40k does not have enough strategic depth to compete with the likes of warmachine, DBA, warhammer fantasy or magic the gathering.

Agree/disagree?

I'd say so. Games between two vets usually boils down to whose army list has the upperhand in the match-up and dice rolls. Good tactics and innovative play are not as much of a factor as they should be given the limitations of the gaming system. What do you think?

A game between two vets ends up like that, but how exactly can you define a vet if there was no strategy?

Actually I can see what you're saying, it's "in sight limited", chess on the other hand can sure be limited because there are a limited number of moves, but I would say you can't get there, so it's not "in sight limited".

But a vet can easily beat a beginner with a weaker list using superior tactics.

So yes, 40k is strategically limited, but you don't become a vet overnight.

40k is sadly not a game of strategy. manoeuvring isn't as critical as in other GW game systems (wfb, battle fleet gothic) and is more about getting line of sight.

What 40k does have however is tactics. People mistake 40k for an army game. Its not. It’s more about squad level combat on a battle on a significantly larger scale across an entire planet.

The rules are geared towards this.

Wfb and gothic however is true battle level combat. Armies are not spread over hundreds of miles, they are focused on a single battlefield (battle space) and as such strategy plays a bigger role than the tactic centric 40k

That’s my two pence

I think 40k can have strategy in it, unfortunately it's also very much at the whim of the dice as well - you don't need to use strategy to win - but it's fun when you do!

I can't really comment on the comparison to BFG / WFB etc as I don't really play them though so feel free to ignore me as one of the unenlightened!

I can't really comment on the question as I don't play 40K but I will say that I'm not sure it really warranted a poll with "yes", "no" and "no opinion" options. I have set this poll to close in a week:)

Of course its strategically limited. Its a game. Try and find something that isn't, when you get right down to it. :)

And if at the end of it all, you don't find it's enough, try your hand at paintball skirmish or something! But even that's strategically limited, too...


Its a game, and there are limits to every game. But its what you can do within those limits that makes or breaks it, and there is such a massive variety of things you can do with this game. Mastered one list? Try another! Try a handicap. Try a different army! :)

And then there's painting/modelling!

Of course its strategically limited. Its a game. Try and find something that isn't, when you get right down to it. :)

Its a game, and there are limits to every game.

Maybe the solution then is to try and TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!! Muahahahaha! :w00t:

I'd say it is pretty limited when it comes to strategy. In my opinion most of the strategy in the games comes from army selection. Actual 'in-game' tactics basically just boils down to target priority.

I don't know that there was ever a question about it. What 40k does provide is fun. It's a game with cool miniatures. I got into to 40k after playing fantasy because it provided a way to have fun with some friends where I didn't have to think as hard and didn't take as long as a normal level fantasy game.

What 40k does have however is tactics. People mistake 40k for an army game. Its not. It’s more about squad level combat on a battle on a significantly larger scale across an entire planet.

The rules are geared towards this.
Heed Arklite's words, for he is wise... for a dwarf player.

Arklite's post sums it up for me. I find 40k to be less determined by strategy, and therefore favor FB (though I do enjoy blowing stuff up from time to time). This isn't to say that 40k is limited, just that the tricks and techniques used are different.

I think strategy/tactics in 40K boils down to being in range to shoot/assault and having LOS. Aside from that, it's just listhammer and lucky dice. I think I have a more in depth strategy to brush my teeth.

Like any game, the challenge of the game scales with the quality of your opponent. A game between two highly experienced and skilled players takes on far more interesting dimensions than that between two relative newbies. This is as true for 40K as it is for Fantasy as it is for any game that relies on some measure of strategic/tactical thought.

Is 40K as "deep" a game as, say, Fantasy? I wouldn't say so, but that doesn't make it any less fun to play. In fact, I'm glad 40K doesn't play like Fantasy, because that gives me two different -- if superficially similar -- games to enjoy.

The analogy I draw in my head is:
40K is to Fantasy as backgammon is to chess.

There are strategies that you can follow in backgammon, even if on the surface it looks like it's merely a dice-off. Quality backgammon players will defeat poor backgammon players, almost no matter what dice results come up from turn to turn. However, the strategic depth of backgammon is not as diverse nor as deep as it is for chess. Similarly, 40K has strategic elements that can be learned, developed, studied, employed, and improved upon. There is a difference between a good and a poor 40K player, and it has nothing to do with dice, luck, or list-building. But 40K doesn't have the range or depth available in other games like Fantasy.

I didn't get to finish. I'd say it has more strategy than Risk, but like I said before, that is not the point. The overall attraction for me is the models, the speed of the game (should be done in 1.5hours) and it's simplicity compared to fantasy. Some nights I don't feel like strategy or don't have time to go to our fantasy night that week, so I'll pop in on the 40k night to see friends and play.

40k has strategy. And strategy is determined by your army list, even in Warhammer (A flanking strategy relies on taking fast units, for example). Warhammer armies can even has less strategic depth than some 40k armies.

The problem is that people see 40k and fantasy as mutually exclusive when it comes to such concepts. A flanking attack in 40k can be just as devastating as a flanking attack in warhammer. In both games, the army being flanked will often have tremendous difficulty dealing with - the attacker is bringing more units to bear on a narrow frontage.

Units have trouble in warhammer because of being in formation, units in 40k have trouble since moving reduces their effectiveness at range.

Both games are about getting your units into a more favourable position than those of your enemy. The strategy is how you do that. But each game is trying to simulate something different - it's a bit like saying Agincourt was a better battle than El Alamein, you can't compare them directly since the methods used were very different.

Fundamental strategies don't change. A pincer movement is valid in Napoleonic era warfare (which in many ways warhammer is) just as much as it is WWII warfare (which 40k is closest to).

The only difference is implementation.

Flanking and pincer movements are less important in 40K though as they don't really have any game effect.

Flanking and pincer movements are less important in 40K though as they don't really have any game effect.

Eh?

If three quarters of your own army flanks the enemy, who can only really fight at full effect with a quarter of their own army as a result, isn't that having an effect? Hit the enemy vehicles in the side and you have an advantage.

In non-quarters missions, whatever terrain is in the enemy deployment zone will likely aid a flanking strategy since any shooting units further down the line won't be able to see. Controlling LoS in 40k is vital to any strategy.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/LordRork/Eldar/Eldarsetupcounter.jpg
This is my old Eldar set up. If the enemy attacks the guardians in the centre, they set themselves up for a pincer movement from the less valuable, but devastating, wraithlords (the centre units are black guardians, an avatar and a seer council). This has aspects of a pincer movement against assault based units.

40k is harder for strategy because your enemy infantry moves at the same speed as your own. In that regard you have to make your strategy as effective as possible by taking the units that suit it most.

I see what you're saying, although I think a lot of your flanking tactic is mainly due to initial placement rather than any great amount of manouvering during the game. Also, what you've said is more to do with getting a greater concentration of your army against a smaller concentration of your opponents army rather than any real benefit from physically flanking them; it's just getting more of your troops than he has in a particular area of the board.

ANd true, whilst in your Eldar example you've got the wraithlords carrying out a pincer movement, it doesn't actually matter that they're technically charging into combat in a pincer formation. At least, not as far as I can see anyway.

Mind you, I'm not particualry knocking 40K for what I see as a lack of strategic decisions. Like others have said, I play 40K as a blast-fest where I don't have to think too much about strategy (hmmm, maybe that's why I keep losing!?)

I see what you're saying, although I think a lot of your flanking tactic is mainly due to initial placement rather than any great amount of manouvering during the game. Also, what you've said is more to do with getting a greater concentration of your army against a smaller concentration of your opponents army rather than any real benefit from physically flanking them; it's just getting more of your troops than he has in a particular area of the board.


But that's how modern warfare works. To me, you're seeing it in terms of denying rank bonus than the actual strategic benefit of flanking. Military doctrine tends to revolve around more of your men fighting less of the enemy (I think the British army likes to have a ratio of 6 soldiers to every 1 defender when attacking), and that's no different in 40k.

40k does flanking - if your assault units hit the 'side' of an enemy unit, they'll likely receive no attacks back since they've killed anyone in the kill zone (Much like 'crossing the T' in naval warfare). That would likely not be the case if they had attacked head on, and probably sustained further casualties. Flanking in warhammer usually means a greater concentration of troops in one place - the flankers denying rank bonus and the hard hitters generating the kills.

Warhammer relies on a good deployment - if you put your fast flankers in the middle of your battle line, a flanking strategy isn't likely to work. Deployment is part of the strategy, it's the base from which it starts - your strategy is what you are trying to do from the very start of the game. Your deployment, your movement and your priority targets are part of the grand strategy - that is true of both warhammer and 40k.


ANd true, whilst in your Eldar example you've got the wraithlords carrying out a pincer movement, it doesn't actually matter that they're technically charging into combat in a pincer formation. At least, not as far as I can see anyway.


It does matter. You've got the enemy into a specific position, and used that to overwhelm them. While there is no specific bonus with flanking, The Eldar will be counter-attacking with powerful assault units while the enemy is bogged down with the expendable guardians and resilient seer council.

You've turned what was a superior enemy position into an inferior one.

40k is limited strategically but I like it anyway. It's true that list choices matter as much or more than how one plays and the potential for abuse--lists/tactics that have no realistic counter--can be a pain. Still, the backstories, conversion potential and the aforementioned more relaxed pace are all very attractive and make it fun regardless. Then again, it looks like the stories and conversions are going out with the Chaos revision.... Anyway, it's easier to make the army of my imagination in 40k than, say, Warmachine, and that is what matters most to me.

40k does flanking - if your assault units hit the 'side' of an enemy unit, they'll likely receive no attacks back since they've killed anyone in the kill zone (Much like 'crossing the T' in naval warfare). That would likely not be the case if they had attacked head on, and probably sustained further casualties. Flanking in warhammer usually means a greater concentration of troops in one place - the flankers denying rank bonus and the hard hitters generating the kills.


OOO
OOO <---These are nine space marines
OOO



^
-|- <---This is a Dark Eldar Raider
^


--------------------------------------------------------

I fly the Dark Eldar Raider to the space marines 'flank' - like this:


OOO ^
OOO -|-
OOO ^

---------------------------------------------------------

Can the space marines kill the raider? Yep. Because they have no 'flanks'. The only absolute protection the Raider has from the marines is whether or not it's within range to be shot/assaulted, or if it's in LOS or not.

The only thing a speed and manueverability advantage in this game allows you to do is to exploit these two basic articles; range and LOS - thus inherently limiting tactics and strategy of the game.

Now think of this again, only replace space marines with 20 Chaos Warriors (which are about the equivalent in Fantasy), vs six Wood Elf Glade Riders. The Chaos Warriors will never be able to catch the Glade Riders on their own. Their speed and manueverability advantage allows them to move out of charge arcs, fade away easily while still being able to harass the enemy and assault if need be. Also, their tactical options are extended with abilities such as: March Blocking, Bait n' Flee, Redirection, Hit and run on characters plus an actual benefit to getting behind the enemy before charging them (negate ranks, +2 combat res due to rear charge).

When you say that assaulting from a 'flank' in 40K can disrupt the enemy because he can't get many attacks back, first off, this is assuming he's in some form of line formation, which isn't a necessity to maximize shooting ability - so there's no real requirement for it other than its asthetic value, and secondly, this is just another example of limiting range, which is one of the two basic articles that strategy in 40K revolves around.

Can the space marines kill the raider? Yep. Because they have no 'flanks'. The only absolute protection the Raider has from the marines is whether or not it's within range to be shot/assaulted, or if it's in LOS or not.

The only thing a speed and manueverability advantage in this game allows you to do is to exploit these two basic articles; range and LOS - thus inherently limiting tactics and strategy of the game.


I'd say it limits tactics, not strategy. Any strategy you can use in warhammer can be used in 40k, but the tactics in warhammer do not necessarily extend to 40k (due to the skirmish formation) as your glade rider/chaos warrior example shows. It has a knock on effect on strategy, but it does not eliminate it.


When you say that assaulting from a 'flank' in 40K can disrupt the enemy because he can't get many attacks back, first off, this is assuming he's in some form of line formation, which isn't a necessity to maximize shooting ability - so there's no real requirement for it other than its asthetic value, and secondly, this is just another example of limiting range, which is one of the two basic articles that strategy in 40K revolves around.

Most players don't deploy in box formations for tactical reasons. They'll deploy in 1-2 lines - the box formation means that blast and ordnance weapons gets a lot more hits against the unit. Unit formation is a tactic in itself. So while not universal, it's not an entirely unreasonable assumption.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges. The two games are fundamentally different, employing different tactics and methods.

Can the space marines kill the raider? Yep. Because they have no 'flanks'. The only absolute protection the Raider has from the marines is whether or not it's within range to be shot/assaulted, or if it's in LOS or not.

The only thing a speed and maneuverability advantage in this game allows you to do is to exploit these two basic articles; range and LOS - thus inherently limiting tactics and strategy of the game.

Now think of this again, only replace space marines with 20 Chaos Warriors (which are about the equivalent in Fantasy), vs six Wood Elf Glade Riders. The Chaos Warriors will never be able to catch the Glade Riders on their own. Their speed and maneuverability advantage allows them to move out of charge arcs, fade away easily while still being able to harass the enemy and assault if need be. Also, their tactical options are extended with abilities such as: March Blocking, Bait n' Flee, Redirection, Hit and run on characters plus an actual benefit to getting behind the enemy before charging them (negate ranks, +2 combat res due to rear charge).

But don't forget the Marines have something the Chaos Warriors don't: .75 caliber self propelled missile firing guns of doom. That idea goes for just about every other unit in 40k. Massive amounts of accurate projectile weapons change the tactics that can be effectively used. The Marines don't need to catch the, let's say, Jetbike riders, they can just shoot them to pieces.

I'm not usually one to take sides, but on this issue I find my opinions completely aligned with Rork.

From what I have read, I get the feeling that those posters who believe flanking, specifically, yields no benefit in WH40k because there are no bonuses to dice rolls for flanking. If there was a rule giving a flanking unit +1 kajigger for flanking with a wotchajiggy, these people would probably be appeased.

I don't think these players have yet investigated or used good manoeuvres. I would enjoy facing these players and showing them what good tactics can do!

The fact of the matter is that once you hit the table, WH40k (as has been stated before) is a tactical game (not strategic). A campaign map (like WH Mighty Empires) is the strategic level that we simply don't have. Strategy in WH40k would include:

Choosing the battlefield
Choosing the mission
"Digging in" (i.e. assuming defensive positions)
Relating the outcome of battles to others
Reserves* (maybe, depends on your point of view)


Any good commander (anyone read 'Ender's Game'?) understands that, lacking omnipresence, they cannot tactically manage all elements of an army at full efficiency. This is why Generals have Lieutenants, Lieutenants have Sergeants, Sergeants have Squad Leaders. At the top of the chain (Generals) they are considering strategy. At each subsequent element, some strategy drops off and some tactics come in - to the point where a squad leader has a set of objectives and may not have any idea 'why' they are doing it.

Now, on to the tactical element. Tactics relate to the movement and fire (and assault) of both individual squads and their supporting elements. Generally speaking, the objectives of a tactical element (i.e., a WH40k army) and the make-up of the tactical element (i.e., the units in your army) have been determined by your superiors. To succeed in your mission, you must now use tactics, since the time for strategy is gone.

WH40k's tactical requirement is actually quite deep for an interesting reason - chance. Dice can destroy your best laid plans - or your opponents. Because of this, you must be flexible - one of the most difficult facets of tactical combat. I like to think that people fall into levels of experience with tactics. I'll do my best to relate these to WH40k:

Level 1: Target Priority - these commanders know which units to kill.
Level 2: Enfilade Positions / Line of Sight - these commanders take care in setting up LoS and focusing on dangerous elements of the enemy.
Level 3: Match-up Efficacy - these commanders know which units should fire on the opponents. When they see rock, they throw paper.
Level 4: Support - the commander never leaves a unit unsupported. Every unit in the army has support - whether that is fire support (from an Assault-Cannon Dread), movement support (from a transport) or assault support (from a nearby unit).
Level 5: Defilade Positions / Concealment - these commanders use LoS and terrain against the enemy. An example would be a Devestator squad that is positioned to attack a vehicle, but is blocked from the assault elements of the enemy.
Level 6: Manoeuvres - the commander understands and utilises movement. This might be to flank an army (which doesn't mean attacking a unit from the side! this could be a fast transport manoeuvring behind the main part of an army to attack the heavy weapons in the back!!!), capture an objective or (the most amazing) to close down the opponent into a killzone.
Level 7: Flexibility - this commander is able to dynamically respond to new threats, and complete a decision cycle quickly, regardless of the match-up. Since this commander's units are all well-supported, he can respond to new threats without losing considerable resources (time, effort, men, firepower). Please note: this could mean moving from the threat, killing the threat or planning a counter-move once the threat is realised.
Level 8: Initiative - this commander understands the momentum of the battle and uses tools at his disposal to ensure that it is in his favour. Commanders can gain the initiative in many ways - surprise, destroying the right units (most newbies-intermediate commanders built their army around a 'core'. Take out this core, they will become flustered) or sometimes just lucky rolls. More importantly the commander knows how to use the initiative/momentum when he has it, by pushing the opponent into risky moves, etc.
Level 9: ??? - I don't know. I will readily admit that I'm only level 8 on my best day (usually 6). I would love for someone to mentor me beyond my current abilities!!!

If you think WH40k lacks tactics, my guess is you're level 1-3. Hopefully this might open your eyes to some of the depth in the game!

Wow, that was long. Sorry if I bored you all to death!

Interestingly.. when trying to come out with a rule set which improves the tactical nature of 40K, upon reflection as to what I'd added changed, they almost all came from Epic and Fantasy battle.

So why not just play Epic of Fantasy battle?

Simple. The fluff of 40K is simply outstanding. The fluff of warhammer is nice, but in 40K it's dynamic. Secondly, the scale is perhaps more appealing than epic.

So, I don't doubt for a second that 40K seems more about army lists and warhammer more about deployment and getting flank charges... but it's about having fun really and whatever works for you. Why compare?

Interestingly.. when trying to come out with a rule set which improves the tactical nature of 40K, upon reflection as to what I'd added changed, they almost all came from Epic and Fantasy battle.

So why not just play Epic of Fantasy battle?

Simple. The fluff of 40K is simply outstanding. The fluff of warhammer is nice, but in 40K it's dynamic. Secondly, the scale is perhaps more appealing than epic.

So, I don't doubt for a second that 40K seems more about army lists and warhammer more about deployment and getting flank charges... but it's about having fun really and whatever works for you. Why compare?

That is a very insightful point, though as far as I could see, the argument was whether WH40k had any depth. The tone of the original argument was that WH40k consisted of moving 6" forward, shooting, then assaulting. It was implied that there was essentially no tactical depth.

I am wrong consistently though (:)) so my apologies if I missed the point.

I think of a lot of your perception of the tactical depth of 40K probably comes from the type of army you play too (as well as the type of armies you normally play against I suppose).

I play Guard, which is traditionally pretty static. More often that not I'm playing against Space Marines (damn their eyes!) and the last thing I want to be doing is moving towards them (at least generally speaking). Because of the lack of movement on my part there's not a whole lot of manouvering my opponents can do other than charge towards me.

I think for 40K to have more stategic depth they would need to make the game much more mobile and reduce the effectiveness of close combat.

If you don't theory hammer too much.. as in, don't get your armies 100% tournament lean not a single wasted point.. *in short, take units you want to* and play between the 1500-1850 level, 40K can be very tactical.

Unsurprisingly, the ability to move quickly adds tactical edge.. but there are other factors too:

Deepstriking/Summoning.
Indirect fire.
Infiltration.
Deceiver's deceive ability.
Lictor/Mandrake deployment mode.
Scout moves.
Synapse.

So.. i guess it's a flaw in that you have to play certain point matches AND take a balanced list/reasonable opponent... but if you can do that, you can have a lot of fun.

The missions also can make it quite interesting tactically - although with custom missions, this can really make matters interesting.

I think it's safe to say that Fantasy battle has more depth.. but I think that it's depth which is simply more apparent in the sheer complexity of the rules and what not.

I'm a gonna go out on a limb and say, I think most people play/approach 40K incorrectly.

There are many factors in fantastical battle which make sure you have a reasonable army or move in certain ways.. in 40K the onus is a lot more on the player.

From what I can see, strategy in 40k boils down to these:

- effective army composition, prepared before the game.
- effective unit deployment, also prepared before the game.
- denying/gaining the charge.

The first two are what many, many people screw up on. Lots of games because such-and-such placed his Falcon somewhere that the enemy's devastators could blow it up, or similar circumstances. Or he didn't put his guys in cover. Or he didn't give himself enough time to get to the objective.

The charge in 40k is incredibly important, since it can blunt the edge of assault armies if you deny it to them by denying them attacks (and, possibly, Furious Charge) and it doubles the potential of the bog-standard unit by doubling their attacks. Since there's no charge arc in 40k as they have in Fantasy, charging is a lot easier, so the challenge is, basically, a judgment call on whether or not you're 6'' away at the end of your movement phase.

So on the subject of tactics and strategy 40k is clearly lacking. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing; the reason why tactics are less effective in 40k is because 40k is far more freeform and less restricted. With no rules like, say, charge arcs, the need to include charge arcs into a battle plan is gone. Thus all tactics based around charge arcs are gone. Without a Magic phase, all tactics based around the use of magic are simplified to "I block your power with my psychic hood" => luck of the dice.

Chess is really restricted, which is why good chess players are tactical geniuses, because they have to take all these restrictions into account. If pawns could attack forward, there'd be less strategy in using pawns. Now: Fact. I don't like chess too much. I prefer checkers, because checkers is more freeform and there's less need to think. You can just sit down and have fun. Chess I always end up using my brain, which is either soothing to the ego if you win or devastating to self-esteem if you lose. So checkers is generally more fun. In the same way, I prefer playing Cheat to poker because I can never remember the myriad rules of poker, and prefer the simple and hearteningly hit-and-miss rules of Cheat.

The funnest game I ever played, hands-down, was built by a friend of mine when he was 8 and is called The Board Game. It is basically a game where, with a sufficient dice roll, one can do anything, including rob a bank with a Roman gladius whilst riding a shark. There are literally no restrictions whatsoever, and tactics boils down to how lucky and how imaginative you are. It is seriously the most fun you could ever have.

So while I certainly think 40k is strategically limited, I don't think it detracts from the fun of the game at all.

From what I can see, strategy in 40k boils down to these:

- effective army composition, prepared before the game.
- effective unit deployment, also prepared before the game.
- denying/gaining the charge.


Is that not also true in warhammer? Denying or gaining the charge in warhammer is particularly important for most cavalry units and infantry units that suffer if they go 2nd (i.e. those with low armour, great weapons or flails).

Both 40k and fantasy are about what, where and how. What you use, where you put it and how you use it. What differs is the meta-game - you can outmanoeuvre you opponent in both games, but the way you go about it and how it affects the enemy are different.

Consider artillery in 40k and fantasy. In both games you have to accept there will be long range units that will be difficult to get do which are devastating weapons (basilisks, cannons). On a tactical level, both games will have an approach to taking out such units - in 40k fast units or deep strikers will either get in under the minimum range or arrive without the possibility of being targeted; in warhammer, fast cavalry and flyers will use terrain to hide then get to a decent point to charge.

The general tactic is the same - you're using the need for LoS or a minimum against the artillery unit.

I've played some immensely difficult games of 40k in my time which easily challenge the skills of a warhammer general. There is a lot to 40k if you are prepared to use it.

All games based on a ruleset are limited...

40k might not have the deepest of tactics, but it have enough for me to be happy. :)

Seems to me that a lot of people are judging the 40K game system based on the fact that a few of the extant Codices have some extremely "broken" force composition options. Perhaps it is true that "listhammer" is a substantial part of the game at the ultra competitive level, but it still then becomes a tactical game between similar lists.

Doesn't anybody remember shooty skaven in the previous edition of WHFB? I roll dice, you take your army off the board. Did the fact that beardy players can list up forces that don't seem to take much 'skill' to win with make it a poor strategy game?

It is true that 40K is strategically straight forward. This is to be expected in a skirmish level game! Park my hard to kill troops on the objective and hope I last. Form up a gunline and prioritize targets. Use speed to harass from outside the enemy's engagement range. Strategy will be fairly direct because of the small scale of the forces involved. You simply don't have the resources for grand plans!

40K is much more about tactical decisions and risk management when making those decisions. Do I pull the casualty from base contact to protect against a sweeping advance and hope to lock them until help arrives? Or do I leave the model in base contact so my powerfist hits back but risk annihilation at the hands of a high I enemy? Properly managing the risk associated with those kinds of decisions is what makes the game more than 'range and LOS.' (which in and of itself is a risk management scenario when you approach it with more of a tactical mindset. What return fire am I willing to incur for a shot at a target of given priority?) Just don't confuse it for a tactical combat simulation. It's a tactical game with thoroughly abstract and arbitrary rules.

Also remember 40K as we know it is a very young game. It hasn't been around 20 years. 3rd Ed was a total rewrite from the ground up. As a 'game' it was a whole new system that happens to have the same backstory and characters.

In my opinion Warhammer is just as limited, as battles cannot be won in that game with shooting, in the end magic and c/c are the only ways to win in Warhammer eventually (shooting is just a way of turning c/c in your favour). However in 40k you can effectively win the battle without stabbing anyway (take Imperial Guard for example). In 40ks favour it has a much richer background story and entices much more people (again IG can be used to represent real armies, and there is a vast amount of ways to field each army). I used to be very into Warhammer until i found 40k and immediately defected to it lol

No i think both are just as balanced, perhaps you're just fighting the same people overand over again :p :shifty:

I'll show you dogs strategy! When you charge my Chosen and all your key characters are killed off before they can strike.. you'll realize it was a trap.

I think the real strategy (or tactics.. whatever. They are synonyms to me.) of 40k is partly deployment, partly just where you put your models. By that I mean, when you charge with an Independant Character and his retinue, which enemy models is he going to be engaged with? Will the casualties he inflicts limit the slaughter his retinue will cause? Are there particular enemies (hidden Powerfists) that can be eliminated with ease, if you were just in the right position?

Also, if firing on an enemy unit, which models can become casualties? Surely if you can only kill 1, it should be the Plasma Cannon, right? Coming in range of only exactly the models you want dead is a good move. A strategic move.

That's 40k strat to me. When you can completely neutralize the power of the enemy through clever deployment, movement, and manipulation of the rules regarding attackers and their possible defenders.

Warhammer 40k is often accused of being a game easily exploited by powerful lists, and broken armies. I'm gonna go ahead and say the opposite. Warhammer Fantasy is much more abusable.. it's just that people who are unfamiliar with the strategies of other games are quick to say they are not strategic. I'm guilty of this in regards to Fantasy; I think if you haven't played 40k strategically, it's no wonder you don't see the strategy in it.

Warhammer 40k is often accused of being a game easily exploited by powerful lists, and broken armies. I'm gonna go ahead and say the opposite. Warhammer Fantasy is much more abusable.. it's just that people who are unfamiliar with the strategies of other games are quick to say they are not strategic. I'm guilty of this in regards to Fantasy; I think if you haven't played 40k strategically, it's no wonder you don't see the strategy in it.

As a long-time player of both games, I completely agree.

Everyone has their preference between fantasy and 40k, and often this ends up becoming seeing one as superior as the other. Warhammer has its gun lines and magical apocalypses, 40k its artillery deaths and drop pods. Both are subject to extremes and dodgy playing.

I started as a warhammer player. In my mind, I still see myself as a warhammer player, despite the fact I play more 40k than fantasy these days (not out of choice). And for a time I hated the idea of 3rd ed 40k with a passion (being a "2nd ed halcyon days" kinda guy). Eventually I was dragged back into it, and played many good players.

But some people are fantasy players 40k, and 40k players playing fantasy. Some just need to put aside such notions and be a 40k player while playing 40k...

Last 4 posts are gutwrenchingly good.

I've decided to vote 'no' off the strength of these three. Bravo

... I mean four...

Tossing in for Magic the Gathering, which was mentioned in the first post. In terms of strategy and tactics Magic has 40k, Fantasy, Warmachine, etc all beat by a mile. Why? Well apparently there are over 8,400 cards. It's all just a matter of numbers and combinations. Full on Magic might be the most varied game I've ever played.

Tossing in for Magic the Gathering, which was mentioned in the first post. In terms of strategy and tactics Magic has 40k, Fantasy, Warmachine, etc all beat by a mile. Why? Well apparently there are over 8,400 cards. It's all just a matter of numbers and combinations. Full on Magic might be the most varied game I've ever played.

Oh man, I couldn't disagree more.

I used to play loads of magic the gathering, but after a while I realised it is all about who can make the most unbreakable deck, and then down to the luck of the draw. If you have a certain list, you will almost always play certain types of cards in a certain order, and perhaps with a little leeway made for your opponent's choices.

There was almost no strategy or tactics involved at all, beyond building your deck.

I mean, if you never managed to draw any mana supplying cards in the early stages of the game, there is no way to claw back from that, unless your opponent was completely useless. So how does that compare to tactics? You say 'take more mana in your deck', and I say 'thats not tactics, thats just deck building'.

And sure, you say there are a massive number of combinations. But i'm confused - how does that really affect strategy much, beyond list building? You say 'but we can design a deck with certain combinations in mind'. And I say 'again with the list building, and also with relying totally on luck that you have the right cards in your hand'.

Dont get me wrong - I know that both fantasy and 40k are heavily about list building also. Its just, that once gameplay begins, there is much more to the games than magic.


Although, my chief annoyance at magic was the fact that people with lots of money will almost always win - they could always use the best possible cards, allowing for the best possible combinations. This doesn't really happen as much in 40k or fantasy - an equal points value playing field will take care of that, allowing for tactics to really hold sway.


- Wow, I really went on a rant then eh? Sorry guys. And I don't have anything against magic - I still play it from time to time, and really enjoy it. I just dont believe it holds any kind of candle to warhammer, not in the tactics or strategic departments anyway.

Pick 100 decks across standard tournaments there are 10 different decks, 15 tops. That is, not counting slightly different card usages (swapping a second detritivore for a second hellkite in angelfire does not make it a different deck).

But I'd say 40k is still more strategically limited than magic.

One sugestion for those who think that a game (any game) is stragegicly limiting is to try out either a different army or a different way of playing that army. it forces you to think of new tactics to use and new ways to approach things that make the game retain it's challenge. For example, I used to run a skaven shooty army because it was, to me, the best way to kill other armies and win the game. I won all the freakin time. so I decided to stop using the guns and play with a more combat oriented force. it's harder and yet more rewarding due to the fact that I have to do more manuvering to win. The same thing is true of my IG, I'm switching from a gun line to a mechinized force to challenge myself and learn better strategies.

there's also the different senarios in the book to use. they will make you come up with new ways of using your army.

Oh man, I couldn't disagree more.

I used to play loads of magic the gathering, but after a while I realised it is all about who can make the most unbreakable deck, and then down to the luck of the draw. If you have a certain list, you will almost always play certain types of cards in a certain order, and perhaps with a little leeway made for your opponent's choices.

There was almost no strategy or tactics involved at all, beyond building your deck.

I mean, if you never managed to draw any mana supplying cards in the early stages of the game, there is no way to claw back from that, unless your opponent was completely useless. So how does that compare to tactics? You say 'take more mana in your deck', and I say 'thats not tactics, thats just deck building'.

And sure, you say there are a massive number of combinations. But i'm confused - how does that really affect strategy much, beyond list building? You say 'but we can design a deck with certain combinations in mind'. And I say 'again with the list building, and also with relying totally on luck that you have the right cards in your hand'.

Dont get me wrong - I know that both fantasy and 40k are heavily about list building also. Its just, that once gameplay begins, there is much more to the games than magic.


Although, my chief annoyance at magic was the fact that people with lots of money will almost always win - they could always use the best possible cards, allowing for the best possible combinations. This doesn't really happen as much in 40k or fantasy - an equal points value playing field will take care of that, allowing for tactics to really hold sway.


- Wow, I really went on a rant then eh? Sorry guys. And I don't have anything against magic - I still play it from time to time, and really enjoy it. I just dont believe it holds any kind of candle to warhammer, not in the tactics or strategic departments anyway.

Reading this makes me believe you have no experience in competitive magic the gathering. I can see where you are coming from if this is the case. There are also people who believe there is no strategy in poker.

There are professional magic the gathering players out there that earn a living playing the game of magic. There are tens of thousands of players competing in events worldwide, only about 200 or so of these people make it to the finals tables almost everytime. And this is due to the fact that magic unlike 40k is a skill based game.

If you and a professional player were given the exact same deck, he would beat you 9/10 times, 90/100 times, or 900/1000 times. You can't say the same thing about 40k, because skill doesn't matter when you get to the upper echelons of experience.

There is a wide variety of strategy and depth in magic that most beginners never get to experience. About 10 years ago I once played in a draft game with John Park, who in the mid 90s was ranked #1 in sealed deck play in North America. He had two creatures down on the table and I had nothing except land, no cards in my hand. I drew a card, the one card that could save me because I could kill both his creatures with that card if he attacked with both. I gave a slight sigh as to feint that I drew nothing. One John's turn he called out exactly what was in my hand due to my facial expression and attacked with one creature only. This is just a glimmer of the amount of depth and strategy availible in Magic the gathering. As someone who grew up in Toronto during the golden age of magic and went regularly to the nucleus competitive magic in Toronto (401 convenience) and as someone who regularly saw some of the best magic players duke it out every weekend (Eric tam, Gary Wise and others), I must say that you are wrong in your opinion of Magic the gathering.

If you guys want to continue your MTG debate it should probably go in another thread:)

Tossing in for Magic the Gathering, which was mentioned in the first post. In terms of strategy and tactics Magic has 40k, Fantasy, Warmachine, etc all beat by a mile. Why? Well apparently there are over 8,400 cards. It's all just a matter of numbers and combinations. Full on Magic might be the most varied game I've ever played.

Arooga! Arooga! Random warp fluctuations! Arooga!

When did MTG get thrown into the mixing pot? I though this was a warhammer v 40k thread? lol btw MTG can't compare to actually seing your forces on the battlefield.

*executes you for heresy*:shifty:

Reading this makes me believe you have no experience in competitive magic the gathering. I can see where you are coming from if this is the case. There are also people who believe there is no strategy in poker.

Heh, yeah, that first bit is true - but I do know that there's a fair bit of strategy in poker. I'm a poker junkie! :)

I also know, however, that there is more strategy involved in chess games than in poker. Its a different kind of strategy, but there's definitely more of it as well. Less random chance, more working with what you have, in a large number of moves, styles of play, forms of attac/defence, planning 10 moves ahead, etc...

I just feel its the same for magic the gathering vs warhammer.


But as Stonehambey has said, perhaps this is best for another thread.


Er...and sorry for making it look like i'm trying to have the last word.... Which I am!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (this is meant to be a maniacal laugh)....

.....no really, not my intention dude. :)

When did MTG get thrown into the mixing pot? I though this was a warhammer v 40k thread?

When was it even a warhammer vs. 40K thread?

This belief that there is little stategic/tactical depth to 40k has lead me to more victories then lucky dice rolls. I consistantly use my units to bait traps, create distractions, and otherwise disrupt my enemies battle plans. I play Dark Eldar because I love to maneovre (spelling ehh) and if you play DE you had better know how to maneuver or you will pay for it.

There is nothing quite like slamming into an armies flank and then rolling it up from side to the other. At the same time I have played against a few others who have a similar grasp of tactics and those have been the most rewarding games I have ever played. And if you dont believe that tactics can make a big difference in 40k just look at my record since January.

Tell a D. Hunters player that there is no strategy in 40k. They are outnumbered and outgunned in every game they play, it is only through superior tactics that they win.

The funnest game I ever played, hands-down, was built by a friend of mine when he was 8 and is called The Board Game. It is basically a game where, with a sufficient dice roll, one can do anything, including rob a bank with a Roman gladius whilst riding a shark. There are literally no restrictions whatsoever, and tactics boils down to how lucky and how imaginative you are. It is seriously the most fun you could ever have.

First of all, I would really like a copy of this game.

Second. I haven't played 40K for something like 10 years, but back in the day I was sure it had strategy. I played Orks and consistently massacred my friends space marines, guard, chaos, nids and eldar.

These days I play fantasy and have found many moments where strategy seemed to take the back seat and let good/bad luck drive. Again, as some have pointed out, strategy involves being adaptable. When you stellar unit runs off the board because of one lousy panic check taken by one wound from a screaming skull, you have to wonder.
Being able to come back from those moments makes a good general. taking mistakes and disasters and re-working them into victory. No matter the rule set of a game, be it very simple or complex, one can learn these rules and how to apply them in a new context. Even checkers.
The poll is closed but I am still voting NO.
Rork and jaNDo especially, had very convincing arguments.

Hi all.
Quite simply it depends on what you are comparing 40k to.

Compared to 'snakes and ladders' or 'snap', 40k is very tactical.

Compared to other GW games it is a little bit behind, tactics wise.IMO.

Compared to some war-games suited for ballanced competative play ,it is on a par with snakes and ladders!


So what are you drawing comparisons to?

TTFN
Lanrak.

40k can be tactical, but the sad part is most players just do the following:
- sit back and shoot
- run mindlessly into close combat.

If one learns to coerdinate thier troops to support each other and know the limits and strengths of your troops and the enemies, then the game can be tactical, at least for the person using these methods.:yes:

40k can be tactical, but the sad part is most players just do the following:
- sit back and shoot
- run mindlessly into close combat.

If one learns to coerdinate thier troops to support each other and know the limits and strengths of your troops and the enemies, then the game can be tactical, at least for the person using these methods.:yes:


If a player just lines up his troops and blasts away or goes with one almighty charge in cc, he can win if playing against someone of similar mindset. If the opponent, however, uses clever ploys and the like, this player is going to get beat.

It may be that 40K has a set of rules that more obviously(than fantasy) adjusts to the skill level you want to bring with it.

I know this wasn't a 40k vs. fantasy thread, it just seems that a comparison is endlessly drawn. I've seen some pretty lame fantasy lists, that didn't seem to have much in the way of tactics, (overloaded magic highelf-I know that's too general a statement) they were really relying on one approach. they would do quite well against foes who didn't know how to handle them, and fall to pieces against those that knew. In some of these battles it looked like tactics didn't come into play in a serious way, fantasy too, can be played by fools.
:cry:

I don't mean to be inflammatory, just a little light hearted joking, but the point remains, if you want 40K to be tactical, than you have to bring that to the game. It seems many players do, from their explanations on how tactics exist, so to those that think it is on par with Snakes and Ladders(good game), monopoly, checkers... change that. Add to the game. Think about how you can play it in a new way. Within the confines imposed by the rules, you must be able to develop something new, see it in a new light.

Perhaps I am just too hopeful and I should throw by new collection of demon worshipers into the river.

I don't mean to be inflammatory, just a little light hearted joking, but the point remains, if you want 40K to be tactical, than you have to bring that to the game. It seems many players do, from their explanations on how tactics exist, so to those that think it is on par with Snakes and Ladders(good game), monopoly, checkers... change that. Add to the game. Think about how you can play it in a new way. Within the confines imposed by the rules, you must be able to develop something new, see it in a new light.


Definitely agree. 40k is definitely a game where the player sets the standard of the game they want to play. One-dimensional lists in both games eventually get punished - Shooty fantasy armies - Meet my earthshaker; combat 40k armies - catch my jetbikes.

And so on. Extreme match ups force a player to take a balanced army and have several plans for their army (Your normal strategy, the plan A, can't always work) just in case. Bad players don't learn that, and in some gaming environments get away with it. But eventually they get exposed, often in an humiliating fashion.

I'd have to say yes, it is strategically limited unless you're doing mega battles or playing epic.

What many people are missing is the fact that the tactics we use are determined by the rules that set the limits of the game.

Going back to the argument about the tactic of flanking attacks in WFB and there being little equivalent to it in 40k. A WFB player does a flank attack because they get bonuses when they make contact and their opponent is penalised.

Back in the real world a medieval cavalry unit didn't use a flank attack because there were penalties and bonuses. They did it because their opponents were in a tight formation and the majority of them would not be able to turn and fight effectively immediately. It also reduced the number of supporting units who could shoot at them as they approached and made it more awkward for them to counter attack. This of course is simulated in the game by the bonuses/penalties and the extra movement and manoeuvring required by supporting units before they can counter attack.

On the modern battlefield a flank attack is used to reduce the number of supporting units who could shoot at them as they approach the target and possibly reduce the effects ofcover for your intended target. It also delays any counter attack by being further away from the supporting units. This is simulated in 40k by the effects of cover and LOS rules. Just because there are no penalties/bonuses when it comes to the charge, doesn't mean it is not an effective tactic or loose the name "flanking tactic".

It's just different because the rules of the games are different.

Some will say that it is more difficult to carry out a flank attack in WFB because it takes skill and judgement to manoeuvre the blocks of troops around and you have to watch the charge arcs. But it takes skill and judgement to get all of a dispersed squad into base to base contact with the enemy.

You also have to consider that the tactics we use have developed to fit the limits of the game. Just look at the "Fish of Fury". Also the games designers are constantly rewriting the games to better simulate reality and they are influenced by the the tactics we have developed. I've played WFB since 2nd edition and 40k since Rogue trader. The tactics we used then were different and have changed with the games. Was it less or more tactical then? I don't think so. It was just different, some things have been abandoned, changed or added with the new aspects of the games.

We can play "badly", advance towards the enemy, scream and charge. Or we can play well and have interesting and challenging games.

40k is a tactically diverse game.

It is not limited in that sense. You can move your guys exactly where you want to move them, and there aren't constraints like in a game such as Risk where you must move to wide adjacent territories / hexes or anything of the sort.

I suppose if you play on wide open boards there might be relatively little tactical value besides target selection, but even flank attacks can have ENORMOUS value in 40k due to the issues of engagement and who can fight back and all that other jazz.

Honestly I almost feel as if there's more tactical and strategic flexibility than in Fantasy. In fantasy you get a default bonus based on where you are vs. the enemy unit ... it doesn't even necessarily take the specific situation into account (necessarily, I'm no fantasy expert).

In 40k every inch of where you hit an opponent, where you use cover and los, where you use deployment advantages, and a million other factors all play into success or failure. I suppose it also depends on where you come from. I actively broadcast that I don't change my army ... and people actively build armies to beat me at the local GW. I win anyway, every time. Tactics, not armybuilding and strategic limitations, that's fer darned sure.

Anyway this poll bugs me, b/c I'm quite sure the answer is NO, 40K IS NOT AT ALL STRATEGICALLY LIMITED WUT A SILLY (and intentionally loaded) QUESTION. No offense.




I think it has a lot to do with board setup. I tend to play in terrain-heavy boards that are intelligently designed. I do not in casual games follow the simple "place 6 pieces" rule, and the board itself offers a wide variety of options for engagement. Wide open board? Just target selection. Heavily terrained board with some wide open areas, tons of different angled fire lanes and cover heights, approach avenues hidden by trees, etc. etc? HUGE tactical and strategic diversity. Without meaning to be inflammatory, most have hit it on the head that those who think 40k is strategically limited are probably failing to bring the tactical diversity necessary to their games. It has nothing to do with 40k itself.

One aspect of tactics in 40k is manuvering, and outsmarting your enemy:

for example the other day in a game i played:
One defining feature on the board was a large building that split the battlefield in two, between the left and the right halves. He had deployed most of his army on the left flank, and a few squads plus his Ubber command squad on the other. I had my statured daemon prince with daemonic speed go up the left flank along with several squads of marines and dreadnoughts. On the right side i sent a few squads of marines. Obviously he charged my chaos marines on the right with his command squad, but they were two very large squads, so they tied him up. On the left side, his army was well prepaired. He could easily have killed my daemon prince before he would reach thier lines and he was holding off the rest of my troops. However, I never intended on charging my daemon prince into the forces on the left side of the field. Instead, the daemon prince lunged through the enourmouse building(thanks to speed.) and charged his command squad, who was still tied up with the marines. The daemon prince easily sluaghtered the puny space marine characters. No longer tied up, the full wieght of my forces on the right advanced towards him around the building. Panicing he turned all his firepower at them. As he concentrated on my troops on the right, my main force was able to safely reach his lines. The result, The full wieght of my army bearing down on his troops who were traped in the corner of the board... Needless to say i won.

Have to say I agree with what Rork has said 100%.

I have found that there is an almost elitist undercurrent to WHFB and 40K. WHFB players tend to have a vocal group that love terms like "kiddy K" and saying that 40K has no tactics.

If it had no tactics then how do certain people manage to win so frequently? If it was just list building, then how hard is it to make a list to counter it?

I believe 40K fairly accurately uses components of modern warfare. Ask a soldier how important LOS is, how important cover is and tell him that the enemy has no flank! In modern warfare soldiers have flanks just as much as they ever had.

Most sections/squads have formations that depend on terrain and the likely enemy approach. Certain formations allow them to bring maximum firepower to bear on the enemy but leave them weaker on other areas. For example a formation used by sections in the Australian army is called the arrowhead, effectively an inverted V formation.

This formation allows maximum firepower to the front of the section with some modest firepower to the sides. Note that if one flank gets attacked the other side cannot bring fire to bear without risking hitting their mates. Now this doesn't work the same way in 40K but it illustrates that flanking is a viable tactic of modern warfare.

Now that that is out of the way, how does this apply to 40K.

EEE 11111 222222
EEE 11111 222222

units 1 and 2 represent 2 friendly units side by side. E represents the enemy unit that has flanked them. When 1 gets assaulted unit 2 can do very little to help much like the opposite flank in the arrowhead formation. If the combat is protracted they can eventually move in and help out, or they will get caught in the massacre move and be locked in combat. If that isn't flanking I don't know what is.

With the list building arguements, I submit to you that list building is more important in WHFB that 40K. In 40K many units have multiple roles this is seldom true in WHFB. If you don't take things like magic defence you run the risk of being swamped by magic. If you have no shooting or speed you put no pressure on the enemy. In WHFb I always make sure I have all my bases covered.

1. Magic defence
2. Shooting
3. Killing shooting units
4. Dealing with warmachines
5. Dealing with skirmishers
6. Dealing with fast cav
etc

Unit selection is crucial in WHFB as much as it is in 40K.

Hi all
Well I suppose the real point is how much tactics CAN you put in a game of 40k?

A simple definition of tactics in a table top war game.(40k is a table top war game?)

Tactics within a table top war game are mainly about manouvering your units into effective weapons range ,to get the most advantage over your opponents units.

So quite simply if all units have ranged wepons, and the only restriction on these ranges is LOS blocking terrain.
Then the amount of LOS blocking terrian becomes proportional to the tactical conciderations in the game.
(Or other methods of limiting unit interaction.)

Also the amount of 'proportionate result' in any game defines the amount of planned tactics.

Eg, if a player out manouvers his oponent to outnumber his opponent 3 to 1.
And this only has a disproportionaly minor effect on the result.
Then the players will not bother using tactics that lead to 'out numbering' opponents units.

If a force can blaze away at a targets at exrtreem range without any penalty, then they will.

If a force can just charge into close combat and win, then they will.

If tactical accumen and common sense is not rewarded in game ,gamers will reserve the right not to use it! :D.

But 40k is not a 'war- game suitable for ballanced competative play'.
GW dont say it is ,most current 40k gamers dont want it to be,so 40k IS a 'just for fun' game.

So lets just play 40k have some fun!:yes:

TTFN
Lanrak.

I'm afraid I cannot agree with your evaluation of tactics in the world of 40k, at least not entirely.

One thing true is that the presence of terrain is of major value to developing tactis in the game of 40k, but maneuvering into effective weapons range is hardly the main focus, especially depending on your army.

The problem is, there are many simpler players who do not really know much more than that as their operational focus.

In any event, let me line-by-line briefly ...








Eg, if a player out manouvers his oponent to outnumber his opponent 3 to 1.
And this only has a disproportionaly minor effect on the result.
Then the players will not bother using tactics that lead to 'out numbering' opponents units.

Outnumberances, within reason, have an enormous effect on the outcome of a game of 40k. In a shooting sense, if you apply three times the firepower to a portion of an enemy line, you're going to gain a major tactical advantage. Melee-wise, you have to be a lot wiser about how you engage in 40k than in fantasy. Fantasy basically lacks charge-blocking mobile terrain, for instance. In 40k, a very underused strategy is the ability to use cheap vehicles such as rhinos to block off reinforcement angles and fire lanes, allowing you to apply melee or shooting force to small portions of an enemy line while blocking off their ability to assist. That and a million other tactics are things that heavily distinguish 40k from the STAND IN A LINE AND SHOOT OR CHARGE INTO MELEE FAST misconceptions that are out there.



If a force can blaze away at a targets at exrtreem range without any penalty, then they will.

Yet in 40k, except against bad opponents, forces that sit at extreme range blasting away suffer HUGE penalties in that they get badly outmaneuvered, and have nowhere to go if they get caught. Plus, range often causes people to get careless about force centralization, leading to badly spread out IG type back-board armies. Yet again, people who fail to use good tactics setting up a misconception by the 3rd party observers.

If a force can just charge into close combat and win, then they will.

Only a fool's force, or against a fool's built opponent. I often lampoon Tyranid players who simply build a big melee horde and rush it across the board, and when faced by these obliterate them with little difficulty. The same applies to Khorne crazies or many of the other approaches out there. I reiterate that the misconception is based on a shortage perhaps of tactically wise players, not a shortage of tactical opportunities in the game of 40k.

If tactical accumen and common sense is not rewarded in game ,gamers will reserve the right not to use it! :D.

Agreed, and disagreed. In 40k, tactical acumen and common sense are heavily rewarded. BUT when your regular opponent at the local GW might be a person who totally lacks tactical acumen and common sense, it doesn't encourage equally mediocre players to develop theirs. Again, not the problem of the game.

But 40k is not a 'war- game suitable for ballanced competative play'.
GW dont say it is ,most current 40k gamers dont want it to be,so 40k IS a 'just for fun' game.

So lets just play 40k have some fun!:yes:

TTFN
Lanrak.


And you can play just for fun, if you so choose. BUT you can also play for extreme tactical and strategic depth. I would venture forth the proposal from total self experience as follows:

In about 60 games, I've literally never lost or drawn with the current iteration of my Tyranid devourer-heavy list. I play tactically deep games, you can even read some reports of them in the blog I've got.

MANY of my wins came b/c I faced 40k players who do not use tactics, or who even worse tried to beat me by designing an army list to beat me. If 40k lacked tactics, such an approach WOULD WORK, but it does not. Modesty aside, I'm a better player than those types, so I beat them. 40k gives me the tactical flexibility to do so.

It's been said repeatedly - 40k allows for the tactics, but it is the responsibility of the players to bring it to the game. I'd agree with the theory that 40k is more popular, especially with young kids, and so is inherently going to have more crappy players across its population.

Crappy players are strategically limited.
40k is not.

I have found that there is an almost elitist undercurrent to WHFB and 40K. WHFB players tend to have a vocal group that love terms like "kiddy K" and saying that 40K has no tactics.


And that largely stems from the crossover from 2nd to 3rd ed 40k. 1st/2nd ed 40k rules were incredibly deep, varied (see Necromunda) and in many ways contrived (due to the scale). 2nd ed could easily be reduced to one side blasting the living daylights out of the opposition in a heartbeat (an army consisting of a strategy level 6 character and 20 wolf guard terminators with assault cannons, 60 sustained fire dice. Fun times).

3rd came along and everything changed. All those complicated rules with vast tables went out and were replaced with a streamlined system that was significantly easier to use. Many hated it, I hated it. I left 40k for 3 years because I believed the rules were dumb and simplified.

But once I returned, I played quite a bit of 40k and developed my play style significantly. I learnt my army, its weaknesses and how the other armies worked. The different scenarios resulted in the need for different "mindsets" in each one - warhammer, by contrast, still revolves around pitched battle.

A good player will punish one-dimensional combat or shooting oriented armies. In my case, I can outrun the first for long enough to pick them apart, and against the second I am fast enough to negate much of their firepower by using LoS.

I've learned that all armies need an A and a B game. There are some armies your A game will inevitably not work too well against - if you don't have a B game, you'll lose as a result (I'm still trying to formulate my B game with the new Eldar).

If a gamer plays without tactics against me, I'll punish them for it. If they're blasé with their important units, I'll punish them for it. If you play against top quality players, you'll see that they don't just control one phase - they control the table. 40k is only about bringing the nastiest units to the party if you stay in that mindset.

Hi all
My last post was not intended to infer 40k suffered from not rewarding outnumbering sufficiently,etc, or failed to encorage tactical play.

But it doesnt sufficiently penalise poor tactical play.IMO.

But I did miss the most important restriction in tactics in the 40k game.

Low level of player interaction.

If you play a game of Blood Bowl, you may know what I am refering to...

TTFN
Lanrak.

Hi all
My last post was not intended to infer 40k suffered from not rewarding outnumbering sufficiently,etc, or failed to encorage tactical play.

But it doesnt sufficiently penalise poor tactical play.IMO.

But I did miss the most important restriction in tactics in the 40k game.

Low level of player interaction.

If you play a game of Blood Bowl, you may know what I am refering to...

TTFN
Lanrak.

A single tactical mistake will cause a player to lose to me, period, unrecoverably. Opinion is certainly fair to have, but I reiterate that BAD PLAYERS are the cause, not 40k itself ... at all.

But it doesnt sufficiently penalise poor tactical play.IMO.


It does if you're playing against a player with a greater range of skills. Unsurprisingly, if you play against someone of roughly the same skill level as you, both of you may not notice the mistakes each other makes as quickly as a 'better' player.

Poor tactical play can be punished significantly if you know what you're doing.

if you play 40k with no missions, then yes, it is strategically limited. line of sight and combat happens from the first turn, and it pretty much becomes a slugfest. When you add in missions though, the equation changes.

Once missions are in, you can't only shoot or smash, you actually have to move somewhere. Then you have to factor in how your firebases act while you move, fire lanes, and a bunch of other stuff. so all in all, it really depends on the mission.

Fantasy looks more strategic though.

if you play 40k with no missions, then yes, it is strategically limited. line of sight and combat happens from the first turn, and it pretty much becomes a slugfest. When you add in missions though, the equation changes.

Once missions are in, you can't only shoot or smash, you actually have to move somewhere. Then you have to factor in how your firebases act while you move, fire lanes, and a bunch of other stuff. so all in all, it really depends on the mission.

Fantasy looks more strategic though.

I am sure that missions go a long way to enhancing, what CAN already be a clever and tactical game. This equally applies to fantasy though. Adding a mission adds a swell dynamic to what can be just as much of a slug fest as 40K.(again, I know this isn't 40K vs. Fantasy). Perhaps fantasy "looks more strategic" because most of the units are in neat little boxes, simulating to some extent, what some battle fields forces looked like, until the mad rush, where the lines begin to warp.

I might have reasoned that fantasy had little to no tactical worth if I based it on the experience I've had with my first opponent. He's never beat me, and although he cites bad rolling on his part, I'd like to think it was also about solid plans on my part.
Now. I think that if he finally beat me, and even did it more than once, he would have stepped up a notch, and I in turn would have to re-hash my battle plans. We'd both grow from this.

What I am saying is, if you don't think strategy is in 40K, go find some players who kick every ones a@% and than learn how to kick theirs. Even if you lose 35 games in a row, you'll be learning something.

Learn to build clever tactics with the rules as they are. Complaining that the rules are limiting to (your) strategy seems to actually say that the limitation lies within your approach. Making an army list for these games, that's meant to simply steam-role the opposition, is only going to work against that same approach, that same limiting mindset. It sounds like how many view the various martial arts as paths of violence and dominance. They're only looking at the outside, the superficial, and come away with a stunted understanding. The deeper you explore something, the more you'll be able to take away, and the deeper the plunge the next time.

In rock vs rock, the bigger rock wins. It's being able to pull out crisp sheet of paper from the rubble, and lay it down death-shroud style, that makes you a great player.

One of the factors concerning 40K (and fantasy equally) that limit it strategically/tactically in my opinion is its "You Go, I Go" method of taking turns. Most war games these days integrate player's turns far more than Warhammer does. Warhammer consists of large blocks of action from one army whilst the other army does nothing. There'd be more opportuity for real tactics if the turns were broken up a bit and mixed in a bit more (such as what Andy Chambers has done with his Starship Troopers game) so that you could re-act quicker and more locally to something your opponent is doing.

Another thing I wanted to mention is that a lot of the tactics that are present in Warhammer are of a 'gamey' nature rather than any simulation of real tactics. For example, the tried and trusted tactic of setting up your units more than 6 inches apart so that close combat units can't sweeping advance up your whole army - within the world of the game this makes perfect sense but as a simualtion of real tactics it's a complete joke. It's things like this that make me laugh when I read someone saying that they've been reading The Art Of War in order to hone their 40K tactics!

Another thing I wanted to mention is that a lot of the tactics that are present in Warhammer are of a 'gamey' nature rather than any simulation of real tactics. For example, the tried and trusted tactic of setting up your units more than 6 inches apart so that close combat units can't sweeping advance up your whole army - within the world of the game this makes perfect sense but as a simualtion of real tactics it's a complete joke.

That's true of any rules system, though. As soon as you create boundaries and rules, people will push them as far as they can.

That's not a fault of the game, it's an inevitable consequence of the way people think.

Hi all.
That's true of any rules system, though. As soon as you create
boundaries and rules, people will push them as far as they can.

That's not a fault of the game, it's an inevitable consequence of the way people think.

I beg to differ Rork.
Quite a few game actualy work along the lines people think they should.(Intuative game play).
I think what panzer attack was trying to point out is 40k has more in the way of learning to exploit the way the rules are constructed ,than implemetation of generaly known military tactics.

(And therfore can be concidered less 'tactical' than a game where 'recognised military tactics' are more prevelant ,than 'rules knowledge'.)

And there are lots of alternative game systems which have clearly defined rule sets that are sympathetic to the games background and scale of game.There is litle in the way of ambiguity, and therefore loop hole exploitation, as most use concistant terminology and phrasiology.(And are proof read before publication,:D)

40k has changed drasticaly over the last 15 years.But GW still insist on lumbering the game with a WH game mechanics ,which are just so unsuitable .
And any rule set that need lots of special rules,(23 USRs) just to keep the game playable is NOT going to win any awards for efficient game design!'


So 40k has the potential to be a truly great game,but not while the 40k dev team are treated as an extension of GW PLC corperate marketing department.

TTFN
Lanrak.

- within the world of the game this makes perfect sense but as a simualtion of real tactics it's a complete joke. It's things like this that make me laugh when I read someone saying that they've been reading The Art Of War in order to hone their 40K tactics!

Why does this make you laugh?

Hi Palos.
I supose I have to put another phrase into a similar context so you could appreciate the humor.

'I have read extensivly about the use of 'light' in impressionist art to convey moods, to help me improve my undercoating skills with white spray can primer.:D'

Yes some tactics ,used in 40k may be transposed from the writing in 'The Art of War'.
But not enough to try to make this sort of implied level of complexity!

Most of the tactics used in 40k are not subtle, or even close to the refined ballance of unit dispositions, found on other games.

So 40k can be made into a 'reasonable tactical exchange' by experianced players, using 'non standard' methods ,missions etc.
But the level of unit interaction, and therfore baseline tatictcal options in 40k, is very limited compared to other games.

TTFN
Lanrak.

While it may not be the most tactical table top game out there, it's the one that I personally I've found most enjoyable. And to me that's all that matters.

With an additional point, it may be limited compared to others strategically, but within the game itself they're are different tactics that can be employed by different armies. I know both Tyranids and Orks are rushing armies but Orks have an opportunity to be a lot more shooty than Tyranids.

Since when was Magic more tactical than 40k. Magic is about the deck and who gets better cards. And yes 40k is more strategically limited than fantasy because 360 LoS and universal movement

I have given up hope on the game-portion of 40K. I love the models, I love how easy GW made them to convert (lets move that idea over to WHFB please). But I hate the game.
40k comes down to choosing a target and eliminating it. The killing part of 40k is that there are no effective 'blind spots'. You never get bonuses for charging around to the flanks, you never get bonuses for getting your troops into niches within enemy lines. I play all of the GW games mentioned on the front page- BFG, WHFB, 40K, and even LoTR. And I have to say, any of them is more tactically challenging than 40K

One argument that was mentioned early on is that 40K is about squad sized tactics. This is not true. Necromunda is based upon squad-oriented combat. My Necromunda force is organized around small fire-teams of 2-3 men, and then scales up into platoons and squads of 2-3 fireteams.
It was mentioned that WHFB is an attempt at full field combat. I do agree with this. If you want regiment-to-regiment based combat in a fantasy setting, you'd need to look to LoTR.

As for the paintball comment located on the first page: have you ever played tournament-level airball? That is most certainly strategy, as you are determining what positions you want to take, what fire lanes you want to set-up, how you want to advance through your and your opponent's firing lanes. And even just the basic player has to be prepared to take matters into his own hands to keep in team in play.

40K is very strategically limited, as it's primary tactics are stuck in the stone-age. It all boils down to "I have a .75 rocket-powered, high exlposive, heat-seaking round with a targetting system capable of seeing accurately through a 2' thick wall. and i have a chainsaw... i'm gonna use the chainsaw"
wtf? how is that tactical at all? i beg for the return of fire-arcs and effective gunnery