PDA

View Full Version : IQ Going Down The Tubes?



The Song of Spears
15-04-2008, 21:02
You ever notice some players who just can't think any more critically than "select enemy to shoot/assault : roll dice"? or the "Let's just kill each other mission"?

This is not a thread to discuss those ******, this is a thread dedicated to guys like the four I know who consistently build fun terrain, run all manner of missions and scenarios and push 40k tactics to extremes.

What do you guys do to get the most out of 40k? I am sure many of you play Apocalypse, anyone still give Cities of Death a go from time to time? What about Rules of Engagement (http://uk.games-workshop.com/warhammer40000/rules-of-engagement/1/) games, Space Hulk (http://nimbarad.free.fr/)? How many of you have made or donated terrain thats more than a 6"x6" square (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Work_In_Progress/index.php?showtopic=9485)?

Lets share some ideas to help us all get the most out of 40k!

blackspring
15-04-2008, 21:07
This is not a thread to discuss those ******, this is a thread dedicated to guys like the four I know who consistently build fun terrain, run all manner of missions and scenarios and push 40k tactics to extremes.

I think you're very lucky to have such a wonderful group of guys, unfortunately, this seems to be a rare thing.



push 40K tactics to extremes.

Could you give an example of this? I haven't seen this, which I don't necessarily mean to be a criticism, but I don't exactly know what you mean. Any ideas that I could spread around our 40k group would help to revitalize the game for us at this point.



You ever notice some players who just can't think any more critically than "select enemy to shoot/assault : roll dice"? or the "Let's just kill each other mission"?

Yes, this is a huge problem. The problem in this is that sometimes you are not able to pick your opponents due to there only being one local gaming club. Often the majority rule. Unfortunately, there are often more stupid people than smart people. It's also too bad that the game lends itself to this kind of play instead of the designers actually coming up with something built-in that keeps the game more interesting beyond 'shoot-and-kill' and 'stand here and get points' only on the last turn of the game.

HsojVvad
15-04-2008, 21:21
It's also too bad that the game lends itself to this kind of play instead of the designers actually coming up with something built-in that keeps the game more interesting beyond 'shoot-and-kill' and 'stand here and get points' only on the last turn of the game.

Well GW only had 15 or so years to fine tune the game. Not like they can get it right. But then again we are stupid enough to keep coming back no matter what they do.

GW reminds me of the Toronto Maple Leafs. No matter how bad it is, we still come for more, so why would they have to try and improve? They will sell no matter what.

Unless we are going to boycott GW products till they get better, then it will be the status quo.

Draconian77
15-04-2008, 21:23
Well for me its narractive team games.

Having a Chaos force duke it out with some SM for a few turns only to have the party crashed by some deepstriking Nids. Then both sides had to get to an aircraft and get of the planet.

You could also try mixing things between the game systems. I mean linking 40k battles and Gothic games requires only a little bit of effort. Linking Inquis and 40k is a little harder(Maybe after the Inquis has investigated a world he discovers a cult and calls down the IG or a more radical Inquis "accidently" opens a warp rift and calls in the Daemonhunters. Just be sure that the army used actaully has an Inquisitor and use house rules for the love of the Hive Mind.)

The Song of Spears
15-04-2008, 21:25
Could you give an example of this? I haven't seen this, which I don't necessarily mean to be a criticism, but I don't exactly know what you mean. Any ideas that I could spread around our 40k group would help to revitalize the game for us at this point.

Sure! A good start would be to take a look at the Rules of Engagement games (link in my first post).

Then a good idea would be to try and come up with a scenario for why your armies are fighting, maybe custom make the terrain or at very least the layout of the terrain to fit some scenario. The guys at my local shop decided to grab a bunch of fantasy castle wall terrain and make a 'fortress' out of it and then they picked armies and units one each side together to make a fun 'siege the fortress' scenario. It was quite impressive and it only took then about an hour to set up.

Or you could modify the terrain like they had in Rogue Trader, with giant crystals bouncing errant lasbeams around, or dangerously high winds or earthquakes, i dunno whatever sounds fun for you.

Any of these ideas should help stimulate play and require a new set of tactics to be used to match the circumstances.

While i know that tournaments let you do nothing to customize the game or pick your opponent, but maybe you could get a hold of the organizers to request a special mission round or some such. Or maybe you could offer to make the terrain for some or all of the tourney?

Without changing the game and just playing a simple mission you can still try and create tactically challenging game by sitting down with your opponent and creating each others lists together, trying to get the most out of every unit/model so the game becomes a real even match and only the best general can hope to win. The game has tons of amazing tactics, but sometimes you need to do the 'list balancing' to see it. (Cause if you know anyone like this one guy i know, he REALLY sucks at making lists and when he puts his models down on the table he just looks confused as to what they should do :( )



Yes, this is a huge problem. The problem in this is that sometimes you are not able to pick your opponents due to there only being one local gaming club. Often the majority rule. Unfortunately, there are often more stupid people than smart people. It's also too bad that the game lends itself to this kind of play instead of the designers actually coming up with something built-in that keeps the game more interesting beyond 'shoot-and-kill' and 'stand here and get points' only on the last turn of the game.

I feel bad for those of you who have spent so much time on army only to have little to no one to play against. When i win the lottery i will come visit and mix things up at your local GS. :p

Kurisu313
15-04-2008, 21:34
Ah jeez, I just created a very similar thread...yours must have popped up while I was writing mine :(

incarna
15-04-2008, 21:42
I try and build armies that I’ve rarely or never encounter.

I used to run a CC Necron army that did incredibly well.

I used to run an IG army with 30 rough riders that also did incredibly well.

I currently run an all-jetbike elder army which I’m still tweaking to make competitive.

I was thinking of building an Ork army with 6 full squads of grots eventually… not exactly sure how I’m gonna paint ten million grots… but it would be fun to field. I can’t take credit for that one though, a guy I used to know played his massive grot-heavy army… it was just sick trying to figure out a way to kill all those little jerks.

I want to build a CC IG army eventually but I have to wait for the quality of any possible Fantasy models I could use to stop sucking.

I think it’s easy to build an army list that will win every time. I want to win with a list where my opponent says; “what the hell am I playing against?” or “I’ve never seen that before, how do I defeat it?”

The Song of Spears
15-04-2008, 21:43
Well for me its narractive team games.

Having a Chaos force duke it out with some SM for a few turns only to have the party crashed by some deepstriking Nids. Then both sides had to get to an aircraft and get of the planet.

You could also try mixing things between the game systems. I mean linking 40k battles and Gothic games requires only a little bit of effort. Linking Inquis and 40k is a little harder(Maybe after the Inquis has investigated a world he discovers a cult and calls down the IG or a more radical Inquis "accidently" opens a warp rift and calls in the Daemonhunters. Just be sure that the army used actaully has an Inquisitor and use house rules for the love of the Hive Mind.)

Great ideas! I like the move from INQ to 40k! I am going to have to use that, maybe in conjunction with the special mission "Stop the Ritual" in the back of the Grey Knights codex.

Reaver83
15-04-2008, 21:50
I think it's often that whilst people will play for fun, there are always people who's idea of fun is radically different.

Just this evening I saw two people at the local store, both taking on players who are known to be a little weak, one had an army of almost entirely Crisis suit Tau (6 - 8 broadsides i think) and the other had three falcon eldar + Harlies.

Both these players probably enjoy themselves wiping the floor with the opposition (you'd hope so otherwise why do they do that every week?)

As such if you're playing a game of 40K and you've got your fun army, and you may have great fun games against mates, as soon as you go to a store or Local games club and they have someone like that then it escalates, because there is always someone else who feeds into the cycle and from there its a spiral.

Adiem
15-04-2008, 21:51
I'm pretty new to this, but the way I use to keep 40K fresh is just continually changing army lists - even when one goes really well, I try something new next time. For now, that's enough for me!

The Song of Spears
15-04-2008, 21:54
I try and build armies that I’ve rarely or never encounter.

I used to run a CC Necron army that did incredibly well.

I used to run an IG army with 30 rough riders that also did incredibly well.

I currently run an all-jetbike elder army which I’m still tweaking to make competitive.

I was thinking of building an Ork army with 6 full squads of grots eventually… not exactly sure how I’m gonna paint ten million grots… but it would be fun to field. I can’t take credit for that one though, a guy I used to know played his massive grot-heavy army… it was just sick trying to figure out a way to kill all those little jerks.

I want to build a CC IG army eventually but I have to wait for the quality of any possible Fantasy models I could use to stop sucking.

I think it’s easy to build an army list that will win every time. I want to win with a list where my opponent says; “what the hell am I playing against?” or “I’ve never seen that before, how do I defeat it?”

Great comments!

But seriously guys, you walk into a game store of some sort and you have to resort to power lists? Standard scenarios? What happens when you ask these guys to try some other kind of list? If that fails is there a way to make some contacts in your area to arrange certain game types?

We have a yahoo group to organize games and let everyone who comes to the store, first timer or veteran, who all plays and a safe way of getting in touch with fellow gamers in the areas to meet at the store for whatever kind of game they want to set up.

Davout
15-04-2008, 22:04
Having just discovered Bell of Lost Souls I relize that 40K allows for pretty much anything.

Those guys, in my opinion, are really pushing the envelope in terms of tactics, models and campaigns.

I can't wait for their Marcharuis (selling?) campaign this summer.

The trick is to find people of a like mind. if your idea of fun is to go out and just wipt the floor with an uber efficient list, then you should find people who also prefer that style of play.

If your like me, and many others and play the game for the story, painting, fluff, etc, then you should also find people who enjoy thse elements as well.

Song of Spears, do play at Valhallas in Wheat Ridge? I've got to get over there for a game, now that school/wedding is over.

I used to play ata store in my old town where the people were not of a like mind. Got tired and havn't played a game in years, through I paint and build in anticipation of playing some day.

The Song of Spears
15-04-2008, 22:34
Having just discovered Bell of Lost Souls I relize that 40K allows for pretty much anything.

Those guys, in my opinion, are really pushing the envelope in terms of tactics, models and campaigns.

These guys indeed rock!



Song of Spears, do play at Valhallas in Wheat Ridge? I've got to get over there for a game, now that school/wedding is over.

I used to play ata store in my old town where the people were not of a like mind. Got tired and havn't played a game in years, through I paint and build in anticipation of playing some day.

Yeah i do get over there from time to time, its a bit of a drive so i like to know when people are going to show as often as possible. I sent ya an PM on more info.

I understand being in a area where you cant find others who like to play 40k like you. I have been lucky to run into a few guys here who are really open minded and will go for anything from ball busting tourney play to laid back apocalypse nonsense to anything in between.

The_Outsider
15-04-2008, 22:59
According to warseer lobbing dice the first, last and only interesting aspect of 40k.

Lord Damocles
15-04-2008, 23:08
According to warseer lobbing dice the first, last and only interesting aspect of 40k.

Ah, but Warseer is often wrong isn't it...:angel:

As has been proved, great fun can be had playing through the special missions (good lord - not playing cleanse:eek:), or plonking a fantasy castle on the board and counting it as six separate bunkers.

Ah, the memories...

Mireadur
15-04-2008, 23:18
Im half lucky i guess. While my group of players (just 4 though) only play the purist way (as much scenery as possible, and pre-made missions as top priority for games) i often wish i could find more people interested in this kind of gaming.

We've managed to gather enough scenery, all hand made except the CoD buildings, to fully cover the 240cm x 120cm table we play on. Unfortunately, just 2 of us do the paint job (the only ones geek enough to spend their free time on the task i guess) most of the buildings arent painted.

About the missions i always tend to go on a mission development spree after a game where we found some aspects of the game unsatisfying. If anyone is interested about missions i guess i could translate them into english and upload them, Some have premade maps, some just give the objetives and rules for the battle.

I guess i should take some pics of the stuff some day but at least i got 2 of the last things we did.

http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p2200073xu2.jpg

http://img516.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p2200072zh2.jpg

Built that mega sized skyscraper in hopes of enhancing the real 3d gaming but still have to get 1 unit on top of it :p

Draconian77
15-04-2008, 23:59
Actually that brings to mind a very interesting point about the terrain we use. Im sure a little bit of imagination could make it a little more interactive. Remember in the 3rd ed rulebook they had rules so Death Worlds and Low.High Gravity worlds? Those are a good place to start. Maybe those pathfinders wouldn't deploy iin that forest every single game if their was a man(eldar) eating plant growing there...

I would be interested in seeing any/all scenerios you came up with.



"I'm pretty new to this, but the way I use to keep 40K fresh is just continually changing army lists - even when one goes really well, I try something new next time. For now, that's enough for me!"

Good idea.

If your groups are up for it you can try combining armies: 750 Nids+750 Chaos vs 1500 Tau for example although I do say that if you have 1 Nid Heavy Support you must have 1 Chaos HS before adding a second Nid one etc.

Or both players design a 1000pt list and a third party fills the remaining 500pts. Just throwing out ideas because I'm full of sugar and caffeine.

Mireadur
16-04-2008, 00:45
Ill try to post 1 with an attached plan and a photo of the actual table top used along with the rules and objetives for it.

bugbait_nz
16-04-2008, 01:00
How about you use the Hazardous Environments Linky here (http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/gaming/hazards/default.htm) to make things a bit more unpredictable?

Bugbait out

pox
16-04-2008, 01:24
here's my two bits.

first off, standard missions call for about 25% of the board covered in terrain. divide the table into four sections, and then COMPLETELY fill one section with terrain. then take the terrain, and spread it out over the whole table. you'll be surprised how much 25% actually is.

if your local group are power gamers, you don't need to convince all of them to think outside the box, you just need to convince one of them. I find a player I really like, and start a narrative campaign with him. its surprising how much fun a ladder or tree campaign can be with only two players. its my experience that if you two are having fun, others will see it and want to join.

try the antithesis of apocalypse, combat patrol. and I don't mean 400 points, I mean try it at 1250 or 1500.

if you don't have enough mini's for apocalypse, get every other player without a lot of stuff and challenge the guy in the shop with too much. if he's willing, he can even let a few young bucks pilot some of his mini's.

if tournaments aren't up to snuff at your local store, run them yourself. I have a few touneys coming up, including a blitzkrieg, (1250 heavy choices only), blood in the trenches, (750 troop only) and war council. (1,000 HQ and elite only.) theres a trend here, I just know it. (I also run regular tourneys, these are just my crazy ones. I try and run a normal one and a wacky one each month.)

to that end, messy torneys are fun too, even if they're impromptu affairs amongst friends. my favorite is still the tournament of cheese, the winner gets ten pounds of Velveeta, with slices going out to "worst character" and "worst unit." you would be surprised how much being beardy is when you supposed too.

ok, that was more then two bits. at any rate, if the game doesn't work, change it. if it still sucks, it might be time for a break. (I find a few weeks of no playing from time to time helps, its just hard when you work at a gaming store, haha.)

blackspring
16-04-2008, 01:33
Sure! A good start would be to take a look at the Rules of Engagement games (link in my first post).

Then a good idea would be to try and come up with a scenario for why your armies are fighting, maybe custom make the terrain or at very least the layout of the terrain to fit some scenario. The guys at my local shop decided to grab a bunch of fantasy castle wall terrain and make a 'fortress' out of it and then they picked armies and units one each side together to make a fun 'siege the fortress' scenario. It was quite impressive and it only took then about an hour to set up.

Or you could modify the terrain like they had in Rogue Trader, with giant crystals bouncing errant lasbeams around, or dangerously high winds or earthquakes, i dunno whatever sounds fun for you.

Any of these ideas should help stimulate play and require a new set of tactics to be used to match the circumstances.

That sounds cool, but aren’t what you describing merely different circumstances under which to play. I mean, as far as the castle goes that is just different terrain. And the giant crystals with the lasbeams, doesn’t that just come down to the roll of a dice, how does that affect my tactics? I don’t necessarily think these things require a different set of tactics, but they require that you just play differently which doesn’t necessarily add tactical depth to the game, but just makes it different.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I think what I'm looking for is a game of 40k with more options within the game itself. Although overwatch seems to be a contentious rule for some, rules like this appeal to me. 40k advanced would be really neat and I think is more so what I'm looking as opposed to variations on the game.

Chaplain Ark
16-04-2008, 02:57
i personally prefer the random types of missions, and though i really don't mind the straight up shoot each other games, they are becoming to commonplace. me and my friend are currently working on a campaign and building a table to match, but this kind of thought is becoming rare in the hobby.

Chaplain Ark
16-04-2008, 03:11
I think it’s easy to build an army list that will win every time. I want to win with a list where my opponent says; “what the hell am I playing against?” or “I’ve never seen that before, how do I defeat it?”

I've got the perfect one for you. 1000 points, one farseer, around 500 guardians. i may be exagerating, but it sucks when you shoot at a squad only to find you still have like 15 more guys to kill before you get to the heavy weapon, which is totally destryoing your entire army. i swear to god it was the hardest battle i ever fought. i was lucky to get a major loss instead of a massacre. but it was fun, having to see so many guardians die only to have about 50 more take their place. it was like seeing what a nid army would look like in real life. :confused: well, maybe not but you get my point.

But i agree, i prefer to take the opposite of what people normally take. i won a tournament against three nid players and 4 SM players. (i was using my friends Tau just for fun.) one nid player had a nidzilla list while the other two had either mass amounts of gaunts or mass amounts of genestealers. the SM players all had assault cannon lists. i was new with Tau, so i took a generally balanced list, and it was voted best army in the tournament because it was most balanced.

im not sure if that post had anything to do with this thread but im not exactly awake right now. (running on 6 hours of sleep in the past three days, dang you school projects!!!)

and sorry about the double post.

catbarf
16-04-2008, 03:23
a new set of tactics

Like what? 'Stay back and shoot' versus 'Head down and charge'?

Bloodysaber
16-04-2008, 03:23
I only just started last month and me and my friends play all sorts of missions. We actually set up a board and are playing for world domination through a series of various missions in all parts of the world. Each mission outcome effects how the next one will be played.


Sure, it's kind of ghetto and we play on a risk board, but once we finish this campaign, I have a world I drew up and added fluff too that I want to run some scenarios on.


The only time I play point matches is when I'm practicing some new models and tactics with a friend outside of the campaign.

cailus
16-04-2008, 03:35
My brother and I design narrative missions that are linked in with the backstories of our armies.

So far in 10 or so years of 40K, we have managed to plunge a system into rebellion, wipe out an entire loyalist Space Marine Chapter, remove from power a Black Legion commander who was of dubious loyalty, kill an Ork Warboss, locate an ancient space craft of immeasuarable power and convert a world into a Daemon World.

In the next installment the Orks have got to get off the Daemon World.

This means designing the following:

1. Scenarios - Most will involve the Orks fighting to get to a space port through a world gone mad. I am thinking of including special missions to take over a space ship using some Space Hulk terrain a couple of our friends have made.

2. Creating specific Daemon World rules - creating special terrain effect rules as well as random Daemon generators (e.g. each turn on a 5+ a unit of D3+2 daemons is summoned. They will move towards the closest unit and have to charge if in range).

3. Making specific models to fit fit the terrain - Given the nature of some of the missions, both my opponent and I have to build a number of models including Ork bikers and Chaos Spawn.

fwacho
16-04-2008, 03:47
My friends and I tried a campaign. It got bogged down. I think the basic plan for a campaign is that you need to be able to finish in ten turns or less. there must be sense of urgency during the campaign turn or everybody will sit back and be too careful. the other cool thing about a campaign is that it gives you reason to fight in exotic conditions. High wind, freezing temps, storms, earth quakes, Night time

I also set my game boards up ahead of time whenever possible. usually I put a cross roads, farmstead, checkpoint, thermal bore, landing bad, key building. somehtign like that in teh center and then try to make the area look like it's lived in. One of the best I ever set up was a farm complex that we attacked from differetn sides with a minimal amount of LOS to begin with. made for a very interesting game.

Withteh advent of the coming RUN rule. ambush will be a viable mission again. 3rd edition "rescue mission" is still teh best mission ever designed and almost every good stroy I heare revolves around that mission.

AngryAngel
16-04-2008, 04:15
I love the special secenarios, or the story line behind the games. Sure we all just enjoy a normal game from time to time. I more often remember the games of a certain narrative quality. At my local store I actually try and set up and run games of just that kind for the people.

Though my local gaming community is pretty new. So I'm raising the new players on the narrative and storyline of the game. Frowning on the power game, and giving them great games. I hope once they know all the rules themselves it helps promote good games and we keep growing as a group in the good way.

So I'm lucky enough to not have these same issues of lack of imagination and fun.

intellectawe
16-04-2008, 04:20
Like what? 'Stay back and shoot' versus 'Head down and charge'?

Care to prove the title of this thread is correct anymore please?

Bloodysaber
16-04-2008, 04:26
I love the special secenarios, or the story line behind the games. Sure we all just enjoy a normal game from time to time. I more often remember the games of a certain narrative quality. At my local store I actually try and set up and run games of just that kind for the people.

Though my local gaming community is pretty new. So I'm raising the new players on the narrative and storyline of the game. Frowning on the power game, and giving them great games. I hope once they know all the rules themselves it helps promote good games and we keep growing as a group in the good way.

So I'm lucky enough to not have these same issues of lack of imagination and fun.
The best part about campaigns is, if played right and with a little imagination/creativity, you can actually write up an interesting story and battle report to accompany it and keep with you long after.

airmang
16-04-2008, 04:57
i would love to play more imaginative missions. however my gaming group normally is gearing up for the next tourney, and we almost always play one of the RTT missions. every once and awhile we will do an apocalypse mission. i'm not necessarily saying we always try to bring the fiercest list we can, but it can get fairly competative is just friendly play. i'm hoping 5th ed will help this a bit.

Tiamat
16-04-2008, 08:39
To get the most of a game, I always select an army, then setup the terrain in a mutually agreeable fashion, then roll for a mission.

That way, we cannot predict what kind of game we'll end up playing, so players tayloring for a specific kind of game will often find themselves on the back foot as they end up without the tools they need. It certainly encourages balanced armies and creative thought.

Sometimes, we'll just think up a quick scenario to fit the moment, example, I brought a 1000 point Tau army to a cities of death game (part of a campaign), but my opponent wanted to use all 1500 points of his Imperial Guard. So we played a variation of the mission where you have to hold your own base while siezing your opponents (forget the name). Being part of a campaign is was really characterful.
The background was after two victories on my part, the Imperials had gathered in force, so I figured it was time to bug out and called for an evac. But smarting from their bloody nose, the Imperial Guard weren't about to let me leave unopposed and struck out for revenge. The stage was set for a dramatic conflict as my outnumbered Tau fought to keep their escape route open while the Guard tried to close it and trap the irksome space commies.
Basically, I had to maintain a secure landing zone by holding my headquarters. All my opponent had to do was make it not secure by having a scoring unit in my headquarters at the end of turn 6.
I can't remember how it ended, but it was a fun game, real skin of the teeth stuff, the extra 500 points of his army balancing out the fact that my objective was probably a bit easier.

My little group generally finds that rough campaigns like that add a ton of character, and an impartial games master (myself in the above example) can throw in the odd little quirk to make things interesting.

Renagade
16-04-2008, 11:06
I think there is to much focus on army building the best games I have had are uneven match ups. At my old club( I moved:() all day events were run, not just torney or linked campaign but table crawls in which the attacker would start at one end and move across four tables to reach the objective and the defending force. The game system was FOW but that could easily be translated to 40K just the inclusion of ambush rules would help. I think people have to be a bit more flexible to get this to work but it can be done.
Just think 2000pts of SM drop podding in to attack a 3000pts chaos stronghold with 2000pts IG crossing two tables (with 1000pts of chaos troops in ambush) to support the SM. Just think what kind of tactical desicions will have to be made; does chaos leave its stronghold and attack the SM before the IG arrive, do the SM hold off until suport arrives, do the SM clear the ambushes first and attack in strenght later on. Lets face it, it would be fun to find out. Although, this will take all day to find out:D.

BrianC
16-04-2008, 12:01
I love narrative campaigns as they really appeal to the GM in me but to do them justice you need to build scenery, objectives and work out a decent overview, not everybody has the time or wants to spend the time required. For me its such an integral part of the hobby to sit and paint figures or build scenery for weeks or months before a campaign I'd be really bored just playing "kill every thing on the board" every week.

I'm not sure if it did sell in enough numbers to justify the effort but it might help if GW did some more ready rolled campaigns complete with ready to play objectives, scenery including detailed instructions on making your own. The Apoc book was a reasonable stab at this I guess, but it could have done with more detail? I guess in an ideal world this is the sort of thing White Dwarf should be doing, but more space seems to go on a battle report than on a campaign scenario.

flyfire29
16-04-2008, 13:34
About the missions i always tend to go on a mission development spree after a game where we found some aspects of the game unsatisfying. If anyone is interested about missions i guess i could translate them into english and upload them, Some have premade maps, some just give the objetives and rules for the battle.

Could you send those to me please? :)

Chaos and Evil
16-04-2008, 14:09
...push 40K tactics to extremes.

You could ride a pushbike to the extreme (30 miles per hour!), but that still won't make it as fast as a motorbike.

The fun in 40k is not found in the tactics of the game system, IMHO.

It's found in the strategy, and in the 'watching things go boom in a cool manner'. :p

Grand Master Raziel
16-04-2008, 14:19
I think all it takes is one guy at the shop (or whereever) who consistently insists on rolling up a mission at the beginning of each game, and before too long everyone will be doing it. Seems to have worked where I play.

intellectawe
16-04-2008, 14:27
You could ride a pushbike to the extreme (30 miles per hour!), but that still won't make it as fast as a motorbike.

The fun in 40k is not found in the tactics of the game system, IMHO.

It's found in the strategy, and in the 'watching things go boom in a cool manner'. :p

It's players who think like you, that allows me to win my games too easily. People who believe 40k has no tactics. Shame.

incarna
16-04-2008, 15:29
Great comments!

But seriously guys, you walk into a game store of some sort and you have to resort to power lists? Standard scenarios? What happens when you ask these guys to try some other kind of list? If that fails is there a way to make some contacts in your area to arrange certain game types?

We have a yahoo group to organize games and let everyone who comes to the store, first timer or veteran, who all plays and a safe way of getting in touch with fellow gamers in the areas to meet at the store for whatever kind of game they want to set up.

I might view the game a little differently than you do. I don’t much worry about someone else’s list. I like playing against “power gamers” as much as “casual gamers. I like to observe how my army plays against another army and make adjustments to increase its competitiveness.

Every army I have ever built has been week against another type of army.

My Slanesh army was week against a terminator-heavy army but almost always crushed every other type of army.
My Imperial Guard army was week against all-mounted marine assault-based armies but crushed every other type of army.
My Necron army was week against balanced shooty/close combat horde armies but crushed every other type of army.

I don’t see any sense in bothering with whatever my opponents are doing. I enjoy beating competitive lists with unique lists and that is how I enjoy the game. If my opponent derives enjoyment from the game by building a “power gaming” list, that’s fine… I personally don’t think it takes any effort at all to do that… but I’m not them.

incarna
16-04-2008, 15:33
I've got the perfect one for you. 1000 points, one farseer, around 500 guardians. i may be exagerating, but it sucks when you shoot at a squad only to find you still have like 15 more guys to kill before you get to the heavy weapon, which is totally destryoing your entire army. i swear to god it was the hardest battle i ever fought. i was lucky to get a major loss instead of a massacre. but it was fun, having to see so many guardians die only to have about 50 more take their place. it was like seeing what a nid army would look like in real life. :confused: well, maybe not but you get my point.

That sounds like a lot of fun… I’ve been thinking about building another eldar army after my current chaos project so I’ll definitely keep this in mind.

The Song of Spears
16-04-2008, 16:46
I am not sure i understand people who say 40k has no tactics.

What are you basing this on?

In chess a pawn has a very simple move/capture pattern. As does most of the pieces. Yet there are a multitude of strategy's or tactics that can be employed to defeat another player.

So in 40k with minis that have fairly varied move/shoot/assault patterns how can you not see the variety of tactics?

I have a unit of genestealers 12" from your 10 marines, what do you do? Either choice you make is a tactic or strategy. You might assault, you might stand and shoot, or you might run away and hope not to get caught.

Now multiply this simple situation by 1500 points worth of different units, then multiply it by the number of armies 40k has as each one is a unique situation you will face. Now factor in the terrain...

Maybe you all have a different definition of Tactics?

tac·tics
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy

2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.


So missions, objective based play, and terrain are all BIG parts of tactics. Yes changing the forest from difficult terrain to dangerous terrain does change the rules of the playing field, thus requiring new tactics!

Adding more options for your troops like Overwatch, running, hiding, and such is also a part of tactics, and you are welcome to introduce those as house rules.

Here are the House Rules we use from time to time....
Warhammer Recon Patrol 500 point game rules:
- Army is no more than 500 points
- Must have at least one Troops choice
- May have an HQ choice, but it is not required. If no HQ is used, select a model to be designated as the combat patrol team commander.
- No models may have more than 2 wounds
- No special characters
- No 2+ saves
- No vehicles with a armour value greater than 32 (add front side and rear armour values only counting each side once)
- No ordinance weapons

Warhammer Combat Patrol 1000 point game rules:
- Army is no more than 1000 points
- Must have at least two Troops choices
- No more than two selections in any force org slot excepting Troops
- Must have at least one HQ choice
- No special characters
- No 2+ saves
- No vehicles with a armour value greater than 34 (add front side and rear armour values only counting each side once)
- No ordinance weapons

Warhammer Standard 1001-2500 point games:
- Follow Standard FOC chart
- No Superheavies
- No Forgeworld (Imperial Armour)

Warhammer Apocalypse 2501+ point games:
- Use all Codex Apocalypse Datasheets but no stratagems unless part of a scenario.
- All Forgeworld (Imperial Armour) accepted
- Multiple detachments allowed

Rules:
• All games use Cities of Death rules for terrain/buildings.

• Models may opt to split their squads up any way they choose, however each model that leaves the squad is at -1 leadership and that squad is no longer scoring until it regroups in coherency. This is not available to armies that use Combat Squads.

• You may shoot into CC, but you have to make a LD test at -1 for each allied model in the CC(max is -5, even fearless units must make this test). Fail the leadership test and the unit may not shoot that turn as they did not follow orders. Vehicles make this test at the army Commander’s unmodified leadership value, and then modifiers for allied models in CC are applied to that Leadership score. If the test is passed, roll to hit as normal, including an additional roll for each successful hit: 1-3 = an ally was hit, 4-6 = an enemy was hit. Apply wounds to targets once each until each model has had one wound applied to it. If there are additional wounds to apply, continue to apply wound one at a time to different models until all wounds have been applied, spreading wounds around as evenly as possible.

• Ordinance may fire at the same location it hit last turn, with no deviation if the firing unit also did not move.

• Attacks that inflict an Instant Kill wound on a unit kill an unwound model chosen by the owning player (The model chosen must fit all other wound allocation guidelines such as in kill zone, attacks directed at that model/unit, etc).

• Only models in Base to Base may fight in CC, only models in BtB may die in CC.
o If a unit looses a CC, then it makes a morale test as usual, if they fail they fall back 2d6(3d6 if cavalry/bikes/jumppacks/beasts) inches away. The winner of the CC may then move 1d6 inches, if they catch them they are still locked in CC, and the winner counts as having charged into CC next round. Hormagaunts still receive the 3” attack/kill zone from a allied model in base contact with a enemy model.

• Models/Units may declare they are hiding when in cover. Enemies shooting at them have to target them using the night fight rules (this does not apply to ordinance barrage weapons). Units/models hiding may not move or shoot that turn or use grenades if assaulted.

• Units/models may withdraw from CC at the beginning of the movement phase, they must make a LD test, and if they pass they move 2d6(3d6 if cavalry/bikes/jumppacks) inches away(any direction that keeps the squad in coherency), the enemy may then move 1d6, and if they catch them, the enemy counts as having charged that turns assault phase.

• Models may cast psyker powers while in a transport. Either on the transport or accompanying unit in the transport, or outside transport if it has firing points(using the firing point location as a point of reference for LOS).

• Skimmer transports may deploy into cover, troops are dropped off on the highest level of the cover if it has multiple levels.

• Any vehicle that tank shocks through difficult terrain, even skimmers, must make a dangerous terrain test on 2d6. If either die comes up a 1, then the vehicle is immobilized. The location the vehicle is immobilized is the end location the player declared the vehicle would tank shock to at the beginning of the tank shock move.

• Any vehicle, regardless of type, that moves over 18” can only be glanced.

• All hits against vehicles use the Vehicle Glancing Hit chart only. If the weapon AP value is AP1 then it gets a +1 to the penetration roll, If the hit was a glancing hit it gets a -1 to its penetration roll. Direct hits from Ordinance Barrage weapons that defeat the tanks armour value get a +2 to the penetration roll.

• Smoke Launchers now -1 from the armour penetration rolls and any unit within 2” of the tank that fired the Smoke Launchers, not including other vehicles, is hit at a -1 to the firers BS due to the heavy smoke cover.

• Rapid fire weapons may shoot their full distance even if the model moved. This is done at a -1 to the models BS as the weapon is quite difficult to hold steady as it belches out tons of shots. This has no bearing on Slow and Purposeful units or Terminators.

• Saving throws are ALL taken in the following order: Cover, Armour, Invulnerable. Starting with the Cover save, you roll to see if you save. If not, then you move on to the armour save, if you fail that then you get to roll your invulnerable save. Any attack that ignores some type of save (Flamers ignore cover, low AP weapons ignore armour, Psycannons ignore Invulnerable saves) simply auto fails you on that roll and that save is not rolled.

• Deepstrike: The roll needed to call in Deepstrikers is the same(turn 2=4+, turn 3=3+, turn 4=2+, turn 5+=auto); however the player may opt to not roll for his Deepstrikers that turn.

• Tyranids may assault the turn they Deepstrike, and if they scatter into an enemy during their Deepstrike placement they simply enter into combat with the enemy counting as having charged that assault phase.

boogle
16-04-2008, 17:19
why not try and go back in time a bit for 2nd ed esque mission cards, or better yet, epic style mission cards

Adiem
16-04-2008, 17:30
If your groups are up for it you can try combining armies: 750 Nids+750 Chaos vs 1500 Tau for example although I do say that if you have 1 Nid Heavy Support you must have 1 Chaos HS before adding a second Nid one etc.


Yeah, me and a couple of other guys tried this - played 1500 tyranids against 750 guard + 750 eldar. Was a really good laugh - I'd thoroughly recommend mixing it up like that. We also tried a three way game (1.5K nids, 1.5K tau, and 1.5K BA) with recycling troops, and it was also fun, but didn't work quite so well!

Reaver83
16-04-2008, 17:32
why not try and go back in time a bit for 2nd ed esque mission cards, or better yet, epic style mission cards

See I liked it when you had mission cards, especially when you didn't know which one the opponent had!

The Song of Spears
16-04-2008, 17:41
See I liked it when you had mission cards, especially when you didn't know which one the opponent had!

Then you need to look into Rules of Engagement :D

Its like the old mission cards updated for 4th ed!!!

AmBlam
16-04-2008, 17:48
It's players who think like you, that allows me to win my games too easily. People who believe 40k has no tactics. Shame.

Trying to blackmail people into believing 40k has tactics.

The Song of Spears
16-04-2008, 18:01
This is NOT a "does 40k have tactics discussion" :p

You are welcome to ask how people use tactics in 40k, but this is a discussion on tactics that can be used, missions, terrain and any other things that enhance 40k in any way. Thanks guys!

AngryAngel
16-04-2008, 18:20
The best part about campaigns is, if played right and with a little imagination/creativity, you can actually write up an interesting story and battle report to accompany it and keep with you long after.

Exactly what I'm talking about, those will be the games you'll hold onto.




I think there is to much focus on army building the best games I have had are uneven match ups. At my old club( I moved:() all day events were run, not just torney or linked campaign but table crawls in which the attacker would start at one end and move across four tables to reach the objective and the defending force. The game system was FOW but that could easily be translated to 40K just the inclusion of ambush rules would help. I think people have to be a bit more flexible to get this to work but it can be done.
Just think 2000pts of SM drop podding in to attack a 3000pts chaos stronghold with 2000pts IG crossing two tables (with 1000pts of chaos troops in ambush) to support the SM. Just think what kind of tactical desicions will have to be made; does chaos leave its stronghold and attack the SM before the IG arrive, do the SM hold off until suport arrives, do the SM clear the ambushes first and attack in strenght later on. Lets face it, it would be fun to find out. Although, this will take all day to find out:D.


That sounds pretty cool actually. I've run situation similar for my players they enjoyed it. One campaign was actually a planet strike campaign. Started with the initial drop zones and securing points of resupply. At the end the each battle had a vp point value given it, I kept it secret which were more or less though. If one sided scored enough they got a litle bit of a point boost for the final battle.

After all that it was a set up further moving out into the planet and securing it. Was alot of diffrent mission types from secure and control, to cleanse to rear guard and strong point assault. Was a whole hell of a lot of fun. Even added in some additional rules for certain scenarios. Like for surivirors of some shot down thunderhawks. Won't get into detail but it did have some very good feelings for the battle.

Edit: As well for about half my games, I have rather large armies. So sometimes I get a friend to actually make up my army lists I'll use. Is sometimes funny seeing what gets taken and what I get sent out with. Then to find out what mission that army I didn't pick gets stuck with. Oh thats lead to many a fun game seeing how I can use my unknown forces to accomplish my goal.

philbrad2
16-04-2008, 18:23
Then you need to look into Rules of Engagement :D

Its like the old mission cards updated for 4th ed!!!

Slight twist on the normal rules/scenarios I've used THESE (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21035&highlight=Mission+generator) for a few years now to randomize missions, rules and objectives.

PhilB
:chrome:

FAQ
http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php
POSTING GUIDLINES
http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_posting_guidelines

Easy E
16-04-2008, 18:31
I will vouch for the Rules of Engagement Song of Spears linked too. It really adds a lot to the game.

I suggest this option for everyone. Suggest to your shop that instead of hosting a tournament for their next event, they host a Campaign Weekend like Return to Damocles. Essentially, Factions are grouped up and their average scores are used to determine the winners for the turn. Winning a turn, pushes certain events in the campaign. Like a tournament youplay 3 to 5 turns, and the end figure out the results of the campaign.

For Example, if the Imperials outscored the Orks but the Orks outscore the Xeno raiders in turn one, the Orks could be pushed back into the jungle by the Imps, while the Xeno Raiders are forced to focus their attacks on the Imperial flanks. The next Imp versus ork games will be cleanse Jungle fights, while Imps versus Xeno Raiders would be Hold the Line style missions with the Xeno Raiders as attackers. If the Imps outscore the Orks and Xenos Raiders again, then the Orks could be pushed back deeper into the Jungles, while the Imp assault Xeno raider strongholds. Continue adapting the missions and situations as the campaign progresses to fit the outcomes of the factions scoring.

Edit: essentially you are forcing people to play games and style they don't normally play.

Kaihlik
16-04-2008, 19:55
I am planning at some point to organise a 2 player Narrative campaign with my friend based upon a Tau army being caught on a world they have just taken from the Imperium as a massive chaos fleet moves in and disgorges an army of Night Lords for them to have their fun. The idea is that he starts with his army out of position, spread across an Imperial city as the Night Lords move in and start to make things hellish.

The Tau will be physically unable to defend eveywhere and certain places will inflict Negative modifiers to Leadership and such if I hold them. The idea is that he will have to hold on for as long as possible for his fleet to arrive. Im hoping that I will be able to create a sense of helplessness as time goes on and the Night Lords move in for the kill.

Chem-Dog
16-04-2008, 19:58
Yesterday at my gaming club, after the usual battle, we decided to play "Kill the Baneblade" :)
500 points of anything from a codex, no FOC just cheese out a list to 500 points (Apoc formations allowed) and see if you can kill it before it kills you, it was so good that next week's session is dedicated entirely to a repeat.

We play mainly 40K at the moment but a regular mix of Combat Patrol (500 points instead of 400), Kill team and regular 40K keep things interesting. A couple of relatively small Apoc games too.

Bloodysaber
16-04-2008, 20:07
Yesterday at my gaming club, after the usual battle, we decided to play "Kill the Baneblade" :)
500 points of anything from a codex, no FOC just cheese out a list to 500 points (Apoc formations allowed) and see if you can kill it before it kills you, it was so good that next week's session is dedicated entirely to a repeat.

We play mainly 40K at the moment but a regular mix of Combat Patrol (500 points instead of 400), Kill team and regular 40K keep things interesting. A couple of relatively small Apoc games too.

Hahaha, I saw a couple guys do that in our game store not too long ago. Orks vs Baneblade.

Didn't go too well for the Orks.

Kaihlik
16-04-2008, 20:15
I did something once where I had a Baneblade and 3 Leman Russ vs a 2500pt Ork army. I killed tons and then the Baneblade exploded and killed almost all of the Orks. It was great fun.

blackspring
16-04-2008, 21:10
Even as one of those who believe there are 'balance' issues with 40k, Rules of Engagement is indeed very good...too bad I haven't been able to convince my group to adapt these rules into our regular play sessions.

catbarf
16-04-2008, 21:19
Care to prove the title of this thread is correct anymore please?

Care to actually make a point instead of random flaming?

I have yet to see a 'tactic' here that isn't entirely dependent on the terrain or scenario.

lanrak
16-04-2008, 22:53
Hi all.
My IQ is just fine and dandy at 138 , thanks.:D

Mature intellegent gamers and a strong narative driven gameplay = interesting and fun games.

Immature gamers and focus on cost effectivness PV-in game effectivness ratio= line 'em up knock 'em down games.(Yawn.)

1 /Think of a cool senario.

2/ Determine forces,characters, and terrain involved.

3/ Play senario.

There, notice how no mention of PV at all.:evilgrin:

40k has 'game driven options' which have very little to do with 'real military tactics/strategy.'

Which is fine, as 40k is a 'fun table top game, of the GW hobby variety.

(It is not a wargame suitable for ballanced for competative play.If you think it is,or should be , you will be disapointed.)

However if you are not using the codexes and FOCs , why not just try other rule sets that work with 40k minis , and are far more suitable for mature intellegent narrative driven games?

catbarf
16-04-2008, 23:35
Hi all.
My IQ is just fine and dandy at 138 , thanks.:D

Mature intellegent gamers and a strong narative driven gameplay = interesting and fun games.

Immature gamers and focus on cost effectivness PV-in game effectivness ratio= line 'em up knock 'em down games.(Yawn.)

1 /Think of a cool senario.

2/ Determine forces,characters, and terrain involved.

3/ Play senario.

There, notice how no mention of PV at all.:evilgrin:

40k has 'game driven options' which have very little to do with 'real military tactics/strategy.'

Which is fine, as 40k is a 'fun table top game, of the GW hobby variety.

(It is not a wargame suitable for ballanced for competative play.If you think it is,or should be , you will be disapointed.)

However if you are not using the codexes and FOCs , why not just try other rule sets that work with 40k minis , and are far more suitable for mature intellegent narrative driven games?

138, same as me, heh.

I agree that there's lots of fun to be had in mixing up scenarios and terrain. I think variety is really the spice of a miniatures game. But I don't think that 40k really has variety in the army tactics that can be used in each game. It's more about list composition and the board itself.

Captain Micha
16-04-2008, 23:38
I'm the one in my group that owns cities of death and I enjoy the rules quite abit. We play a healthy mix of missions from objective counter collecting, hold the line missions, to seek and destroys around here.

It keeps things interesting, and even though we have nothing I would be proud of to call 'real terrain' we do with what we have, and try to have a different setup each and everytime.

128 here *L*

most of the tactics I can think of involve attempting to outflank your opponent and put a larger number of guns into an isolated area versus what an opponent has. mobile warfare for the win.

Orwin
17-04-2008, 00:34
Built that mega sized skyscraper in hopes of enhancing the real 3d gaming but still have to get 1 unit on top of it

According to the Cities of Death Rules, would it make any difference if the units would stand on the first, second or third floor? If i remember well, it used to do on Cityfight.

MegaPope
17-04-2008, 01:37
Even if you can't play a campaign (real life and player numbers attrition is always a problem), I think it's a good idea to make every effort to create some kind of a narrative for your battles.

For this reason, I think the objective-based scenarios from White Dwarf were a great idea. For one thing, unless the die rolls were identical, both players would end up with different missions. This instantly added increased depth to the game - you had to stop the enemy achieving their mission as well as achieving your own. This restored one of the aspects of the game that it had lacked since 2ed.

On a lighter note, impose some personality on your games. One of my best experiences was actually a 4000pt set-piece battle (read: shoot-em-up) between two Imperial Guard forces...

Boring? Think again. The forces were themselves radically different, thanks to Doctrine usage (my opponent was using Praetorians under the standard list. I had my homebrew Irridians). We spent a considerable time creating a themed table - a verdant village which I named 'Little Grundlesham'. Obviously, the Praatorians were defending this jewel of Imperial civilisation!:D

One of the key objectives was a cricket pitch, complete with mocked-up stumps for the occasion. This became the scene of the bitterest infantry firefights of the battle, the deadlock only being broken in the last turn when
a Hellhound forced its way through the surrounding woodland and burned down the pavilion which the Praetorians were using as a command post! An infantry section HQ then took the stumps and secured the objective.;)

Other highlights included a massed cavalry dual on the village green between two opposing sets of lancers, and close range infantry clashes outside the tea-rooms...

The actual game result was determined by VPs, but simply fighting with this kind of narrative in mind improved the actual gameplay immensely. I would also like to point out that all the best games I've had have been Guard vs. Guard, but that's just me.

Something else people should consider is playing larger games if possible - and I DON'T just mean Apocalypse, which is largely designed for team play. IMO, a lot of powergaming occurs because at 1500 points or smaller, a lot of people become obsessed with building the most efficient, deadly force they can within a very narrow parameter.

Try upping the ante to 2500-3000 points a side once in a while. The trick is to limit the number of FOCs you can use. Just because you're going over 2500doesn't mean you HAVE to use multiple FOCs: every army can fit an effective 3000 points into one FOC, so that should be all you need, and it prevents the spamming of certain units or the unforseen introduction of war engines.

Higher points values give players the chance to try out things they wouldn't normally use without feeling that they are 'compromising' themselves. Also, high PV games radically alter the effectiveness of certain units. Holo-Tri-Falcon, for example, is a damn sight less intimidating at 3000 than it is at 1500 in my experience.

catbarf
17-04-2008, 01:44
most of the tactics I can think of involve attempting to outflank your opponent and put a larger number of guns into an isolated area versus what an opponent has. mobile warfare for the win.

And even then, the range of weapons means that your army is still exposed to the majority of the enemy fire, unless blocked by terrain- but then we're right back to tactics being determined by the field.

Takitron
17-04-2008, 01:53
The way I get enjoyment out of 40K is seeing THESE (http://belloflostsouls.blogspot.com) guys at the FLGS on thursdays ;)


/spoiled

Captain Micha
17-04-2008, 03:18
And even then, the range of weapons means that your army is still exposed to the majority of the enemy fire, unless blocked by terrain- but then we're right back to tactics being determined by the field.

Terrain determines everything about warfare so that makes sense doesn't it?

intellectawe
17-04-2008, 03:28
The way I get enjoyment out of 40K is seeing THESE (http://belloflostsouls.blogspot.com) guys at the FLGS on thursdays ;)


/spoiled

Who?

All I see is an advertisement for a hat.

CaptScott
17-04-2008, 08:50
For me its tournies that run mutiple types of customised scenarios. You can't just have your one trick pony list, you have to take something versatile that can shoot, assualt, defend, or do anything else that the scenarios require.

And if its just a one off game, occasionally we play a combined seek and destroy / take and hold mission, where victory is based both on destroying the enemy, as well as capturing key locations.

AngryAngel
17-04-2008, 09:11
Terrain determines everything about warfare so that makes sense doesn't it?

As much as I never agree with Captain Micha. I have to agree here. The terrain of a battlefield and using it to your advantage, in fact making your battle plans around it, have always been a very key part in not only strategy but tactics in the past and present.

So the terrain should be a huge impact on the game. Which it is if enough is used. You could even add in more rules for it, like with rain, heavy winds, exccesive heat, snow and ice etc.

As for army composition, yeah generally that will be the deciding factor in games. What units you have, and what they can do plus the terrain.

Galatan
17-04-2008, 09:23
Making 40k fun....Well use lots of terrein and why of course...the scenarios in the rulebook. Somehow I sometimes get the feeling people forget about those....It really makes a fun game and with a decent amount of terrein can become quite challenging.

You could also make a cool campaign with the mighty empires box, just a few tweaks with the rules (example: the wizard tower is now a spaceport) and you can have a really cool campaign.

Renagade
17-04-2008, 09:56
@Intellectawe, The BOLS site is a great place to get inspiration from a really committed hobby group. They make the game interesting and exciting just by their commitment. Try it you might like.

Ren

The Song of Spears
17-04-2008, 16:50
I have yet to see a 'tactic' here that isn't entirely dependent on the terrain or scenario.

Sure you have, you jus' ain't lookin' right! ;)

Care to notice:
tac·tics
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy

2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.


OK
So does 40k deal with the following:
- Securing Objectives
- Deploying Troops
- Directing Troops and their movements
- Fighting and enemy

As far as i can tell, it fits ALL of these the very DEFINITION of the word TACTICS. :D

Neat huh?

So how do you ADD more tactics to 40K?

But adding more of the above of course!

Add more complicated objectives, deploy more numbers or more variety of troops, set up a table where you can have more room to direct their movements more dynamically(anyone ever play on a 8'x10' or bigger table? It rocks!).

There you go catbarf, share and enjoy!

catbarf
17-04-2008, 19:51
Terrain determines everything about warfare so that makes sense doesn't it?


As much as I never agree with Captain Micha. I have to agree here. The terrain of a battlefield and using it to your advantage, in fact making your battle plans around it, have always been a very key part in not only strategy but tactics in the past and present.

So the terrain should be a huge impact on the game. Which it is if enough is used. You could even add in more rules for it, like with rain, heavy winds, exccesive heat, snow and ice etc.

As for army composition, yeah generally that will be the deciding factor in games. What units you have, and what they can do plus the terrain.

For both of these: As I said, not related to terrain, but army tactics. Maneuvers, that sort of thing.


There you go catbarf, share and enjoy!

Now, please point out where I said that 40k does not encompass tactics. Oh, I didn't? Funny that.

Instead of regurgitating the textbook definition, please provide examples of tactics that don't rely on changing the board or army. As in, show how I could play the same armies on the same board twice and have the tactics involved be different.

40k is far too reliant on the composition of the board, dice, and armies. There is very little emphasis placed on how the player actually uses his troops.

Ouroboros
17-04-2008, 20:33
I think a lot of the trouble is to do with how 40k really only has 2 types of scenario in the main book. Kill for victory points, or capture/hold X, often also for victory points.

I'd like to see more of a revamped second ed mission system return again, where you would have primary and secondary objective cards and your opponent might not even know what you were up to. I'd also like more diverse missions like having to kill the general or sneak a certain unit through enemy lines or something other than the typical "grab this counter/section of table" objective.

intellectawe
17-04-2008, 20:34
@Intellectawe, The BOLS site is a great place to get inspiration from a really committed hobby group. They make the game interesting and exciting just by their commitment. Try it you might like.

Ren

Unlike many online, I've been enjoying this hobby fine on my own with my own groups.

Nothing they have come up with is earth shattering nor original. Then again I've been playing since 1988. I guess to newer players, since 3rd ed came out, Bols is ground breaking.

The Song of Spears
17-04-2008, 20:59
Instead of regurgitating the textbook definition, please provide examples of tactics that don't rely on changing the board or army. As in, show how I could play the same armies on the same board twice and have the tactics involved be different.

40k is far too reliant on the composition of the board, dice, and armies. There is very little emphasis placed on how the player actually uses his troops.

Wow maybe someone was right about proving the title of the thread correct...

Ok, i will hold your hand and go over the simple bits of 40k:

Table X = has 25% terrain spread evenly through the board, nothing special just a standard mix of 5+ and 4+ area terrain.

Each army has its own basic list that wont be changed no will will it use any items outside the standard codex options, likely the most useful ones.

Rolling for a mission in the back of the main book, as per standard rules, with no odd variations will give you your first set of strategic variety. Each mission have differing strategy for winning, and a different deployment zone set up that will affect tactical deployment and first turn maneuvers.

Then you roll for game level, alpha, gamma, omega. Each of these can affect a given army quite a bit, loosing infiltrate to alpha, having all your MC start in reserves in omega for example. This is the second set of variables that come into bog standard play.

Rolling for who gets to pick which side brings up your third tactical option here, assuming the board is not completely symmetrical, the deployment of each army will vary more or less depending on which side each player gets and who deploys first. (I don't have to do into those details do I?)

Then on to the first turn roll, who goes first will determine strategy for turn 1-2 at the very least as it will determine who shoots first, and who gets their reserves first, all could change the field of play and the tactics needed to counters any given threat.

As the rest of the game progresses any given unit may have its effectiveness altered by any of the previous events.

So if you are too dullard to make ANY changes to ANY of the above, and every game you simply set up the exact same army's, the exact same way, and let the same person get their same side and the same person win the first turn roll, and make their reserves rolls in the same order each time, then SURE it would be hard to find varying tactics. :rolleyes:

Have a modicum of daring here and try out all the scenarios and army list options available to you as are available in the standard rule set, you will find that there are many situations that will arise that cause you to use different tactics from time to time.

I am using the same army's on the same board as you wanted without touching the terrain or army list and still there are too many variables to make a game go identically each time. And if you are telling me that you are limiting the mission choice and the game level just because you want to, then its clearly YOU who are limiting the tactics in your games, not the game system.

Mireadur
17-04-2008, 21:44
Instead of regurgitating the textbook definition, please provide examples of tactics that don't rely on changing the board or army. As in, show how I could play the same armies on the same board twice and have the tactics involved be different.

40K is far too reliant on the composition of the board, dice, and armies. There is very little emphasis placed on how the player actually uses his troops.

This was some perfect argumentation... And while i totally agree with you about what 40k is reliant on, im thinking that the kind of maneuvering tactics you are looking for can only be found in the ancient world battles. If you think about present warfare, its pretty similar to how a 40k battle with objetives would play, excluding the total nonsense of covers in 40k.

catbarf
17-04-2008, 23:36
Wow maybe someone was right about proving the title of the thread correct...

Ok, i will hold your hand and go over the simple bits of 40k:

Table X = has 25% terrain spread evenly through the board, nothing special just a standard mix of 5+ and 4+ area terrain.

Each army has its own basic list that wont be changed no will will it use any items outside the standard codex options, likely the most useful ones.

Rolling for a mission in the back of the main book, as per standard rules, with no odd variations will give you your first set of strategic variety. Each mission have differing strategy for winning, and a different deployment zone set up that will affect tactical deployment and first turn maneuvers.

Then you roll for game level, alpha, gamma, omega. Each of these can affect a given army quite a bit, loosing infiltrate to alpha, having all your MC start in reserves in omega for example. This is the second set of variables that come into bog standard play.

Rolling for who gets to pick which side brings up your third tactical option here, assuming the board is not completely symmetrical, the deployment of each army will vary more or less depending on which side each player gets and who deploys first. (I don't have to do into those details do I?)

Then on to the first turn roll, who goes first will determine strategy for turn 1-2 at the very least as it will determine who shoots first, and who gets their reserves first, all could change the field of play and the tactics needed to counters any given threat.

As the rest of the game progresses any given unit may have its effectiveness altered by any of the previous events.

So if you are too dullard to make ANY changes to ANY of the above, and every game you simply set up the exact same army's, the exact same way, and let the same person get their same side and the same person win the first turn roll, and make their reserves rolls in the same order each time, then SURE it would be hard to find varying tactics. :rolleyes:

Have a modicum of daring here and try out all the scenarios and army list options available to you as are available in the standard rule set, you will find that there are many situations that will arise that cause you to use different tactics from time to time.

I am using the same army's on the same board as you wanted without touching the terrain or army list and still there are too many variables to make a game go identically each time. And if you are telling me that you are limiting the mission choice and the game level just because you want to, then its clearly YOU who are limiting the tactics in your games, not the game system.

Okay. Now drop the ad hominem, and go read my post again to find out what I actually said. Namely:


40k is far too reliant on the composition of the board, dice, and armies. There is very little emphasis placed on how the player actually uses his troops.

I am not looking for how I should switch up scenarios, or terrain, or the army lists, or leave it up to fate for who gets first turn. I want to see an example of tactics that is based on how the general uses his troops, not how the game is already set up for him.

Chess is the quintessential example. The 'terrain' is always the same. The 'army lists' are always the same. The 'missions' are always the same. It doesn't leave the first turn up to chance. Even unlike 40k, the deployment is always the same. Is chess a boring, tactics-less game?

Hell no. Chess allows for player tactics, where positioning and maneuvering are the key parts of the game since it isn't just tossed to the winds of fate by rolling handfuls of dice.

It doesn't rely on extraneous add-ons in order to function as a tactically deep game, and the fact that people dedicate their lives to the same scenario with the same forces with the same deployment with the same terrain is quite a testament to how much the game has to offer in terms of player tactics.

That's what I'm after. Something that relies on the skill of the player at actually playing the game, not skill of the player at placing terrain of the vagaries of dice. If the game is left up to fate then it's not very deep at all.


This was some perfect argumentation... And while i totally agree with you about what 40k is reliant on, im thinking that the kind of maneuvering tactics you are looking for can only be found in the ancient world battles. If you think about present warfare, its pretty similar to how a 40k battle with objetives would play, excluding the total nonsense of covers in 40k.

But then where is morale, one of the most vital parts of modern warfare? Or suppressive fire? I understand your point, but 40k is certainly not designed as a modern combat simulation in the far future.

Malchek
17-04-2008, 23:56
40k is certainly not designed as a modern combat simulation in the far future.

Nope and thank god for that!

40k is a game and that's how it ought to be kept - not some highly mathematical model or simulation of warfare - for christs sakes we have huge gribbly monsters and daemons running around 40k! Lighten up man and enjoy yourself!

If anyone thinks 40k isn't tactical or doesn't hold enough tactical options for players then they really aren't playing the game right - take chess ramp up the tactical possibilities a hundred fold and then you have 40k.... there's so many more options and variables open to 40K you could play this game for a lifetime and still not get that good at it lol ;)

That's IMO of course ;)

The Song of Spears
17-04-2008, 23:58
That's what I'm after. Something that relies on the skill of the player at actually playing the game, not skill of the player at placing terrain of the vagaries of dice. If the game is left up to fate then it's not very deep at all.


I disagree, human intellect is the only thing known to man that can deal with random events and counter them with logic.

Chess is not more strategic because it disallows everything except a arbitrary set of move/capture rules.

40k, or real war (which has random events based on the vagaries of life it) deals with the strategy of dealing with a set of absolutes (the army list and its stats, which is like chess and its set rules for each piece) AND 40k deals with strategy of mitigation. In which a player has to deal with situations that are not fair, balanced, 100% predictable.

So as much as you may want to, you cant toss out the tactics/strategy of 40k just because there are random elements. And it certainly does not make 40k any less strategic or tactical.

catbarf
18-04-2008, 00:10
I disagree, human intellect is the only thing known to man that can deal with random events and counter them with logic.

Chess is not more strategic because it disallows everything except a arbitrary set of move/capture rules.

40k, or real war (which has random events based on the vagaries of life it) deals with the strategy of dealing with a set of absolutes (the army list and its stats, which is like chess and its set rules for each piece) AND 40k deals with strategy of mitigation. In which a player has to deal with situations that are not fair, balanced, 100% predictable.

So as much as you may want to, you cant toss out the tactics/strategy of 40k just because there are random elements. And it certainly does not make 40k any less strategic or tactical.

Again, read my post. I do not condemn 40k because it has random elements. I simply do not think that random elements (such as who goes first) are representative of of tactics or strategy.

Chess, using no random elements, is entirely dependent on the skill of the player. 40k is not worse for using dice, but dice do not make the game more tactical or strategically deep. And they do act as a softening factor, where a good player can still lose to a bad player simply because he had bad luck. This is leaving the game up to fate- getting different results in your games based on how well or poorly someone rolled.

You've missed my question- can you give me examples of tactics in 40k not reliant on the board or armies themselves? Something that can make you play the same list with the same terrain with the same conditions and same objectives, and still end up with a different game?

The Song of Spears
18-04-2008, 00:34
I do not condemn 40k because it has random elements. I simply do not think that random elements (such as who goes first) are representative of of tactics or strategy.

Not to be rude, but too bad. They do, whether you like it or not. They, just like how a pawn moves, are in and of themselves not a strategy, they are events which we must deal with using strategy.



You've missed my question- can you give me examples of tactics in 40k not reliant on the board or armies themselves? Something that can make you play the same list with the same terrain with the same conditions and same objectives, and still end up with a different game?

What kind of question is this? Don't YOU see the tactical options here? Are just arguing for the sake of having something to do?

Two armies, even identical armies on symmetrical terrain table tops will vary in how the game progresses based on deployment, what units you target, what order you target them, what units you move, and how casualty remove is done, NONE of which encompasses your hated element of randomness such as die rolls.

catbarf
18-04-2008, 00:53
Not to be rude, but too bad. They do, whether you like it or not. They, just like how a pawn moves, are in and of themselves not a strategy, they are events which we must deal with using strategy.

So, now, please demonstrate such strategy. Give me an example!


What kind of question is this? Don't YOU see the tactical options here? Are just arguing for the sake of having something to do?

Two armies, even identical armies on symmetrical terrain table tops will vary in how the game progresses based on deployment, what units you target, what order you target them, what units you move, and how casualty remove is done, NONE of which encompasses your hated element of randomness such as die rolls.

I'm asking for some sort of strategy or tactic not based explicitly upon the terrain, army lists, or scenario.

The Song of Spears
18-04-2008, 03:25
Um, such as i go first so my devastator squad shoots at your tactical squad, you remove hits in such a way that my tactical squads plasmacannon can only score a single hit no matter how you place the template...

i can think of a million of these, you should be able to too. Each one done in a different order will yield a different set of options for you to assess. Thus requiring different tactics based on each set and the order of each set of decisions.

I am not going to go into all the decisions you can make to alter the course of a game, if you cant do that for yourself then there is little i can do to show you such things over the net.

Anyhow, back on topic, i am working on a three story cathedral with my CoD terrain, i hope to have a squad on squad murder fest competition in it once its done!

AngryAngel
18-04-2008, 07:56
[QUOTE=catbarf;2533623]Again, read my post. I do not condemn 40k because it has random elements. I simply do not think that random elements (such as who goes first) are representative of of tactics or strategy.

Chess, using no random elements, is entirely dependent on the skill of the player. 40k is not worse for using dice, but dice do not make the game more tactical or strategically deep. And they do act as a softening factor, where a good player can still lose to a bad player simply because he had bad luck. This is leaving the game up to fate- getting different results in your games based on how well or poorly someone rolled.

You've missed my question- can you give me examples of tactics in 40k not reliant on the board or armies themselves? Something that can make you play the same list with the same terrain with the same conditions and same objectives, and still end up with a different game?[/QUOTE

Alright, I'll bite here. Same army list, diffrent use. Marine army, squads with a heavy weapon, special, sgt with a power weapon rhino with extra storm bolter.

Alright first deployment and use. Deploy the whole squads back in your zone, set up in cover with a full 10 men there to prevent wounds from casually taking out your heavy or special weapons. Sit back, blast away on incoming forces. Using the rhino to either screen flanks and be a wall for incoming fire, or moving forward blasting with the storm bolters and tank shocking when it will help. Or perhaps just blocking charges then driving away so your squad can move up and rapid fire or pistol shot then charge.

Same group, keeo um together riding forward in the rhino only using their heavy weapon if they need to and get the chance. Using the rhino to get them to an objective or forward operating position to hold down with the heavy weapon, special and bolters the pw giving a bit of pause to assaulting units they may encounter. Rhino acting as a wall/firesupport till it dies. Once it does acting as terrain to rest within for cover or blocking LOS.

Same group, you split up into combat squads leaving one in one area of the board for firesupport in cover, keeping the other in the rhino to move up and take the objective and try and hold it.

Same group, you split up the squad into two demi squads and place them in completely diffrent sections of the deployment zone one walking up towards objective or screening assaulters, the other giving heavy weapon support. The rhino giving light infantry firesupport and perhaps being a mobile wall to cover either the walking demi squad or another unit entirely, or screening the side armor or rear of a more important vehicle.

Same group, same set ups, diffrent uses. Diffrent number of guys, even choices to make once you get closer or further away from the enemy.


It really just seems you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

If your point is you can't make a strategy not based on terrain and the abilities of your men, your right, you can't. What your units can do is quite important for making them do anything. As is where they are fighting. Certain strategies and tactics will only be viable in certain situations, in certain terrain or using certain units. That is true for any game. You have plenty of choices to make, you just either don't like any of them, or never notice any of them.

Deployment where and how, is a stratgey. Certain army lists contain tactics all their own. Like you can't do the same with a drop pod list as you can w ith a mech list, as you can with an all infantry list. as you can with a mixed list. Even with the same list more then once you can choose diffrent actions. Like being more aggresive, or more defensive. Like rushing the lines or setting up strong points to contest and hold objectives in close range fire fights. How hard you hit diffrent areas, and how well you focus or spread out your attacks along the map as well as where to fight and where and with what units you take with you. However they don't need to fight all the same all the time unless you a) lack imagination and b) fear any type of change to your own tactics.

You probably completely disagree with all I said though, its ok I know the nature of the beast and accept you for it.

catbarf
18-04-2008, 11:08
Alright, I'll bite here. Same army list, diffrent use. Marine army, squads with a heavy weapon, special, sgt with a power weapon rhino with extra storm bolter.

Alright first deployment and use. Deploy the whole squads back in your zone, set up in cover with a full 10 men there to prevent wounds from casually taking out your heavy or special weapons. Sit back, blast away on incoming forces. Using the rhino to either screen flanks and be a wall for incoming fire, or moving forward blasting with the storm bolters and tank shocking when it will help. Or perhaps just blocking charges then driving away so your squad can move up and rapid fire or pistol shot then charge.

Same group, keeo um together riding forward in the rhino only using their heavy weapon if they need to and get the chance. Using the rhino to get them to an objective or forward operating position to hold down with the heavy weapon, special and bolters the pw giving a bit of pause to assaulting units they may encounter. Rhino acting as a wall/firesupport till it dies. Once it does acting as terrain to rest within for cover or blocking LOS.

Same group, you split up into combat squads leaving one in one area of the board for firesupport in cover, keeping the other in the rhino to move up and take the objective and try and hold it.

Same group, you split up the squad into two demi squads and place them in completely diffrent sections of the deployment zone one walking up towards objective or screening assaulters, the other giving heavy weapon support. The rhino giving light infantry firesupport and perhaps being a mobile wall to cover either the walking demi squad or another unit entirely, or screening the side armor or rear of a more important vehicle.

Same group, same set ups, diffrent uses. Diffrent number of guys, even choices to make once you get closer or further away from the enemy.


It really just seems you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

If your point is you can't make a strategy not based on terrain and the abilities of your men, your right, you can't. What your units can do is quite important for making them do anything. As is where they are fighting. Certain strategies and tactics will only be viable in certain situations, in certain terrain or using certain units. That is true for any game. You have plenty of choices to make, you just either don't like any of them, or never notice any of them.

Deployment where and how, is a stratgey. Certain army lists contain tactics all their own. Like you can't do the same with a drop pod list as you can w ith a mech list, as you can with an all infantry list. as you can with a mixed list. Even with the same list more then once you can choose diffrent actions. Like being more aggresive, or more defensive. Like rushing the lines or setting up strong points to contest and hold objectives in close range fire fights. How hard you hit diffrent areas, and how well you focus or spread out your attacks along the map as well as where to fight and where and with what units you take with you. However they don't need to fight all the same all the time unless you a) lack imagination and b) fear any type of change to your own tactics.

You probably completely disagree with all I said though, its ok I know the nature of the beast and accept you for it.

An excellent example. Funny how all those options vary between 'Stay back and shoot' and 'Head down and charge' or combinations thereof, as I stated in my very first post in this thread.

Plastic Rat
18-04-2008, 11:42
Um, such as i go first so my devastator squad shoots at your tactical squad, you remove hits in such a way that my tactical squads plasmacannon can only score a single hit no matter how you place the template...

Hang on a sec... so unless I'm missing something, you're saying removing casualties in such a way as to screw your opponent's next shot is strategy? So strategy now boils down to a geometry puzzle?

I never actually considdered casualty removal 'strategy' before...

Dunno about you, but I started playing this game because I liked the idea of little men in power armor making daring flanking maneuvers, blazing away at an enemies exposed flank and screaming warcries as they saturate weak-points with pin-point bolter fire.

I didn't envision:

"Uh, Johnson, you're standing too close to Rufus, you're gonna have to take the bullet so they can't target Hicks and Mavis together with that damned cannon next shot."

"But sarge! Why can't McCoy take the bullet? He's just as close to Davies?!"

"Don't argue with me lad! Besides, McCoy is probably out of range so I'm going to take the chance that they'll target you with the next blast. Now shut up and die. You can have carapace armor for 2 points next game if it makes you feel better."

Johnson: "Blimey... AAARGH!!"

Hicks: "Lucky they fired the lasgun there first eh sarge?"

The Song of Spears
18-04-2008, 16:49
Hang on a sec... so unless I'm missing something, you're saying removing casualties in such a way as to screw your opponent's next shot is strategy? So strategy now boils down to a geometry puzzle?

I never actually considdered casualty removal 'strategy' before...


This is clever enough to deserve a response, funny stuff!

Its much like chess in that small way. Why can a pawn only take a enemy piece diagonally?

answer: just because.

Its a simple game mechanic to require players to think critically within a set of constraints.

Casualty removal is an identical situation. Its just a game mechanic to require you to think about your shooting order and the like.

So if you came to ANY non realtime non-simulation non-realistic table top turn taking game looking for any semblance of realism, then you are mistaken.

Not a big deal really, but 40k is not a real time simulator, its a strategy game with elements based on reality and fantasy alike as well as arbitrary rules to make the board game element of it function.



An excellent example. Funny how all those options vary between 'Stay back and shoot' and 'Head down and charge' or combinations thereof, as I stated in my very first post in this thread.

Ok, sure you can only move, shoot and assault in 40k. Just like in real life where a solider can only move, shoot and assault(physically attack).

That just kind of happens to be a limitation of.. oh i dunno... everything?

In a very pedantic manner, yes 40k is limited to such things :rolleyes:

Short of playing cyberpunk with net runners, or world of darkness with ghosts who exist and interact with the ether, i think you are, to be perfectly blunt, being stupid about this. I don't mean that in a offensive way. But you are entirely over simplifying the basic mechanics of human capability in your concept of tactics and strategy.

Just like in chess, basic move/capture mechanics are most of what a board game will boil down to. But that is simply just a statement of the mechanics available to you in your use of strategy.

catbarf
18-04-2008, 20:59
Ok, sure you can only move, shoot and assault in 40k. Just like in real life where a solider can only move, shoot and assault(physically attack).

No, real life involves tactical maneuvering, fire lanes, and morale. 40k lacks these in any appreciable manner.

All I see in 40k is a two-dimensional move forward/stay back mechanic. There's none of the freedom or fluidity of maneuvers, of pulling off advanced strategies. You hear things like refused flank, bait, or strong center used in Fantasy, but they have no place in 40k.

The Song of Spears
18-04-2008, 21:40
No, real life involves tactical maneuvering, fire lanes, and morale. 40k lacks these in any appreciable manner.

You can claim that all you want, but they do exist and its up to the player to bring any of these items into play more or less.



All I see in 40k is a two-dimensional move forward/stay back mechanic. There's none of the freedom or fluidity of maneuvers, of pulling off advanced strategies. You hear things like refused flank, bait, or strong center used in Fantasy, but they have no place in 40k.

Maybe you don't actually play 40k, i am beginning to wonder...

Refused flank? My Eldar do this all the time, thanks to being AirCav they can perform the Oblique order (aka Refused Flank) by the textbook definition. It is in fact what can make that army so hard to deal with.

Bait? You mean the noise marines i stick out a bit too far forward to get the imperial assault marines to assault it and then counter with my Raptors is not baiting? Better go look at that definition again bud.

Strong Center? As in the Chess definition? I do this all the time with my Godzilla nids, you can take the center of the table and hold it quite well with them.

I am beginning to tire of your short sightedness. It's clear that you need to brush up on your 40k IQ because all these comments of yours have gotten to the point of being pointless and ill-founded in any respect. Can we please get back OT????

eek107
18-04-2008, 22:08
An excellent example. Funny how all those options vary between 'Stay back and shoot' and 'Head down and charge' or combinations thereof, as I stated in my very first post in this thread.

All chess strategies boil down to a combination of moves. How is this any different?

lanrak
18-04-2008, 22:56
Hi eek107.
In chess a player moves one playing piece at a time, BUT has to think about all the possible moves and counter moves to be made .(Good players think 10+ moves ahead.)

All the factors are finite.
The board , how playing peices move, who goes first etc.

Who wins a game of chess , is dependant on the skills of the players.

In 40k a player moves ALL of thier pieces, THEN shoots with all of thier pieces, and then moves again and fight close combat, with all of thier pieces.
The only thing that decides sucess/faliure of a players actions are dice rolls.

40k is a fun dice rolling game , narrative driven gaming works very well with this style of game.;)

catbarf
18-04-2008, 23:05
Maybe you don't actually play 40k, i am beginning to wonder...

Refused flank? My Eldar do this all the time, thanks to being AirCav they can perform the Oblique order (aka Refused Flank) by the textbook definition. It is in fact what can make that army so hard to deal with.

Bait? You mean the noise marines i stick out a bit too far forward to get the imperial assault marines to assault it and then counter with my Raptors is not baiting? Better go look at that definition again bud.

Strong Center? As in the Chess definition? I do this all the time with my Godzilla nids, you can take the center of the table and hold it quite well with them.

I am beginning to tire of your short sightedness. It's clear that you need to brush up on your 40k IQ because all these comments of yours have gotten to the point of being pointless and ill-founded in any respect. Can we please get back OT????

You'd think that perhaps if strategies such as these were so important in 40k, we'd hear about them being used in tournaments, wouldn't we? All I hear is endless droning about army lists.


All chess strategies boil down to a combination of moves. How is this any different?

Chess relies on the interplay between the pieces, since you can only move one at a time, forcing you to react to your opponent and use the pieces in synergy. 40k lets everything go at once, and largely independently.

izandral
18-04-2008, 23:24
the fact that you move all your pieces in 40k instead of one in chess doesn't change anything. when i make my move in 40k i definitely think about the possible response from the enemy next turn and me after that and so on , usually i try to think 2 turns in advance since it's about the time it takes to effectively change your forces commitment in 40k

lanrak
18-04-2008, 23:56
Hi izandral.
As you may not have played a game with alternating unit activation.
You may not be aware of the MASSIVE difference the change in level of action -responce makes.

So I shall give you annalagy .
If we were professional boxers in a boxing ring, If I threw a puch at you , would you try block it straight away and attempt to hit me back?
Or would you wait untill I have thrown lots of punches , while you just soak it up, then take your 'turn ' to hit me several times?

And if the only moderator of sucess in a game is a random dice roll ,how can you influence a game other than intial deployment (based on terrain layout force composition and narrative mission.)And then target allocation.

If you have to concider the IMMEDIATE oponents reaction, after your unit takes a single action set/order.This ups the level of tactical thinking quite abit.

The_Outsider
19-04-2008, 00:09
catbarf I want to send you money.

Never have I seen someone spout such complete and utter biased responses with a straight face - for that you deserve to be rewarded.


Chess relies on the interplay between the pieces, since you can only move one at a time, forcing you to react to your opponent and use the pieces in synergy. 40k lets everything go at once, and largely independently.

So do most of GW's other games - be it BFG, fantasy etc.

Its a slippery slope to say such things about 40k where it and many of GW's other games all share many same basic principles in how a unit interacts with the turn, the enemy and itself.

Its kinda like saying "dice games are for n00bs, play a game with no random element".

eek107
19-04-2008, 00:56
Hi eek107.
In chess a player moves one playing piece at a time, BUT has to think about all the possible moves and counter moves to be made .(Good players think 10+ moves ahead.)

All the factors are finite.
The board , how playing peices move, who goes first etc.

Who wins a game of chess , is dependant on the skills of the players.

In 40k a player moves ALL of thier pieces, THEN shoots with all of thier pieces, and then moves again and fight close combat, with all of thier pieces.
The only thing that decides sucess/faliure of a players actions are dice rolls.

40k is a fun dice rolling game , narrative driven gaming works very well with this style of game.;)

Indeed. I would argue, however, that player skill comes into 40k a bit more than you suggest. There is still that forward planning. We have to take these variable results into account when we plan ahead. Like, say I wanted to charge a tactical squad with some genestealers, I have to consider if my fleet move will be enough, and what to do if it isn't? What if they wipe out the squad, will they be left in the open? Does the enemy have enough firepower to kill them if that happens? What if they do but roll badly? There's a lot of factors going into that one decision, and we have to decide if we think the statistics are well enough in our favour. Yes, the dice decide whether it works or not, but we can influence the chance if success. In chess we don't have that same type of planning. We know our rook has enough movement to reach his pawn, and we know it will capture it, and we know his bishop can capture the rook in return.


You'd think that perhaps if strategies such as these were so important in 40k, we'd hear about them being used in tournaments, wouldn't we? All I hear is endless droning about army lists.

Chess relies on the interplay between the pieces, since you can only move one at a time, forcing you to react to your opponent and use the pieces in synergy. 40k lets everything go at once, and largely independently.

But 40k still forces you to react to your opponent, and allows you to use your "pieces" in synergy. I can set up traps, overlapping fire lanes, and countercharges. I can redirect firepower to enemies that deep strike behind my lines or wipe out one of my squads on the charge.

I have no argument with the focus on army lists, but that says more about the player base than the game. Strategy in both games relies on the pieces. In chess, you can't change the pieces, so the game is 100% focused on strategy. In 40k we change the list as well, and I think this is appears to be the easiest route to go since it requires less work to rewrite a list than it does to play the same one over and over to perfect it's use (especially when the list could be flawed in the first place).

catbarf
19-04-2008, 01:23
So do most of GW's other games - be it BFG, fantasy etc.

You know, the IGoUGo system isn't universally praised. If anything, it's seen as a weakness of GW games.

I don't mind it in games that give me a little more flexibility, but it's not in any way conducive to strategy when you can move and then shoot with your entire army without having to worry about reactions. One of my favorite miniatures rulesets is Starship Troopers, in which reactions are very important such that you can essentially dominate your opponent's turn just by setting up so that he has little choice but to weather your fire or suffer from your reactions.


But 40k still forces you to react to your opponent

On an army scale, yes. On a smaller scale, no. You have to wait until your opponent completes his entire turn before you can do more than hit back in melee.

eek107
19-04-2008, 01:45
On an army scale, yes. On a smaller scale, no. You have to wait until your opponent completes his entire turn before you can do more than hit back in melee.

You didn't specify what scale we were talking, but the fact remains that you do still react to your opponent's actions. The only difference is when you get to react, as far as I can see.

Takitron
19-04-2008, 05:15
Unlike many online, I've been enjoying this hobby fine on my own with my own groups.

Nothing they have come up with is earth shattering nor original. Then again I've been playing since 1988. I guess to newer players, since 3rd ed came out, Bols is ground breaking.

Well, someone has to be the contrarian I guess. :confused:

oh... I get it. You still like 2nd edition. N/m, nothing else to see here...

juliusb
19-04-2008, 06:01
I'll admit that I've only played 4 games in my life and the people I've played have been very cool so far. What I've seen in my GW is that most people arrive to a game with a bunch of extra models they aren't even going to use.

Why don't you let your opponent pick your army? That would be fun because it would certainly force you to play with an odd, new list. It'd probably be a fairly balanced game as well since you're going to be selecting your opponents' army.

Just think of how entertaining it would be to completely 'mess up' your opponent's army with all the 'weak' elements maxed out or give him something like 30% HQ, 20% Troops and 50% Fast Attack. :P Only for you to find that your own army has no AT or CC or whatever... It would certainly be a challenging and probably pretty entertaining game!

I play a lot of chess and it's kind of like a Fischerandom concept where you're forced to think on your feet with what you're given rather than just relying on the same old (boring?) tactics all the time. Just an idea from a noob.

juliusb
19-04-2008, 06:21
Comparing strategy in chess and 40k is absurd. Where chess is ~95% skill (white player has advantage of 1st turn) 40k is at best 20% skill.

I know, I know, blasphemy right? Wrong. If you develop a plan in chess and your pawn takes a bishop there is no chance of failure in the exchange, you take the piece. In 40k you may come up with a great plan to take a flank and the dice might fail you, regardless of the brilliance of your plan.

Aside from the first move advantage, NOTHING in chess is random. In 40k, nearly everything is random (based on dice).

People seem to be confusing complexity with strategy: Just because 40k straps a bunch of rules and mechanics (complexity) to a random event (dice roll) doesn't magically change that random event into one of skill.

docrailgun
19-04-2008, 10:44
I always wonder why people who obviously hate a game feel a need to waste so much time and bile telling everyone who will listen how terrible the game is.

If a game isn't fun...don't play it. There's no need to continue to argue simply for the sake of arguing.

Mireadur
19-04-2008, 11:07
But then where is morale, one of the most vital parts of modern warfare? Or suppressive fire? I understand your point, but 40k is certainly not designed as a modern combat simulation in the far future.

Yeah i forgot morale catbarf, my fault there. Supressive fire however is totally related to covers, i believe if covers had a real importance in 40k (i.e giving to hit modifiers and a 2nd armor save instead an alternative 1 which just works for some armies) we would be praising how maneuvering, flanking and assaulting had a lot of sense in 40k instead be bitching about it.

Bassik
19-04-2008, 12:01
I always wonder why people who obviously hate a game feel a need to waste so much time and bile telling everyone who will listen how terrible the game is.

If a game isn't fun...don't play it. There's no need to continue to argue simply for the sake of arguing.

This has puzzled me as well since I discovered the internet.

I came up with two hypothesis to explain this strange and irrational behaviour:

1.
They actually do like the game in real life, but on the internet they feel obliged to complain as much as possible, usually copieng someone who actually does hate the game.

2.
They realy do hate the game, but still they waste hours complaining about it.
Why?
Perhaps they used to talk a lot about the hobby untill they started hating it, and that habit hasn't gone away.


Affcorse, some are just dumbasses.:mad:

lanrak
19-04-2008, 13:20
Hi all.
I would like to justify my personal reasons for posting coments on the current state of 40k.

GWs WH40k, is a background based, marketing driven , fun if used in a light hearted narrative way ,dice rolling game to use your GW minis and models in.

If you are aware and expect a relaxed ' Beer and Pretzels' game and KNOW you have to make up for the oversights of the developers, and dont mind having to use house rules to bridge the gaps etc.
And you are happy to pay the price GW ask for thier rules and codecies.

NO PROBLEM.

However , it appears that alot of gamers are expecting that for the money they pay out , WH 40k should have a well defined , efficient ,elegant and ballance rule set and army composition lists.

I can pay LESS than HALF the price of GW 40k rule book for a complete game system rules and all the army composition lists.
(And some even have a ACCURATE PV allocation system so you can use your own made up units...:D)

So for GW customer who are MAINLY GAMING oriented, and want to play the best possible table top version of the 40k background.OTHER rule sets from GAMING companies , are a much better option.

40k has a level of tactical thought involved , obviously.But most other rule sets have higher levels of player/unit interaction, and so have far higher levels of tactical thought.

I just dont want folk to think that 40k is the only rule set, or belive it to be the pinacle of game development, or god forbid, suitably ballanced for competative play !

40k is liked by some,and is suitable for some gamers.
However for those who find 40k a bit 'irksome-boring-tacticaly vapid,'there are alternatives that may suit you better.:D

Playa
19-04-2008, 22:55
Hey,


I would like to justify my personal reasons for posting coments on the current state of 40k

I'll buck the trend, and get back on topic . . .

I've updated an old 2nd ed file from my archives for a goof:

+++

40k Subplot Generator


Each side rolls a d20 before the first turn and applies the result:

1. Space Madness - Nominate one enemy model as Mad Mary: Any model
of the same race has a 1 in 6 chance of contracting Space Madness if
it comes within 2in of Mary or a Carrier. Roll a die for each such
model; on a 1, it becomes a Carrier, and thus a separate Unit of
itself. For the rest of the game, at the start of their turn, Carriers
Scatter 2d6in instead of using regular Movement. Models moved Offtable
in this manner are eliminated. In later Phases, surviving Carriers
will fire their highest Strength weapon at the closest Unit, friend or
foe, then Charge into Assault with that Unit if they can. Note that,
unlike Carriers, Mary may Move, Shoot etc, as normal for the whole
game.

2. Sgt. Fragbait - Nominate an enemy Unit to act against its
dishonest and incompetent leader: During its first declared Shooting
attack, one squaddie will 'accidentally' shoot Sarge instead. If the
Sarge survives the Hit, he becomes a separate Unit, controlled by the
opposing player, and locked in CC with his old squad. This CC
continues until the Sarge is eliminated, or manages to inflict at
least one Wound. At this time, the owning player removes Pvt. Fragger
as the casualty, restoring discipline. Sarge will then rejoin his
squad in the next Movement Phase and the Unit may proceed normally.

3. Gremlins - Random enemy vehicles are subject to mechanical
failure: Every turn, roll a d6 Gremlin Die for each enemy Vehicle on
the board. On a 1, it will break down and become Immobile. Normal
remedies may be attempted, but repair will also occur if a 6 is rolled
on its Gremlin Die in a subsequent turn.

4. Mine Your Step - Unknown to your opponent's army, unexploded
mines litter the battlefield: Every time an enemy Unit Moves, roll
2d6: on a double, the Unit is Hit at the end of its Movement with the
same effect as a centred Frag Missile Hit.

5. Marked For Death - Nominate one enemy Character to be an object
of Vendetta: At the start of every enemy turn, roll 1d6. On a 1, a
randomly selected enemy 'Bounty Hunter' Unit immediately attempts to
assassinate the Character. The assassination attempts will occur every
turn until the Bounty Hunter Unit passes a Leadership test at -2 or
either Unit is eliminated.

6. Deja Vu - One nominated enemy Character believes they have
unexpectedly sensed a Dramatis Persona from their past: All shooting
rolls the distracted Character makes are at -1 to Hit.

7. Unusual Suspects - The scene of battle was chosen by a criminal
gang as a good place to conduct a covert business venture: Two Ganger
Units of any race appear on either end of the battlefield, Moving and
Shooting against the nearest Unit in LoS. If there are none such,
Ganger Units Scatter 2d6in in each Movement Phase. Any models in such
Units moved Offtable are eliminated.

8. Total Recall - One nominated enemy Character finds that he bears
a deadly, and previously unknown, grudge against another nominated
Character: Roll 1d6 at the start of every turn. On a 1, the Character
becomes obsessed with killing this deadly enemy, and must take his
full Movement distance toward him every turn, Shooting and Charging if
he can. This continues until either Unit is eliminated.

9. Quake Four - A natural disaster hits the battlefield: Roll a d6
at the start of every turn. On a 1, roll a d6 for every Unit on the
board. Each roll of 1 causes that Unit to take d3x S6 AP3 Falling Sky
Hits. Each piece of terrain Scatters 2d6in, carrying any models atop
them along with it. Sliding terrain features impact Units as if a Tank-
Shocking Vehicle. Models (and terrain) moved Offtable in this manner
are eliminated. Coherence distance for Units split by these actions
becomes 4in until the start of the Shooting Phase following the Quake.
Models that cannot attain Unit Coherence at this time are eliminated.
The owning player may choose which group remains to represent the
Unit.

10. Curse of Caer Bannog - Panicked native creatures, of which the
armies were previously unaware, begin to make trouble: Roll a d6 every
time a Unit declares a Move, Shoot or Charge. On a 1, they are
prevented from doing so due to the interference of frenzied herds of
small, cuddly (and presumed herbivorous) Leaping Albino Cave-mammals.

11. Three's Company - While the players battle it out, a third Force
enters from a random table edge at the start of the d4th turn: This
Force comprises @500 points of whatever models are to hand. This new
lot have come to chew gum and attack the nearest Unit in LoS, and
they're all out of gum . . .

12. My Leetle Frien' - d3 nominated enemy Characters become
Daemonically Possessed: Each rolls 1d6 at the start of their turn. On
a 1, he Moves toward and Shoots at the nearest Unit, friend or foe;
Charging, if possible, into Assault, and maintains this behaviour for
the rest of the battle.

13. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms - One nominated enemy Unit has
been issued very good liquor and cigars, but very poor firearms: Every
time a member of the squad rolls a 1 to-Hit with a ranged weapon, that
weapon is rendered useless. Take a drink.

14. Now and Zen - One nominated Ruin or Building is partly of alien
manufacture: Units with any models within this structure are suffused
with a feeling of deep calm, and may not Move or Shoot unless they
pass a Ld test at -2 at the beginning of subsequent turns. This effect
is nullified once none of a Unit's models remain inside the Zen
artefact's footprint. Affected Units will fight normally if Assaulted,
but will return to meditation afterward if still within the footprint,
even if victorious.

15. Friendly Fire - Armed refugees huddle under cover in the middle
of the battlefield: Every time a Unit moves into cover that is within
12in of Board Centre, it takes d3x S3 AP3 Hits from the terrified
refugees' hunting rifles.

16. Aboriginal Burial Ground - Prior to the outbreak of hostilities,
the area was ... oh, never mind: Any Unit not in cover must save vs
d3x S3 AP3 Poltergeist Hits at the start of their turn.

17. Gophers - The battlefield is riddled with tunnels: Every turn,
roll a d6 for every model which is either unbased, or mounted on a
base larger than 25x25mm. On a 1, it collapses a Gopher Warren and is
Immobilised for the rest of the battle unless able to pass an Init
test at the beginning of each turn to climb out. Note that models
normally modeled on Flight Bases are exempted.

18. Inhuman Bomb - A nominated enemy Character is an experimental
Android: If reduced to zero Wounds, the Android gains +1 to all
characteristics and Scatters 2d6in/ turn instead of normal Movement.
It may not Shoot, but will Charge and Assault the nearest Unit, friend
or foe, if possible. When destroyed (+1 applies to Wounds as well), it
explodes with the same effect as a direct Plasma Cannon Hit.

19. Shops of Isher - Nominate one building on the table to house a
laboratory for experimenting on salvaged STC equipment: Any Unit
wholly within can make a Ld test instead of Shooting to work out how
to use the STC, and emerge with any legal squad upgrade of up to 35pts
in value for free. Only one such upgrade per Unit is permitted, but
this may be one beyond normal numerical squad allowances.

20. The Channel 86 Action News Team - You control a Crew of local
media technicians and a field reporter which has managed to get into
your opponent's DZ and wander around in a distractive manner
attempting interviews with the enemy troops: All enemy models within
6in of the Crew suffer a -1 to all d6 results. Only enemy Characters
or single model Units may attempt to eliminate the 5 Crewmembers:
Civvies (2 0 3 3 1 3 1 5 6+) armed as w/ single CCWs.

+++

Comment and constructive criticism welcomed.

Pla - please, not another Alpha Cleanse - ya

The Song of Spears
20-04-2008, 00:28
Those are fun! I had never thought of stuff like that :P

AngryAngel
20-04-2008, 08:49
You'd think that perhaps if strategies such as these were so important in 40k, we'd hear about them being used in tournaments, wouldn't we? All I hear is endless droning about army lists.



Chess relies on the interplay between the pieces, since you can only move one at a time, forcing you to react to your opponent and use the pieces in synergy. 40k lets everything go at once, and largely independently.

Those strats are important, they just aren't completely flawless as any game using dice isn't completely predictable.


catbarf I want to send you money.

Never have I seen someone spout such complete and utter biased responses with a straight face - for that you deserve to be rewarded.



So do most of GW's other games - be it BFG, fantasy etc.

Its a slippery slope to say such things about 40k where it and many of GW's other games all share many same basic principles in how a unit interacts with the turn, the enemy and itself.

Its kinda like saying "dice games are for n00bs, play a game with no random element".


Exactly, any dice game is going to suffer from back luck on occassion. It doesn't mean you don't make plans, or that you don't try and execute them or the manuvers there in. You simply do them understanding, the dice may not favor you.

That said, chess is a great game. If 40k sucks so bad, in some peoples opinions, stop playing it, stop spewing out your view point with but one sentence to shoot down whole full formed arguments. If you want to play chess the most awesome game ever made, then spend you time doing that. Marvel in your own excellence and stop complaining endlessly on the net. After all if such a bad game or its sure to be brainless fans aren't worth the time, are they ?



Comparing strategy in chess and 40k is absurd. Where chess is ~95% skill (white player has advantage of 1st turn) 40k is at best 20% skill.

I know, I know, blasphemy right? Wrong. If you develop a plan in chess and your pawn takes a bishop there is no chance of failure in the exchange, you take the piece. In 40k you may come up with a great plan to take a flank and the dice might fail you, regardless of the brilliance of your plan.

Aside from the first move advantage, NOTHING in chess is random. In 40k, nearly everything is random (based on dice).

People seem to be confusing complexity with strategy: Just because 40k straps a bunch of rules and mechanics (complexity) to a random event (dice roll) doesn't magically change that random event into one of skill.

Then just go play chess and leave us 40k players alone.



I always wonder why people who obviously hate a game feel a need to waste so much time and bile telling everyone who will listen how terrible the game is.

If a game isn't fun...don't play it. There's no need to continue to argue simply for the sake of arguing.

They argue because rage is all that is left to them, or they just have amazingly bad dice luck.

Hena
20-04-2008, 09:24
This has puzzled me as well since I discovered the internet.

I came up with two hypothesis to explain this strange and irrational behaviour:
While I don't keep on railing the annoying bit of 40k, I would like to add another alternative here.

1. I like the background of the 40k and own sizeable Marine force mainly built in RT times.
2. I dislike the current rules set for 40k for various reasons (IGOYGO, high T and multi W vs AR, equal moves to name few).

This means that I have minis and background that I like, but not rules. Luckily there was alternative Epic, which has good rules and use the same background. Unluckily GW seems to be doing it's best to prevent Epic from getting bigger :(.

Though while doing this, I've discovered that I like the scal of epic better and probably will be venturing outside of GW fluff (even if that annoys me a bit) and see couple of other 6mm creators, if there is games that are good and supported.

That however still leaves me with 40k models and hope that some day there is better rules set for it as well as Epic that is supported... Though I ain't holding my breath :).

BloodiedSword
20-04-2008, 10:33
The people I game with stopped playing 40k around when 4th edition came out. The game just wasn't going in the direction we wanted it to go in, and we all much preferred Fantasy which ironically was much less hero-hammery than 40k at the time.

Most of them just gave up on 40k but me and one other guy haven't lost all hope yet - we both really like the background and the models, but the rules just don't really have the natural depth to them. Everything is just pretty much what it seems and very static.

To expand on that a bit - winning combat pretty much just depends on killing more models, but even if you do that is largely meaningless. I remember we cheered when we heard that Fearless models defeated in combat take wounds, stopped cheering when we saw that they got armour saves and actually burst out laughing after reading the ATSKNF rules.

In addition, the mechanics of the 40k combat system means that given any two units, the result is very hard to change based on charging. The upshot of this is that getting the charge isn't really that important, which in turn lessens the tactical importance of the movement phase as a whole. Basically, if your unit is harder they will will win pretty much regardless of who charges, and this in turn shifts more importance onto army list selection and less on battlefield performance.

Now I know the normal response "play missions yada yada" but we don't get a great deal of time for gaming and generally just play small pickup games. It's just not convenient to find a suitable scenario instead of being able to just play the standard pitched battle like we can in WFB, and either way I'm not sure it will change the fact that we just don't find the core system that fun to play.

That said, my friend and I have our eyes on 5th edition and so far we like what we've heard. Maybe this could be the one that gets us back into 40k..

Sleepwalker
20-04-2008, 10:58
My first experience with 40k was when 2nd Ed was just being released.

Then I briefly dipped into it again shortly after 3rd Ed turned up.

I only seriously got into the game 2 years, with 4th Ed being the rules. And the one thing that struck me was that 40k has dumbed down over the years. The amount of rules that no longer exist or have been streamlined to something completely unlike what they were is amazing.

Yet WHF has continued to have complex, detailed rules, that make WHF the better rule system in my opinion. I prefer the 40K setting which is why I keep playing, but would much rather 5th Ed made the game more complex and interesting.

Lord Damocles
20-04-2008, 11:56
winning combat pretty much just depends on killing more models, but even if you do that is largely meaningless. I remember we cheered when we heard that Fearless models defeated in combat take wounds, stopped cheering when we saw that they got armour saves and actually burst out laughing after reading the ATSKNF rules.

Yes winning combat is dependant on killing more than your opponant - but who says, 'I'm going to charge into combat now and aim to win without killing anything?'

Combat isn't just about hurling loads of dice and whoever rolls highest wins:rolleyes:.
For example: I charge my five assault marines into fifty conscripts armed with laspistols and CCWs. The 'roll loads of dice to decide who wins' theory says that I should surely loose combat badly as I'm so outnumbered, and the conscripts get a bagillion attacks. But lo! I win combat. How can this be? Well, I engage my brain and think tacticly about the combat. First I move my assault aquad in the movement phase so that they are positioned in such a way that ensures that when they charge (remembering the closest to closest rule) they will be able to direct their attacks against a group of conscripts who are less densly packed than the rest of the unit. Next I for-go shooting with the assault marines in case my opponant removes the conscripts which I'm aiming to charge. Now I charge, grouping my marines so that they direct their attcaks against a relatively small number of foes. The result of this is that my opponant has to remove most of the conscripts in the kill zone - dramaticly limiting the number of return attacks (if there are any at all). I've now won combat and get to pile in so that I can limit the number of conscripts who are able to join in the fighting in the next round again.

In this example the positioning of my models, and the two turn phases which built up to the charge are just as - if not more - important than the actual attacks in combat.
If I'd fired my pistols and then just piled into the front of the conscripts, yes I would have killed more overall, but the sheer number of return attacks would more than likely have meant that I ended up loosing combat.


In addition, the mechanics of the 40k combat system means that given any two units, the result is very hard to change based on charging. The upshot of this is that getting the charge isn't really that important, which in turn lessens the tactical importance of the movement phase as a whole. Basically, if your unit is harder they will will win pretty much regardless of who charges, and this in turn shifts more importance onto army list selection and less on battlefield performance.

Really:eyebrows:. Time for another example methinks.
Five strong Death Company charges a five strong Death Company. Both units are exactly the same. By the above arguement (assuming dice rolls are even) both units should suffer the same number of casualties because both units are equally as 'hard'. However the attacking squad get furious charge. They therefore strike at I5 - before the defending squad - killing several enemies before they're able to strike, and ensuring that they should win combat.

Another example: My assault squad (having now cut their way whrought he conscripts:D) decide to charge a five strong unit of Chaos Terminators. Surely the terminators are the harder unit in combat, so apparently they should win. However since I'm charging, I get to position the models. This time I opt to fire my pistols (if I'm luky I might bring one of them down). I then charge - carfully positioning my models so that I only contact one of the terminators. The most terminators that can now strike is two (one in contact plus one within two inches). I can attack with my whole squad, and so massively increase my chance of winning the combat.


Now, the obvious counter to my examples above (and the one which is constantly rolled out by those who claim 40K has no tactics:rolleyes:) is that if the dice go against me I can still quite easily loose combat in any of the above examples.
This is of course true - but any game which include the use of dice, from 40K to Monopoly, will have an element of unpredictability to it.

My point is that by taking this unpredictability into account, and thinking beyond 'more dice = win' by using careful placement of models and actually searching for tactics which can give me an advantage in any given situation, the chances of me being cripled by poor dice rolling are limited.

The problem with claiming that '40K has no tactics' and such like is that they then won't try to use any tactics, which in turn leads to the strongest unit always winning, or combats becomming nothing more than a dice-fest. They then use this experience to 'reinforce' their arguemnets. It's circular reasoning.

Gwedd
20-04-2008, 14:44
Comrades,

Getting a little bit back to the orifinal post, there are some ideas that I like to use to make the game interesting.

1.) Always play on a 4X8 table. give yourself time and space for maneuver.

2.) Remove turn limits. Place conditions for the end of the game, such as one side reveiving "X" number of casualties, or one side reaching "X" number of objectives, etc. Play the game to a proper conclusion. Set victory conditions and act accordingly.

3.) Make the game unbalanced. Give the defender 1.3 fewer points than the attacker, or give the defender a limited number of turns of fire. Make the defender roll for his ammo supply. Limit the number of turns of movement for vehicles. Say that his supply liones are cut, and he has only so much fuel left.

3.) WE did an airbirne drop once, where we actually "dropped" the troops. Each mini had a number on it, and that number was placed onto a 1"X1" piece of paper. All the pieces were placed into a cup, held way above the board (the player stood on a chair), and were dropped out on a sweeping motion, as the drop ship was passing overhead. Where the paper landed was where the mini was placed (allowing a little latitude for keeping folks from landing ON eachother). The squads then had to sort themselves out before the assault began.

4.) Limit the number of defenders to 1/2 the number(points) of the attacker, but give each defender an extra wound, or an invulnerable save. Make it hard to winkle them out of their defenses.

5.) Design your scenarios and lists around historic battles. You can find the maps, the troop placements, etc. Just modify them to use 40K units, and adapt them to a 4X8 table.

Those are just some quick and dirty points that i have used before.

Respects,

The_Outsider
20-04-2008, 14:46
Comrades.....

Or you could play the battle, raid and special missions from the back of the BGB - you'd be surprised how 40k changes when some of the strange mission rules come into effect.

Draconian77
20-04-2008, 16:54
You could, but I feel safer making my own missions due to GW attempts at balance. I think out of all the printed missions ambush is the worst. The defender has practically no chance.

BloodiedSword
20-04-2008, 17:11
Damocles - you make some interesting points so I'll give you my point of view on them.

I like your first example, the ASM vs Conscripts. Yes, of course you increase your chances of winning combat and taking down the Conscripts with fewer casualties by doing what you do.

However, when I see people play they do not do this because winning combat (as I was trying to point out at first) is almost meaningless without causing massive casualties. Even IG Conscripts are just so hard to break thanks to Voxes that it means that your ASM are now stuck slowly whittling down this tiny points cost, 20+ man unit bit by bit over the next 400 turns of combat instead of.. you know.. doing anything worthwhile.

Instead, I see people getting close, shooting their pistols and charging right into the thick of it because even with the larger number of attacks back, it is more important to kill more than to win combat - even if that means the opponent piling in as a result.

Put bluntly, it's not that I think 40k has no tactics - you have illustrated several examples where you could potentially move tactically. It's that I think that 90+% of the time, the best tactics to use are the no-brainer tactics.

Death company vs Death company - well obviously if you have two exactly equal units then the one that charges wins! The point I was trying to make is that if you have two units that aren't equal - an Assault squad vs an IG platoon, Striking Scorpions and a Daemon Prince, etc - then most of the time you know exactly who will win, regardless of who gets to charge.

One of the things I like about Fantasy is that almost any unit can defeat and destroy almost any other, though I can see how people would dislike the notion that their elite hard as nails unit could be wiped out by crappy snotlings. Personal preference I guess.

I think your last example, the ASM vs Terminators, really doesn't change my mind. Let's be honest - even with all your careful tactics and planning, your ASM will STILL lose combat almost all of the time! Adding a Vet Sarge with Power Fist means you can probably expect to draw combat if the Chaos Termies have no weapon upgrades, but are still unlikely to win and will probably be destroyed in the long run.

That is something I have seen time and time again and it does not reassure me - people trying to apply tactics in 40k to defeat superior forces, and it fails more often than it works.

The_Outsider
20-04-2008, 17:17
You could, but I feel safer making my own missions due to GW attempts at balance. I think out of all the printed missions ambush is the worst. The defender has practically no chance.

I disagree - the defender can use their numerical superiority to either brute force their way through or in the case of races like eldar, DE and to a lesser degree orks just rocket forwards, live for a turn and then end the game on turn 2.

Any race with lots of mobile firepower can dominate ambush - even more so if they have units with rules like scouts.


That is something I have seen time and time again and it does not reassure me - people trying to apply tactics in 40K to defeat superior forces, and it fails more often than it works.

In shooting its very hard - but when it comes to combat proper placement (much like Lord damocle's example) its very doable and often the person on the recieving end can do little to stop it.

Mabuhay
20-04-2008, 20:39
Well GW only had 15 or so years to fine tune the game. Not like they can get it right. But then again we are stupid enough to keep coming back no matter what they do.

GW reminds me of the Toronto Maple Leafs. No matter how bad it is, we still come for more, so why would they have to try and improve? They will sell no matter what.



thats the funniest thing ever.... GO FLAMES
on a new note its true always back for nore... its just so fun!

SinCollector
20-04-2008, 21:42
Comparing strategy in chess and 40k is absurd. Where chess is ~95% skill (white player has advantage of 1st turn) 40k is at best 20% skill.

I know, I know, blasphemy right? Wrong. If you develop a plan in chess and your pawn takes a bishop there is no chance of failure in the exchange, you take the piece. In 40k you may come up with a great plan to take a flank and the dice might fail you, regardless of the brilliance of your plan.

Aside from the first move advantage, NOTHING in chess is random. In 40k, nearly everything is random (based on dice).

People seem to be confusing complexity with strategy: Just because 40k straps a bunch of rules and mechanics (complexity) to a random event (dice roll) doesn't magically change that random event into one of skill.

You seem to be confusing strategy with certainty. Real life battles also feature elements of randomness. That's why dice rolls have been added to gaming. That hardly means that there's no strategy in real life because random events occur. Strategy in 40K consists of manipulating the situation such that the probabilities are in your favor.

Also, the dice rolls are not coin flips. The interpretation of those dice rolls according to the rules makes certain events more or less probable. So events in 40K only appear to be random in a single game. Across thousands of 40K games, the probabilities will hold true. Because of this, people with solid strategies and tactics(ability to manage the probabilities) will win more games.

Thrax
21-04-2008, 02:31
SinCollector, spoken for truth. Honestly without a random element wargames become LESS realistic IMO.

On a side note, I don't have much of a problem with the morale rules in this game either. Many say morale should be more decisive, but I think it's effective enough. The context of the game doesn't really allow for regular troops of any species to high tail it when the chips are down. The combatants in this game are all pretty much out for genocide; when the enemy takes no prisoners it has a way of making any soldier stand tall.

starlight
15-05-2008, 05:09
You seem to be confusing strategy with certainty. Real life battles also feature elements of randomness. That's why dice rolls have been added to gaming. That hardly means that there's no strategy in real life because random events occur. Strategy consists of manipulating the situation such that the probabilities are in your favor.

Also, the dice rolls are not coin flips. The interpretation of those dice rolls according to the rules makes certain events more or less probable. So events in 40K only appear to be random in a single game. Across thousands of 40K games, the probabilities will hold true. Because of this, people with solid strategies and tactics(ability to manage the probabilities) will win more games.

Fixed the part in red. :p

All warfare consists of manipulating the situation to be as favourable for your side as possible. There will always be unforeseen events that throw your plan. This is when the training of your people comes into play. The better trained and equipped they are, the better they will adapt to changes to the plan. :D

All of these elements are reflected in 40K. As a good general, it is your job to weight the battle as much as you can in your favour within the limitations of the army you have chosen. That doesn't mean remake your army so that it bears little resemblance to the one in the 40K Universe in the name of efficiency, but to make sure that you are aware of it's vulnerabilities and use it's strengths to compensate.

Nazdrugh
15-05-2008, 07:46
Instead of regurgitating the textbook definition, please provide examples of tactics that don't rely on changing the board or army..



I can set up traps, overlapping fire lanes, and countercharges. I can redirect firepower to enemies that deep strike behind my lines or wipe out one of my squads on the charge.


And that's just scratching the surface! :D

Renagade
15-05-2008, 08:02
i believe if covers had a real importance in 40k (i.e giving to hit modifiers and a 2nd armor save instead an alternative 1 which just works for some armies) we would be praising how maneuvering, flanking and assaulting had a lot of sense in 40k instead be bitching about it.

I think your spot on there, hopefully in 5th this will be addressed.

Ren