Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've been talking to other objective (probably more than I am) parties, and they agree that Army Lists and 40k Tactics are not what they used to be. Here is some of the feedback, names redacted because I didn't ask permission to reprint what they said. (PM me if you want yours removed, you know who you are).



So, what if we constructed a "Tenets of 40k Tactics" similar to what we have for YMDC? Obviously, it wouldn't be quite so ballbustingly rigid. I'm just thinking some guidelines wouldn't be a bad idea. I would include something like the following.

When asking questions:
- Tell us what you have.
- Tell us what your opponent normally uses.
- Describe to us what happens. What goes wrong for you? What does your opponent always end up doing to make sure he comes out on top?
- If you have any thematic/financial limitations, for example, you require a particular unit of something, or you can't run out and dump $200 on Chimeras, or whatever they cost nowadays, let us know.
- LET US KNOW HOW IT WORKED OUT FOR YOU NEXT TIME YOU PLAY. This is my biggest peeve, so I can't stress this enough, and I'm going to rant really quick about it.

When providing advice:
- Don't just say "Ogryn are great", tell us why!
- Mathhammer, while NEVER a guarantee of outcome, IS sufficient to model the average outcome. Standard deviation may be applicable.
- Don't netlist people. If something works, and is popular, great, but I'm sure they've already seen it. We all know about Leafblower. Don't turn someone's list into it unless they're asking you to.
- If someone says they want to run a footslogging Eldar list, then don't advise them to buy 3 falcons and 5-7 wave serpents. Butchering someone's list into what they're not trying to play isn't providing sound tactical advice.

What do you guys think? Anything you would add?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I didn't want to kludge the OP with my rant, so I'm posting it here.

daedalus wrote:
- LET US KNOW HOW IT WORKED OUT FOR YOU NEXT TIME YOU PLAY. This is my biggest peeve, so I can't stress this enough, and I'm going to rant really quick about it.

Nothing says, "your advice was pointlessly academic" like not receiving confirmation that it was followed. I know what works for me, but knowing how it works in different metas/being done by someone other than me gives me better insight on how universally good an idea it is. I'm not looking for a full battle report with pictures; I just want a "Wow! Powerblobs DID work well against tac squads after all." Even a PM to the person who offered you the advice would be enough.

I like a lot of what I see here. This is generally why I try to avoid the lists and tactics sections.

I don't completely disagree with what's being said, and I think the problem arises from the ambiguity of many requests. There are many different ways to play 40k. Generally though, things that might work for people who play against highly competitive players and play in lots of tournaments will differ greatly from those who want to play beer and pretzels 40k. There's nothing wrong with either. Most people also don't fall into one category or the other. I play competitively most of the time. However, I do like to play goofy lists and try new combinations some of the time as well.

As you have stated, if people specify the assistance will be easier to give.

When asking questions:
- Tell us what you have.
- Tell us what your opponent normally uses.
- Describe to us what happens. What goes wrong for you? What does your opponent always end up doing to make sure he comes out on top?
- If you have any thematic/financial limitations, for example, you require a particular unit of something, or you can't run out and dump $200 on Chimeras, or whatever they cost nowadays, let us know.
- LET US KNOW HOW IT WORKED OUT FOR YOU NEXT TIME YOU PLAY. This is my biggest peeve, so I can't stress this enough, and I'm going to rant really quick about it.

This isn't awful advice. I'm not saying it's mandatory, but it certainly helps.

When providing advice:
- Don't just say "Ogryn are great", tell us why!
- Mathhammer, while NEVER a guarantee of outcome, IS sufficient to model the average outcome. Standard deviation may be applicable.
- Don't netlist people. If something works, and is popular, great, but I'm sure they've already seen it. We all know about Leafblower. Don't turn someone's list into it unless they're asking you to.
- If someone says they want to run a footslogging Eldar list, then don't advise them to buy 3 falcons and 5-7 wave serpents. Butchering someone's list into what they're not trying to play isn't providing sound tactical advice.

Advice is always going to be hard. 80% of what people post is probably going to be bad advice for one reason or another. I think specifying the type of environment is important. No one is going to take a poster seriously if they are claiming that loading up on Blood Claws instead of GH is the way to go in a competitive environment. Now, if the thread is about gimmicky but fun lists to try out with your friends, that same advice might be worthwhile or interesting.

I've only been playing 40k for about 4 months now and have to admit that I've posted once or twice with the aforementioned content e.g. not giving list results.

As a newer player I've found all of Dakka invaluable, even the tactics/lists section. That being said, the longer I read those sections the more redundancy I see. Every other day I see people asking how X list is when the same post was made by someone else 2 days prior, and they'll get responses from 2 different people giving the same cookie cutter information.

I agree with much of what's being said here, but equally I must say I don't feel too many 'restrictions/guidelines' are appropriate, but if people could post their limitations (financially for example), desires and ideas, that'd be great.

The thing that annoys me most - whether advice may or may not be bad - is unoriginal or irrelevant advice. Or as you said in your OP:

" - Don't netlist people. If something works, and is popular, great, but I'm sure they've already seen it. We all know about Leafblower. Don't turn someone's list into it unless they're asking you to.
- If someone says they want to run a footslogging Eldar list, then don't advise them to buy 3 falcons and 5-7 wave serpents. Butchering someone's list into what they're not trying to play isn't providing sound tactical advice. "

Netlists are forgiving, but ultimately they are not the best IMHO. If you know your list that counts for a helluva lot. Just look at Blackmoor at Nova Open (http://blackmoors40k.blogspot.com/); coming 2nd with an unorthodox list in possibly the most competitive 40K environment. Or Mannahnin, our own mod, using an unconventional CSM (old Codex!!!1!!!11!) with success.
As I said, Netlists are forgiving, but they are also tedious, unoriginal and often unfriendly. I would also argue that player experience/ability trounces netlists.

Similarly, if people suggest the player changes their list to something completely different to what they intended (particularly in a non-competitive environment), I also feel this isn't 'right'. If someone wants a Hybrid or Drop Pod list, that's fine; both can still work, particularly the former. It's really not all black and white, all-mech or nothing; all 5th edition Codices (and more) are competitive and a variety of units within these are competitive; there are a whole multitude of builds that can work that are not being explored.
It's worth pointing out to people that there are better builds available (e.g. Mechdar is typically superior and more forgiving than footdar), but I feel the real advice should be relevant to their list rather than "butchering" it.
Long Fangs are probably the best HS choice for Space Wolves; but Typhoons, Predators, Land Raiders, Dreadnoughts and Vindicators are also all good choices that can fulfil a similar role/slot. Similarly, particularly with Paladins becoming more and more popular, there are many more options than all missile launchers.

Finally, I really can't stress enough the HIGH QUALITY resources available to new players that aren't used enough IMHO.
Manchu has compiled an excellent archive of tactics threads - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/327831.page
The Dakka Articles section - http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Category:Warhammer_40%2C000_Tactics

Some of the resources here are excellent for new players; the living Tyranid thread, Thor's Dark Eldar tactica and more are all great resources that really should be used and publicised more.

Ultimately though, i don't expect anything to really change, whether or not it should. It's all well and good saying it should change, but ultimately it's in our hands and up to us to change it.

Sticky this thread. Sticky it.

Make it compulsory to at least READ this thread before posting. Please, dakka gods. I'm off to the altar to offer up some sacrifice to you. Please don't make it in vain!

Jihallah wrote:Sticky this thread. Sticky it.

Make it compulsory to at least READ this thread before posting. Please, dakka gods. I'm off to the altar to offer up some sacrifice to you. Please don't make it in vain!

The latter part needs to happen, please!

I'm sorry but these days, NO ONE READS THE STICKEYS . So annoying to see so many topics and such that would not exist if the OP just took 5 minutes out of their busy lives to read a set of precedents

Sorry for the rant(ish) post

I quite like the list of guidelines, would better streamline tactics threads so we arent flooded with the bi weekly "IS X BAD/GOOD?"

Overall very good ideas.

What I usually see lacking in the advice are army lists that include the amount of work/money to get the army up to table top (or better) standard. Drop pods might be good, but painting enough for a whole 2000pt army is some months work... at least for me.

And some models haven't even been released by GW, such as the conversion beamer MOTF, and will require some imagination and a lot of work to look good.

I think the look of the battlefield is a huge part of the game and make it more fun to play.... and I think the game is so luck dependent that the advantages between (the better) lists are quite small.

But I do understand that the tournament crowd want to optimize and might not limit themselves on the amount of money to put into the hobby. The look of the army might not be the first thing to consider either.

Soo... I call for more advice to the the non-tournament players once in a while.

Edit. Removed badly written opinion.

Kajon wrote:Overall very good ideas.

What I usually see lacking in the advice are army lists that include the amount of work/money to get the army up to table top (or better) standard. Drop pods might be good, but painting enough for a whole 2000pt army is some months work... at least for me.

And some models haven't even been released by GW, such as the conversion beamer MOTF, and will require some imagination and a lot of work to look good.

I think the look of the battlefield is a huge part of the game and make it more fun to play.... and I think the game is so luck dependent that the advantages between (the better) lists are quite small.

But I do understand that the tournament crowd want to optimize and might not limit themselves on the amount of money to put into the hobby. The look of the army might not be the first thing to consider either (considering how many people play wolves and guard).

Soo... I call for more advice to the the non-tournament players once in a while.

Are you seriously making the claim that players who use Wolves or Guard don't care about the aesthetics of the hobby?

willydstyle wrote:
Are you seriously making the claim that players who use Wolves or Guard don't care about the aesthetics of the hobby?

Oh. Of course not, I didn't really think that line trough.

I find them aesthetically boring with the grey and boxy militaristic style (and I really don't like the wolf fluff), but I know that they can look as good as anything else if painted well.

willydstyle wrote:

Are you seriously making the claim that players who use Wolves or Guard don't care about the aesthetics of the hobby?

I think that what he is trying to say is that Tactics trends toward prohibitively expensive army concepts, rather than what one might reasonably own.

daedalus wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

Are you seriously making the claim that players who use Wolves or Guard don't care about the aesthetics of the hobby?

I think that what he is trying to say is that Tactics trends toward prohibitively expensive army concepts, rather than what one might reasonably own.

True

After all saying to a newbie guard player "Yea have say 40 or so guardsmen, with each squad having 3 guns that dont come with their box set, then mount them in chimeras, then get x2 hydras (which dont have a GW model), x2 manticores, a few vendettas, and a CCS all with x4 special weapons of the same type also in a chimera"

Dark Eldar are also pretty bad. "Yea, get like around 8 or so venoms and fill them up with blasters"

Those who buy full retail price will have to sell an arm or a leg to get that up, and that doesnt even include painting all of that

In order to cut down on the number of similar posts, I think their should be a sticky with a few threads written to it.
Questions like ...

* Can you make flash gits work
* What are the role of grots
* PF or not?
* Bike army effectiveness.
* Nob loadouts

I often find myself going through my own history and cutting and pasting the same thing into a new post because its the exact same question someone asked 8 months ago.
Its rather snobish to ask the new people to 'do a search', and a simple sticky with the commonly asked questions would fill this need and cut down on the same posts over and over.

Wait a second: so one of the problems is that people don't read the stickies and you want to solve the problem by...making a sticky that tells people to read the stickies?

Ironic that something akin to that is the first sticky eh? What does that say about it though?
- People don't read it. The title should say something like "READ THIS BEFORE POSTING"
- Its not been updated as often as it could.

This is a great idea, if only the stickies were properly perused....

still a great idea daedalus, the idea of tenets for Tactics is a must tbh, i am in total agreement over every issue posted.

Dakka is still the first place I go for advice the amount of good info on here is staggering and yes sometimes there is the odd person who prolly means well but may give bad advice (and it may be good advice if you played in there local meta)

The amount of money I have saved on being able to buy an army that works is a big deal to me, between the cost of kits and the time invested in assembling and painting I need to know that I am not wasting my time on models that will just dispoint me on the table.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Wait a second: so one of the problems is that people don't read the stickies and you want to solve the problem by...making a sticky that tells people to read the stickies?

Yeah, is there any way to forward to the post we're discussing before a member makes their first post in a board? It's quite obvious a lot don't. Especially in the swap shop, people post every day who obviously don't read the rules/guidlines

I could not agree more on the cookie cutter list problem. I ahve seen too many times people post a list, and by the time it is said and done, there is not a single model from the first list.

The thing I find funny is that this thread is ostensibly about tactics, and a lot of attention here is given to list selection.

However, nothing has been said about actual battlefield *tactics* (not strategy; list setup is strategy) in 40k. Possibly because....40k focuses far more on strategy and luck than tactics.

Ogiwan wrote:The thing I find funny is that this thread is ostensibly about tactics, and a lot of attention here is given to list selection.

However, nothing has been said about actual battlefield *tactics* (not strategy; list setup is strategy) in 40k. Possibly because....40k focuses far more on strategy and luck than tactics.

It does seem to me that half the threads in the tactics forum belongs in the army lists forum instead. It looks like the trend is if you're asking about the whole list, go to the army list forum, but if your asking what to give a single unit or one or to take x unit or y unit, you go to tactics

I feel that the two go hand in hand. To me, the Army List is the tools you need to get the job done, and the 'tactics' is actually how you do the job. Well, the question then becomes whether you can actually answer, "How do I do the job?" before you answer "What do I put in my toolkit?"

I know it's remedial and not tactics, but I feel it's important groundwork that needs to be covered in the same location.

Ogiwan wrote:The thing I find funny is that this thread is ostensibly about tactics, and a lot of attention here is given to list selection.

However, nothing has been said about actual battlefield *tactics* (not strategy; list setup is strategy) in 40k. Possibly because....40k focuses far more on strategy and luck than tactics.

I agree on your sentiments about the forum: Very little of the "tactical" advice in the Tactics forum has anything to do at all with Tactics.

I disagree though about 40k being all strategy and luck. Obviously strategy is a large component, dictating what you place on the table at all, but differences between players in Tactical skill will often determine Wins from Draws or Draws from Losses...tabling your opponent to a close match.

Denying your opponent one assault may be the difference between winning and losing, and the game is really measured in millimeters when it comes down to it.

Knowing how to place your models for assault, knowing how to use Tank Shock to your advantage (if you play that kind of army), a deep knowledge of transport tactics and vehicle cover rules...all of these tactical aspects will make your individual components more threatening and more resilient, and maneuver has nothing to do with luck with the exception of Dangerous Terrain tests.

I fully agree to the OP's arguments. One think I'd also love to see is the following:

While I don't have much experience with tournaments in 40k I can see something on the boards that I know very well from competitive Magic the Gathering play. People take tournament lists from the internet, play them - also casually - and tear away everything that was not crafted for a competitive level. This will lead them to the illusion that only those things they can see at tournaments are working tactics. The result are flames at the board at everyone who dares to suggest that something unorthodox might be viable to play. Other side effects are threads that tell that only codices are playable which place at the top places in tournaments in high numbers. This is wrong on so many levels. From time to time creative players think of something new which works and maybe even gets a new tournament standard.

All those tactics that are common sight on competitive level now have been devised by someone before (and maybe even been condemned in some forums before they worked). So what I wish for is some more openness for ideas.