Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online

 

Warhammer 40K Forum

The tactical game of WH40k
Reply
Old 22 Jul 2008, 14:07   #11 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney Aus
Posts: 7,853
Send a message via MSN to crazedmongoose2003
Default Re: The tactical game of WH40k

FYI I do think WHFB is more tactical and tactics is optional for some armies in 40k. But I'm just playing devil's advocate here because everybody else is hellbent on trashing 40k.
__________________
Holding a Tau Online Vassal League, click here for more info:

http://forums.tauonline.org/index.ph...c,86474.0.html
crazedmongoose2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 Jul 2008, 14:20   #12 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 682
Default Re: The tactical game of WH40k

You get WHFB tactics where its about outmanouvering then you get 40k tactics where everyone thinks your a powergamer if you use them. But with the focus being on shooting in 40k some rules in FB become useless (pivoting for one) but it would be interesting to use arcs of fire (which is hard in a loose coherency squad) so you are rewarded for outflanking the enemy by a free turn of fire before they have to move to turn to face you.
__________________
Firepower.
Thats it



Quote:
Originally Posted by Piedmon
Phwoar.
manic-swede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 Jul 2008, 14:28   #13 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney Aus
Posts: 7,853
Send a message via MSN to crazedmongoose2003
Default Re: The tactical game of WH40k

Quote:
Originally Posted by manic-swede
You get WHFB tactics where its about outmanouvering then you get 40k tactics where everyone thinks your a powergamer if you use them. But with the focus being on shooting in 40k some rules in FB become useless (pivoting for one) but it would be interesting to use arcs of fire (which is hard in a loose coherency squad) so you are rewarded for outflanking the enemy by a free turn of fire before they have to move to turn to face you.
See, you play IG though and you'd think that.

For Eldar I think absolutely nothing about CC tactics and thus I assume there is none. I'm sure Ork players would disagree with me. For me 80% of the tactics I use in 40k revolves around maneuvering and I can tell you most of the victories I win just came down to me being better at maneuvering than the other guy.

I mean if maneuvering counts for nothing then what's the point of having like three armies basically based around maneuvering as a strength? There'd be no reason to take Eldar, Tau or Dark Eldar.
__________________
Holding a Tau Online Vassal League, click here for more info:

http://forums.tauonline.org/index.ph...c,86474.0.html
crazedmongoose2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 Jul 2008, 14:31   #14 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: On the Midnight Ocean
Posts: 26,404
Send a message via MSN to Wargamer
Default Re: The tactical game of WH40k

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esque
So youre saying that due to the units, there are no amount of rules to change that fact that the system is based on units that are too powerful?
Precisely. In Warhammer, every unit has a disadvantage, be it lack of armour, lack of numbers, high points cost, lack of melee ability or lack of range. Typically, it's multiple factors. For example, Cavalry are fast (7" move for a typical Heavy Cavarly unit. Normal Infantry move 4"), they have good armour (2+ being average for Heavy Cavalry, with some exceptional units having a 1+ save) and are typically very powerful (a normal Human with a Lance is Str 5, plus they get an extra Str 3 attack for their horse).

However, most Heavy Cavalry come in at around 21pts a model. An Empire State Troop is 6-7pts. Heavy Cavalry tend to be in small units, as massive cavalry blocks are hard to move into position. They also have no shooting ability.

So, whilst a Heavy Cavalry unit will easily ride down most infantry on the charge, when locked in combat lack of numbers, and usually a lack of special weapons (Lances and Mounted Spears, the most common Cavalry weapons, only work on the charge) means they will be ground down by Infantry without support.

By contrast, you might think that a massive block of 80 Skavenslaves (costing around 240pts) would be perfect; you'll always outnumber, you've got Rank Bonuses, you've got sheer weight of bodies to let you absorb enemy fire... how can you lose?

Simple. That big block of units cannot dish out attacks fast enough. They have virtually no armour, so die in droves to anything that attacks them, and their Leadership is terrible. Unless you babysit them with a General, they'll flee very quickly. By contrast, the Elite units of your army, such as Cold One Knights or Dwarven units, will fight on regardless of whether your General is around due to very high Leadership.

Everything in Warhammer is balanced, and not just by points - each unit type has a weakness another unit type can readily exploit. Every army should be able to field light infantry, heavy infantry, light cavalry, heavy cavalry, archers, war machines and monsters, with just a few exceptions (although, if you use Dogs of War, that isn't true either). Cavalry will be broken by big blocks of infantry grinding them down. Infantry are broken by stronger units routing them in the charge, or flanking them. Skirmishers are great for flanking, but lose on their own. Ranged units weaken the enemy, but struggle to actually rout them, and cannot fight well themselves. Everything in the army has to work as one, because nothing can win it alone.

The same definitely cannot be said for 40K. Whilst newer Codices improve matters, it still seems to be the case that a properly tooled up HQ (or two) with a Command Squad / Elites Choice escorting them, will do more damage than anything else in the army.

Quote:
Knowing little about FB, I had to ask, because I was assuming the same thing. Could an opponent force you to use tactics, even with ravensquigs?
No. My Ravensquig army cannot be forced to use tactics, as 90% of the time I will end my first turn 1" away from the enemy line. Even if their whole army somehow Turbo-boosts away from me, Wazdakka can still fire when Turbo Boosting, meaning I'd just have to give chase and wait for lucky rolls to defeat them.

If all else fails, and I do have to resort to shooting, every model bar the Deffkoptas and Wazdakka (who have Twin-Linked Rokkits and an Assault 4 Str 8 gun respectively) have a Big Shoota that's Twin Linked. I can outshoot almost any other army you care to name!

Quote:
Will ravensquig work as well in 5th, now that you cannot consolidate into combat? Bear in mind I am not trying to change your point of view on tactics or no in 40k, I'm trying to put on some perspective. Has 5th been GW's attempt to add some that was sorely missing in 40k by giving everyone mobility and cover - something that termies and ork bikers will care little about - but that the small guys, gaunts and guardsmen will love?
5th Edition is, to me, GW's acceptance they were wrong from the beginning of 4th Edition. Everything about it feels like a step back to 3rd.
__________________
Farewell, Kangaroo Joe, you shall not be forgotten.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Norman
"Wargamer is never wrong, Frodo Baggins; he knows precisely the rules he means to."
Wargamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 Jul 2008, 14:34   #15 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Walking Tall thru the night...
Posts: 879
Default Re: The tactical game of WH40k

Hehe... this is such an old debate. I left 40k because 4ed was a mindless point and click game. Gun line were not not different from the Raven run. As both pointed and clicked. There is no need to even select target because you just have to get to something, then you'll steamroll over them. On flip side for gunline it was also, just wipe everything starting from fastest. Not much of a target selection eyh?

Now there is a reason why I am coming back to 5ed is because 40k was fixed. Not by much, but still.

- No more steamrolling. Now you actually have to try to get to an important target or you'll eat the bait and get shot up to bits.
- No more gun lines. Build one and scouts will eat you alive. And I think every army now has something that outflanks.
- Objectives. I think they should have made all 3 missions objective based. One may be hybrid(both kills and objectives) but still. 40k is far better of on objective base. If you kill tyranid Tyrant or blow up a IG fuel supply line you will win. Even if your small party was destroyed or suffered heavy casualties.
- New use of terrain and cover saves. Apart from the dumbest rule of friendlies conferring cover save, all other rules are great. Cover & Duck is a neat trick which can be used to an advantage.

All other rules are just fullfilling the bigger picture that 40k is finally becoming the game of something a little bit more then dice rolls. We'll see where it goes, but I have high hopes that its not THE same place where 4ed was.

P.S. Just for the record, WHFB is still a lot more smarter then 40k because of movement charge reaction s and generally less dice rolling involved (Static combat res is great ^_^ They should have implement it in 40k), but with 3 new consecutively near-broken books, balance seemed shaky. Thankfully GW seem to got some money of that and now new DE actually requires a Brain to play them even after an update. They are far from underpowered, but also far from point click Spiking HEs, Burn 'em All Tzeench/Khorne Tandem and Mah inderstructable (spelled wrong on purpose ^_^) VCs bunker. (those are just come play lists now, Yeah there are more but still). I am hoping that new books will be a LOT more like DEs from the balanced point of view. Fingers crossed I suppose. ^_^

Walk tall everyone!!!!!
__________________



***
- What man is a man who doesn't make this world a better place?
***
- Definitely, mostly not about the girl.
***
- I should only kill people after I get to know 'em?
***


http://forums.tauonline.org/index.php?topic=53661.0 “TAU customizations” Project
Red_dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 Jul 2008, 14:36   #16 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 682
Default Re: The tactical game of WH40k

Outmanouvering is still important but it isn't rewarded as much (you might as well hit those unit in cc attacking from the front) but for weaker armies (ones that don't have T4 or bulletproof spleens) to take out anything you need to survive but its hard to out manouver a horde army when it takes up half of the board. But out manouvering is different from picking your fights well which is what eldar and dark eldar do.
__________________
Firepower.
Thats it



Quote:
Originally Posted by Piedmon
Phwoar.
manic-swede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 Jul 2008, 15:31   #17 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney Aus
Posts: 7,853
Send a message via MSN to crazedmongoose2003
Default Re: The tactical game of WH40k

WG: I'd say WHFB is heaps more balanced than 40k and nobody can deny that. But every 40k unit does have an achilles heel, it's just not as many.


I still think a good chunk of 40k's problems can be solved by making MEQ armies much less prevalent. They should account for no more than 30% of the spectrum.
__________________
Holding a Tau Online Vassal League, click here for more info:

http://forums.tauonline.org/index.ph...c,86474.0.html
crazedmongoose2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 Jul 2008, 16:03   #18 (permalink)
Shas'El
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via MSN to ollieb8
Default Re: The tactical game of WH40k

Quote:
Originally Posted by manic-swede
Outmanouvering is still important but it isn't rewarded as much (you might as well hit those unit in cc attacking from the front) but for weaker armies (ones that don't have T4 or bulletproof spleens) to take out anything you need to survive but its hard to out manouver a horde army when it takes up half of the board. But out manouvering is different from picking your fights well which is what eldar and dark eldar do.
But the weaker armies will still be able to hold their own agaisnt other units (except stealers vs. conscripts etc.) whereas in Fantasy if you manage to outsmart the enemy and rear charge them, they'll feel the hurt. You may think that tactics are still involved but you don't get the bonuses you get in WHFB so, realistically, they don't exist as they aren't that useful (obviously you need some but i meant advanced tactics).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafe
Edit: Silk Spectre wins the thread.
[spoiler=40K Clones]Wanna play as clones in 40K?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Circus
I'm amazed at how balanced this is. I salute you.
[/spoiler]
ollieb8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 Jul 2008, 16:12   #19 (permalink)
Shas'El
 
Yriel of Iyanden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 3,180
Default Re: The tactical game of WH40k

Hey guys,

A really interesting topic, even if it does get discussed in various forms.

First- a point about semantics, but one I think is valid. Recall our discussion of Strategy versus tactics, and I think we can discuss in this situation.

WH40K is a tactical game, or a game that rewards situational creativity. Following Wargamer's example, you can look at something like a Carnifex or a wraithlord, or even your basic Space Marine. You might have taken these models in your list for a specific example, such as close combat, or shooting, or scoring- but during the game you might find out that despite its shooting- that wraithlord so close to the unit of guardsmen is free to smash them all in the face with its giant fists, and this type of improvisation is rewarded. It's not so much that the units are too good, it's that they are designed for this type of play.

Conversely, WFB is a more strategic game, or one that rewards careful planning beforehand and precise execution on the field. It's true that a number of considerations need to be made (as some like Red Dog has shown me) well before the battle begins- things like precise placement of terrain, unit geometry and composition, etc. Charges or stands need to be planned in the turns before the actual move is made, and improvisation is often out of desperation or failure to plan- so it is usually not rewarded in game.

But to consider the original question- does the standardization of basic movement in WH40K lend to a more strategic game?

My opinion: possibly, but maybe not as significantly as we'd think. Standardizing movement means that strategically I'll have to consider what this does to traditionally "slow" armies and how some core strategies will change. It also means that my once inherent advantage of speed is more even, and with changes to things like assault, or cover saves from shooting- I'll need to pay more attention to where and when I charge, and be thinking about the consequences after that charge in advance. That makes WH40K slightly more strategic these days.

But the game is still inherently tactical. You still build lists that offer flexibility, and they are still composed of models with a 360 degree field of vision and can often perform a variety of tasks. And ultimately that's how the two games shake out.

- Yriel
__________________
Yriel of Iyanden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 Jul 2008, 16:30   #20 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,117
Send a message via MSN to arguleon-veq
Default Re: The tactical game of WH40k

The points about Eldar movement for example matching/requiring the same skill as moving in Fantasy is way off. The Dark Elf comparison is probably the problem, Fast Cav is very simple and easy to manouvere in Fantasy, its a lot like a 40K unit. You may move a lot with Eldar, and you have to do that to win with them but it wasn't particularly hard to move effectively.

I think movement and damage potential are the main differences between the two games. Its also what makes 40K the much faster paced game. Each has their own merits but with regards to the original question, I dont think 40K comes even close to requiring the tactics or strategy for that matter that a game of Fantasy does. No matter how deep and competative you get into 40K.

5th Ed Helps, but it still isn't really close. I love both games but I think it comes down to this when I look at it;

A good Fantasy player will not lose to a poor Fantasy player because of the lists being used [within reason]. This is mostly to do with the movement phase which is not random and is totally about player skill. This is the most important phase in Fantasy as the damage potential is so low in other phases.

A good 40K player can often to lose to poor/averegae 40K players because of the lists being used. He can simply be blown away in a few turns in some cases no matter how smart he moves. He can often just be flat over ran. Two of the new standard missions help here a little but the third just makes this even worse than ever.
__________________
Brunettes and Beer.
arguleon-veq is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ME Strategy Game Thread 2 - GAME FINISHED - End of Game Reports Up majonga Serious Roleplay 174 03 Jun 2009 14:04
Tactical advise on the end-game Slind Craftworld Eldar 6 16 Mar 2009 22:14
New to WH40K davidgr33n Introduce yourself 9 04 Dec 2007 14:53
Is there too much AP2, AP3 in WH40K? daniel.wilson Tau 34 05 Aug 2007 21:20
Presenting Sloop of War: my forum based tactical ship combat/RPG/trade game crazedmongoose2003 Enclave Talk 16 09 May 2007 09:24