Opinion of the Game (read post)

[Vipoid]

This is something which has annoyed me for ages about many Fantasy players who make the switch to 40K*.

Before the game, you'll get a little speech along the lines of, '40K requires no skill to play. It's all about list building. There are no tactics besides banzai charging. Fantasy is for pros'.
Then said Fantasy player will mindlessly banzai charge across the board, get outmanoeuvred, lack redundancy, place too much/too little emphasis on the mission objectives, and generally get mullered.
When they lose, they'll then proclaim that this 'proves' that their pre-game denunciation of 40K was justified because they lost despite being a tactical genius


*It's not exclusive to Fantasy players, and this isn't a criticism of Fantasy players generally - just those who I've observed etc. ect.. Please put the pitchforks away...

One of my friends, who recently switched to fantasy, proclaimed that "Unlike 40k, fantasy required brains to win."

The player in question plays Ogres, and I'm not lying when I say that his "tactic" is literally 'cast buff spells and charge headlong at the enemy'

As someone who actually plays fantasy (since my friends now play nothing else), I find the idea that it's more tactical than 40k laughable. Random charge distance means assaults randomly fail, leaving you not only exposed, but also just close enough to your enemy that their charge is gaurenteed. Magic is also random, and a 4th level (very powerful) wizard can miscast and insta-kill himself, whilst trying to cast the most basic of spells. The missions are frankly pathetic, with one requiring that units be placed randomly on your side of the board (God forbid any strategical thinking goes into deployment).

Now, to clarify, I'm not trying to say that no tactics are involved in Fantasy - I just think that the people who say that it requires far more tactical/strategical skill than 40k are deluding themselves.



Anyway, going back on topic, I agree with what others have said - it's a lot easier to discuss lists, because they can be discussed in a vacuum (more or less). On the other hand, tactics are dependant on a number of factors - the mission, the table, your opponent's army, how your opponent deploys, etc. Furthermore, tactics have to be fluid - things don't always go to plan, and often you'll have to completely change your strategy mid-game - either for a last chance at a win, or just to scrape a draw. You might have a perfectly prapared startegy of how a CC unit will get to your opponent's backline... only to realise that it's best use is actually camping on an objective in your deployment zone.

Essentially, it's very difficult to properly discuss tactics, becuase there are so many outside influences, and because they have to be fluid.

Perhaps it could be summed up with this quote: "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy"

[greenmtvince]

I love 40k and never played fantasy. However, I think tactics doesn't come up in 40k because quite often folks play with armies that are too large on tables too small with too little terrain with too many special alpha-strike units that it really does come down to having a good list, deploying it well, selecting the right targets and rolling buckets of dice.

I'd further argue that some things about 5th edition have watered that down even further, notably true line of sight and 4+ cover saves for basically anything negates any benefits of terrain that most other wargames enjoy. I mean really if by deploying well you can shoot at everything from 4' across the table and still get a cover save why bother with pesky things like thoughtful maneuver, choke points, fields of fire, masked movement, etc.? A lack of gradiation in cover really reduces the need to secure key terrain, (a cluster of ruins use to be highly prized for it's 4+ save whereas the surrounding terrain only afforded a 5+ or 6+.) Aside from lower points, and the abomination that is the unified vehicle damage table, this is probably a major contributing factor in the dominance of mechanized armies.

[datalink7]

One of my friends, who recently switched to fantasy, proclaimed that "Unlike 40k, fantasy required brains to win."

The player in question plays Ogres, and I'm not lying when I say that his "tactic" is literally 'cast buff spells and charge headlong at the enemy'

As someone who actually plays fantasy (since my friends now play nothing else), I find the idea that it's more tactical than 40k laughable. Random charge distance means assaults randomly fail, leaving you not only exposed, but also just close enough to your enemy that their charge is gaurenteed. Magic is also random, and a 4th level (very powerful) wizard can miscast and insta-kill himself, whilst trying to cast the most basic of spells. The missions are frankly pathetic, with one requiring that units be placed randomly on your side of the board (God forbid any strategical thinking goes into deployment).

Now, to clarify, I'm not trying to say that no tactics are involved in Fantasy - I just think that the people who say that it requires far more tactical/strategical skill than 40k are deluding themselves.



Anyway, going back on topic, I agree with what others have said - it's a lot easier to discuss lists, because they can be discussed in a vacuum (more or less). On the other hand, tactics are dependant on a number of factors - the mission, the table, your opponent's army, how your opponent deploys, etc. Furthermore, tactics have to be fluid - things don't always go to plan, and often you'll have to completely change your strategy mid-game - either for a last chance at a win, or just to scrape a draw. You might have a perfectly prapared startegy of how a CC unit will get to your opponent's backline... only to realise that it's best use is actually camping on an objective in your deployment zone.

Essentially, it's very difficult to properly discuss tactics, becuase there are so many outside influences, and because they have to be fluid.

Perhaps it could be summed up with this quote: "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy"

As a counter point, it can be argued that random charge distances require greater tactical flexibility and depth. You not only need to think ahead and calculate what will happen if you are successful, but also what happens if you fail, in addition to calculating the odds that each individual unit will make it (critical when setting up multiple charges), and factoring risk vs reward for evey action. This necessitates building in redundancies and contingencies into your planning process. With a known charge distance where you auto fail or auto make it, there are far fewer decision points to make within the process.

Now I know that there are counter points to the counter point, such as too much randomness negates any strategy, but I think there is some validaty to the argument that some random elements actually enhances the tacitcal element of the game.

[Chapters Unwritten]

I love 40k and never played fantasy. However, I think tactics doesn't come up in 40k because quite often folks play with armies that are too large on tables too small with too little terrain with too many special alpha-strike units that it really does come down to having a good list, deploying it well, selecting the right targets and rolling buckets of dice.

I've never once played a game of 40k in close to 8 years that was anything of the sort. The foregone conclusion battle is rare, and in my experience is only a sign of incompetent play. I would love to have a setup where we do some sort of scientific survey from around the world, reporting in data from all games played from local clubs all over, and seeing how many really go like this.

I'd further argue that some things about 5th edition have watered that down even further, notably true line of sight and 4+ cover saves for basically anything negates any benefits of terrain that most other wargames enjoy.

True line of sight is necessary. Without it, objectives could be placed in areas that can't be threatened at all by some armies once de-meched. Also, be realistic; in 4th you couldn't be shot at all if you were behind any area terrain, and couldn't lose models from play that weren't exposed. The 5+ forest was highly valuable for this reason. The current 4+ for everything is to represent your troops' possible failure to attack successfully. Almost all of those situations would have instead been times when you were unable to fight at all, or it would have been near useless. And we have all wondered many times in 4th edition why our bolters and lascannons couldn't fire through a forested area at an enemy. True line of sight fixed this and countless other annoying things that ruined immersion and caused arguments.

Mechanization trends do not come because of true line of sight, they come for the same reason they come in real battle - it protects your fragile troops until the time is right. And the vehicle damage table needed to change. The era of paper tanks and entire units vanishing off the board needed to disappear; it was nothing but frustrating and it led to all manner of foolish immersion-breaking.

Anything that breaks immersion, as far as I'm concerned, can get chucked in the bin.

Now I know that there are counter points to the counter point, such as too much randomness negates any strategy, but I think there is some validaty to the argument that some random elements actually enhances the tacitcal element of the game.

There is definitely some truth to this bit here.

[megatrons2nd]

Mechanization trends do not come because of true line of sight, they come for the same reason they come in real battle - it protects your fragile troops until the time is right. And the vehicle damage table needed to change. The era of paper tanks and entire units vanishing off the board needed to disappear; it was nothing but frustrating and it led to all manner of foolish immersion-breaking.

Anything that breaks immersion, as far as I'm concerned, can get chucked in the bin.

Sadly units not being destroyed when a Vehicle explodes is immersion breaking. It is also immersion breaking when my guy can't shoot over a wall he is hiding behind but your guy can kill him. Not to mention that it is assumed that your guy can duck into cover and get a save if he is only touching area terrain, but I can't shoot you if my model is modeled kneeling so can't see over my cover. Why can't we assume my guy stands up? So buy your words TLOS and the passenger rules can get chucked in the bin.

[Vipoid]

As a counter point, it can be argued that random charge distances require greater tactical flexibility and depth. You not only need to think ahead and calculate what will happen if you are successful, but also what happens if you fail

That's true, but there's no real way to counteract the chance of failure.

To elaborate, consider this: shooting a unit and attacking it in CC both involve an element of chance. However, there are many ways to make sure that the odds are in your favour - you can use large amounts of firepower, or units with many models/attacks, in order to minimise the effect of random chance. For example, if you fire 2 shots, even with decent BS, it isn't hard to miss with both. However, if you're firing 20 shots, then it's likely at least osme of them will hit their mark.

With movement though, you just can't do that. Yes, you can try to get into a good position to favour a charge, whilst denying your opponent the charge, but that's still no gaurentee you'll get the charge off. Basically, you could make excellent strategical decisions, then have them crushed by rolling snake-eyes.

Consider this - in fantasy, some armies have no shooting to speak of - they have to assault. However, whilst shooting armies can play the numbers and throw out pleanty of shots, armies that rely on assaults have no such options. That's my problem - there's no way to mitigate the random effect - all you can do is throw the dice and hope for the best.

That's not tactics. You're allowed to premeasure everything, so how much skill is really involved in moving a unit into its average charge range, and hoping for the best?

With a known charge distance where you auto fail or auto make it, there are far fewer decision points to make within the process.

Generals should be allowed certainties. There's also a different type of skill in that 40k, unlike fantasy, doesn't allow distances to be premeasured. So you have to precisely judge the range from your unit to the enemy unit - especially if you plan to move into an exposed position in the movement phase, in preparation for the charge.

Now I know that there are counter points to the counter point, such as too much randomness negates any strategy, but I think there is some validaty to the argument that some random elements actually enhances the tacitcal element of the game.

I think though that you can have too much randomness in a game - certain aspects should remain consistant, and with fantasy I firmly believe that charging distance should have been one of them.

[Fangschrecken]

Like any real war you have to bring the right equipment for the right job, and that is what list building is for. You don't chage into a theater of war without meltaguns if you know there will be tanks and the reverse is true. List building should be very dependant on the local meta-game. If the local group is full of boot-heads then a list designed with mechanized in mind will suffer even if it is supposed to be the end all be all.

The table top tactics can make a huge difference and a very poorly managed GK will lose to a inefficient IG list.

Secondly I'd like to say that 40K is more of a hobby than a game for a significant portion of its players. You don't spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on SC2 or CS, and there is no converting, painting or modeling in those. i've known players who view 40K more as an art than a game, but they still play. In any rts the goal is to win and that's about it. 40K and Warhammer are much deeper than that on a personal level.

TL;DR it's a hobby not a game

[lanrak]

Hi folks.
Could we define the terms strategy and tactics first?

Strategy .
ALL the decision making done BEFORE the game starts.
Army list composition , mission chioce/assignment and deployment.

Tactics.
ALL the decisions made DURING THE GAME.
Player/element/units interaction IN the game.

40k requires a skill set that is particular to the game of 40k.There is plenty of skill required to be good at 40k .
But NOT much of this is transferable to other wargames.(In my 28 years wargaming experiance that is.)

40k has a heavier strategic bias than other games,and has lower tactical focus as a result.(There is only so much room in a rule set.)
As 40k has a heavy strategic bias, specific units /models to perform specific tasks.40k even uses the units in game function to define its force organisation chart.
(Probably because GW like to sell you lots of different minatures....)

Alot of misunderstanding is caused by people discussing strategic options in 40k and calling them tactica...

40k is fine for the demoghraphic it is developed for.

And there are plenty of other rule sets for the rest of us...

[samiens]

I always think using simple definitions is easiest, personally I lean towards the kind of terms I would use in business.

Strategy is the overall direction set. In 40k this is set both by your army choice and composition (the available resources), the mission being playe and the opposing army- so the strategy portion of the game to me is the overall view or plan of how I plan to win the game. (So my aim is to win the game by meeting either of the victory conditions- my strategy determines whichcondition to go for, the resources available etc). I deploy in accordance with my strategy so i consider this part strategic decision making.

My tactics are the decisions I make to fulfil the strategy I have set (so if halfway through the game i decide to take try to table my opponent as I can no longer win on objectives- that is a change of strategy- and I will likely use different tactics to achieve this new goal). As such every decision I make on the table after deployment is likely a tactical one- and chances are that to win I will need to align my tactics to a clear, and effective, strategy.

40K is mechanically simple, decisions are made in the knowledge of the likely capability of enemy units, the victory conditions and the potential choices either side can make. The tactica and strategic depth comes from the need to achieve the same victory conditions as your oppnent- so in disrupting their plans while executing your own. Fundamentally, in the absence of things like effective suppression mechanics this is a difficult thing to do- which makes the game tactical, as does the need to mitigate poor dice rolls and capitalise on good ones.

Its this tension and difficulty that makes 40k interesting. I tend to find players who say it has no tactics really haven't grasped the wide variety of strategies you can employ, particularly as they aren't signposted with mechanical advantages. Many players with good lists focus too much on destruction of the enemy- often on the mistaken basis that you can't win unless you do so.
Sent from my 7 Mozart using Board Express

[lanrak]

Hi samiens,
I agree broadly with your definitions, but can I just quote you.
''I tend to find players who say it has no TACTICS really haven't grasped the wide variety of STRATEGIES you can employ, particularly as they aren't signposted with mechanical advantages.''
(Emphasis mine.)
You see how you defend 40k against not having much 'tactical depth' by quoting how much 'strategy' it has...
The amount of times 40k player list strategic chioces/options when defending the comparitive lack of tactical depth of 40k is quite frequent.(You are not alone.)

Using my definitions of stategy and tactics.

40k IS tacticaly more shallow than other games , because it is more strategicaly focused!
This is not saying 40k has no depth or skill requirement because it obviuosly HAS.

And 40k is written for a specific demoghraphic that prefer this heavier strategic loading.

Gamers that prefer more tactical loading in thier games have a wide variety of other games to choose from.
(GW specialist games have a good range that are free to down load.Epic Armageddon seems to provide a rule set for the 40k universe that is much more in synergy with the background.And offers more tactical loading than 40k ,whle not having as complicated rules set.We prefer it to Apocalypse as the smaller scale take up less table space.
Abd there are lots of other companies producing minatures and minature game rules too!)

The reason 40k tactics are very rarley discussed is because they are very straight forward and self aparent.(As they are with most games, target selection, distraction /decoy,mass effect, etc.)

Its much easier to talk about strategic options/chioces as they are concrete , Eg the best way to deal with Unit X, the most cost effective load out for unit Y,the 'killer combo' in list Z.

[samiens]

Hi lanrak,

Hoisted by my own petard! Although you have made me think what I meant when I wrote that- and actually I both kind of agree and disagree with you. I'll say up front that by any definition 40k is likely more strategic than tactical- and though other games can be more tactically loaded, the reality of dice games is that normally one option is more likely to bring success than another so it is strategy that defines decision making in most games- and indeed the precision of execution not tactical choice is the seond most important factor.

This is where I don't like the definition of tactics as 'decisions made in the game' because to me that makes all games highly tactical because all games involve in game decisions. 40K requires in game decisions- but I find these are often strategic decisions- decisions about the direction of the whole game, not more 'micro' level choices.

So basically I agree with you when we use my definition of strategy and tactics, but still somewhat disagree when we use yours!

But ultimately, I find 40k requires decisions to be made in game and pre-game and these two factors, plus dice, decide who wins- the semantic debate, while interesting, is a bit of a tangent!

[itcamefromthedeep]

I highly disagree about 40k being tactics-less. If for only the reason that all the worst 40k players I've ever met have typically been native fantasy players who came into 40k as their secondary game. They always play 40k like it is fantasy, and then when they get smashed or lose some critical unit they blame it on a tactical gameplay element that isn't there. "See, that could never happen in fantasy," I always hear.

As a fantasy player I definitely do not play 40k as if it were Fantasy. I resent the implication about fantasy players.

I also play LoTR and indeed prefer it. In my experience it's more tactically challenging.

I was actually trying to avoid any and all chess comparisons as it is not in the same league as chess; but rather finds other ways of broaching similar concepts. If I say "it has these elements of chess" I'd get flamed for comparing the two.

Sorry, you can't win on that point. You've brought up chess, so you'll get criticized.

Chess is a game of memorized gambits (your task is to recognize the gambit and recall the counter). That makes it a remarkably poor representation of human conflict even compared to a game as mechanically simple as poker. You pick it up to learn how to plan steps ahead and how to sacrifice pieces. The game as little to teach beyond that. Everything beyond that has little-to-no applicability beyond games of chess. You can tell because whenever you hear about people speaking about a situation in terms of chess it's always in reference to either thinking steps ahead or sacrificing pieces for some gain.

40k can teach you how to mitigate bad luck and take advantage of good luck. It teaches how to handle asymmetrical force composition and strength. It also teaches you how to think turns ahead. It's relatively poor for teaching you how to sacrifice pieces, but being able to recognize how that works will definitely make you a better 40k player. Incidentally it also teaches sportsmanship and certain artistic skills but that's not really a result of good game mechanics.

There are more lessons to learn from 40k in terms of tactics and strategy applicable outside of the game then there are from chess. I think that makes it a better game for teaching strategy and tactics.

I've never once played a game of 40k in close to 8 years that was anything of the sort. The foregone conclusion battle is rare, and in my experience is only a sign of incompetent play.

I had a game like this the other day because I wasn't paying enough attention to terrain setup. To the untrained eye it looked pretty fair (my opponent tried to make it fair). I got about halfway through my first turn before I realized it was a shooting gallery.

Moving two terrain pieces would probably have turned a resounding defeat into a convincing victory (like all the other times I played against this opponent).

Terrain deployment is one of the most important and often-overlooked aspects of the game. It really is critically important to the outcome of the game and how much fun players will have going through the exercise.

[Reivax26]

He who knows the strengths and weaknesses of his army and doesn't know his enemies will be Victorius 50% of the time.
He who knows the strengths and weaknesses of his army and knows the strengths and weaknesses of his opponent is almost certain to win.
He who doesn't know his strengths and weaknessess or those of his enemy is guaranteed defeat.

See, Sun Tzu does translate to 40k. I have always been a student of the game and to be competitive, especially in tournament play, you have to know what every army in this game is capable of. You never know when someone is going to show up with an army that isn't considered in the "Elite" category of armies and is setup in a way that you aren't used to. If you want proof look at the results of the LA Ard Boyz tournament from last year. A Daemons player took first with a list that didn't have the first Greater Daemon in it. According to the so called experts on this site and in a lot of the other Forums on the web that shouldn't even be possible but it happened anyway didn't it. There are a lot of armies that can catch people with their pants down.

Imagine you are playing in a Sieze Ground mission and you are Mech Blood Angels setup to be all about shooting. Your opponent whips out a true "Sea of Green" Ork army. Well, didn't your day just get interesting. Your twin-plasma las cannon turrets on all your Razorbacks now effectively mean less than crap. Good luck taking an objective with your 5 man assault squad.

[SideshowLucifer]

Which goes back to a skill which no one has debated is necessary in 40k, list building, which most certainly is a strategy, although I feel the only real one in the game.

[de Selby]

When it comes to 40k I think there is enough strategy/tactics that the game is commonly decided by 'who made most mistakes'. I don't mean forgetting the rules (although I do that too), I mean failing to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the game and your opponent. Sometimes games are decided in the purchasing phase, or by luck, but generally I have to think about what I'm doing.

Chess is a game of memorized gambits (your task is to recognize the gambit and recall the counter). That makes it a remarkably poor representation of human conflict even compared to a game as mechanically simple as poker. You pick it up to learn how to plan steps ahead and how to sacrifice pieces. The game as little to teach beyond that. Everything beyond that has little-to-no applicability beyond games of chess

Honestly this is not what chess is. I don't think you have been listening to people who actually play chess at a high level. I'm not even very good at chess but I know that chess strategy is largely about opening up and controlling space. Memorisation (particularly of the possible openings) and explicitly envisioning future combinations are necessary in chess but this is not how chess masters win games. Since computers are vastly better at this aspect of the game they can now win Chess by brute force, being better at memorisation and enumerating possibilities; but humans can't do this so they have always had to play strategically/tactically to be any good.

You can tell because whenever you hear about people speaking about a situation in terms of chess it's always in reference to either thinking steps ahead or sacrificing pieces for some gain.

'Thinking ahead' and 'sacrificing for gain' are such broad concepts that they do indeed cover some of what chess is. But 'recognising the gambit and recalling the counter' is not it at all.

[samiens]

So, to follow your logic the person with the best list will always win, no matter how they use it? I think most people would disagree with you there.

If nothing else, inch perfect placement is a highly valuable skill that opens up a range of tactics (like baiting and kiting) that allows a strategy of non-engagement that allows a less statistically effective force to beat a more efficient one as they bring their force to bear when their opponent cannot, while retaining enough troops to take objectives.

So, an example of a 'real' skill, a defined tactic that helps achieve a game winning strategy. Voila!

[blurrymadness]

Honestly this is not what chess is. I don't think you have been listening to people who actually play chess at a high level. I'm not even very good at chess but I know that chess strategy is largely about opening up and controlling space. Memorisation (particularly of the possible openings) and explicitly envisioning future combinations are necessary in chess but this is not how chess masters win games. Since computers are vastly better at this aspect of the game they can now win Chess by brute force, being better at memorisation and enumerating possibilities; but humans can't do this so they have always had to play strategically/tactically to be any good.

First, I think this *is* what chess is. Maybe not the memorization as an explicit task, but as an implicit one. When you see them move King's pawn up two, you know they go one of a few ways if they have any plan at all: They move out Knights or Pawns to protect him and build a defense/grab territory, they go for a quick aggression with the Queen and Bishop, or possibly another combination or two. The point is, when you start seeing what certain moves imply you start playing to several moves ahead even though you don't envision them.

Second, don't bring computers into this. Computers don't work like people nor do they memorize anything. The brute force approach is close but simplifies the whole gambit of tricks used to make that brute force actually elegant force (as someone who's programmed a ChessAi with instruction from a PHD in search based AIs; yes as a college project.) The fact is the computer memorizes nothing and everything. You literally build tables that make a computer play perfectly *no matter what the opponent does* until X turns in, depending how long you want to computer said results.

After that you're looking to play minigames where the computer is trying to "win the game by points" in X turns ahead. The computer is actually playing hundreds of thousands of minigames to figure out what next move implies the best set of next moves assuming it's opponent also picks the best moves (however defined by the programmer.) The AI may have all sorts of tweaks to move up pawns aggressively, favor killing certain pieces, favor taking up board space, favor defensive actions, or some combination of any or all of the above (or more.) To say it's merely brute force is like saying a cars merely run on wheels; they're one part (while very important) in a series of important parts.





[rant]
I'm of the mind that a lot of 4th ed vehicle rules are necessary and that if 6th doesn't go 80% of that extreme we're in for another several years of this mediocre environment. Simply put, bodies are more fun than tanks, and tanks that only cost 2 marines worth should be *******' easy to kill; *as easy to kill as two marines[*] Similarly a landraider should go down if you pile 20 missiles or so on it. It just makes sense. AP1 should go backwards in effectiveness while everything else should be bumped. TLOS needs a revision or a scrap. transports need to be somewhat deadly as they've come way down in price and become the bane of the game. It's now a game of transport wars and armies that have to expend good slots to get them (Orks being a big culprit) and armies that have trouble opening them (Nids and Orks in particular) eat it hard.

The biggest issue with transports are the rules involving combat. IMO to make things like Nids, Zerkers, Orks and such more viable is to make assaulting the unit inside the transport possible if you assault and destroy the transport. I.E. the models that exit are now in combat with your unit and it'll continue next turn. there are myriad problems with the rules that make transports the gods of the game to the point where units are literally taken to get transports instead of transports being taken to help units (most of the time.) Razorbacks, Falcons, and Wave Serpents are the first that come to mind. Transports have gone from TRANSPORTING to being shields or hyper-effective shooting platforms. Vehicles need a kick in the pants. Lash+Oblit spam didn't help the meta when it started either. Being stuck taking transports to block that and then codices getting successively more awesome transports every codex means GW literalyl can't put enough transport killing power on the ground (just look at GK) to keep people from taking them. S6 40 point (or whatever) Razors, S7 Assault cannons EVERYWHERE, 4 shot S8 TLed BS4 weapons STILL not being enough to keep people from spamming them.

The only hope for the game on the front of getting a diverse meta is a severe revision where glances kill, where occupants take severe damage, and where vehicles die per their cost. 4th ed mixed with 5th is my vote for 6th, with the addition of some 2nd ed goodness to add options and spice up the game.

[/rant]



Really, after thinking on this over the duration of the topic I've come up with a counter-argument to myself, and that's that so many tricks are being given to be everywhere; the board almost needs to grow for the game to get better. Flying units, reliable Outflanking, super-accurate deepstrikes; these are things that are killing tactics as strategy can rule the day when everything is placed without risk and gets alpha-strike capability. 8x6 almost seems appropriate for the way the game works at the moment.

[samiens]

Ive long thought that, at least 2000+ point gameswould benefit from.being on a 6x6 table- but its not that practical from a model handling perspective, or a space one for that matter.

To be honest though, strategies and tactics come and go- sooner or later someone will find a reliable way of beating alpha strikes (reserves arguably already reduces this strategy considerably), just as outflanking is easy to deal with nowadays and alpha striking will fall put of favour.

The vehicle rules are counter-intuitive, operate in a very cumbersome manner and are, frankly not very good. The damage chart manipulates probability in an awkward way and, with the elimiation of small arms fire, make vehicles both unreliable but so potentially effective that oys a no brainer- plus the limited abilities of most vehices makes game play seem more samey- which again gives the illusion of a lack of tactics.

[Fithos]

First, I think this *is* what chess is. Maybe not the memorization as an explicit task, but as an implicit one. When you see them move King's pawn up two, you know they go one of a few ways if they have any plan at all: They move out Knights or Pawns to protect him and build a defense/grab territory, they go for a quick aggression with the Queen and Bishop, or possibly another combination or two. The point is, when you start seeing what certain moves imply you start playing to several moves ahead even though you don't envision them.

I may be misinterpreting your post, but how is this different from any other strategy game? I mean, when I see someone show up to a 40k game with longfangs i can bet they will be hugging cover in a backfield, or if they show up with THSS in a landraider, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what they will probably be doing, but that's assuming that I have encountered them before and understand what they do, much the same as when I see my opponent open with his queens pawn up 2 and I think, 'oh my this person is playing the french defense, I have seen this before and know a good counter."

In contrast to 40k however, when the person then goes on to play a queens gambit on you, well don't you feel silly... Point is that chess is generally not a game of looking at trees of outcome* because after just the first 3 moves the possible number of board positions is over 9 million, and unless you managed to get your hands on a couple qubits you aren't going to get even close to that level analysis.

*note: calculating probability of moves is a very necessary skill I will admit, but most people won't be doing that until well past the opening, and usually only as they are contemplating trades to make sure they come out on top.

My real thoughts on the subject are that people who say there is no tactical thought don't really consider why they are making their in game choices.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

Part of the reason that strategy/list building is so important in 40k is that there is a huge disparity between the quality of unit choices available. Most codeces are full of crap choices. I think that this is due to the fact that the 40k ruleset creates an environment (the meta) in which the parameters for what makes a good unit inevitably become very narrow so most choices are ultimately excluded from the consideration of competitive players.

Herein lies the problem. 40k is strategic but by this stage in a game edition's cycle it doesn't seem very strategic (or at least the scope for strategic innovation seems very limited) because most players have settled on the idea of what works and what doesn't. The same lists crop up time and time again.

Therefore tactics are crucial in an environment where effective strategies are well established and everyone is using them because effectively strategy has almost been removed as a variable. Conversely, if you send the top 40k player in the world to a tournament with a truly inept list then he will clearly struggle because he will lack the tools to use his skills effectively. It would be like asking Donatello and an average sculptor to both produce a work but giving the latter a full set of sculpting tools and asking the former to use a spoon. Without the correct tools skill is nullified.