinion. Fact.
Actually, those are opinions, not facts. The simplest difference is
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person’s feelings that cannot be proven.
I think we're all in agreement that 40K isn't well balanced. Art of War had a faction ranking just last week. So I think we agree that's a consensus of opinion, so we'll call it a fact.
Now for the opinion. My opinion is that the game has layers, from (see my earlier post). You say game play is paper thin as a fact. prove it. No blanket statements, no opinions, it must be a logically sound proof and encompass every aspect of the gameplay (we'll exclude pre-game for now), and it cannot include *any* choices or decisions (as facts require neither of these).
No. Game play being a series of interesting choices, all else being equal (balance and aesthetics and component quality etc etc..) the more interesting the choices and the better designed where and how they occur the better the game. 40k isn't particularly well balanced, but even outside of that it's game play is so paper thin. It's just not a good game. Not opinion. Fact.
Actually, those are opinions, not facts. The simplest difference is
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person’s feelings that cannot be proven.
I think we're all in agreement that 40K isn't well balanced. Art of War had a faction ranking just last week. So I think we agree that's a consensus of opinion, so we'll call it a fact.
Now for the opinion. My opinion is that the game has layers, from (see my earlier post). You say game play is paper thin as a fact. prove it. No blanket statements, no opinions, it must be a logically sound proof and encompass every aspect of the gameplay (we'll exclude pre-game for now), and it cannot include *any* choices or decisions (as facts require neither of these).
I have been proving it. You either have been misunderstanding the points I have been making or you have been actively avoiding them. I already proved that 40ks game play is bad. If you ever decide to actually read my posts it's all in there.
No. Game play being a series of interesting choices, all else being equal (balance and aesthetics and component quality etc etc..) the more interesting the choices and the better designed where and how they occur the better the game. 40k isn't particularly well balanced, but even outside of that it's game play is so paper thin. It's just not a good game. Not opinion. Fact.
Actually, those are opinions, not facts. The simplest difference is
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person’s feelings that cannot be proven.
I think we're all in agreement that 40K isn't well balanced. Art of War had a faction ranking just last week. So I think we agree that's a consensus of opinion, so we'll call it a fact.
Now for the opinion. My opinion is that the game has layers, from (see my earlier post). You say game play is paper thin as a fact. prove it. No blanket statements, no opinions, it must be a logically sound proof and encompass every aspect of the gameplay (we'll exclude pre-game for now), and it cannot include *any* choices or decisions (as facts require neither of these).
Did you just ask him to prove a negative?
No. He appears to lack the ability to separate conversational speech from technical terms and either can't or won't follow the points or connect the dots. He also seems to think a group of opinions become facts. "Alternative Facts" if you will.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/13 01:25:11
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
No. Game play being a series of interesting choices, all else being equal (balance and aesthetics and component quality etc etc..) the more interesting the choices and the better designed where and how they occur the better the game. 40k isn't particularly well balanced, but even outside of that it's game play is so paper thin. It's just not a good game. Not opinion. Fact.
We still make just as many choices- we just make them all with our whole army at the same time. It appeals to us because we are more interested in Strategy than Tactics.
If strategy and tactics are different things, then it stands to reason that some games will be heavier on strategy and others are heavier on tactics. Being heavy on strategy doesn't make a game objectively worse, it just appeals to different types of people. You might prefer games that are all about tactics- if so, you won't like games that deal with strategy as much. And that's okay.
But people like me, who see acting with your whole army in one fluid extended action to coordinate between units without the constant back and forth interruption of AA as a feature, well again, we just want different things. If I'm not allowed to tell you what you like without Sim coming to your rescue, why do you get to say that a game which leans more heavily into strategy than tactics is objectively worse?
I've already met you half way and said I see the appeal of tactical games- I'm not insulting your preferences; I'm not claiming they're objectively worse. It doesn't appeal as much to me- I hate having to go back and forth and not be able to achieve my battlefield plan- my strategy. And if I admit that your preference is valid, but just not for me, why can't you do the same?
I don't know; maybe that's what happens in game theory classes- they create an objective standard by which to judge games and push that agenda. In the study of Literature, we did the same thing for years- we created a Canon- and said for hundreds of years, writer A is better than writer B. But I gotta tell you, that approach started to show its obsolescence beginning in the early 90's and continuing into the present, because we started to realize how much the Canon was a product of the personal preferences of those who created it. These days, we tend to study the characteristics of art without judging its supposed objective worth. You know, that Eye of the Beholder cliche.
No. Game play being a series of interesting choices, all else being equal (balance and aesthetics and component quality etc etc..) the more interesting the choices and the better designed where and how they occur the better the game. 40k isn't particularly well balanced, but even outside of that it's game play is so paper thin. It's just not a good game. Not opinion. Fact.
We still make just as many choices- we just make them all with our whole army at the same time. It appeals to us because we are more interested in Strategy than Tactics.
If strategy and tactics are different things, then it stands to reason that some games will be heavier on strategy and others are heavier on tactics. Being heavy on strategy doesn't make a game objectively worse, it just appeals to different types of people. You might prefer games that are all about tactics- if so, you won't like games that deal with strategy as much. And that's okay.
But people like me, who see acting with your whole army in one fluid extended action to coordinate between units without the constant back and forth interruption of AA as a feature, well again, we just want different things. If I'm not allowed to tell you what you like without Sim coming to your rescue, why do you get to say that a game which leans more heavily into strategy than tactics is objectively worse?
Because I am not telling you what I like. I am talking to you about what IS. I GET that you like it. I appreciate that you like it. I WANT you to like what you like, and like it to the extent that you like it. But you LIKING it isn't going to give it greater value from a technical stand point.
I've already met you half way and said I see the appeal of tactical games- I'm not insulting your preferences; I'm not claiming they're objectively worse. It doesn't appeal as much to me- I hate having to go back and forth and not be able to achieve my battlefield plan- my strategy. And if I admit that your preference is valid, but just not for me, why can't you do the same?
I can. I am doing it. Your preference is valid. Your valid preference is a different thing from technical assessment.
I don't know; maybe that's what happens in game theory classes- they create an objective standard by which to judge games and push that agenda. In the study of Literature, we did the same thing for years- we created a Canon- and said for hundreds of years, writer A is better than writer B. But I gotta tell you, that approach started to show its obsolescence beginning in the early 90's and continuing into the present, because we started to realize how much the Canon was a product of the personal preferences of those who created it. These days, we tend to study the characteristics of art without judging its supposed objective worth. You know, that Eye of the Beholder cliche.
I started my education in the arts actually. I began going for illustration before moving into game art and design where I studied 3d modeling and animation before getting into the technical game design. I understand all that. But when I look at a painting I can assess technique. The application of line, color, and space. Use of negative space to what effect. Use of complimentary colors to what effect. A childs finger painting is still art even if their technique is bad. A parent can still love it, their favorite picture, even if the artist exhibits little talent or training. These are separate lenses through which to view the work.
I am not insulting you by assessing 40k on the merits of it's construction. And I am in no way attempting to take away from you your enjoyment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/13 01:57:55
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
But that's just it- the comparison between tactical games and strategy games isn't a comparison between a child's finger painting and a master's portrait; it's a comparison between a cubist and a pointalist, or a romantic poet and imagist.
Strategy and tactics, by your definition are two different things. Therefore, there are strategy games and tactical games. Judging either one by the standards of the other misses the mark.
Because I am not telling you what I like. I am talking to you about what IS.
Yeaaahh, not so sure about that. I make decisions, my opponent makes decisions. They are meaningful to the outcome of the battle. Good players make better decisions than bad players. Decisions change from battle to battle, context to context, and even with and reacting to different play styles.
But people like me, who see acting with your whole army in one fluid extended action to coordinate between units without the constant back and forth interruption of AA as a feature, well again, we just want different things. If I'm not allowed to tell you what you like without Sim coming to your rescue, why do you get to say that a game which leans more heavily into strategy than tactics is objectively worse?
Bolded the relevant part. This isn't something that happens in 40k either beyond a very basic level. Also I'm not coming to his rescue, he doesn't need it. We just both disagree with you.
.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/13 08:31:18
There are some beauty and enjoyment to a well made strategy. If the gameplay is either simple enough or your strategy is overwhelmingly good then a game can literally play itself without any real input after you have started the game.
If you have ever played Total War games you can really see the difference between strategy and tactics. If you have dominated the campaign map and built the best army possible against a certain enemy then you can often just get into the battle, deploy your army and let the very basic AI take over for you and without much problem crush the enemy army. You yourself might have done it perfectly but if you have already won on the strategy step big enough the AI might do it 90-95% as good as you have.
If on the other hand you haven't had the opportunity to optimize your army in the campaign step and instead have an army that might even be weaker on paper than the opponent you can still win the game on tactics. If you do it as in the previous example and just deploy and let AI take over you will at best get a pyrrhic victory since the AI can't do tactic very well. But if instead you control the army perfectly and use your tools perfectly to maneuver around the enemy, use the terrain to your advantage and break them through morale at the right timing you can through tactics alone crush them even if you showed up with a weaker army.
This I think works very well as a comparison to 40k. If too much stuff is in the strategy department then what happens on the table isn't really going to matter much if both players are at least somewhat competent. The game is so short and forces scoring from an early stage so you can't spend time doing any fancy maneuvers. It's get in there and score and hope your army is stronger in the matchup and the strategy behind your list is better than the opponent's.
And just as in Total War it can feel really good to see your army on AI just stomp your opponent due to how well you built your army. But after a while it isn't very interesting anymore since what you are doing is more like watching a movie than playing a game. Which is fine if you are there for the cinematic experience and not the engaging gameplay.
From what I gather in total war a lot of people just restart the game when the battles become to easy and all that is left is taking over the world. There is little to no tactical gameplay left at this point so for many the game is over. I have done lots of campaigns to the end but it is almost always those earlier turns with armies closer to each other in size and power that hinges on outplaying the AI on the battlefield that make the game so fun and engaging.
I also love playing Paradox's grand strategy games that have barely any tactical component at all and take hundreds of hours to play a single game. I have been playing those since Svea Rike 2 in the nineties, almost a decade before I started wargaming.
The thing with 40k is that it is a cinematic game sold as being a tactical game by using bloated rules to hide that it is mostly a game about building a list with a simpel strategy in mind and let an AI(you the player) slowly execute the moves over a 3h game.
If you just want it to be a cinematic strategy game at the table top you could just balance the game a bit more and reduce 90% of the rules. It won't become less cinematic or cool for that but rather more engaging to watch play out. Because now you know the game won't play out exactly the same every time. It is nice watching your favourite movie and see the heroes win but you would probably want to see something else than Star Wars every weekend since you know the results. But if the Empire(mperial Guard)could actually win against the rebels (Drukhari or Ad mech) then wouldn't it be more fun to watch star wars every weekend?
This is assuming every unit has a single perfect target. What about deciding what tank to bring down first with the anti tank when there's not enough anti tank to kill everything? What about risking to split fire to have the chance of killing two tanks instead of a guaranteed single kill? What about deciding to use a unit for killing/tarpitting an opponent one or using it for trying to score? Aren't this decisions?
It is fact that The Winter Soldier is a better piece of cinema than Iron Man 3. It's shot better, the acting and writing is better, the special effects are better, the story is better. It's just in all ways a better MCU movie. But that doesn't prevent someone from liking IM3 and hating TWS.
"Better" is entirely subjetive, unless there actuall numbers to back it up, for example getting more money for the exact same job in the exact same setting is definitely better. The Winter Soldier (IMHO the only MCU movie that actually worths something by the way ) is not objectively better than Iron Man 3, it just had more general consensus.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/13 09:36:40
It's not that 40k doesn't have in-game choice and player agency, it's that the choices are fairly shallow. Especially in comparison to other ttg's like, say, warmachine or infinity.
This isn't a good thing or a bad thing. I love the models of infinity but find the complexity a bit of a turn off. There was a time when I loved the millions of synnergies and interactions and combos of warmachine - it truly felt like you were trying to solve a rubix cube while it slowly dissolved your hand. These days I prefer simpler games like warcry. As well as games with a strong random element like bolt action or test of honor. I find they challenge different things which appeal to me more now. Not better or worse, just where I am in life.
40k has complexity, but not depth. And there is nothing wrong with a game like that.
This is assuming every unit has a single perfect target. What about deciding what tank to bring down first with the anti tank when there's not enough anti tank to kill everything? What about risking to split fire to have the chance of killing two tanks instead of a guaranteed single kill? What about deciding to use a unit for killing/tarpitting an opponent one or using it for trying to score? Aren't this decisions?
Then statistically there is a optimal choice that will get you your most bang for your buck from that unit (because the dice are a RNG element. Without the dice it wouldn't be statistically. It would JUST be the best choice). The difficulty in calculating it doesn't mean it's not a calculation and your ability to calculate it is what says how skilled you are at 40k.
It is fact that The Winter Soldier is a better piece of cinema than Iron Man 3. It's shot better, the acting and writing is better, the special effects are better, the story is better. It's just in all ways a better MCU movie. But that doesn't prevent someone from liking IM3 and hating TWS.
"Better" is entirely subjetive, unless there actuall numbers to back it up, for example getting more money for the exact same job in the exact same setting is definitely better. The Winter Soldier (IMHO the only MCU movie that actually worths something by the way ) is not objectively better than Iron Man 3, it just had more general consensus.
No, market success is also different from product quality. I am talking about the quality of the films construction. Not my opinion on whether or not I enjoyed the experience or how many agree with me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/13 10:26:33
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
This is assuming every unit has a single perfect target. What about deciding what tank to bring down first with the anti tank when there's not enough anti tank to kill everything? What about risking to split fire to have the chance of killing two tanks instead of a guaranteed single kill? What about deciding to use a unit for killing/tarpitting an opponent one or using it for trying to score? Aren't this decisions?
They're decisions but not interesting ones. We've been over this. You know what would make it an interesting decision? If you had other option that were equally valid and the best answer wasn't always immediately obvious, or there were alternate paths to win, or ways to manipulate the game state to your favour.
Even the very simple addition of disrupting models on the following turn or moving enemy models out of position would make 40k a far more interesting game because it opens up a lot of flexibility in how you approach a given situation.
Looking at Warmachine again, if you opponent has a warjack in the scoring zone you have multiple ways of dealing with it usually. You can just try to brute force it by loading up your own warjacks with focus and killing it, but that is resource intensive and you have spells/other warjacks/defence to fuel with those resources, you can push it out but do no damage and risk retaliation next turn but you'll be up on points, you can knock it down, it doesn't do.much damage and you need to use resources to make sure you pull it off but everything else auto-hits it for the rest of the turn and if its still alive it needs to spend its own resources to get it working again and it will probably be damaged enough that your its retaliation won't be so severe and you can kill it in your next turn and score then. All of these are very basic options without getting into things like model abilities or synergies and they are all equally valid. Compared to 40k where your option is shoot it or don't. You probably should though. Also save a CP for the reroll strat if you miss.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/11/13 10:51:22
They're decisions but not interesting ones. We've been over this. You know what would make it an interesting decision? If you had other option that were equally valid and the best answer wasn't always immediately obvious, or there were alternate paths to win, or ways to manipulate the game state to your favour.
I can agree with that, although it's much different from "decisions don't matter at all". And again, the concept of interesting is also entirely subjective .
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/13 11:54:25
I can agree with that, although it's much different from "decisions don't matter at all". And again, the concept of interesting is also entirely subjective .
The concept of "interesting choice" in game design is not subjective and conversational. It specifically relates to choices that have consequences regardless of what you pick. When you have the illusion of choice, the optimal choice doesn't have consequences for you. Only benefits. It's not an interesting choice. You might choose wrong and thus suffer consequences. But that doesn't make the choice interesting. It only means you failed to identify A.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tetris is a pure engine of interesting choices. What orientation is the block? Where do you put it? Do you destroy one line or build up for multiple? Even when you score the speed increases the difficulty.
No matter what you do in tetris there is no purely optimal choice and no matter what you choose you pay for it in some way.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/13 15:17:40
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Sim-Life wrote: ...If you had other option that were equally valid and the best answer wasn't always immediately obvious, or there were alternate paths to win, or ways to manipulate the game state to your favour....
So something like "You can shoot your lascannon at the tank/big gribbly because that's what it's there for, or you can shoot it at a chaff unit and if you get a kill it immediately forces a morale check at -2 because 'SACRED FETH! LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO JENKINS!'"?
Sim-Life wrote: ...If you had other option that were equally valid and the best answer wasn't always immediately obvious, or there were alternate paths to win, or ways to manipulate the game state to your favour....
So something like "You can shoot your lascannon at the tank/big gribbly because that's what it's there for, or you can shoot it at a chaff unit and if you get a kill it immediately forces a morale check at -2 because 'SACRED FETH! LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO JENKINS!'"?
If you want. Though talking about weapons causing morale effects will inevitably lead to a discussion about how 40k used to have Pinning and Go To Ground rules.
Is that such a terrible discussion to be had? It would produce another dimension that uses a sorely underused mechanic and bring some tactical depth to the game.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
No. He appears to lack the ability to separate conversational speech from technical terms and either can't or won't follow the points or connect the dots. He also seems to think a group of opinions become facts. "Alternative Facts" if you will.
ad hominem fallacy And just because your opinion is the game sucks doesn't make it a fact (fallacy hasty generalization)
You've proven nothing, just made claims with no backing. Saying "Because I am not telling you what I like. I am talking to you about what IS" is opinion, not fact and not a proof. I'm asking for a real, logical proof, of the form "a => b" ( "if it rains" then "the sidewalk is wet", but "the sidewalk is wet" is not proof of "it rained" ). This kind of proof is the foundation of our mathematics and every logical argument,that every software developer (well, back in my day) had to do.
The claim is "40K sucks" because "there are no meaningful decisions" (ignoring that these are are opinions, not facts). So "there are no meaningful decisions" => "40K sucks"
For "there are no meaningful decisions" to be true, that must mean
A- choosing to move a unit, or not move a unit has zero impact on the game
B- choosing to shoot a unit, or not shoot a unit has zero impact on the game
C- choosing to shoot at a unit, or not shoot at a unit has zero impact on the game
D- choosing to charge a unit, or not charge a unit has zero impact on the game
All of these are proven false by fact that millions of games are not 100% identical, and the fact (not opinion!) that @Lance845 isn't undefeated on the tournament scene for multiple tournaments.
Now, some will claim "mathematically optimal" BS - which is easily disproved because movement is subjective, and there is no mathematically optimal unit placement. So we can't have mathematically optimal shooting because you can't have mathematically optimal movement (if a => b, then ~b => ~a). And we won't even talk about my game with 30 dice hitting on 3's of which 29 missed... and the remaining die failed to wound...
@Lance845 -Now this is the real meat here:
The concept of "interesting choice" in game design is not subjective and conversational. It specifically relates to choices that have consequences regardless of what you pick. When you have the illusion of choice, the optimal choice doesn't have consequences for you. Only benefits. It's not an interesting choice. You might choose wrong and thus suffer consequences. But that doesn't make the choice interesting. It only means you failed to identify A.
Every choice you make in 40K has a consequence. I choose to play IG, which makes my games tougher. If you choose to play pre-nerf orks or AdMech, then the consequences are A- your game gets boring, and B- people will choose not to play you. So from start to finish, there are consequences, but the key thing to remember is that each step of the start to finish is a series of choices and those choices matter. Each one may not be game making/breaking, but they add up to whether or not you win or lose, and whether or not you *AND* your opponent enjoy the time at the table.
And the concept of "interesting choice" is subjective because not everybody plays everything the exact same way, or has the skill to play at the LVGT top table. So even "mathematically optimal" doesn't apply when a- we lack the skill to make perfect movements and b- each and every turn we have to adjust your strategy and tactics because of "what we have left" for that turn. And "failed to identify A" is the norm, and that's a fact. Nobody is that perfect.
The claim is "40K sucks" because "there are no meaningful decisions" (ignoring that these are are opinions, not facts). So "there are no meaningful decisions" => "40K sucks"
For "there are no meaningful decisions" to be true, that must mean
A- choosing to move a unit, or not move a unit has zero impact on the game
B- choosing to shoot a unit, or not shoot a unit has zero impact on the game
C- choosing to shoot at a unit, or not shoot at a unit has zero impact on the game
D- choosing to charge a unit, or not charge a unit has zero impact on the game
These are all incorrect assertions. Decisions can impact the game without being meaningful decisions. As an example, imagine a scenario where a unit of Eradicators has only a single target in range and line of sight. Let's assume it's a Leman Russ sitting in no-man's land with no unit able to charge it. Deciding to shoot is a decision that impacts the game. It's not a meaningful decision because the player shooting has no real choice. Nothing is gained by not shooting. Either you shoot and kill something or don't shoot and achieve nothing.
That's what Lance is getting at. Far too often the "decisions" in 40k are either blindingly obvious or become clear after very little analysis. Quick example from a game I played today. Last turn of the game, I had a character who had 2 choices open to him. He could either try to take the last wound from an enemy character in the shooting phase (pretty decent chance to do so - about 44%, better with a re-roll available) and gain 3 VPs for Assassination. Or he could perform the Vital Intelligence action and get a guaranteed 3 VPs. That's not a meaningful decision. It's always correct to take the guaranteed 3 points rather than the chance of the same number, even if the chance is 99.99%.
No. He appears to lack the ability to separate conversational speech from technical terms and either can't or won't follow the points or connect the dots. He also seems to think a group of opinions become facts. "Alternative Facts" if you will.
ad hominem fallacy And just because your opinion is the game sucks doesn't make it a fact (fallacy hasty generalization)
These are all incorrect assertions. Decisions can impact the game without being meaningful decisions. As an example, imagine a scenario where a unit of Eradicators has only a single target in range and line of sight. Let's assume it's a Leman Russ sitting in no-man's land with no unit able to charge it. Deciding to shoot is a decision that impacts the game. It's not a meaningful decision because the player shooting has no real choice. Nothing is gained by not shooting. Either you shoot and kill something or don't shoot and achieve nothing.
That's what Lance is getting at. Far too often the "decisions" in 40k are either blindingly obvious or become clear after very little analysis. Quick example from a game I played today. Last turn of the game, I had a character who had 2 choices open to him. He could either try to take the last wound from an enemy character in the shooting phase (pretty decent chance to do so - about 44%, better with a re-roll available) and gain 3 VPs for Assassination. Or he could perform the Vital Intelligence action and get a guaranteed 3 VPs. That's not a meaningful decision. It's always correct to take the guaranteed 3 points rather than the chance of the same number, even if the chance is 99.99%.
But that is true of every single solitary game in existence. Take your example, that's *ONE* decision over the course of the game. How did you get there? Was there a better target earlier in the game? Was there somewhere you could have moved in turn 1 where that last decision didn't matter?
You're looking at the culmination of a lot of decisions that added up to a singular moment in the game where the final decision became a no brainer to win you the game. To me, that's a great game. The game wasn't decided on turn 1, but the end of turn 5. It became clear after examining your options, not blinding obvious from the get go on turn 1. How would the game have been different with ROD or a different secondary? Could you have picked off that character earlier in the game but chose not to?
It's like drive across the country (or multiple countries in europe), then saying "the trip sucked because at the end we checked into our hotel that we planned to". Really? Where did you stop along the way? Where did you take detours, what new restaurants, tourist spot scenic drives, etc. did you partake in along the way?
Some have complained about nothing to do during your opponent's turn. Really? examine the board, talk with others. Look up strats for your opponents army. Eat a beer & drink pretzels
The game isn't about the moment after the game ends, it's about the journey to get there, which is what I've been saying all along.
I can't imagine you aren't deliberately missing the point now. You do understand that we're discussing two different TYPES of decisions? Not the NUMBER of decisions?
Also for someone who likes to point out fallacies that was a hell of a false comparison.
These are all incorrect assertions. Decisions can impact the game without being meaningful decisions. As an example, imagine a scenario where a unit of Eradicators has only a single target in range and line of sight. Let's assume it's a Leman Russ sitting in no-man's land with no unit able to charge it. Deciding to shoot is a decision that impacts the game. It's not a meaningful decision because the player shooting has no real choice. Nothing is gained by not shooting. Either you shoot and kill something or don't shoot and achieve nothing.
That's what Lance is getting at. Far too often the "decisions" in 40k are either blindingly obvious or become clear after very little analysis. Quick example from a game I played today. Last turn of the game, I had a character who had 2 choices open to him. He could either try to take the last wound from an enemy character in the shooting phase (pretty decent chance to do so - about 44%, better with a re-roll available) and gain 3 VPs for Assassination. Or he could perform the Vital Intelligence action and get a guaranteed 3 VPs. That's not a meaningful decision. It's always correct to take the guaranteed 3 points rather than the chance of the same number, even if the chance is 99.99%.
But that is true of every single solitary game in existence. Take your example, that's *ONE* decision over the course of the game. How did you get there? Was there a better target earlier in the game? Was there somewhere you could have moved in turn 1 where that last decision didn't matter?
You're looking at the culmination of a lot of decisions that added up to a singular moment in the game where the final decision became a no brainer to win you the game. To me, that's a great game. The game wasn't decided on turn 1, but the end of turn 5. It became clear after examining your options, not blinding obvious from the get go on turn 1. How would the game have been different with ROD or a different secondary? Could you have picked off that character earlier in the game but chose not to?
It's like drive across the country (or multiple countries in europe), then saying "the trip sucked because at the end we checked into our hotel that we planned to". Really? Where did you stop along the way? Where did you take detours, what new restaurants, tourist spot scenic drives, etc. did you partake in along the way?
Some have complained about nothing to do during your opponent's turn. Really? examine the board, talk with others. Look up strats for your opponents army. Eat a beer & drink pretzels
The game isn't about the moment after the game ends, it's about the journey to get there, which is what I've been saying all along.
You're missing the point. Unsurprisingly. Your set of assertions (that you've handily snipped out here, I notice) are simply incorrect, leading to potentially incorrect conclusions.
The point of my example is to illustrate that just because a choice exists it doesn't make it meaningful. How we got to that point is irrelevant for the example given since all I'm doing is giving an example that disproves your previous assertions. It's entirely possible every action up to that point was also not a meaningful decision. Or maybe some of them really were meaningful. That's totally irrelevant for the purposes of the example.
The claim is "40K sucks" because "there are no meaningful decisions" (ignoring that these are are opinions, not facts). So "there are no meaningful decisions" => "40K sucks"
For "there are no meaningful decisions" to be true, that must mean
A- choosing to move a unit, or not move a unit has zero impact on the game
B- choosing to shoot a unit, or not shoot a unit has zero impact on the game
C- choosing to shoot at a unit, or not shoot at a unit has zero impact on the game
D- choosing to charge a unit, or not charge a unit has zero impact on the game
These are all incorrect assertions. Decisions can impact the game without being meaningful decisions. As an example, imagine a scenario where a unit of Eradicators has only a single target in range and line of sight. Let's assume it's a Leman Russ sitting in no-man's land with no unit able to charge it. Deciding to shoot is a decision that impacts the game. It's not a meaningful decision because the player shooting has no real choice. Nothing is gained by not shooting. Either you shoot and kill something or don't shoot and achieve nothing.
That's what Lance is getting at. Far too often the "decisions" in 40k are either blindingly obvious or become clear after very little analysis. Quick example from a game I played today. Last turn of the game, I had a character who had 2 choices open to him. He could either try to take the last wound from an enemy character in the shooting phase (pretty decent chance to do so - about 44%, better with a re-roll available) and gain 3 VPs for Assassination. Or he could perform the Vital Intelligence action and get a guaranteed 3 VPs. That's not a meaningful decision. It's always correct to take the guaranteed 3 points rather than the chance of the same number, even if the chance is 99.99%.
So by last turn of the game, you mean the last turn with no opponent turn to follow, right? I ask because this is the point in most games where the proper move is always the most obvious. If it was your last turn but your opponent had a turn afterwards, taking three 3 VP instead of trying to destroy that character may have additional consequences that make the decision more “interesting”.
Simply put, 40K might not be the most complex game ever, but sometimes the “obvious” choice isn’t the best choice. That is one difference between skill levels of players, knowing when the obvious choice is not the best choice.
The claim is "40K sucks" because "there are no meaningful decisions" (ignoring that these are are opinions, not facts). So "there are no meaningful decisions" => "40K sucks"
For "there are no meaningful decisions" to be true, that must mean
A- choosing to move a unit, or not move a unit has zero impact on the game
B- choosing to shoot a unit, or not shoot a unit has zero impact on the game
C- choosing to shoot at a unit, or not shoot at a unit has zero impact on the game
D- choosing to charge a unit, or not charge a unit has zero impact on the game
These are all incorrect assertions. Decisions can impact the game without being meaningful decisions. As an example, imagine a scenario where a unit of Eradicators has only a single target in range and line of sight. Let's assume it's a Leman Russ sitting in no-man's land with no unit able to charge it. Deciding to shoot is a decision that impacts the game. It's not a meaningful decision because the player shooting has no real choice. Nothing is gained by not shooting. Either you shoot and kill something or don't shoot and achieve nothing.
That's what Lance is getting at. Far too often the "decisions" in 40k are either blindingly obvious or become clear after very little analysis. Quick example from a game I played today. Last turn of the game, I had a character who had 2 choices open to him. He could either try to take the last wound from an enemy character in the shooting phase (pretty decent chance to do so - about 44%, better with a re-roll available) and gain 3 VPs for Assassination. Or he could perform the Vital Intelligence action and get a guaranteed 3 VPs. That's not a meaningful decision. It's always correct to take the guaranteed 3 points rather than the chance of the same number, even if the chance is 99.99%.
So by last turn of the game, you mean the last turn with no opponent turn to follow, right? I ask because this is the point in most games where the proper move is always the most obvious. If it was your last turn but your opponent had a turn afterwards, taking three 3 VP instead of trying to destroy that character may have additional consequences that make the decision more “interesting”.
Simply put, 40K might not be the most complex game ever, but sometimes the “obvious” choice isn’t the best choice. That is one difference between skill levels of players, knowing when the obvious choice is not the best choice.
Yes. But a more skilled player is simply doing the math to identify that. There is still a optimal choice. The illusion of choice is still in full swing. It's just player skill in whether or not they can identify it. And once you reach that skill level, that choice IS the obvious choice then, isn't it?
These choices are again, not against the opponent. You are not gauging what the opponents hidden information is potentially going to be (the opponent has no hidden information). You are playing against the game state. What does the board look like now. How do I eliminate threats and score VP now. When your turn is over you sit back and watch (or more likely start looking at your phone) until you find out what you have left to do it all again with.
Since everything is known, everything is calculable. Do the math, pick A, the optimal choice, hand the game back to your opponent. The only question is if you understand the game well enough to identify A.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.