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.
alextroy wrote: And that is different from any other game in what way?
In a game with AA you cannot focus fire on a single unit and eliminate it before the opponent gets a chance to react. You cannot be sure at the end of a turn you will be holding an objective to score it. If reactions exist you could be shot at for moving into a space when the opponent acts with an interrupt. In X-Wing you have to choose where you are moving at the same time that the opponent is choosing where they are moving and going for an "objective" could turn you into a pin cushion with no ability to retaliate. In apocalypse you have to issue your orders at the same time that your opponent does and you have to follow through on those orders regardless of what the opponent does. That character could move out of range or into a melee. That objective could be targeted by a detachment with bonuses because they sat still to shoot turning it into a death trap. You don't know!
Basically, it's different from most games in that your opponent is the thing you play against.
Since the opponent has the ability to interrupt your plans they introduce unknowns to the equation which means you cannot simply calculate it. You can guess at it. You can try to influence your opponents choices by setting up gambits and fake outs. But whether those pay off isn't up to you or the dice. It's up to the player on the other side of the table.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/11/13 23:36:34
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
There certainly are choices in the game that are "meaningless" in the way these guys are describing; choices of this kind exist in most games, and I would say all games I have played. The place where they err is in saying ALL choices are of this type.
Again, it does come down to preferred styles of play. If you hate strats and think they need to be removed from the game, you are unlikely to appreciate them as examples of meaningful choice, or tactics. Because the thing about strats is that which strat is "mathematically correct" for a given situation isn't the whole choice. Because it is a limited resource, every use of a strat has a consequence as well as a benefit. The consequence diminishes over time- in the final turn, you could certainly argue that there is no consequence. Whether or not you can afford to use a strat is also dependent upon your opponent's remaining CP, and whether or not they have exhausted key strats for the turn.
And of course, all of these discussions focus on the matched play, stand-alone game paradigm. But when you step outside that paradigm and into a Crusade campaign, things change very quickly, because the decisions that you're making in a given game have an impact on future games, and you may be in a position where it is wise to sacrifice victory in a game to ensure a greater chance of success in future games.
This extra layer is one of the many reasons I prefer Crusade.
I have, however, come to the conclusion that it is pointless to continue to participate in the discussion. The spit take came when Lance made the post about how how someone was refusing to see HIS point and he didn't know how to explain it any better. When someone has already decided they are right, there is very little you can do to move discussion forward. It just leads to frustration.
For the rest of you who are still trying to argue, I'd recommend just depriving the discussion of oxygen. Time for another vacation from Dakka- or at the very least, this thread.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/13 23:56:44
In a game with AA you cannot focus fire on a single unit and eliminate it before the opponent gets a chance to react.
Apparently for a game designer, you know nothing. in AA, the player with more units has the advantage because after the player with less units is done activating, the player with more units then activates multiple units, and player 1 can't respond. It's the same problem 40k has, just on a different scale.
If you're just going to say 40k sucks so bad and some other game is sooo much better, just go play the other game and stop trolling.
PenitentJake wrote: For the rest of you who are still trying to argue, I'd recommend just depriving the discussion of oxygen. Time for another vacation from Dakka- or at the very least, this thread.
Agreed! I'm going to go play a fun game of 40K tomorrow. L8R!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/14 01:38:06
alextroy wrote: And that is different from any other game in what way?
In a game with AA you cannot focus fire on a single unit and eliminate it before the opponent gets a chance to react.
However, depending on the game, you would activate with a known board state, and you'd just need to solve the optimal unit of yours to activate and optimal action to take with it. One Page Rules is an alternating activation system with 0 hidden information, so even without AA it's not any more tactical than 40k is by the definitions offered in this thread.
Necromunda and Adeptus Titanicus only gain (the barest of) tactics by having stratagems and gang tactics cards that you hide from your opponent. Without those, they'd be AA without tactics. Conquest only gains minimal tactics because you have to decide your activation order ahead of time and Infinity only has tactics because some units in the game can deploy in a hidden state.
Tactics are hard to come by in wargames, even with AA.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/14 02:14:07
In a game with AA you cannot focus fire on a single unit and eliminate it before the opponent gets a chance to react.
Apparently for a game designer, you know nothing. in AA, the player with more units has the advantage because after the player with less units is done activating, the player with more units then activates multiple units, and player 1 can't respond. It's the same problem 40k has, just on a different scale.
This isn't universally true. Games like Heroscape give players a fixed number of activations. More units is more options but not more activations. AA40k more MSU units have both less impact and get eliminated faster. A potential advantage early becomes a crippling weakness by the end of the game. Heads up. I have been playing AA40k for the last 3 years. I am very familiar with what it does and does not do. Don't theory craft at me.
If you're just going to say 40k sucks so bad and some other game is sooo much better, just go play the other game and stop trolling.
If you don't like to hear about the flaws in the thing you like why are you on Dakka Dakka where every other thread is about the flaws in 40k?
alextroy wrote: And that is different from any other game in what way?
In a game with AA you cannot focus fire on a single unit and eliminate it before the opponent gets a chance to react.
However, depending on the game, you would activate with a known board state, and you'd just need to solve the optimal unit of yours to activate and optimal action to take with it. One Page Rules is an alternating activation system with 0 hidden information, so even without AA it's not any more tactical than 40k is by the definitions offered in this thread.
Agreed.
Necromunda and Adeptus Titanicus only gain (the barest of) tactics by having stratagems and gang tactics cards that you hide from your opponent. Without those, they'd be AA without tactics. Conquest only gains minimal tactics because you have to decide your activation order ahead of time and Infinity only has tactics because some units in the game can deploy in a hidden state.
Tactics are hard to come by in wargames, even with AA.
X Wing, Apocalypse, Boltaction. They are not hard to come by. They just mostly don't come from Games Workshop.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/14 02:29:30
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I think often the tactics vs strategy gets lost in all the other issues 40k has.
It’s not easy to discuss when players can thought no fault of there own turn up to a game.
Need to be better at Army design and have access to models to support it, need to then play much better, and have better luck than the opponent.
Knights and flyers both come to mind as things stuffed into 40k by management that didn’t understand them, instead of a awesome expansion to the game both ended up rather meh.
And the rules teams have had to pick up the issues since in a game where editions move to fast, and codex support comes far to slowly.
It makes me think of World of Warcraft, mismanagement of the game over years and no one stepping up to fix issues that plague the entire design.
Apple fox wrote: I think often the tactics vs strategy gets lost in all the other issues 40k has.
It’s not easy to discuss when players can thought no fault of there own turn up to a game.
Need to be better at Army design and have access to models to support it, need to then play much better, and have better luck than the opponent.
Knights and flyers both come to mind as things stuffed into 40k by management that didn’t understand them, instead of a awesome expansion to the game both ended up rather meh.
And the rules teams have had to pick up the issues since in a game where editions move to fast, and codex support comes far to slowly.
It makes me think of World of Warcraft, mismanagement of the game over years and no one stepping up to fix issues that plague the entire design.
Oh man, WoW... Don't even get me started! haha
But yeah, 40k has a lot of issues. Balance. Lack of focus. rules being based on models instead of models being built around rules. The release schedules/methods. No doubt 40k has problems from many angles.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I will compare two on-table situations just from the last week to exemplify (hopefully) what Lance is talking about.
Just tonight, I was playing a game of 40k. I had two Leman Russes (in a spearhead, so OBSEC) vs like 7 Eldar models (including two Dire Avengers).
Two turns in advance, I could see it was going to come down to a fight for the objective in the center (the Relic mission in Crusade).
So, my shooting options were:
shoot the obsec (thus winning me the game) shoot literally anything else (dark reapers can kinda hurt leman russes, and there WAS a psyker to get me agenda points. 3xp for a psyker character compared to a COMPLETELY free relic (equivalent to an entire level up) for winning...) don't shoot and advance or blow smoke or the like instead
Big mystery, there.
Conversely, in Chain of Command, the enemy has two JOPs (jump off points; places they can deploy from) near the objective. I can be certain that one of the two is a decoy. However, I don't know which one, and I am advancing on the two of them with two squads of infantry and a tank. I can:
1) Move cautiously and cover both of them with fire, risking the game ending before I arrive at the objective (since movement distance is random, I can't calculate this all in advance)
2) Cover one with fire while maneuvering against the other. This gets my maneuvering troops forwards more quickly, but has significant risk to those selfsame troops - if the one I am maneuvering against turns out to be the REAL one, I may not be adequately covering them with fire (and instead am covering the decoy, womp womp).
3) Maneuver against both and try to bite the bullet of the enemy's deployment from one of the JOPs, but at least I know which one is which then. This is SUPER risky because you aren't allowed to know the enemy's support allocation ahead of time - he may pop out with a couple of entrenched infantry teams or he may pop up with a devastating flamethrower at short range!!
4) Pause my advance and spend some time using my squad leaders (or even platoon leader) to reorganize my squads, breaking off a two man scout team from each to send at the JOPs - if they can shut one down (or capture it) then that makes my problem infinitely easier. However, these two-man teams are very vulnerable to practically anything, and getting them wiped out could seriously blow my Force Morale (the counter that essentially determines victory; zero force morale is bad!). Each team wiped out is bad, and here I am sending teams of two people forwards AND weakening my line squads in the first place.
5) Send forward the tank, relying on its armor to protect it as it overruns one of the JOPs (leaving me only to deal with one). Advantage is that there are FAR FEWER weapons in the game that can seriously impede the tank, not to mention destroy it. Drawback is that the tank is VERY vulnerable to weapons specifically designed to kill it, so if the enemy still has one in their pocket, I would be risking not only Force Morale as in option 4 BUT ALSO one of my most powerful combat assets when the enemy does eventually deploy from the JOP onto the objective.
6) Advance slowly (and cover them with fire) until I am 'close enough" for a final rush to shut them both down at once in a single dart of speed. This is very difficult given the random movement distances, but even more difficult since my opponent knows this possibility too! He may be preserving a COC die to use to reveal an ambush of something like a flamethrower or MMG (or even an infantry team) which could shut down such a rush in a hurry. My slow advance will have given him even more time to accumulate COC dice at the beginning (the slower I am, the more COC dice a player accumulates on average, though even that rate of accumulation is random).
So, there's one objective. There's known enemy positions (roughly). But the decision making is so much deeper than 40k because of all the hidden information: 1) Some portion (the support allocation) of the enemy's army list is unknown. 2) The enemy's real location is unknown (they must be within 6" of the JOP they deploy from, but I don't know which JOP is a decoy or not, and even 6" radius from a point is a 12" diameter circle). 3) The distance my units can travel across the terrain isn't known in advance, so moving too slowly is risky. 4) The amount of time left in the game is unknown, so I don't know if I will have time to advance slowly or reorganize my squads 5) The degree of Force Morale damage (if any) that would result from losing teams (e.g. scout teams or maneuver teams) is unknown in advance. 6) The activation dice I will roll are uncertain and I may not be able to activate scout teams, tanks, or senior platoon leadership reliably.
40k doesn't hide information in the same way; even where the information is hidden behind a dice roll, mechanics are usually provided to mitigate said dice roll results.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/14 05:02:49
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.
That's not always true. Sometimes there isn't an optimal choice, there's a safest one.
Example: my anti tank unit can split fire or not, if it doesn't it get X% return a against a single target, if it does it gets Y% return against two. With X being much higer than Y of course. Now avoiding to split fire can lead to an almost guaranteed kill, but splitting fire can lead to a much better result: two targets destroyed instead of one. If that happens the safest choice isn't the optimal one. That's the whole point of a dice based game, randomness has an impact and mess with averages. If randomness didn't matter or shouldn't matter why not playing with the expected results instead of rolling the dice?
In every game that are based on dice rolling there's a safest option and more rewarding but risky ones. Because if it doesn't and all players' choices are qually good then we have the illusion of choices, what the player does doesn't matter. So what's the point of having multiple ways to solve a problem when all the options are equally viable and lead to the same result?
And AA doesn't give more power to the player, it's simply a different system. Necromunda, my favorite GW game, has AA and yet what model to activate and what to do with that is much more obvious than in 40k, I always know immediately what to do and the game feels way more self driven than 40k. Which is ok, since it's mostly (if not entirely) based on the narrative built around the models.
I'm beginning to think the posters defending 40k are willfully misunderstanding the points being made. They're definitely mischaracterizing the arguments being made at any rate.
I do find brainpsyk and PenitentJake making fallacious arguments then declaring the thread pointless and that they're leaving funny though.
In a game with AA you cannot focus fire on a single unit and eliminate it before the opponent gets a chance to react.
Apparently for a game designer, you know nothing. in AA, the player with more units has the advantage because after the player with less units is done activating, the player with more units then activates multiple units, and player 1 can't respond. It's the same problem 40k has, just on a different scale.
It's like Dunning-Kruger personified. There are many, many ways to create an AA system that mitigates or solves that problem. Epic uses a system where the army lists are balanced around armies having roughly the same number of activations. Most AA games try for something similar, but not all. Bolt Action randomises the activation order, which increases the hidden information. Obviously if 40k were to go to AA there would need to be fundamental changes to the game, probably in both the rules mechanics and army list structure.
This is pretty much a solved problem in game design.
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.
That's not always true. Sometimes there isn't an optimal choice, there's a safest one.
Explain how if the safest option is the best option, that it would then not also be the optimal one?
Example: my anti tank unit can split fire or not, if it doesn't it get X% return a against a single target, if it does it gets Y% return against two. With X being much higer than Y of course. Now avoiding to split fire can lead to an almost guaranteed kill, but splitting fire can lead to a much better result: two targets destroyed instead of one. If that happens the safest choice isn't the optimal one. That's the whole point of a dice based game, randomness has an impact and mess with averages. If randomness didn't matter or shouldn't matter why not playing with the expected results instead of rolling the dice?
In every game that are based on dice rolling there's a safest option and more rewarding but risky ones. Because if it doesn't and all players' choices are qually good then we have the illusion of choices, what the player does doesn't matter. So what's the point of having multiple ways to solve a problem when all the options are equally viable and lead to the same result?
See above. You can literally do the mathhammer on each of those rolls and determine which target is most likely to cause the most damage. You don't know how the dice are going to land, but you CAN pick the option that STATISTICALLY is going to go in your favor. And with rerolls and other 40k stuff you're unlikely to be at the total mercy of the dice. You can stack that in your favor too.
Nobody is saying all choices should be equally good. They are saying there are things that can be done to shift or hide the values. If in a game I have 2 creatures I can attack with. 1 deals 2 damage. But the other deals 3 damage but I take 1 damage every time it swings. Which is better? One has a COST. And that cost changes the equation. 40k doesn't have costs. If as Unit explained you don't know things then you cannot calculate the equation.
All choices shouldn't be equal. As many choices as possible should be Interesting.
And AA doesn't give more power to the player, it's simply a different system. Necromunda, my favorite GW game, has AA and yet what model to activate and what to do with that is much more obvious than in 40k, I always know immediately what to do and the game feels way more self driven than 40k. Which is ok, since it's mostly (if not entirely) based on the narrative built around the models.
AA gives more power to the player because you are interrupted. A strategy cannot be executed in perfect unison. The opponent has a chance to interrupt which cause you to start to have to take your opponents next actions into consideration with your own actions. THAT creates a element of unknowns. Not the best one. It wouldn't make 40k the deepest greatest tactical game in the world. But it gives it SOMETHING and something is better than the nothing it has now.
And hey, as a experiment, why not play a couple games of Necromunda IGOUGO? Whoever goes first will go with all of their models/units and then the opponent can go with all of theirs. Tell me if it made the game any better or any worse.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/11/14 13:59:10
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I will compare two on-table situations just from the last week to exemplify (hopefully) what Lance is talking about.
Just tonight, I was playing a game of 40k. I had two Leman Russes (in a spearhead, so OBSEC) vs like 7 Eldar models (including two Dire Avengers).
Two turns in advance, I could see it was going to come down to a fight for the objective in the center (the Relic mission in Crusade).
So, my shooting options were:
shoot the obsec (thus winning me the game)
shoot literally anything else (dark reapers can kinda hurt leman russes, and there WAS a psyker to get me agenda points. 3xp for a psyker character compared to a COMPLETELY free relic (equivalent to an entire level up) for winning...)
don't shoot and advance or blow smoke or the like instead
Big mystery, there.
Conversely, in Chain of Command, the enemy has two JOPs (jump off points; places they can deploy from) near the objective. I can be certain that one of the two is a decoy. However, I don't know which one, and I am advancing on the two of them with two squads of infantry and a tank. I can:
1) Move cautiously and cover both of them with fire, risking the game ending before I arrive at the objective (since movement distance is random, I can't calculate this all in advance)
2) Cover one with fire while maneuvering against the other. This gets my maneuvering troops forwards more quickly, but has significant risk to those selfsame troops - if the one I am maneuvering against turns out to be the REAL one, I may not be adequately covering them with fire (and instead am covering the decoy, womp womp).
3) Maneuver against both and try to bite the bullet of the enemy's deployment from one of the JOPs, but at least I know which one is which then. This is SUPER risky because you aren't allowed to know the enemy's support allocation ahead of time - he may pop out with a couple of entrenched infantry teams or he may pop up with a devastating flamethrower at short range!!
4) Pause my advance and spend some time using my squad leaders (or even platoon leader) to reorganize my squads, breaking off a two man scout team from each to send at the JOPs - if they can shut one down (or capture it) then that makes my problem infinitely easier. However, these two-man teams are very vulnerable to practically anything, and getting them wiped out could seriously blow my Force Morale (the counter that essentially determines victory; zero force morale is bad!). Each team wiped out is bad, and here I am sending teams of two people forwards AND weakening my line squads in the first place.
5) Send forward the tank, relying on its armor to protect it as it overruns one of the JOPs (leaving me only to deal with one). Advantage is that there are FAR FEWER weapons in the game that can seriously impede the tank, not to mention destroy it. Drawback is that the tank is VERY vulnerable to weapons specifically designed to kill it, so if the enemy still has one in their pocket, I would be risking not only Force Morale as in option 4 BUT ALSO one of my most powerful combat assets when the enemy does eventually deploy from the JOP onto the objective.
6) Advance slowly (and cover them with fire) until I am 'close enough" for a final rush to shut them both down at once in a single dart of speed. This is very difficult given the random movement distances, but even more difficult since my opponent knows this possibility too! He may be preserving a COC die to use to reveal an ambush of something like a flamethrower or MMG (or even an infantry team) which could shut down such a rush in a hurry. My slow advance will have given him even more time to accumulate COC dice at the beginning (the slower I am, the more COC dice a player accumulates on average, though even that rate of accumulation is random).
So, there's one objective. There's known enemy positions (roughly). But the decision making is so much deeper than 40k because of all the hidden information:
1) Some portion (the support allocation) of the enemy's army list is unknown.
2) The enemy's real location is unknown (they must be within 6" of the JOP they deploy from, but I don't know which JOP is a decoy or not, and even 6" radius from a point is a 12" diameter circle).
3) The distance my units can travel across the terrain isn't known in advance, so moving too slowly is risky.
4) The amount of time left in the game is unknown, so I don't know if I will have time to advance slowly or reorganize my squads
5) The degree of Force Morale damage (if any) that would result from losing teams (e.g. scout teams or maneuver teams) is unknown in advance.
6) The activation dice I will roll are uncertain and I may not be able to activate scout teams, tanks, or senior platoon leadership reliably.
40k doesn't hide information in the same way; even where the information is hidden behind a dice roll, mechanics are usually provided to mitigate said dice roll results.
Yes Unit. Thank you. Perfect example of how hidden information doesn't just add depth to the game play but vastly increases tactical decision making AND playing against the player instead of the game.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
No problem. I can also go into how National Characteristics would subtly nudge the decision-making there - IMHO one of the best way to differentiate armies in any game I have played (in terms of adjusting on-table effects with very little bloat).
Came into this thread expecting to find a discussion on restrictions being applied to the game... and what I find is just the second round of an old dakka discussion...
Also, a quite useless discussion which last time devolved into trying to define what is tactic and what is strategy. Spoiler: there was no agreement.
Since I see the usual subjects discussing this, I strongly reccomend to stop this. It is a completely futile discussion.where no side will budge an inch.
Spoletta wrote: Came into this thread expecting to find a discussion on restrictions being applied to the game... and what I find is just the second round of an old dakka discussion...
Also, a quite useless discussion which last time devolved into trying to define what is tactic and what is strategy. Spoiler: there was no agreement.
Since I see the usual subjects discussing this, I strongly reccomend to stop this. It is a completely futile discussion.where no side will budge an inch.
Well I started down this path by saying restrictions are good IF they are used to create interesting decisions.
Like, the new balance patch didn't change the equation of if X unit was the optimal unit. It's STILL the best unit. You can now only take 3 of them.
You didn't make a more interesting choice or fix the current situation. You just put in a restriction to take choices away and try to force other answers. Not great.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Spoletta wrote: Came into this thread expecting to find a discussion on restrictions being applied to the game... and what I find is just the second round of an old dakka discussion...
Also, a quite useless discussion which last time devolved into trying to define what is tactic and what is strategy. Spoiler: there was no agreement.
Since I see the usual subjects discussing this, I strongly reccomend to stop this. It is a completely futile discussion.where no side will budge an inch.
Given that the conversation stemmed from how its GW rules writing is what enables there to be a gulf between WAAC and fluff players I think a discussion about the importance of tactics vs strategy is on topic.
Strategy is where the WAAC player gets their advantage. They use OP list building and combos to win the game and it seems to be how GW would prefer to balance the game.
Tactics is where the fluff player SHOULD be able to win the game, or at least stand a chance of winning. Restrictions mean nothing here. So arguing that 40k should be more tactical is entirely fair.
Spoletta wrote: Came into this thread expecting to find a discussion on restrictions being applied to the game... and what I find is just the second round of an old dakka discussion...
Also, a quite useless discussion which last time devolved into trying to define what is tactic and what is strategy. Spoiler: there was no agreement.
Since I see the usual subjects discussing this, I strongly reccomend to stop this. It is a completely futile discussion.where no side will budge an inch.
Well I started down this path by saying restrictions are good IF they are used to create interesting decisions.
Like, the new balance patch didn't change the equation of if X unit was the optimal unit. It's STILL the best unit. You can now only take 3 of them.
You didn't make a more interesting choice or fix the current situation. You just put in a restriction to take choices away and try to force other answers. Not great.
A unit's math changes also based on how many you can take. If it is optimal to field 4x of something, it may be unoptimal in case you cannot field all 4 of them. Especially when you talk about models with niche defensive profiles (like buggies), or niche offensive profiles (like flyers), the fact that you can or cannot reach critical mass does impact quite a bit on the choice being optimal or not.
By the way, while I agree with the changes on flyers, I'm not a fan on the changes on buggies. If what GW wanted to push was a hodge podge theme for buggies, then it should have allowed additional units of the same buggy if you already had at least as many buggies of the other types.
Sim-Life wrote:
Spoletta wrote: Came into this thread expecting to find a discussion on restrictions being applied to the game... and what I find is just the second round of an old dakka discussion...
Also, a quite useless discussion which last time devolved into trying to define what is tactic and what is strategy. Spoiler: there was no agreement.
Since I see the usual subjects discussing this, I strongly reccomend to stop this. It is a completely futile discussion.where no side will budge an inch.
Given that the conversation stemmed from how its GW rules writing is what enables there to be a gulf between WAAC and fluff players I think a discussion about the importance of tactics vs strategy is on topic.
Strategy is where the WAAC player gets their advantage. They use OP list building and combos to win the game and it seems to be how GW would prefer to balance the game.
Tactics is where the fluff player SHOULD be able to win the game, or at least stand a chance of winning. Restrictions mean nothing here. So arguing that 40k should be more tactical is entirely fair.
Again, this is a sterile discussion if we can't agree on what is tactic and what is strategy.
The game is currently won by the best player with the most experience at the table. That's the only thing we know for certain. Anything else is just semantics. Unfortunately, fluff players also tend to have much less experience than competitive ones, so the gap is there to stay.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/14 17:13:17
Spoletta wrote: Came into this thread expecting to find a discussion on restrictions being applied to the game... and what I find is just the second round of an old dakka discussion...
Also, a quite useless discussion which last time devolved into trying to define what is tactic and what is strategy. Spoiler: there was no agreement.
Since I see the usual subjects discussing this, I strongly reccomend to stop this. It is a completely futile discussion.where no side will budge an inch.
Well I started down this path by saying restrictions are good IF they are used to create interesting decisions.
Like, the new balance patch didn't change the equation of if X unit was the optimal unit. It's STILL the best unit. You can now only take 3 of them.
You didn't make a more interesting choice or fix the current situation. You just put in a restriction to take choices away and try to force other answers. Not great.
A unit's math changes also based on how many you can take. If it is optimal to field 4x of something, it may be unoptimal in case you cannot field all 4 of them. Especially when you talk about models with niche defensive profiles (like buggies), or niche offensive profiles (like flyers), the fact that you can or cannot reach critical mass does impact quite a bit on the choice being optimal or not.
Sure, but what I am saying is they didn't make unit Z more desirable or bring the stat block of unit A back in line with the rest of the units. They just threw out a restriction so that with 2000 points in your list you need to start looking at B, C and D to round out your list instead. It's not a interesting choice (or at least it's become a less interesting choice) because A just no longer factors into the equation beyond 3.
It's an example of how restrictions don't necessarily make for interesting choices. But restrictions that DO make for interesting choices (you have 2 actions per units activation. Move, Shoot, Psychic. Moving twice is a charge and coming in contact allows for a fight) can exist and are good for the game. The limit makes you have to choose HOW you are going to use a unit which CAN result in interesting choices (dependent on the rest of the mechanics). That is a good application of restrictions.
By the way, while I agree with the changes on flyers, I'm not a fan on the changes on buggies. If what GW wanted to push was a hodge podge theme for buggies, then it should have allowed additional units of the same buggy if you already had at least as many buggies of the other types.
Or had synergy bonuses so that you got your most bang for your buck by bringing different kinds. Yes, this is the best single buggy type. But These 3 different buggies together get more done than 3 copies of the best buggy.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/11/15 01:06:49
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I will compare two on-table situations just from the last week to exemplify (hopefully) what Lance is talking about.
Just tonight, I was playing a game of 40k. I had two Leman Russes (in a spearhead, so OBSEC) vs like 7 Eldar models (including two Dire Avengers).
Two turns in advance, I could see it was going to come down to a fight for the objective in the center (the Relic mission in Crusade).
So, my shooting options were:
shoot the obsec (thus winning me the game)
shoot literally anything else (dark reapers can kinda hurt leman russes, and there WAS a psyker to get me agenda points. 3xp for a psyker character compared to a COMPLETELY free relic (equivalent to an entire level up) for winning...)
don't shoot and advance or blow smoke or the like instead
Big mystery, there.
Conversely, in Chain of Command, the enemy has two JOPs (jump off points; places they can deploy from) near the objective. I can be certain that one of the two is a decoy. However, I don't know which one, and I am advancing on the two of them with two squads of infantry and a tank. I can:
1) Move cautiously and cover both of them with fire, risking the game ending before I arrive at the objective (since movement distance is random, I can't calculate this all in advance)
2) Cover one with fire while maneuvering against the other. This gets my maneuvering troops forwards more quickly, but has significant risk to those selfsame troops - if the one I am maneuvering against turns out to be the REAL one, I may not be adequately covering them with fire (and instead am covering the decoy, womp womp).
3) Maneuver against both and try to bite the bullet of the enemy's deployment from one of the JOPs, but at least I know which one is which then. This is SUPER risky because you aren't allowed to know the enemy's support allocation ahead of time - he may pop out with a couple of entrenched infantry teams or he may pop up with a devastating flamethrower at short range!!
4) Pause my advance and spend some time using my squad leaders (or even platoon leader) to reorganize my squads, breaking off a two man scout team from each to send at the JOPs - if they can shut one down (or capture it) then that makes my problem infinitely easier. However, these two-man teams are very vulnerable to practically anything, and getting them wiped out could seriously blow my Force Morale (the counter that essentially determines victory; zero force morale is bad!). Each team wiped out is bad, and here I am sending teams of two people forwards AND weakening my line squads in the first place.
5) Send forward the tank, relying on its armor to protect it as it overruns one of the JOPs (leaving me only to deal with one). Advantage is that there are FAR FEWER weapons in the game that can seriously impede the tank, not to mention destroy it. Drawback is that the tank is VERY vulnerable to weapons specifically designed to kill it, so if the enemy still has one in their pocket, I would be risking not only Force Morale as in option 4 BUT ALSO one of my most powerful combat assets when the enemy does eventually deploy from the JOP onto the objective.
6) Advance slowly (and cover them with fire) until I am 'close enough" for a final rush to shut them both down at once in a single dart of speed. This is very difficult given the random movement distances, but even more difficult since my opponent knows this possibility too! He may be preserving a COC die to use to reveal an ambush of something like a flamethrower or MMG (or even an infantry team) which could shut down such a rush in a hurry. My slow advance will have given him even more time to accumulate COC dice at the beginning (the slower I am, the more COC dice a player accumulates on average, though even that rate of accumulation is random).
So, there's one objective. There's known enemy positions (roughly). But the decision making is so much deeper than 40k because of all the hidden information:
1) Some portion (the support allocation) of the enemy's army list is unknown.
2) The enemy's real location is unknown (they must be within 6" of the JOP they deploy from, but I don't know which JOP is a decoy or not, and even 6" radius from a point is a 12" diameter circle).
3) The distance my units can travel across the terrain isn't known in advance, so moving too slowly is risky.
4) The amount of time left in the game is unknown, so I don't know if I will have time to advance slowly or reorganize my squads
5) The degree of Force Morale damage (if any) that would result from losing teams (e.g. scout teams or maneuver teams) is unknown in advance.
6) The activation dice I will roll are uncertain and I may not be able to activate scout teams, tanks, or senior platoon leadership reliably.
40k doesn't hide information in the same way; even where the information is hidden behind a dice roll, mechanics are usually provided to mitigate said dice roll results.
Yes Unit. Thank you. Perfect example of how hidden information doesn't just add depth to the game play but vastly increases tactical decision making AND playing against the player instead of the game.
This is a big of a strawman, isn't it?
You've taken a 40K game and boiled it down to the choices in a single round and tried to compare it to CoC where the game has yet to begin. You took away all of the prior decisions in 40K that lead to that point, but offer the chance to obscure those decisions in CoC and offering up false choices, because in reality they WOULD result in one "good" choice just like 40K based on known information.
I will compare two on-table situations just from the last week to exemplify (hopefully) what Lance is talking about.
Just tonight, I was playing a game of 40k. I had two Leman Russes (in a spearhead, so OBSEC) vs like 7 Eldar models (including two Dire Avengers).
Two turns in advance, I could see it was going to come down to a fight for the objective in the center (the Relic mission in Crusade).
So, my shooting options were:
shoot the obsec (thus winning me the game)
shoot literally anything else (dark reapers can kinda hurt leman russes, and there WAS a psyker to get me agenda points. 3xp for a psyker character compared to a COMPLETELY free relic (equivalent to an entire level up) for winning...)
don't shoot and advance or blow smoke or the like instead
Big mystery, there.
Conversely, in Chain of Command, the enemy has two JOPs (jump off points; places they can deploy from) near the objective. I can be certain that one of the two is a decoy. However, I don't know which one, and I am advancing on the two of them with two squads of infantry and a tank. I can:
1) Move cautiously and cover both of them with fire, risking the game ending before I arrive at the objective (since movement distance is random, I can't calculate this all in advance)
2) Cover one with fire while maneuvering against the other. This gets my maneuvering troops forwards more quickly, but has significant risk to those selfsame troops - if the one I am maneuvering against turns out to be the REAL one, I may not be adequately covering them with fire (and instead am covering the decoy, womp womp).
3) Maneuver against both and try to bite the bullet of the enemy's deployment from one of the JOPs, but at least I know which one is which then. This is SUPER risky because you aren't allowed to know the enemy's support allocation ahead of time - he may pop out with a couple of entrenched infantry teams or he may pop up with a devastating flamethrower at short range!!
4) Pause my advance and spend some time using my squad leaders (or even platoon leader) to reorganize my squads, breaking off a two man scout team from each to send at the JOPs - if they can shut one down (or capture it) then that makes my problem infinitely easier. However, these two-man teams are very vulnerable to practically anything, and getting them wiped out could seriously blow my Force Morale (the counter that essentially determines victory; zero force morale is bad!). Each team wiped out is bad, and here I am sending teams of two people forwards AND weakening my line squads in the first place.
5) Send forward the tank, relying on its armor to protect it as it overruns one of the JOPs (leaving me only to deal with one). Advantage is that there are FAR FEWER weapons in the game that can seriously impede the tank, not to mention destroy it. Drawback is that the tank is VERY vulnerable to weapons specifically designed to kill it, so if the enemy still has one in their pocket, I would be risking not only Force Morale as in option 4 BUT ALSO one of my most powerful combat assets when the enemy does eventually deploy from the JOP onto the objective.
6) Advance slowly (and cover them with fire) until I am 'close enough" for a final rush to shut them both down at once in a single dart of speed. This is very difficult given the random movement distances, but even more difficult since my opponent knows this possibility too! He may be preserving a COC die to use to reveal an ambush of something like a flamethrower or MMG (or even an infantry team) which could shut down such a rush in a hurry. My slow advance will have given him even more time to accumulate COC dice at the beginning (the slower I am, the more COC dice a player accumulates on average, though even that rate of accumulation is random).
So, there's one objective. There's known enemy positions (roughly). But the decision making is so much deeper than 40k because of all the hidden information:
1) Some portion (the support allocation) of the enemy's army list is unknown.
2) The enemy's real location is unknown (they must be within 6" of the JOP they deploy from, but I don't know which JOP is a decoy or not, and even 6" radius from a point is a 12" diameter circle).
3) The distance my units can travel across the terrain isn't known in advance, so moving too slowly is risky.
4) The amount of time left in the game is unknown, so I don't know if I will have time to advance slowly or reorganize my squads
5) The degree of Force Morale damage (if any) that would result from losing teams (e.g. scout teams or maneuver teams) is unknown in advance.
6) The activation dice I will roll are uncertain and I may not be able to activate scout teams, tanks, or senior platoon leadership reliably.
40k doesn't hide information in the same way; even where the information is hidden behind a dice roll, mechanics are usually provided to mitigate said dice roll results.
Yes Unit. Thank you. Perfect example of how hidden information doesn't just add depth to the game play but vastly increases tactical decision making AND playing against the player instead of the game.
This is a big of a strawman, isn't it?
You've taken a 40K game and boiled it down to the choices in a single round and tried to compare it to CoC where the game has yet to begin. You took away all of the prior decisions in 40K that lead to that point, but offer the chance to obscure those decisions in CoC and offering up false choices, because in reality they WOULD result in one "good" choice just like 40K based on known information.
No. Because it's an assessment of the single decision point. It doesn't matter how many decisions happened earlier in 40k. Right now you have a choice to make.
Just because there IS a best choice in CoC you cannot calculate it. You don't have enough information. Because of that it's not the math you are making a decision against. It's the opponent. This assuming I understand the example of a game I have not played before correctly.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I am comparing it to the end of the CoC game. The enemy hasn't deployed all their assets, but I have seized all but 1 (and one decoy) JOP and am advancing on the final objective.
Similarly, in 40k example, I am two or so turns away from the end of the game.
Explain how if the safest option is the best option, that it would then not also be the optimal one?
I didn't say safest option is also the best one. I said safest option grants a reasonably safe/guaranteed results, less safe one grants the same result with lower odds but unlike the first option can also reward the player with a better result. Is it better to overkill a model or to have the chance of killing two? That's what I mean with safest option not always being the best ones, it's a dice base game and sometimes accepting some risks (in this case avoiding a guaranteed result for a not guaranteed higher result) might lead to an higher reward.
See above. You can literally do the mathhammer on each of those rolls and determine which target is most likely to cause the most damage. You don't know how the dice are going to land, but you CAN pick the option that STATISTICALLY is going to go in your favor. And with rerolls and other 40k stuff you're unlikely to be at the total mercy of the dice. You can stack that in your favor too.
Nobody is saying all choices should be equally good. They are saying there are things that can be done to shift or hide the values. If in a game I have 2 creatures I can attack with. 1 deals 2 damage. But the other deals 3 damage but I take 1 damage every time it swings. Which is better? One has a COST. And that cost changes the equation. 40k doesn't have costs. If as Unit explained you don't know things then you cannot calculate the equation.
All choices shouldn't be equal. As many choices as possible should be Interesting.
It doesn't matter what option is statistically better, unless the odds gap between the choices is really huge. Say it's 90% for the safest option and 50% for the less safe one, now the choice is interesting. Looks interesting enough to me at least (since interesting is another subjective concept ).
In every game in which decisions matter there's always an option that statistically is going to go in the player's favor, the safest one. Even in games with no randomness at all, like chess.
AA gives more power to the player because you are interrupted. A strategy cannot be executed in perfect unison. The opponent has a chance to interrupt which cause you to start to have to take your opponents next actions into consideration with your own actions. THAT creates a element of unknowns. Not the best one. It wouldn't make 40k the deepest greatest tactical game in the world. But it gives it SOMETHING and something is better than the nothing it has now.
And hey, as a experiment, why not play a couple games of Necromunda IGOUGO? Whoever goes first will go with all of their models/units and then the opponent can go with all of theirs. Tell me if it made the game any better or any worse.
It gives you the illusion of power. If I know in advance or immediately without thinking what pawn I need to move and what to do with it, based on the previous interaction, those are not interesting choices and the game is still self driven. Which can be ok, since Necromunda is basically designed to be a self driven narrative adventure, with randomness having a significant impact since the majority of rolls are single dice rolls with no re-rolls. Necromunda without AA would be pretty close to 40k since its core rules are pretty similar. 40k works pretty well for me. Now I don't like playing exact identical games and AA in Necromunda contributes to differentiate it a bit from 40k, but it's certainly not the reason why I enjoy it and certainly AA in Necromunda doesn't prevent the game for being quite self driven.
AA just let players use their models more frequently, instead of doing nothing but rolling for saves for half an hour, which for some people is unbereable.
AA could give more power to the player, but randomness has to have a much higher impact compared to the AA mechanics in Necromunda. Like random activations. Now the player has to be creative as it can't go with the obvious option, it has to get the best out of every interaction. But someone could argue that if the player can't choose his activations then it actually has less power. Maybe, but the game would be certainly more deep and based on skills than a pure AA. Power to the players and a game based on skills are on completely different levels, you can have the former and not the latter, or viceversa, or both.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/15 08:21:58
AA could give more power to the player, but randomness has to have a much higher impact compared to the AA mechanics in Necromunda. Like random activations. Now the player has to be creative as it can't go with the obvious option, it has to get the best out of every interaction. But someone could argue that if the player can't choose his activations then it actually has less power. Maybe, but the game would be certainly more deep and based on skills than a pure AA. Power to the players and a game based on skills are on completely different levels, you can have the former and not the latter, or viceversa, or both.
It's interesting you mention this. We've been playing bolt action recently and prior to this, another excellent little warlord game called 'test of honour' - its a samurai warband game.
They both have slightly different takes on random activation.
Bolt action is 'pull a token out of a bag and if its your colour, activate one of your units thst hasn't been activated yet'.
Test of honor is slightly different. Its an aa game. You have samurai tokens and ashigaru tokens. When it's your turn you pull a token out of the bag and that's what you have to work with. You might have the perfect plan and positioning for your spearman- pull a samurai token. Improvise and adapt.
I loved it. That kind of chaos and 'fog of war' really added something to the game. Its not about reducing player choice - i found it tested other aspects of my play. I'd been so used to my games being essentially a 'controlled system' that I struggled for a while with having to adapt on the fly to a game state that was often halfway out of my control. You tend to see this in historical games quite a bit where often you are not *fully* in control of your army or how it operates. Definitely a positive eye opener for me.
Yeah those are good examples. More power to the player can really be the illusion of power. Just like there is always a safest choice in 40k that statistically goes in the player's favor, there's always a safest choice in a pure AA game where there's a specific activation that statistically goes in the player's favor as well.
Randomizing activations eliminates this feature instead, and now the game is definitely not self driven, nor is entirely, or even mostly, resolved on luck. Even if the players aren't in full control of their armies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/15 09:05:00
AA could give more power to the player, but randomness has to have a much higher impact compared to the AA mechanics in Necromunda. Like random activations. Now the player has to be creative as it can't go with the obvious option, it has to get the best out of every interaction. But someone could argue that if the player can't choose his activations then it actually has less power. Maybe, but the game would be certainly more deep and based on skills than a pure AA. Power to the players and a game based on skills are on completely different levels, you can have the former and not the latter, or viceversa, or both.
It's interesting you mention this. We've been playing bolt action recently and prior to this, another excellent little warlord game called 'test of honour' - its a samurai warband game.
They both have slightly different takes on random activation.
Bolt action is 'pull a token out of a bag and if its your colour, activate one of your units thst hasn't been activated yet'.
Test of honor is slightly different. Its an aa game. You have samurai tokens and ashigaru tokens. When it's your turn you pull a token out of the bag and that's what you have to work with. You might have the perfect plan and positioning for your spearman- pull a samurai token. Improvise and adapt.
I loved it. That kind of chaos and 'fog of war' really added something to the game. Its not about reducing player choice - i found it tested other aspects of my play. I'd been so used to my games being essentially a 'controlled system' that I struggled for a while with having to adapt on the fly to a game state that was often halfway out of my control. You tend to see this in historical games quite a bit where often you are not *fully* in control of your army or how it operates. Definitely a positive eye opener for me.
You (and Blackie) should try War Of The Ring. All actions on your turn are determined by dice rolls at the start of the round and the Free People player always has less action dice and more restricted choices than the Shadow players.
I've not mentioned it much in this conversation because its not a wargame in the same vein as 40k, especially since there are only two factions, the map and model set up is always the same etc but at lot of what we're discussing (strategy/tactics, AA, multiple paths to victory, difficult and interesting choices) are present in it and it excels at all of them while being incredibly balanced. Last I checked the win rates Shadow won 56% of the time.
You (and Blackie) should try War Of The Ring. All actions on your turn are determined by dice rolls at the start of the round and the Free People player always has less action dice and more restricted choices than the Shadow players.
I've not mentioned it much in this conversation because its not a wargame in the same vein as 40k, especially since there are only two factions, the map and model set up is always the same etc but at lot of what we're discussing (strategy/tactics, AA, multiple paths to victory, difficult and interesting choices) are present in it and it excels at all of them while being incredibly balanced. Last I checked the win rates Shadow won 56% of the time.
Thanks for the recommend! I've heard of it bit have never played. Its the mass battle lotr game, right? I've got about 250 warriors of rohan that I keep on standby as my pseudo-'historical' humans and have a fondness for gw's lotr and sbg rules - the old sbg is for me, one of the best rules sets to ever come out of gw.
).
