View Full Version : Do we really think...

Brother Ranz
01-12-2011, 16:37
...that the next version of 40K will get more tactical? The trend has been the opposite. The latest edition of WFB would seem to be the way it will be. Please explain to me your reasons for thinking 40K's next edition will be more tactical and how if you have information. I just do not see it though I would love it.

01-12-2011, 16:48
I really wonder what problems so many of you have with "40k is not tactical". For me the game is tactical enough. It is a fun-game after all from the start and not a competitive game. Don't make 40k something it isn't meant to be.
But as I said, in my eyes it offers enough tactics. Of course not with most of the hammer-web-lists which are just straight forward into someone else's face.

01-12-2011, 16:58
"More tactical" is a chimera. (I mean the metaphorical, hard-to-pin-down idea kind of chimera, not the IG troop transport kind.) I don't think people can even agree on the definition of what this is, which renders a discussion about it more or less irrelevant.

We'll see; I personally think there's plenty of room for tactics on the tabletop already. But then, my definition is probably different from everyone else's.

01-12-2011, 17:03
40k and Warhammer are "for-fun" games. They have some mild strategies and tactics in them, but they are not really a serious tactical exercise. If you want one of those, the military uses several that make 40k look like a simple exercise in dice rolling.

Inquisitor Kallus
01-12-2011, 17:06
Epic is the 40k version of a tactical wargame. 40k is the 'full of special rules in your face 'tm' ' kinda game. Balance is not necessarily great but its more instant action. I would liken the idea to Battlefield vs COD. I do like both games (Epic and 40k) and they have very different feels. I would like to see 40k become more balanced and less focussed on special rules everywhere. Buts thats my personal opinion

01-12-2011, 17:07
... whining about the newest edition again.

remember how 4th edition was "listhammer" and you knew the victor(=always eldar flying circus list or some other xenos gimick; yes, imperials sucked back then, esp imperial guard) before the game started? how no matter what tactic an underpowered codex used, it lost to the "S.M.F." gimmick , for example?

In the current edition, even Tyranids vs space wolves , one of the worst matchups possible, has a fairly decent (25%-35%) chance of going the tyranids' way if both players are properly hardcore-competitive.

heck, even TAU can accumulate several victories in the current edition with their one-proper-list, even fatecrusher daemons can! thats how much tactics has come to 40k 5th edition.

know what the previous edition was?
-skimmers moving fast gimmick.(all hits in fast skimmers glancing. wtf?!?)
-how penetrating hits used a VERY different damage chart, super-lethal, and so only "skimmers moving fast" were playable, and whoever didnt have fast skimmers or monstrous creatures was screwed in tournaments?...
-charge special engagement gimmick(cause defenders couldnt react; charger always won cause he chose how many of his models will fight against how many of defenders' models)
-consolidation gimmick (if at any point just ONE cc unit reached a gunline, it consolidated from combat to combat butchering the whole army never getting shot ONCE)
-dont get me started on how every marine army had today's BT's "5-man-lascannon-plasmagun" usual troops
-every army had "2 x cheapest option" troops cause of every unit being scoring

*objectives being unimportant* as they only gave some victory points (250 iirc); the more killy list won, if i killed 1000 of your points , you killed 300 of my points, i had ZERO objectives and you had TWO, i still won.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?... 4th edition was an abomination full of exploitable gimmicks that made the best armylist win. if anything, 5th edition is much more tactical. why wouldnt 6th ed end up even more tactical?...

i could also talk about fantasy 8th also has "more tactics, just different tactics compared to 7th", just like 40k's case, but thats for another thread and i wont derail.

Brother Ranz
01-12-2011, 17:09
I will try to explain. I played 40K from Day One in the US. I have been playing GW games since the 80's. In 1999, I got a GT trophy for Fantasy. Within a couple years after that, I grew dissatisfied with both 40K and Fantasy. Not that previous editions were amazing, but more because new editions were "dumbing-down" the game. They took out a lot of bells and whistles I felt made it what it is. Kind of like how Deadlands is so much better than Savage Worlds, if you know those systems?

So I found Warmachine and loved it. The main difference is that in WM, the better player usually wins. Sure some builds were better then others, but actual maneuver, timing, threat range and tactics mattered a lot more than list building and dice rolling. I played very competitively and successfully. Second edition came out and made it a better game in every way. THat has not been the case in either 40K or WFB. While there are always a few "improvements" in the new editions, overall they tend to "streamline" things. We are smart gamers. We do not need streamlining. We need a good game where outplaying your opponent will make you win.

The fluff of GW's stuff has held me around and now that I have had my fun with Warmachine, I am more interested in 40K. That and the fact that my 12 year old loves Tau and Marines. If GW has decided to make 40K and WFB different, and wants to take 40K in a direction that will make it more competitive with Warmachine and Infinity, I will love it. First step, "un-streamline" melee and re-institute Overwatch. Take the best aspects of Dark Millennium and the current system and make it so. :)

01-12-2011, 17:12
"More tactical" is a chimera. (I mean the metaphorical, hard-to-pin-down idea kind of chimera, not the IG troop transport kind.) I don't think people can even agree on the definition of what this is, which renders a discussion about it more or less irrelevant.

Ha, true. And the what the 'collective we' thinks is even worse. Whoever they are.

01-12-2011, 17:13
the thing is,...

Warmachine is a skirmish game.
40k DEFINITELY started as a skirmish game.
40k slowly but steadily advances towards cheaper costs and higher points levels(once, 25-30 marines were lots;now, 50 marines are average, and for many tourneys like 'ard boyz, they are too few) , slowly but surely becoming a "wargame" and not a skirmish game.

so have fun with your skirmish game. 40k is just a different game now. and for all the TONS of important reasons i stated, 5th edition is much more player-oriented than 4th's "listhammer", and hence more tactical. the better played *does* have an advantage to win, a better advantage than older days."streamlining" has NOTHING to do with wether a game is tactical(=as close and demanding as war simulation as possible) or not. and i have no reason to believe GW will change that trend suddenly.

the total war series is more streamlined, battle-wise, that starcraft... units have more similar movement rates, less stats/special abilities, etc... guess what? the total war series is *still* endlessly more tactical. (if you want a wargame, that is; and like i said, thats what 40k seems to *desire* to become, moving as far from skirmish/herohammer as possible. i agree, i would never play a skirmish game)

Brother Ranz
01-12-2011, 17:14
Thanks for mentioning Epic. I have been thinking about that a bit and will look ino it. I have not played Epic since the late 90's.

My thread was in no way intended to propose that 4th Edition was in any way better than 5th. :)

01-12-2011, 17:34
It's hard to say if it will be more tactical or not based on the rumors we've heard so far.

As an example, the rumored changes to shooting. They sound like a very interesting change, but how does this affect Rapid Fire, Assault, Heavy firing modes? What about close combat? Will we still have the very generous cover save that the current rules provide?

Until we know what the actual rules are, no one can say if 6th Ed will be more tactical or not.

If we go by historical precedent, strategy and tactics will both change. Maybe not increase or decrease, but they will change nonetheless.

owen matthew
01-12-2011, 18:11
I hope that the trend of streamlining out he heart and sould of the system will stop. I hope for more complexity again.

I miss third. Lots of problems but it worked better than 2nd, and was a great experience overall.

4th was list-hammer-ish, but I could rape people when they bout too deeply into what was considered the best. far too often the player sucked and the list did not matter anyway. 4th was too streamlined compared to 3rd for me.

5th makes me yearn for 3rd again, and excited for 6th. I played about a hundred games in 5th, and that is nothing compared to 3rd and 4th, where playing was a way of life!

I don't know about tactics in general, but the less complexity in the system the more in gets so damned boring. The games are faster and take less though to excell and play, sure, but maybe i want to think a little too! That is why I just fell out of the edition, eventually.

01-12-2011, 19:45
I'm guessing 6th edition will focus more on characters and troops tbh...

01-12-2011, 19:55
... *looks at owen matthew saying that "listhammer 4th", just because it was more complex, required more tactics; says "wtf"*

i respect your opinion. i just dont realise how an edition like 5th requires less tactics than 4th when tyranids (one of the not-so-good codeci) can get a NOVA win percentage of 46%, within 10% difference to grey knights(!!!!! that close!), and we all agree that the nid codex cant be compared to GK so it HAS to do with tactics, the percentage similarity.

in 4th, guard lost like 80%+. Eldar won 70%*+. LISTHAMMER.
(i only care about the top lists, not fluffy ones)