Winning 40K – What if it's just not that complicated?
Today's article is all about dispelling a popular myth about 40K, and hopefully getting a vital principle of army design and game planning across. This came out of a forum conversation started by Stelek (author of 'Yes The Truth Hurts' 40K blog) yesterday, and since my reply was subsequently quoted by several other people I thought I’d drag it back here to 3++ where I have more space to expand on it.
Many people act like winning at 40K is extremely complicated, and that can cloud their approach to army building and playing the game itself. The truth is 40K is really a simple game, with a huge amount of window-dressing and obfuscation around it.
While I enjoy 40K very much, I’m not so much a 40K player as I am a very competitive (but hopefully friendly!) 'tournament player'. I play to win tournaments across multiple systems and that means I might have a different perspective than some players, and here it is.
Strip away all the rules and codexes and armylists and you will realise that all 40K is about is 3 things:
- Having more Scoring units in certain locations at the end of the game than your opponent does
- Removing more of your opponent’s entire individual units from the board than she does of yours
- A combination of both
Everything else, all the armour, characters, ballistic skill, invulnerable, special rules, hull points, ‘metagame’, weapons, toughness, fluff, background, chainswords and forging narratives is the great big spectacle that distracts from how simple this game is.
In 5th edition the game was dominated by Mech, Shooting and Multiple small units because these could best achieve the simple objectives listed above. YTTH deserves credit for helping champion those concepts, especially since some people never seemed to really understand it even to the day the edition’s rulebook was phased out.
In 6th edition, many rules and codices have changed, but believe it or not in 6th Edition, 40K is about is 3 things:
- Having more Scoring units in certain locations at the end of the game than your opponent does
- Removing more of your opponent’s entire individual units from the board than she does of yours
- A combination of both
40K is just not that complicated. Seriously.
The first tournament ‘system’ I won trophies in was Chess, which is an even simpler game but has a certain elegant purity of purpose. This isn’t going to be breaking news, but to win at Chess,
- You take your opponent’s king
Nothing else matters. Absolutely nothing. Despite that I’ve played plenty of people who try take every piece on the board, and those are the ‘Pawnloving’ noobs of the game. Comparing 40K to other game genres, real life battlefield tactics or even Sun Tzu is popular with 40k authors but rarely works as well as they hope, but here we have one possible exception; for all its lack of cinematic experience, Chess teaches you to focus on the goal and achieve it, and that nothing else matters.
If you aren’t willing to sacrifice every other model in your army, no matter how well painted or heroically named, to get your scoring units where they need to be in 40K, you’re the ‘Pawnlover’ of this game.
Actually achieving the objectives against an equally good opponent may not be easy, but by taking on board the stark simplicity of them should help us move the conversation along from the flourishing industry of posts and forum arguments comparing codices as if the most important thing is that units have equivalent chance to ‘make their points back’, as if that mattered. It doesn’t.
To put it in the terms of Brad Pitt in Moneyball, all that matters is that your units need to be able to get on base.
Because 40K isn’t that complicated.
Logging you in...
Anonymous Foodie · 658 weeks ago
But last time, all I had to do was kill 20 marines (in 4 5-man combat squads) and he literally *couldn't win the game*. This was 2000 points. It was a marginal list at best with an overly precarious lynchpin.
The same idea applies to Flyers - while durable and (usually) packed with firepower, they're likely to only affect half of the game (between reserves, repositioning, etc). Unless you switch to Hover mode, the limited movement and fire lanes will slap you around over the course of the game (a little bit). If you switch to Hover mode, you're going to get shot down. Their effect on the game is going to be far less than an equivalent amount of firepower from about any other type of unit.
Note I'm not saying flyers are *bad*. Just that they have some rather severe built in limitations. Remember it's not just movement - nearly all of their guns have very, very limited fire arcs.
abusepuppy 121p · 658 weeks ago
No, the dangerous thing about flyers (specifically the Vendetta and Night Scythe) is that they are hard to kill and bring firepower while protecting troops.
ishtheninja 66p · 658 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 658 weeks ago
mattshadowlord 55p · 658 weeks ago
Kadeton · 658 weeks ago
It's also pretty silly to say that having clear objectives makes the statement "that results are almost random" untrue. (Note: I'm not saying that it *is* true, just that this is not an argument against it.) Here's a game with clear objectives: Snakes & Ladders. Get to the last space on the board. The outcome? Completely random.
Honestly, I agree that 40K is not that complicated. You show up, roll some dice, and someone wins. It's the people who take it to be anything more than that who are deluding themselves.
IndigoJack · 658 weeks ago
IndigoJack · 658 weeks ago
This whole blog post can be boiled down into sentence: play the mission. It's an old phrase many have heard over and over again (especially here at 3++), but one that many players (at least at my flgs) fail to understand.
ILoveAnonReally · 658 weeks ago
Each individual dice roll is random, but the final result of a series of games is anything but random.
Lobukia · 658 weeks ago
In the words of Herman Edwards, "You play to win the game!"
abusepuppy 121p · 658 weeks ago
"Yeah, but all I have are these Tactical Marines on the objectives!"
YES. YOU HAVE TACTICAL MARINES ON OBJECTIVES AND THEY ARE WINNING YOU THE GAME.
It's why deathstars aren't as scary as people think they are. It's why gimmick armies rarely have anything like consistent performance at tournaments. Guys on objectives is what you want, and those armies don't have them.
ishtheninja 66p · 658 weeks ago
mattshadowlord 55p · 658 weeks ago
abusepuppy 121p · 658 weeks ago
Armored Battlegroup is a perfect demonstration of the point, though. The inability to bring Platoons makes them very light on scoring.
Phase Assassin · 658 weeks ago
ser_hag 29p · 658 weeks ago
VasaraM 31p · 658 weeks ago
Unfortunetly with my BA I need to concentrate mainly on the first point and with my DE on the second.
I don't see many armies doing the third point. GK/SW do it though and so does IG. That is not to say that to win the game you don't need to think on both of the first two aspects but the focus is clearly not in balance with most of the armies.
It's certainly more easier to win by point 2 when you have superior board control due to eliminating enemy units that can score/threat your scorers.
WestRider · 658 weeks ago
Just keep an eye on the Victory Conditions, and don't get sucked into trying to kill off things that aren't getting you closer to achieving them, or protecting things that you don't need to achieve them.
It only gets frustrating with Nids, where the bits that work best as Sacrificial Units are also the ones I need to have alive and sitting on Objectives at the end of the Game.
Anon · 658 weeks ago
The Grey Hunters are the ones you need to protect, while at the same time you throw them into the enemy. SW isnt an easy "auto-win" army at all..
iLoveAnonReally · 658 weeks ago
;)
Anon · 658 weeks ago
clever handle · 658 weeks ago
Sethis_II 87p · 658 weeks ago
Well... actually it does. It directly impacts on point 2. Admittedly "making points back" is a flawed concept, but if I use codex A and pay 100pts for unit X, and my opponent is using codex B and can get unit X (or a very close equivalent) for 70pts, he has a 30% advantage over me due to having more units/wargear in his army. Ditto if he pays the same points, but gets a better unit at the end of it.
Alastores · 658 weeks ago
Tyranids and Daemons both spring to mind as having problems here. (SEriously, in the case of daemons, does "Have all your troops be minimum strength squads of a melee unit that you buy with no intention of them seeing melee" strike you as good design?).
It's no surprise that these are the two 'melee' lists, with 'nids a lot further down the "Crap, we can't balance assault only armies, given them guns" line than Daemons.
abusepuppy 121p · 658 weeks ago
Unit efficiency- which is what you're talking about- is a totally different subject. Also, straight cross-codex comparisons like the one you talk about are almost never meaningful because the value of a unit is so greatly influenced by what else is in the book. Sanguinary Priests would be pretty mediocre in the Tau codex, but they're great in BA. Piranhas were just overcosted Land Speeders in 5E, but they were still excellent for Tau. Termagants are almost strictly worse than Guardsmen, but they're still an all-star in the current Tyranid book. You can't just look straight at the numbers in another book to determine how much units "should" cost.
Sethis_II 87p · 658 weeks ago
Yes, because their primary use is not to kill units. Rhinos protect squads and give mobility. Pathfinders buff/debuff, Stormravens are a very survivable fast transport with heavy weapons, Tervigons pump out troops all day long and provide buffs. I agree (and mentioned) that how many points of the enemy a given unit kills is a flawed method of gauging effectiveness.
Codex Space Marines: 200pts for Hammernators. 150pts for 4x Missile Devs.
Codex Blood Angels: 220pts for Hammernators. 130pts for 4x Missile Devs.
Space Marines have better Terminators, and worse Devs. It's that simple. Identical units, in identical FoCs, filling identical roles.
I'd thank you to not put words in my mouth regarding cross-codex comparisons, especially Xenos vs Imperial. Matt implied that the relative points cost of units and their ability to remove enemy models from the table was irrelevant to winning the game. I disagree. That's all I am saying.
mattshadowlord 55p · 658 weeks ago
I agree with you to the extent that if your models are cheaper than equivalents in your opponent's codex you will generally have an advantage at the list building stage.
However, I don't agree with the 'Models must make their points back" argument, as if their points cost was at all relevant when the game actually starts or as if there was a Scenario with a goal of each unit scoring its own value in kills.
What actually matters isn't the 130pt Vendetta or the 245pt Landraider, what matters is the 5pt guardsman or 16pt tactical marine that is on the objective when the game ends.
Cheap efficient units can help you along the way, but all that matters is you score the objectives as written in the scenario.
abusepuppy 121p · 658 weeks ago
The ability to kill stuff isn't irrelevant, but a strict points-to-points comparison is. It doesn't matter what SM pays for Hammernators, you have to look at what they do in BA and whether you need them at the price they're available at. The reason BA doesn't bring them as often isn't that additional 15-20pts of cost, but because they don't sync well with many of the army lists the codex fields.
Garnet · 658 weeks ago
Yeah, but they were still grossly overcosted and underarmed. There's no justification for the performance of the Piranha versus other armies' speeders except 'things get better and cheaper, and the Tau codex is six years old'.
yazchar 62p · 658 weeks ago
Is it something observable and simple (as maybe Shadowlord suggests) like, "is this unit a scoring unit" or a stat like toughness or armor save? Or is it something that needs to be "mathhammered" out, like how many of X unit will this unit kill over the course of the game?
In baseball you win only one way: score more runs than the other team, so the Moneyball approach works well, it identifies how to get more runs (have more people on base) and then points you to the stat to look at to select a team that has the best odds of making that happen (and that stat is On Base Percentage or OBP). In 40K some games you win via objectives some you win via kill points, and you don't always know what kind of game you'll be playing. Plus in 6th there are now secondary objectives. Line Breaker, while only worth 1 point is a point that can be obtained by a non-scoring unit that maybe didn't kill a single enemy model (I won a game by one point by having a single VESPID hop into my opponents deployment zone on the last turn!...vespid are terrible but they can move 12" and ignore difficult terrain and dangerous terrain tests!)
So, Lord Shadow, I would say that while your observation about what (for the most part) yields points and helps one win a game is great...this article falls a little short in two ways.
1.) What data do we look at to determine how much a unit will help us earn these points...what is the OBP of 40K? Is there a single number?
2.) What do you say about the fact that we can't be sure if we'll need scoring units or killing units or something else entirely? The mission in baseball doesn't change, but the missions in 40K change.
Are things that "simple"? I am curious for your answers on the two questions above. And of course...thank you for the great article! -Yazchar.
ishtheninja 66p · 658 weeks ago
The mission in baseball doesn't change, but the missions in 40K don't change that much. Having more scoring units in certain locations is the key to victory in 80% of games, killing your enemy is always useful, and anything that will help you place/keep scoring units in certain locations, deny those locations to your enemy, or kill your enemy is useful.
Things are actually pretty simple in concept, complicated in planning, and simple again in play. Scoring boots on scoring spots.
mattshadowlord 55p · 658 weeks ago
That one's easy: Take a balanced army capable of both, and don't fall into the habit of overly tailoring for an opponent or mission. Balanced 'Take-all-comers' armies generally do best at tournaments.
"1.) What data do we look at to determine how much a unit will help us earn these points...what is the OBP of 40K? Is there a single number?"
No there is not a single number. That might be a large enough question to generate an article all by itself! Off the top of my head, I'd look at 6 factors, and two of them have made a massive swing in the utility of scoring units since the start of the 6th Edition that I don't think has fully sunk in yet.
[] Can it score (Yes/No/Scenario dependant)
[] Can it Deny an objective (Yes/No/Scenario dependant)
[] Cost of unit (Lower is better)
[] Delivery Method (Dedicated Transport, foot, jetpack etc)
[] Is it an Instant scorer? (New to 6th Edition; some popular units will now fall behind because they don't score until they disembark)
[] Can it survive in the open (New to 6th as a major factor, because units cannot score inside transports)
[] Can it exert other influence on the game? (Things like Long ranged firepower while holding objectives)
As I said that's off the top of my head, but for some rough examples:
Tactical Space Marine
Can it score Yes
Can it Deny an objective Yes
Cost of unit High
Delivery Method Rhino/Pod/Foot
Is it an Instant scorer? Not unless on foot or Pod
Can it survive in the open? Yes
Can it exert other influence on the game? Low for points cost
Veteran Guardsman
Can it score Yes
Can it Deny an objective Yes
Cost of unit Low
Delivery Method Chimera/Valkyrie/Foot
Is it an Instant scorer? Not unless on foot
Can it survive in the open? No
Can it exert other influence on the game? High firepower for points cost
Nob Biker
Can it score Yes
Can it Deny an objective Yes
Cost of unit Very High
Delivery Method Bike
Is it an Instant scorer? Yes
Can it survive in the open? Yes
Can it exert other influence on the game? High assault threat
Necron Warriors
Can it score Yes
Can it Deny an objective Yes
Cost of unit Moderate
Delivery Method Foot, Ghost Ark or Night Scythe
Is it an Instant scorer? Yes if foot or ported. No if in Ghost Ark.
Can it survive in the open? Moderate/low
Can it exert other influence on the game? Low/Moderate anti vehicle firepower
There could be more relevant factors, I'll give it some thought.
Alastores · 658 weeks ago
mattshadowlord 55p · 658 weeks ago
They have moderate toughness, medium armour save (which really means none vs some of the most popular ranged weapons in the game) and low initiative. "Moderate/low" survival sounds about right to me.
Alastores · 658 weeks ago
Ah, fair enough then. I thought they were still 3+.
Garnet · 658 weeks ago
LawL LawL · 656 weeks ago
Does no one else see Vespid the way I do as MEQ-eating counter attack units?
And furthermore, just to toss a monkey-wrench into a glass-room, I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as a "useless" unit, or a "horrible" unit, or whatever term you may apply to any given unit that denotes worthlessness. This is because every single unit in 40k can do SOMETHING, which means properly managed, you can get something out of each unit. Though this does not take into account cost-efficiency or dice, which are entirely different issues.
yazchar 62p · 656 weeks ago
The big issue with them is that they are probably only going to be getting 5 cover saves, but they should always be in cover thanks to skilled flyer and a great movement rate (jump fleet), you really have no reason to have them out in the open. I've used them twice now to grab the "line breaker" point late in the game. In both games, my squad of 8 deep struck into cover, took out a few MEQs (maybe 4?), got some help from something else (plasma suits and/or fire warriors) to finish the squad off and then pretty much stayed in cover and grabbed me the line breaker point thanks to them being jump infantry with fleet (they can move pretty far in a turn).
The problem is other than the initial "surprise AP3!" when they deep strike I usually don't get too many other shots out of them because they are busy moving and using their run to stay in cover, and the range of their weapons is poor. I'm sure sometimes there will be a loan immobilized Predator they can get behind and shoot at or one last Long Fang but it hasn't happened yet for me...they pretty much shoot once and then serve as a little swarm of bugs buzzing about the battlefield.
I guess the question is, if a unit has a pretty high guarantee of netting you 1 point, but it might not do much else, is it worth the 130 points I paid for it? In one game it was the difference between a draw and me winning, in the other I didn't really need the point but it sort of served as insurance should some of my firewarriors been blasted off an objective late in the game, which didn't happen.
How much would you pay for a unit that is probably going to be able to get you 1 point for sure but likely not do much else?
Kirby 118p · 658 weeks ago
Vegetable · 658 weeks ago
My goal is the make $10,000,000,000 today... my goal is simple... its only a few words.... that does not mean its simple to achieve...
Whilst I do believe 40k if often over analysed, I do believe it has complexities above and beyond your goals... The journey is always your biggest challenge, and the challenge in 40k is actually having dudes standing by the end of game on an objective, not simply remembering that is you goal....
In summery, 40k has simple goals, but there are underlying complexities and elements of luck that come into play, that creates the varied and therefor fun games we play...
ishtheninja 66p · 658 weeks ago
A baseball game is won by scoring more runs than the other team (simple concept).
Building a roster of players with high OBP using limited resources, training that team, and managing it is hard (complex planning).
The individual ballgames are all about getting on base. (simple play)
A 40K game is normall won by putting scoring boots on scoring spots (simple concept)
Building an army list from the limits of codices and points available is hard (complex planning)
The individual games are all about getting on base. (simple play)
abusepuppy 121p · 658 weeks ago
I do think the essential point of the article stands, however- lists need to focus on winning the game, and a lot of them don't. It's very easy to lose sight of that fact.
Threadmiser 79p · 658 weeks ago
mattshadowlord 55p · 658 weeks ago
The reason people still visit is because he is often also correct in his analysis of units and tactics. I doubt he's going to win any popularity contests, but in my humble opinion he has made some genuine contributions to competitive 40k.
The style is really not for the thin skinned though :D
abusepuppy 121p · 658 weeks ago
More than sometimes, really. Habitually, even chronically.
He's a smart guy a lot of the time, he just needs to drop the fucking act. It doesn't win him any friends and it doesn't get the message across. There's a difference between "writing in a particular style" and "being as annoying as possible to validate my ego."
ishtheninja 66p · 658 weeks ago
Algesan · 658 weeks ago
Matt-Shadowlord makes a very valid point: focus on the goals, nothing else matters. Not coolness, not making your points back, not mathhammer viability, not duality, not stupid rules interpretations, not rules, not codices, nothing. The details have an influence, but don't lose sight of the goals. Failing to focus on the goal is the first n00b mistake to unlearn. M-S mentions chess as an example, but since he has played at the tournament level, the opposite side is that the devil is in the details. If you keep moving your Land Raider Crusader over 6" into RF range of gauss weapon Necrons, well... If you have to deal with Phil Kelly's writing style and the resulting stupid-good Rune Priests with JotWW, then you have to deal with it, but remember, you need to kill things and keep the right stuff of yours alive at the right places.
timff8 · 658 weeks ago
And I have to REMOVE enemy units? Is that it? Awesome! Now I just have to take whatever unit kills the most things! Wait, there are DIFFERENT units in 40k? That each require a different tool to remove? Sunnuvabich....
I'm not sure I was the intended audience for this article, honestly. So I'll just say that 'get you manz on base and keep doze other manz off yo base' is something I wasn't all that confused about.
mattshadowlord 55p · 658 weeks ago
"get you manz on base and keep doze other manz off yo base" - Nailed it. :D