7077
Post by: wash-away
alright so i see so many people on here say 'this unit is so bad ass look at its stats!' 'this sucks, so many points for just this?' However in the game shop i see people talking about tactics and bad dice rolls at key points of the game.
so whats more important to your game play? do you look through your codex for the most broken unit/army you can and hope for the best?
the other side there's the tactics that bring the game into line with the old 'art of war' war genre
I've been running the same kind of lists since i first picked up 40k. learning from tactics and past mistakes.
however at a diffferent not so local game store everyone is raving about vulcan he'stan and if he sucks  any harder it'll fall off, pedro kantor has fallen snugly into the 'required' slot of my army that i've been looking for for year however i catch so much gak for him that i pack TP with my codex.
back to the question,
vulcan he'stan, = power list, flamers, thunderhammers, SoB ap1 flamers, etc.
Pedro Kantor = elite marine army, requires control of area's and limiting your opponents fireing ability while maximizing your own.
both improve shooting/assault in their own way, one re rolling one missed hit from each guy the other giving you 40 attacks on an assault squad charging.
wich is more important to your game play? and for christ sake don't say 'I try to get both in' give examples of wich you prefer, a tactical/"simple" list, or the finding the broken unit and running with it.
Mod on.
Edited for sweariness by me, Kilkrazy.
Mod off.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
This is an interesting question though it has the potential to set off an argument about "power gaming" so let's try and stick to the topic.
There is no doubt in my mind that good tactics are more important than the list. At the same time, a good player recognises that some units are better than others, or that they fit a certain sort of tactics better, so he will choose units partly on their capability.
My own army is Tau and just doesn't have the kind of super characters possible in some armies, nor any "broken" units. Some people might say Hammerheads are too powerful.
The problems with relying on uber units are (1) that players can find tactics to beat them and (2) they are a crutch, and stop you from learning good tactics.
6750
Post by: 99MDeery
hm interesting question.
In some ways it all depends on your play style, some people prefer assault or shooting or a combination of both, me i favor shooting so in my chaos marine army i try to include as many shooty units as i can (examples being obliterators and the humble chaos marine squad) and in my marine army i have lots of shooty dreads and vindicators, whilst most of these units would be considered 'broken' (vindicators and oblits being a prime example) you can't rely on them, i find that to include units to support these units, as they are not without thier weaknesses for example Vindicators have relatively weak Armour on the sides and if a powerfist or krak armed unit charges them they can be stop fairly easy.
and its true bad dice rolls can end up as a key point in the game, say take what at the moment is considered an uber unit atm for example a lash prince, what happens if he fails his physic test and can't lash the unit into his assault range and gets left stranded in the open, if you concentrate fire on the prince in the following turn he should die and therefore one of the main focuses of your opponents army has been destroyed and puts him entirely on the back foot as his army won't work as well without that prince moving units into assault ranges of things or moving units out of favorable positions
I agree with KillKrazy uber units are a crutch, in my first GT i took a Crystal Targeting Matrix army and qualified with ease, however in the subsequent years i took space marine armies (not exactly bad lists but no potential uber unit game winners (no assault cannon spam for example) and haven't done as well, the result? i have grown as a player and am now forcing myself to use not exactly bad lists but not ones that have the "i win button and you can't do anything about it"
443
Post by: skyth
This is a false dilema...
You can use tactics with powerful lists. The best players do that.
752
Post by: Polonius
Well, I know you asked us not to, but I think most players really do both. I mean, you sort of set of a false dichotomy between simple lists and riding a broken unit like a rented mule. If you look at some of the nastiest lists floating around, you'll see they are quite simple: find what's good, take as much of it as you can.
If what you're really asking is if when I build a list do I build it around a unit I know is uber good or if I instead build up from a theme, or an idea, or a list of units that I like, then that's a better question.
When I build a list I tend to build it more around a concept of "how will I win game," and select units that help with that plan. My 'Ard Boys list was based on that principle (and limited to what I owned). I wanted to run Mech Eldar and win through manuever and shooting. From that base I started with three units of Dire Avengers in Serpents, added three fire prisms for all purpose fire support, and then tinkered with the rest of the list for a while. I tried a warlock jetbike council, a fourth DA squad, and so on until I settled on Eldrad, fire dragons in a serpent and two squads of banshees in serpents. The only really "uber" unit in the roster was eldrad, and he was my weakest link in most games. If not for the KP structure of the 'Ardboys I would have replaced him with two regular farseers, but as it was his durability kept me in a few close games.
Now, you could argue that I could come up with the same list by decided to spam what's good, but for all the static mech eldar got in 4th it's probably not the most broken army in 5th (although still undeniably good).
that's not to say you can't be successful the other way: triple faclon eldar had a heydey in late fourth, while Nidzilla dominated early fourth based on it's spamming of top shelf units.
In my experience, I'm limited less by my army roster than by my skills as a player. I've won tournies with balanced IG and lost hard with AC spam space marines. I'm always better playing an army that I'm comfortable with and know how to play then with a gimmicky list.
752
Post by: Polonius
skyth wrote:This is a false dilema...
You can use tactics with powerful lists. The best players do that.
Hey now, that's some dangerous talk. 
Seriously, I recast the question as less "tactics or a good list" and went more with a "how do you build a strong list" type answer.
It's probably worth restating that a good player with a bad list will always do better than a bad player with a good list.
1985
Post by: Darkness
The nastiest lists will be beaten by the better player with more experiance and better tactics.
Experiance is everything.
However 2 equaly good opponents game will be decided on luck or paper beats rock
8696
Post by: thekyle1231
Usualy, when I figure out who my opponent is, I chose to beat them with either a "cheese" list or use some super "ace in the hole" tactic. But I always know my direction before I count up a list. For my DA, I either run a death raven list(with mixed results, its hard to use), A template heavy list(when vs orks), a assaut squad w/ chaplin list (for fun) or a static one. Not too much cheese. For my necrons, Its almost always cheese time. 1750 pts? 2 monoliths and Ctan. But occasionaly I will just use a normal list without the gods or monoliths. Guard has very few options when making a power list, so the only thing I change is the heavy/ special wepons. If you start using all the broken units in the guard codex ( commisars, ogryns, techpriests, and the plentiful crappy docterines) you will find it very hard to win. The only power list Guard has really is a mech spam. And that needs a lot of tactics to win.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
There is nothing wrong with powerful lists. Each codex contains some very good and very bad units; GW made units that are almost useless.
Building a strong list and playing a strong list at a high level are two issues that are not easy to achieve.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
skyth wrote:This is a false dilema...
You can use tactics with powerful lists. The best players do that.
This is the truth. A power list with good tactics behind it will beat a regular list with good tactics. It will also beat a power list without it. Just because you comb your codex for the most powerful choices and cram them into a list doesn't mean you are any less likely to use tactics thoughtfully.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
ITT people realize that two good things are better than one. Duh.
7077
Post by: wash-away
okay i guess i didn't word the question very well,
what i ment was do you spend more time making a list then you do playing it?
Or do you have enough experience that you can run a bad list and you've found enough ways to play a multittude of them.
i know people that read there codex front to back and look for broken units that you can use.
on the other hand people that know what basic units are good and use them to their full potential.
super units? tactical stuff?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I spend most of my time having just enough models to cram it all into the same lists I use in every game. Stupid college and high model prices :( . I do get a lot of practice with said lists though, so I tend to be able to play them better than people who alter their army per game.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
A good list won't win you a game, but a bad list will lose you a game. You have to be able to use a good list; just chosing a killer list won't give you an auto-win (unless you're Stelek that is).
BYE
8824
Post by: Breton
Well the best tactics can do nothing with a WS1, BS1 S1 T1 list. likeiwse the worst tactics can be saved by WS10 BS10 S10 AP1 A9 reroll etc....
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
I buy a Codex, I make a balanced list, collect the models, and then use the same list over and over until I stop losing with it. I used the same White Scars list for the entire lifespan of the 4th ed SM Codex. Once you know an army that well, you can't lose to someone who changes their list all the time, even if he tools up specifically against you.
8074
Post by: Faux Pas
Broken armies come and go but solid tactics will help you through any battle, in any version.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
I think that using good tactics is especially important in games with objectives and games that have enough terrain.
The latter can really skew tournaments as being all about the build (see: Loota gunline).
7936
Post by: SDFarsight
One could say that choosing a powergaming list is a part of good tactics. It's more a case of 'powergaming vs fluff'. Though using a non-powergameing list with good tactics shows that you're a better player; and like Kilkrazy said, relying on uber units is a crutch.
7077
Post by: wash-away
lord_blackfang wrote:I buy a Codex, I make a balanced list, collect the models, and then use the same list over and over until I stop losing with it. I used the same White Scars list for the entire lifespan of the 4th ed SM Codex. Once you know an army that well, you can't lose to someone who changes their list all the time, even if he tools up specifically against you.
thats what i do.
I use to use super units and try to use them effectivly, however i've turned more towards using a couply squads of weaker units to do the same job.
now this isn't a 'fluffy' armys vs 'power lists' i've seen perfectly fluffy templar lists win tournaments, and i've seen 'power lists' broken by those lists.
i just thought of a new thread topic.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
I used to win with orks in 4th ed all the time... Tactics win out against strong lists if the player doesn't know how to use it.
However... run into that player that knows tactics AND has a good list and the game becomes much harder...
I have a very well balanced list going to the Baltimore GT... I will let you know how my Witch hunters do 
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Choosing a good list is strategy, not tactics.
BYE
102
Post by: Jayden63
I have to go with the list is everything.
If you could theoretically split yourself in half and use the tactics and knowledge that you have to run both armies, the stronger list will win.
Against equally talented opponents the stronger list will win. The best win/loss records are from players that are strong tacticans and don't bring weak lists.
6363
Post by: Commisar00
While you do need a combination of both if I had to choose one or the other it would be tactics. I justify this because a bad player even with a good list usually will still not beat a good player with a bad to average list unless the dice gods just don't love him at all. Case in point I was playing my guard army, which I'm pretty sure you have seen me run with all the stuff everyone tells me not to i.e. ogryns, ratlings, stormtroopers and didn't hide in terrain. This was a tactical mistake because of too much Warmachine lately but anyway... I played against a certain bearded DA player whom we are both acquainted and almost wiped him because of tactics.
8932
Post by: Lanrak
Hi all.
Compared to the other games I play, 40k is more focused on strategic chioces than tactical chioces.(Army composition and deployment seem to have a greater impact on the end result.)
Also the way the game is structured , it is more efficient to have units that are taylord to specific tasks.
So by enlarge , a theme for the force , then optimising the unit choices to get the most efficient build for the theme.
(To answer the question , power lists due to low level of actual tactics in 40k.  )
Happy gameing.
TTFN
Lanrak.
6356
Post by: Ghidorah
"Tactics" is a pretty generous word to use for this game. For lack of a BETTER word, I suppose tactics will do. However, there isn't a whole lot of actual tactics in this game. The tactics are in army list building and deployment. After that, there'ss not much tactical about the game at all.
There never will be much in the way of REAL tactical wargaming in WH40k as long as they stick with the turn sequence the way it is now and has always been.
Ex: After your opponent's assault, knowing that you have the entire next turn with no interference from the other side allows you to move (Hit and Run) in ways or to places that you never would if there was an initiative system for each phase.
Epic40k (not Space Marine, but 3rd. ed.) had tactics. The turn sequence is far better and makes you think about where you're gonna move or whom you're going to shoot with next.
40k is a tactics void.
Ghidorah
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Ghidorah:
I take it you don't know any 40k tactics then.
4008
Post by: kadun
Please detail some 40k "tactics" for me.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
kadun wrote:Please detail some 40k "tactics" for me.
I braved a trip over to Warseer to find out for you, but all they could tell me about Tactics was that I had to ' use them'. Then they started babbling incoherently about fluff and paintjobs in an army list construction advice forum, so I left.
So yeah, apparently you need to 'use tactics' in 40K, and that's all there is to it.
BYE
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Here's one:
Take a unit of Grots and a unit of Burnas. Arrange them so that the Grots are in front of the Burnas.
If anyone tries to charge the mass, they will get bogged down in the Grots, and be at perfect range for the Burnas to shoot or charge in the next turn.
If your opponent does not fall for such an obvious trap, then you can move the mass up to a unit or units that you want the Burnas to attack. In the movement phrase, the Grots move into columns, allowing the Burnas moving afterwards to pass through the unit. In the shooting phase the Burnas shoot, and then the Gretchin unit runs back into screening position.
A similar tactic can be used by the Imperial Guard. You can screen your Special Weapon Squads with regular Imperial Guard Squads, in the fashion above. Have them advance in a line in front while the Special Weapons Squad (and other squads) advance closely behind. Anyone charging that skirmishing unit will hopefully wipe it out or break it, and allow you to rapid fire it to swiss cheese in your turn. You don't need to buy these screening squads Heavy Weapons, since their job is to move and soak fire/charges, but taking Flamethrowers on squads following them is great because the enemy that has demolished the screening squad will be at perfect template range. Remember not to leave any room where Jump Infantry might be able to fit in! For shooting, resolve as with Burnas and Grotz.
You can do the same thing with Heavy Weapon Squads and picketing Imperial Guard Squads, moving the squads out of the way in the movement phase, and moving them back in the shooting phase.
6356
Post by: Ghidorah
Nurglitch wrote:Take a unit of Grots and a unit of Burnas. Arrange them so that the Grots are in front of the Burnas.
This "tactic" is done in Army Selection by thinking about a narrow-minded, one-trick-pony combo that may or may not work. Not very "tactical" in my opinion.
Nurglitch wrote:If anyone tries to charge the mass, they will get bogged down in the Grots, and be at perfect range for the Burnas to shoot or charge in the next turn.
Shoot into hand to hand combat? There goes a chunk of your "tactic" example.
Give examples all you want. It doesn't change the fact that 40k is basically devoid of any tactics.
Look at the sport of Boxing. Very skilled combat where manuvering, offense, and defense are key to victory. Do you press to the ropes? Do you bob or weave? Do you jab, uppercut, or hook? Is your opponent a southpaw? That changes ALL your tactics in the ring.
Now, if the rules for boxing said, "Boxer A, move to your desired positon for the turn and throw your punches. Now, prepare your defense for your opponent's turn. Boxer B, move to your desired position and throw your punches. Now prepare your defenses for your opponent's turn. Repeat."
No longer a tactical sport. Not to mention boring as hell...
Ghidorah
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
I agree. Compared to Epic 40K (and Epic: Armageddon), Warhammer 40K isn't very tactical. I was hoping that some of the Epic rules would migrate over to 40K in this latest edition, but not many of them did. Even getting rid of IgoUgo would be a major step in the right direction.
7077
Post by: wash-away
Pariah Press wrote: I agree. Compared to Epic 40K (and Epic: Armageddon), Warhammer 40K isn't very tactical. I was hoping that some of the Epic rules would migrate over to 40K in this latest edition, but not many of them did. Even getting rid of IgoUgo would be a major step in the right direction.
when i started playing battleteck this was the biggest perk to me. there where 10 poker chips in a hat (for each player) and we each drew one out. I'd laugh when i go last (a good thing because all fireing was simo and i could get into position) overheat fireing all my weapons into their back armour and watch it blow up in a marvelous fashion. however this was only 1 out of 10 times and i loved moving around the little robots and having a good time. what i don't like about 40k, only 2 people play, and there's so many different options that you'll never be able to play them all. what i do like about 40k, an endless stream of convertability (word?), and my own personalized army. The game comes second to me. I really think that a list will make or break your army, a lot more then tactics will. As i've said before, putting a golden demon worth model in someone's hands doesn't make them a master painter. Neither does giving someone the best most balanced and powerful list in the game make someone a great general.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
10-player BTech? 1 'Mech each. That must've been interesting... and taken forever.
BYE
7077
Post by: wash-away
H.B.M.C. wrote:10-player BTech? 1 'Mech each. That must've been interesting... and taken forever.
BYE
it was fun, we where just learning the rules but it did go rather quickly. everyone picked a meck out of a pile and we just went to town getting what we got.
my marauder was awsome, i wish i still had it.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Most I've done is 4 player, 2 'Mechs a side. That was a fun game. A lot of alliances made and broken, double-crosses, betrayals, retreating, mad charges. Great fun.
BYE
7077
Post by: wash-away
H.B.M.C. wrote:Most I've done is 4 player, 2 'Mechs a side. That was a fun game. A lot of alliances made and broken, double-crosses, betrayals, retreating, mad charges. Great fun.
BYE
"you only play battleteck for fun the first time, the rest is for revenge."
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
From a Fantasy point of view, spectacularly bad luck aside, it is typically the better player, than the better list that wins.
Why? How combat works, and how well the players understand how to make it work for them.
As an example, a newcomer, particularly one from 40k, will use shooting to eradicate enemy units, whether through panic or casualties. An experienced player knows not only is this generally difficult to do, but that simply picking off two or three models for any unit tips combat in their favour (unless it gobbos, when you need to kill *lots!*). Why? Combat Resolution. Static Res, for most units, is a comfortable +4. 3 points from Ranks, 1 point from Banner. In this example, I will work with 5 wide, 4 deep in both instances of exactly matched units, lets say, 20 Empire Swordsmen, purely for arguements sake.
Now, if I can kill even a single Swordsman from the enemy unit, without losing a single wound, I gain the upper hand considerably. He loses a single Rank, taking him to +3 Static Resolution, and I (typically) gain outnumber, giving me +5. This means he has to cause two more casualties than I do to *draw* the combat, and 3 to kill it. In this instance, the combat really should be dawdle for my lads.
Of course, with less matched units, the outcome becomes less and less certain, but just by knocking off that single rank, I really do gain a massive advantage, regardless of who or what I am fighting. So a single turns bowfire is usually enough to soften the enemy up.
Then you have flanks and rear. Hit them, the opponent loses his ranks (provided you're not Skirmishers and have at least US5 at the end of combat of course) this is about as close to a guaranteed win as you can get. He'll have +1 for banner, *possibly* +1 for Outnumber (they generally do in my experience, as smaller units are easier to position for flank charges) where I get +1 for Banner +3 for Ranks, and a further +1 for the Flank Charge (+2 if it's the rear)
So, some things in Warhammer are very, very nasty, but it is rare when it is immune to a single unit in the game. Even a Greater Daemon going up against a full combat block is risking it, as to win, they need 6 points of combat Resolution, all of which has to come from combat (he needs 6, because in the event of a draw, if one side has a musician, that side wins, so 5 won't cut it). Even a Bloodthirster with 2D6+2(I think he gets the +2!) is taking a massive risk in charging the front.
So, in short, in Fantasy, with very few notable exceptions (Thorek Gunline is one) it is genuinely tactics and strategy that carry the day. Of course, for your tactics to work, you need to know your force inside out!
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Ghidorah wrote:Nurglitch wrote:Take a unit of Grots and a unit of Burnas. Arrange them so that the Grots are in front of the Burnas.
This "tactic" is done in Army Selection by thinking about a narrow-minded, one-trick-pony combo that may or may not work. Not very "tactical" in my opinion.
Nurglitch wrote:If anyone tries to charge the mass, they will get bogged down in the Grots, and be at perfect range for the Burnas to shoot or charge in the next turn.
Shoot into hand to hand combat? There goes a chunk of your "tactic" example.
Give examples all you want. It doesn't change the fact that 40k is basically devoid of any tactics.
Look at the sport of Boxing. Very skilled combat where manuvering, offense, and defense are key to victory. Do you press to the ropes? Do you bob or weave? Do you jab, uppercut, or hook? Is your opponent a southpaw? That changes ALL your tactics in the ring.
Now, if the rules for boxing said, "Boxer A, move to your desired positon for the turn and throw your punches. Now, prepare your defense for your opponent's turn. Boxer B, move to your desired position and throw your punches. Now prepare your defenses for your opponent's turn. Repeat."
No longer a tactical sport. Not to mention boring as hell...
Ghidorah
Of course the Grot/Burna is a tactic. What else is it? The Grots give the Burnas an important cover save, are very much expendible. The Burnas make the Grots more of a threat, as HTH is likely to land you with a good, old fashioned roasting followed by a thorough doing over. Why? Charge the Grots. Go on. Hey, look, you massacred them in a single turn. And now, you cannot consolidate into a new combat, you are left standing. Movement phase, Burnas shuffle forward, hats down ROASTYTOASTY! and then charge the survivors.
Sounds a pretty solid tactic to me, as it produces decisions for your opponent, and gives you various reactionary options as well.
4008
Post by: kadun
So good "tactics" in 40k (as in all tabletop/board games of abstraction) boils down to good knowledge of the rules and how to apply them to maximum effect.
The tactics Nurglitch described above simply take advantage of the "No consolidating into new combats" and "template resolution" 5th edition rules. Other "tactics" include using the counter-charge rules to "pull" a unit off an objective. Using wound allocation rules to mitigate casualties. Positioning two vehicles so that one has a 3+ cover save vs shooting.
Likewise in 4th you combine the rules for Line of Sight/Range and Casualty removal to get "Line of Sight/Range sniping". Or combine rules for Combat initiative and "who can fight" and you get "clearing the kill zone."
So "using tactics" is simply "know the rules" and how to apply them.
Faux Pas wrote:Broken armies come and go but solid tactics will help you through any battle, in any version.
How so? If tactics are based on rules, they change when rules change. Because of rules changes you can no longer "Range snipe" or clear a kill zone or Fish of Fury (unless your Devil Fish are mounted very high).
123
Post by: Alpharius
H.B.M.C. wrote:kadun wrote:Please detail some 40k "tactics" for me.
I braved a trip over to Warseer to find out for you, but all they could tell me about Tactics was that I had to ' use them'. Then they started babbling incoherently about fluff and paintjobs in an army list construction advice forum, so I left.
So yeah, apparently you need to 'use tactics' in 40K, and that's all there is to it.
BYE
Priceless!
(And, sadly, true!)
9217
Post by: KingCracker
yea i prefer tatics more then uber characters or broken stuff. simply because when someone blows the hell outta those, your basically screwed. like in the 4th edition chaos dex you could make a super killy demon prince that pretty much kills armies on its own. as soon as you get some bad rolls tho, i hope your other units have a good life insurance plan.
Depends really on what the game is tho. if its smaller and you have only one or two "key" things then yea i screen the pooh outta them. cannon fodder is a great tactic. but when the game is bigger, shoot man, its all about terminators and dreds.... as many as you can field.
246
Post by: Lemartes
Give examples all you want. It doesn't change the fact that 40k is basically devoid of any tactics.
It all depends what I am in the mood for. If I want to play checkers I play 40K. If I want to play chess I play Warmachine. 40K really is about power build lists and veteren players playing Rock, Paper, and Scissors. You kind of get a sense of who wins or loses most times in 40K after about round two or three.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Kadun wrote:So "using tactics" is simply "know the rules" and how to apply them.
Hopefully that does not come as a shock to you. That is how games work. The rules give a structure combining starting positions to give a series of endgames, the value of which is ranked by the game. Tactics are simply the little non-game sub-problems that you need to solve to solve the strategic problem of winning the game.
The problem is that, if you wave away tactics as knowing the rules and applying them, you miss the niceties that make the difference between winning and losing. Anyone can know the rules, and not be able to solve the tactical problems that the rules will present in combination with an opponent and the strategic boundaries of that particular game (terrain, objectives, etc).
Moveover it takes a well-trained eye to be able to solve many Warhammer tactical problems because the rules disallow pre-measuring, giving a distinct advantage to the player that can eyeball it to the nearest 1/2" or 1/4", because that player will be able to play the ranges on shooting and charges such that their opponent will constantly be missing 'opportunities', or taking one more turn to get into assault or to shoot a unit.
While range-clipping and sniping has gone the way of the dodo, you can still arrange units so that casualties from one attacker put another attacker out of range.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
kadun wrote:So good "tactics" in 40k (as in all tabletop/board games of abstraction) boils down to good knowledge of the rules and how to apply them to maximum effect.
The tactics Nurglitch described above simply take advantage of the "No consolidating into new combats" and "template resolution" 5th edition rules. Other "tactics" include using the counter-charge rules to "pull" a unit off an objective. Using wound allocation rules to mitigate casualties. Positioning two vehicles so that one has a 3+ cover save vs shooting.
Likewise in 4th you combine the rules for Line of Sight/Range and Casualty removal to get "Line of Sight/Range sniping". Or combine rules for Combat initiative and "who can fight" and you get "clearing the kill zone."
So "using tactics" is simply "know the rules" and how to apply them.
Faux Pas wrote:Broken armies come and go but solid tactics will help you through any battle, in any version.
How so? If tactics are based on rules, they change when rules change. Because of rules changes you can no longer "Range snipe" or clear a kill zone or Fish of Fury (unless your Devil Fish are mounted very high).
If you play a range of wargames you find there are standard sorts of tactics or principles of war which work in all situations. For example, making flank attacks.
These tactics are not rules dependent because any set of rules will incorporate them. A new player will know that if he does a flank attack it will be more effective than a head on attack. He doesn't need to know exactly how it works in the rules.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I build lists that look fun, which includes powerful units because they are fun. Then, when playing, I use tactics to try and win with that list. I think everyone does this. No one lines up a Godzilla army and then just doesn't move or shoot, and expect to win.
The reason we talk about lists and units is because it's easier. We all have the books, it's all simple and laid out. Tactics require knowledge of your list, the opponents list, and the terrain. It's difficult to talk about it beyond a sort of vague and obvious level, because tactics vary from situation to situation. That doesn't mean that many of the players here ignore tactics, just that we find list building easier to talk about.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
OH, and utilising two units together, whether to the benefit of one or both, is Synergy. Synergy is something you engineer into your list, and make happen with tactics.
A good example is the tactical application of Markerlight Hits with Tau. Light up the right target, expend them strategically, and there you have it. A Tactic.
BUt of course, you've already made up your mind, haven't you, so there is no real point in debating the issue at all.
4008
Post by: kadun
Kilkrazy wrote:
If you play a range of wargames you find there are standard sorts of tactics or principles of war which work in all situations. For example, making flank attacks.
These tactics are not rules dependent because any set of rules will incorporate them. A new player will know that if he does a flank attack it will be more effective than a head on attack. He doesn't need to know exactly how it works in the rules.
Can you detail how to make a flanking attack in 40k? If you do I will attempt to break it down to simply applying rules to your benefit.
Nurglitch wrote:
Hopefully that does not come as a shock to you. That is how games work. The rules give a structure combining starting positions to give a series of endgames, the value of which is ranked by the game. Tactics are simply the little non-game sub-problems that you need to solve to solve the strategic problem of winning the game
Yes that is of no shock to me, it follows from my experience in wargaming. Care to elaborate what you mean by solving "non-game sub-problems" and give some 40k related examples? What do you mean by "non-game"?
Nuglitch wrote:
The problem is that, if you wave away tactics as knowing the rules and applying them, you miss the niceties that make the difference between winning and losing. Anyone can know the rules, and not be able to solve the tactical problems that the rules will present in combination with an opponent and the strategic boundaries of that particular game (terrain, objectives, etc).
Can you give examples of these "niceties that make the difference between winning and losing"?
Nurglitch wrote:
Moveover it takes a well-trained eye to be able to solve many Warhammer tactical problems because the rules disallow pre-measuring, giving a distinct advantage to the player that can eyeball it to the nearest 1/2" or 1/4", because that player will be able to play the ranges on shooting and charges such that their opponent will constantly be missing 'opportunities', or taking one more turn to get into assault or to shoot a unit.
Well thats knowing how to guage distances, an excellent skill to have for sure that helps at winning games, but not a tactic in of itself. In fact, it's only useful if you are at first familiar with the rules and why those distances that you are accurately judging are important.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
kadun wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:
If you play a range of wargames you find there are standard sorts of tactics or principles of war which work in all situations. For example, making flank attacks.
These tactics are not rules dependent because any set of rules will incorporate them. A new player will know that if he does a flank attack it will be more effective than a head on attack. He doesn't need to know exactly how it works in the rules.
Can you detail how to make a flanking attack in 40k? If you do I will attempt to break it down to simply applying rules to your benefit.
.
I don't think there is any benefit in making flank attacks in 40K. Neither side gets any benefit or penalty to firepower, cover or morale because of a flank attack.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Kadun:
Non-game sub-problems are simply those procedures that players must go through to resolve actions in the game, such as moving, shooting, etc. However, unlike Chess, for example, the solutions to non-game sub-problems like moving can be better or worse. In Chess a piece is either moved into a square or it isn't, whereas in Warhammer 40k with its composite model/unit elements, the success of a movement action will depend on a set of variables such as whether the enemy has many blast weapons available to affect the unit and so on.
The niceties that make the difference between winning and losing in 40k, and get waved away by talking about tactics reductively, as 'just knowing the rules', include knowing what distance to move models relative to the enemy and in what order, knowing what order in to shoot with units given the expected value of their shooting and the threat value of possible targets, knowing when to engage the enemy, knowing the amount of material and its position to efficiently assault and defeat the enemy, etc.
All of these things are only useful if you know the rules, but that's because they constitute another level of the game above and beyond the mere application of the rules, the level of the game on which tactics are used rather than the level of the game described by the rules.
If this is confusing, let me give you a toy example, using that old saw, the Prisoner's Dilemma, modified to be about dividing up a pot of money.
These are the rules of the game: You and your opponent have two choices: either give the other $2 out of the pot, or keep $1 for yourself. Depending on whether one's opponent is a Giver or a Taker, a Giver will make either $2 or $0. Similarly, a Taker will make either $3 or $1.
Now, the Prisoner's Dilemma can be considered a game in itself, in which case it's a very uninteresting game because you should always Take (though a very interesting schema for certain types of game), or at a non-game sub-problem in a game consisting of variably iterated Prisoner's Dilemmas. Although taken as a single one-off the Prisoner's Dilemma is a no-brainer, taken as part of a variably iterated series the Prisoner's Dilemma makes both choices a live option for the player to use, so that sometimes it's better to Give than to Take. Which tactic of Giving or Taking is preferred in any particular iteration will depend both on the level at which single games, the rules, prescribe what must be done, and the level at which prior iterations and current assessment of opposing strategy, the tactical level, prescribe what must be done.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
the only benefit I can see is if it's a snikrot style flank attack that lets you assault without being shot.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Killkrazy:
I think it depends on whether the unit or the army has flanks. I think a unit has flanks when its formation is across one axis greater than 2" plus its assault move. Likewise an army has flanks when it has units that are outside of the range of shooting and counter-assaults, such as happens occasionally when they are near a side of the board.
One benefit to flank attacks in 40k are minimizing the number enemy models getting into a counter-assault, or being able to shoot or assault the enemy unit in the following turn. Minimizing resistance to attacks.
Another benefit to flank attacks in 40k is maximizing the number of friendly models that can shoot or assault a single unit without getting in each other's way.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Fair points. I was thinking of traditional things like morale effects.
6473
Post by: Mephistoles1
Exact army lists don't matter much to me. You need to evaluate the effectiveness of units that you use and use them effectivly to accomplish tasks. Part of this needs to be done when builing your list. Having a plan for your list is the first biggest step to building effective lists. Followed by using the plan.
For example, I had a rhino rushish assault army. The plan was to have 7 + of my untis move as far forward as possible on the first turns to minimize shooting and get into assault quickly. My opponent deployed first and I used cover to hide from his shooting attacks. This left me not moving very far forward, and bottle neckign my units so that only one or two of them were threatening to his army on the first turn. Had I stuck to my plan, I should have been able to overwhelm his shooting attacks and put 3/4 of my army into assault 2nd turn, rather than the none that I actually managed buy hanging back in cover with an army designed to rush.
I think 5th's deployment mechanic helps stop a lot fo the knee jerk reactions that were so fatal to lists in 4th. "Oh, you put your land raider right there, well then I put my anti tank unit right here ... ooh why are you putting that assault sqaud so close to my anti tank sqaud ... no fair!"
So, I think evaluating tactics and using them appropriatly are more important than an optimizesd list. Evaluating is the key word. For instance, Lemartes had a pretty killer chaos shooty list he was using. He sold it to a kid in the LGS and the kid couldn't win, couldn't win, couldn't win and was trying to get rid of the "crappy army." He was newer and jsut expected things to work because "unit a is so darn cool." Lemartes expalined the army, why it worked, and how to use it to use it well and win with it. The kid just couldn't or wouldn't play that way so the army sucked for him.
I like straight forward beatstick tactics so my chaos assault army works for me pretty well. I donlt like finesse tactic armies becuase I get caught up in things and forget to do the finesse I planned out. Evaluation of what is working and what isn't is a key skill in doing well at any task that requires adaptation.
Meph
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Killkrazy:
Could winning an assault by a higher margin count as a morale effect? It seems to me that it does, within the confines of what can count as a morale effect in Warhammer 40k.
Likewise, the effect of a unit being picked off without retaliation, requiring either repositioning of the army, or leaving an opening on that flank, seems to me like it covers an implicit morale effect for the army.
8932
Post by: Lanrak
Hi all.
40k has moral effects , but they are severly played down.(Compared to other games.)
And 40k has ALOT of strategic loading.(Cos' cool rules sells many varied models...)
But it is a bit limited as far as actual tactics goes.
I can only think of the following actual tactics.(In game decisions.)
A/ Targeting priority.(Which of your units attack which enemy units.)
B/ Deciding the method of attack.(How you attack enemy units .)
And thats about it, unless you can think of any more?
I am not being obtuse-negative here, I realy am at a loss of thinking of any other ACTUAL tactical choices other than those two.
(Try playing Blood Bowl, for a tacticaly rich game. )
Because of the loading towards strategic conciderations , I feel lists have FAR more influence on the end result of a game of 40k than any actual 'tactics'.
TTFN
Lanrak.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Nurglitch wrote:Killkrazy:
Could winning an assault by a higher margin count as a morale effect? It seems to me that it does, within the confines of what can count as a morale effect in Warhammer 40k.
Likewise, the effect of a unit being picked off without retaliation, requiring either repositioning of the army, or leaving an opening on that flank, seems to me like it covers an implicit morale effect for the army.
As Lanrak says the morale effects are limited compared to a lot of other rules.
40K is a fast-playing game, not intended to be as in-depth as something like WRG 7th edition.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Killkrazy:
Yes, Warhammer 40k does not have much in the way of explicitly labeled 'morale effects' beyond morale checks and pinning tests. That in no way disagrees with my statement that, within the confines of what can count as a morale effect in Warhammer 40k, winning an assault by a higher margin than otherwise counts as a morale effect of a flank attack.
Furthermore I see nothing more realistic about having a set of specific morale rules rather than building morale effects into the regular game rules, and I don't see how a fast-playing game need by any less in depth because its rules don't labour under their application. In fact, I think it is more realistic to have morale effects incorporated by the game rules, than as a sub-set of the game rules. I think it is a mark of sophistication that a game treats morale both realistically and dynamically so that the inclusion of morale effects does not slow the game down.
Crossfire is a good example of this, since it is about morale effects, and thus builds morale effects into its basic mechanics rather than smearing them on over top some basic morale-neutral mechanics, and it plays fast and realistically.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I haven't read or played Crossfire.
I don't think it's true that morale is overlaid in a game like WRG 7th, any more than pinning effects are overlaid in 40K. The difference is that the morale effects are like a complement to combat in that positioning a unit on a flank affects the enemy's morale even without making an attack.
It can be argued this is an unnecessary level or complication, or it can be argued that it adds subtlety to the game.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
BTW WRG and other ancients rules have always had their "power lists" as well as 40K.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Kilkrazy:
It doesn't matter whether something can be argued, only if it can be argued rightly and to a conclusion.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Well it's my bedtime so I'm not going to argue it tonight.
Besides, there is room in the world for all kinds of rules. If they were all the same it would be boring.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Flanking in 40k can be done, and does have a use.
Remember how cover works now. If your unit if hidden behind a wall, if my firepower comes from the side of your unit, you don't get a cover save. I have just flanked you. Similarly, you no longer receive the Cover Bonus should I assault.
40k uses very different tactical choices to say, Fantasy. As I illustrated earlier in the thread,in Fantasy, nothing can be considered a non-threat. Everything has at least a chance of taking down anything, as long as you have the wit and wile to exploit the situation, or even better, engineer it.
But 40k...the majority of your tactics are down to the list writing. Being predominantly a game of objectives, you need to consider a) how you are going to hold them, b) how you are going to defend them and c) how you are going to take them. Thats 3 jobs no single unit can be relied upon to achieve on it's own. So what to do? Well, I would tend to organise my force into batallions of a sort, with each one being designed to take, hold and defend an objective. With Marines, Terminator Squads, whether shooty or HTH can both take and defend an objective. I might drop in a Predator armed with Lascannons to deter the Terminators natural predators, and probably have a unit of Scouts and a unit of Tactical Marines in support. The Scouts can not only aid in holding the objective (being Troops choices) but if given comlimentary weapons (Sniper rifles in this case I should imagine, with the intent there being to slow down enemy advances with opportune pinnings). The Tactical Marines, suitably equipped, can hold the objective as well as offering support to any other element of the Batallion. The Terminators really are there to flush out enemy units (any weapons can be used to achieve this) and then form a large deterrent to anyone thinking of attempting to reclaim it. Get two such Batallions into a single list, and you are in a strong position from the get go. Any remaining points would be spent on complimentary units to cover the last base of contesting enemy held Objectives should things go tits up. Bikes and Assault Marines are good here for various reasons. Armed with flamers, they can be used to drive enemies off objectives should the Terminators either be held up or even destroyed. I guess another way of putting the remaining points spent is as multiple redundancy contingency plans.
Am I not using tactics even at this stage? Looking for synergy and weaving it into my list is tactical *forethought*. Then, on the field of battle, the theory of the tactics is put into practice. Further tactics then come in from spotting potential threats to my plan, and eliminating them before they interfere too much, as well as attempting to spot my opponents strategy, and mucking it up for him where I can.
So, no Tactics in 40k huh?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Polonius wrote:Well, I know you asked us not to, but I think most players really do both. I mean, you sort of set of a false dichotomy between simple lists and riding a broken unit like a rented mule. If you look at some of the nastiest lists floating around, you'll see they are quite simple: find what's good, take as much of it as you can.
But that's still riding a power list in most cases.
As I interpret the call for "tactics", it would be to take a Fluff-bunny list. Using the most common SM list, that means to start with something like a demi-Company:
HQ = 1 Captain
Troops = 4+ full Tac squads w/ varied weapons & full (mostly-Rhino) Transport
Fast = 1 full Assault squad
Heavy = 1 full Devastator squad w/ Rhino/Razorback
Then, as points allow, add things like a Landspeeder, a Predator, etc. eschewing the highly-specialized units, much less en masse.
This is an approach that demands tactical play from a more-flexible force, rather than simply overwhelming the opponent with power list packed with Ordnance / assault / Deep Strikers / tricks.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
That same rough layout with orks will give you a much more powerful layout though.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Perhaps, but the difference being that the above SM list is codified in Fluff as "standard" since 2E.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Power Lists incompetently used will still result in a loss.
8932
Post by: Lanrak
HI all.
I think we can say that that 40k army composition has much greater influence on the game outcome than in other games.
Opposing players of equal ability , one with a competative list, and one with a fluffy but very poor cost effective slections.
We know who is more likely to win dont we....
If within a few weeks of a new codex release there is an annalasis of all units rating competative to poor, this surley shows how heavily influenced the game of 40k is by force composition?
And the players abiliy to determine the strongest and weakest choices .
TTFN
Lanrak.
1986
Post by: thehod
Morale is a joke in 40k. Fearless is handed out like candy or there are units that allow for rerolls on leadership or simply high leadership troops.
40k is not really tactical because you can have a situation where all the tactics in the game mean nothing against the wrong matchup. (stealer shock vs mech skimmers, or tri-monolith)
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
That still happens in Fantasy though, even if it is to a lesser degree. For example, a Magic Heavy army going up against a Combat Heavy Army with lots of Magic Resistance is really going to struggle. The process of writing your list is a matter of willing sacrifices. You can't have your cake and eat it, or to quote Adeptus Titanicus 'The Arming of a Titan, by necessity, must always be a compromise'
Every army has it's Trumping opponent. nothing has all the bases covered. And that is when the wit and skill of the gamer comes into full force. Take the game I had last night. I was using Savage Orcs, he was using Dark Elves. Make no bones about it, I came very close to having my arse kicked. By the end of the 3rd turn, I was down to 3 Shamans, 10 Big'uns and 15 Boyz. I'd barely touched his force. And yet, end of turn 6, with a meagre 2 Boyz and a Shaman left, I had wiped him out utterly, bagging me an automatic Massacre. Despite being a low armour horde force, I turned out to be something he could not deal with, and all because I didn't have to take Panic tests. This allowed me to close the range against his predominantly shooting force, and give them what for in combat (seriously. Big'uns, reduced as they were to 9 models, won their combat against 25 Dark Elf Spears by a not inconsiderable 5 points.)
Stealer Shock works exceedinly well against some armies, and as you pointed out, tends to suffer against others, notably when they can be outpaced by a decent amount of Guns. Is this a flaw in the tactics? I'd say not at all. To take a heavily geared/themed list is a risk. The risk is of course, running into something you just can't handle.
Tri-Monoliths, for example, wouldn't do terribly well against Broadside Heavy Tau, would they? They risk going down far too quickly, and their inclusion has meant the exclusion of various other extremely useful units (Tomb Spyders to help keep things on their feet, and Heavy Destroyers, a reliable if expensive anti-armour unit). Not to mention the sheer amount of points sunk into them.
4264
Post by: shogun
thehod wrote:Morale is a joke in 40k. Fearless is handed out like candy or there are units that allow for rerolls on leadership or simply high leadership troops.
40k is not really tactical because you can have a situation where all the tactics in the game mean nothing against the wrong matchup. (stealer shock vs mech skimmers, or tri-monolith)
Just remember that in close combat fearless is not a joke anymore. For every wound (more) you have to make a armor save.
40k is all about tactics. It starts with your army setup and how you play with it. If your in a wrong matchup, that means your army isnt flexible/all-round. If you choose an army with this "flaw" you can still think about tactics. You can ask yourself:
how can I get a draw/win with my stealershock against 3 monolith's? Maybe I will but everything in reserve and when the arrive the run like hell towards the loot counters!! once the are there I will go into hiding and maybe get a draw!
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
shogun is right, but something I can add is that the effectiveness of Fearless in close combat is now proportionate to the combat abilities of the models. A Fearless Deathwing Terminator is going to get more out of his Fearless than a Lesser Daemon!
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
40k is a tactical game but some people try to circumvent this with power lists. As has been stated the better players use both tactics and strong lists to win on a consistent basis. Someone who simply relies on their list will lose against a better player with a weaker list. To say there no tactics because of the rock paper scissors argument does not take into account balanced army lists.
G
6035
Post by: Techboss
This issue isn't as simple as the original post implies. It's more of a three headed animal than simply list or tactics (experience). I see it kind of like this:
Better tactics usually trump bad or worse tactics. Better tactics usually comes with experience with the list being played and experience against the players you play against. When entering a new gaming group, the group or new player may dominate initially, but eventually they will adjust with to each other and tendencies will show themselves. Once the tendencies are known, tactics can be developed and used. Eventually whoever is better at making in game adjustments (tactics) will be the winner assuming all else is equal.
Using a power list will result in more victories than using a rounded/fluffy list. The list that has the least amount of fat and gets the most bang for the points is obviously going to do better than one that takes trash units that are overpriced. Most power lists use maximize the broken rules/units while minimizing not as powerful units.
The third aspect that has been mentioned, but not really focused on is the bad match up wins. Certain army builds can be a win purely based on who they are playing. If I set my army up for playing against a horde army (flamers, templates), I'm going to worse against MEQs than if I set up for them (plasma, las). Some people set up their army for every match, including casuals in the LGS. Others use a preset list regardless of opponent. I've lost tournaments because of this where I have to go up against a guy who is purely set up for one type of army and it just happens to be mine.
You can be the best tactician in the world, but if your playing a fluffy list that is a bad match up, chances are your going to get beat. There are exceptions to this of course because some people are so bad that even with all the advantages they can still loose. I know I've won games because of the match up and power list issues (4th Ed Khorne vs 3rd BT). I've also lost matches because of power list and match up issues.
One other thing that plays heavily, though not as much since 5th, assuming I'm informed correctly, is who goes first. Going first used/is possibly the most important aspect of the game depending on the army builds.
1986
Post by: thehod
40k is more list driven than tactics.
A good player can do well with a balanced list but if you take a bad list straight from a battle force, it may take all the tactics to get a draw.
4264
Post by: shogun
thehod wrote:40k is more list driven than tactics.
A good player can do well with a balanced list but if you take a bad list straight from a battle force, it may take all the tactics to get a draw.
Well of course its all about your list/unit selection... thats the start of your tactical battle plan to begin with. We are not playing chess are we.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Lists of course are very important but even the best do not self play. Of course there are those over the top lists that seem to self play... they can still be beat even if they are balanced as well. You must also take into consideration terrain, any mission rules and also take advantage of your opponent's weaknesses/mistakes.
For example I beat hard as nails daemon bomb army back in 4th edition (old Chaos codex) with shooty SM by using the following tactics:
Setup all units in cover and behind difficult terrain so that I could hit first in close combat and hope some of the daemons did not reach assault the same turn they came in from reserve.
Place my army spread out with each unit more than six inches apart so the opponent could not consolidate into another after massacring another unit in close combat.
These two sets of tactics worked very well and I was able to use my shooting much better than my opponent was able to use his assaulting. It was a close game and the tactics made the difference in my favor.
G
G
8932
Post by: Lanrak
Hi Green Blow Fly.
What you listed above is NOT tactics , but strategy.
Anything to do with force composition or deployment is STRATEGY.
Tactic are in game choices.(Eg what unit you use to attack what enemy , and if they stand off and shoot or close assault, etc.)
40k has strategic depth.But is tacticaly shallow.(Comparativley)
40k is a fun dice rolling game for ages 12 and up!
(A tacticaly rich wargame suitable for ballanced competative play is definatley is NOT!!)
Happy gaming .
TTFN Lanrak.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Of course, the strategic choices often determine the tactical choices to follow as the game unfolds... 
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
thehod wrote:40k is more list driven than tactics.
A good player can do well with a balanced list but if you take a bad list straight from a battle force, it may take all the tactics to get a draw.
But define a good list.
Is it entirely comprised of nominally 'top tier' units? Is it a list desinged around a specific theme in the background? Or is it one charged entirely towards one aspect of warfare? Does it depend on your opponent? Or perhaps on the mission?
You simply cannot define a bad list, especially since Victory Points have now been removed from the equation.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
In the context of this thread a good list is a list structured around units that have significant impact in the game.
Units like Lash Princes, Hammerheads, and hordes of Shoota and Rokkit Boyz.
As opposed to a list structured around units that are fluffy and fun and lack in-game impact.
A unit being "good" does not mean it can't be fluffy at the same time.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
No, true. I was just giving as many examples I could have of list design theories.
But for example, Lash of Submission is only good *if* you have other units capable of capitalising on enemy units being drawn out of position. So, on it's own, it's merely useful, but with a bit of forethought, it becomes deadly (for example, drawing out the enemies harder units to be tied up fighting Spawn, leaving your own hard units to pick on the softer targets. After all, nobody likes a fair fight!)
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
strategy versus tactics... You could be right but I believe they are commonly bundled together... how you go about unravelling the two is where it gets very interesting in my opinion.
G
4264
Post by: shogun
Lanrak wrote: What you listed above is NOT tactics , but strategy.
Anything to do with force composition or deployment is STRATEGY.
You pick a strategy when you make an army and deploy it. But after that its all about tactics isnt it? You dont now the outcome of the dice's and after every round you need to make tactical decissions. how can you say that 40k isnt tactical?
With my chaos army I played against a 190 models horde ork army. He had only one strategy.... RUN-CHARGE-KILL.
My strategy: I got a Lash army with vindicator template and 2 obliterators, plague marines, thousand sons, deepstriking combiplasma terminators and (greater) deamon(s). Iam tough and I lash units within vindicator range,thousand sons bolters and plaguemarines/terminators plasmaguns. Got cheap counterattack with deamons and a greater deamon.
Strategy/tactics: at the left flank the have to move over the mountains wich makes them slow. I will be waiting there with my plaguemarines to take the first charge. At that time my deamons will join the fight. At the right flank I will shoot with my vindicator at the closest unit and my two Lashers wil either Lash them to the back or closer to each other so I will get maximum template kills. My thousand sons stay in the middel and shoot as much with there bolters and try to stay out of CC.
I won because I had 6 killpoints and he had only 3.
I won because of great tactics, nothing else....
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
yeah... Basically Lanrat needs to buy a new dictionary... hurrr hurrr!
G
8932
Post by: Lanrak
Hi guys.
I didnt say 40k didnt require any thought did I? 
I simply pointed out that ACTUAL tactical choices in the game of 40k are some what limited.
A good knowlwedge of all the rules, USR and special rules and how to ( ab)use them should NOT be confused with tactics.
And the strategic choices of what list you take and how you deploy, should NOT be confused with tactics.
Compared to other games I play 40k is very limited in ACTUAL tactics.
I enjoy playing 40k ,
But in responce to the OP , I wanted to say that lists (and deployment) have greater influence on the game outcome, than any of the limited tactical choices in a game of 40k.
As lists and deployment are strategic conciderations. I assumed that the OP wanted to do a direct comparison of effectivness of strategy vs tactics in the 40k game.
If he said 'can power lists be countered by good strategy, and in depth rules knowledge.'
Then I would say, YES!
But that was NOT asked was it?
Happy gaming ,
Lanrak.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
actually there is a vast plethora of tactics in 40k. The master will appear when the student is ready... as they say young grasshopper.
G
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
With Strategy and Tactics, I make the following distinction.
My Strategy is how I intend to win. For example, in Fantasy against Undead, chin his General as quick as possible, whilst also trying to reduce his magical capabilities.
The Tactics are how I go about implementing my strategy, and are much more fluid.
9995
Post by: Kaffis
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:With Strategy and Tactics, I make the following distinction.
My Strategy is how I intend to win. For example, in Fantasy against Undead, chin his General as quick as possible, whilst also trying to reduce his magical capabilities.
The Tactics are how I go about implementing my strategy, and are much more fluid.
In my mind, the distinction is fairly simple. Strategy is the plan I formulate before I arrive at the table. It's the broad strokes of how I build and intend my list to function. Tactics are the choices I make to adjust that generic plan to the battlefield that changes each turn in reaction to (or anticipation of) my opponent's actions.
Some deployment choices are strategic. "I'll deploy my troop squads in Rhinos, and use my Rhinos to screen my heavier firepower." Other deployment choices are tactical. "If I deploy behind this cover, I'll be shielded from first-turn attacks without significantly hampering my first-turn movement" or "He dropped his heavy tanks on this side of the board, I need to deploy my anti-armor firepower and a unit to protect my anti-armor on this flank."
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Pretty much the same thing. As I said, Tactics are mutable, and can be proactive as well as reactive. Strategies are not!
1795
Post by: keezus
IMHO, you -can- apply tactics in 40k. Like previously mentioned, tactical choices are made in every stage of the game, including target priority, shooting or charging, running or shooting etc. However, the impacts of the player's tactical choices are negligible compared to the impact of making proper strategic choices in the list-building portion of the game.
The general ineffectiveness of tactical play is caused by serveral major problems with the 40k ruleset.
1. Homogenous movement. It is hard to charge/encircle/flank something when your target usually has the same speed as you.
2. Random factor. Randomized movement, rate of fire, model statistics all take away tactical options as you'll never fully commit that model to doing what you -need- it to do. Stragetgically, as these provide in essense, a handicap to your tactical play, most are left at home.
3. Leadership is generally a non-issue. Pinning is still a joke in V5. Shooting casualties are a joke. The only place where leadership kind of comes into play is in HTH.
4. Restricted engagement. Every squad can (with a few exceptions - such as POTMS, or assaulting multiple units) only engage one target per turn - be it, shoot one target, or charge one target.
In this sense - due to homogenized movement and engagement rules, 40k is mostly a "punch" and "counterpunch" type of game involving unit on unit combat and doesn't lend itself well to any sort of combined arms tactics where units support each other.
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
I thought a lot about this leading up to a 1000pt tournament night this Saturday... Downscaling your usual 'powerlists' makes things strategically interesting. You can still predict what people will bring, but you have so much more space on the battlefield. You still know what trumps your list - even if you generally have more units in cover, your opponent can pick his shots (albeit with less firepower to choose from).
I'm taking a mech eldar force with precisely 26 models on foot. I'm very much expecting someone to bring ninety orks, and I know I don't stand a chance in CC against that. The usual strategy is wait for them to close, and then blast off 24". In a larger pointscale game this is harder because avoiding that wall of slugga boyz might not necessarily get you away from the wall of Lootas, and so on. Tactically, flying over HERE might be a better idea than flying over THERE. Strategy hasn't changed.
My strategy for dealing with the slugga horde is tried and true, and tactically it is much more feasible in a smaller game. When you look at your opponent's list you expect certain strategies - but you don't know what their tactics will be (unless they're camp-Tau and they've deployed in a corner). The only expected list that really worries me is a Flyrant/Dakkafex spam with some stealers, because I know I can lose very quickly indeed if my tactical decisions aren't up to scratch (ie avoiding the pie). I already know my strategies, but I also think I know what that flyrant is going to do on the first turn.
Objectives vs. killpoints is another factor that I can't control; I'm going to make tactical decisions instead of relying on my list, which no one can really do on this scale.
Most of us have been playing this game for a long time, and there's little that surprises us. But knowing the rules, or your opponent's list, only helps with strategy. We're also very good at understanding that the enemy stands still, and we have time to be strategic mid-turn, logically responding to an opponent's tactics before our own tactical turn come into play.
If, for example, the Camp-tau spent the first turn moving all of their troops forward, then you'd expect there to be a VERY good tactical reason, most likely to compensate for a strategic oversight. Suppose you choose the wrong table corner to deploy in first, and most of your opponent's assault troops never have to break cover before they charge. You don't have an unlimited amount of time to choose a corner, so if you pick the wrong one your best strategies can go to hell.
Agreeing with keezus' points, it's not comparable to reality at all, except that PREPAREDNESS WILL ALMOST ALWAYS TRUMP 'INITIATIVE'. Overwatch type rules would make the game a little more complicated and screw up the 'you can't measure before shooting' idea, for a start. I still loved 2nd ed... almost anyone could pull out a Vortex Grenade and nuke you without warning. It's the unpredictable things that make the game fun. Some people just enjoy winning, and that mostly seems to be what this topic is about.
WHFB give me a better strategic high, in a manner of speaking, largely due to the leadership rules. Someone made an example with Savage orcs earlier; frenzied troops are great against the few armies that can shoot effectively in WHFB (also fear causing opponents), but against responsive, high combat resolution opponents they lose their zeal pretty quickly, even if they outnumber ther opponents.
1795
Post by: keezus
IMO, adding the rules forcing "single engagement" through the "assault what you shoot" rule in 40k was the stupidest thing they ever did. In one fell swoop, they stripped flexibility from 75% of the game units. In 3rd edition, the ability to engage multiple units was a "reward" for tactical placement: Consider the following examples:
Example 1:
Firedragons shoot a unit of marines, and then assault a predator destructor in the same turn. While this might seem like a horribly unbalanced 2 for 1, this scenario is situational, and a high risk maneuver involving low toughness, short ranged, specialist unit. In the current climate, a sensible general wouldn't be able to threaten that predator/marine formation, as the dragons could only attack one of the targets, and the other would immediately gut them in the subsequent turn. In this way, the "single engagement" restriction placed by GW restricts tactical options. In this case - strategy (placement) trumps tactics (movement).
Example 2:
A unit of Tau Crisis suits engages a unit of Obliterators with plasma shots and then jumps into melee with a nearby squad of Chaos Marines to avoid the inevitable counterattack. - In this case, the general has decided that he'd rather stick his crisis suits in "uncertain melee" rather than have them face massed high AP return fire from the damaged Obliterator squad. In the current rules, that is not an option.
Example 3:
A dreadnought fires its heavy flamer at a squad of hormaguants before engaging a nearby zoanthrope in melee. - In the current rules, high cost, medium ARM, low speed units like dreadnoughts are a terrible buy. Without the "assault what you shoot" rule, they still wouldn't be great, but they'd have significantly more utility than they do now - and it would give mixed weapon loadouts a new lease on life.
In the above three examples, I think that none of the above is overly game breaking - I really do not see the reasoning behind the "assault what you shoot" rule. IMO, it is utter nonsense.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Actually this rule helped to create game balance. Back when rhino rush was the meta game practically no one could beat it.
G
6035
Post by: Techboss
I think the key issue of why the game is homogenized is that having more tactical options increases the gap between good and bad players. Being able to see the "combo" that provides the most effective use of the resources.
I also think that a lot of the blandness that has been added to the game because of GW, admitted, lack of game play testing. 3rd edition was about the rhino rush. Instead of figuring out why this occurred and what tweaks could have been done, GW just nerfed the hell out of the assault armies. Sweeping, vehicles, assaulting out of vehicles and shooting targets not being linked to assault targets, were all nerfed, where less of a nerf was all that was probably needed.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Whereas I'd argue that *increase* the need for tactics.
To use the Crisis Suit example above, you would need to plan ahead to ensure as best you could that the Suits could jump back over or into cover, thus reducing the effectivness of the return fire.
The Dreadnought could be escorted by a tactical squad. They benefit from his move and fire heavy weapons, and he benefits from there massed anti-infantry weapons.
True, the ability to affect multiple units applied across all units isn't game breaking, but then neither is restricting it. I'm a firm believer that no unit should be a genuine jack of all trades, otherwise you risk the exclusion of other, more specialised units from peoples lists, effectively making their entry in the army somewhat redundant.
1795
Post by: keezus
Green Blow Fly wrote:Actually this rule helped to create game balance. Back when rhino rush was the meta game practically no one could beat it.
Respectfully, I disagree:
In 3rd Edition:
1. Rhinos are cheap.
2. You could not reliably stop them from moving due to extra armor and smoke.
3. You could jump out the front and immediately charge.
In the current climate:
1. Rhinos are even cheaper (though this a wash as the embarked squad being more expensive).
2. Without running the numbers, I can't comment definitively if they are easier to stop - extra armor isn't needed anymore, and smoke is free. Glances pretty much do nothing to your tank, but smoke can't stop penetrating hits anymore - so I'd say they are only fractionally easier to stop than before.
3. You can't jump out the front anymore for an extra 2" and 2nd turn charge... you can jump out and shoot (with twice the effect as before), or wait a turn and then jump out and shoot and/or charge.
So, other than not being able to charge - what is stopping Rhino rush from being overpowered in the current edition?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:True, the ability to affect multiple units applied across all units isn't game breaking, but then neither is restricting it. I'm a firm believer that no unit should be a genuine jack of all trades, otherwise you risk the exclusion of other, more specialised units from peoples lists, effectively making their entry in the army somewhat redundant.
MDG: I agree that it increases the "need" for tactics. It just so happens that the tactics that are available to the player aren't very effective. As such, I believe that the omission of multiple engagements -is- more restrictive. While it may not seem that way - being able to affect multiple squads is a huge deal in the following situations:
1. Where you are an elite army and you are horribly outnumbered: i.e. Grey Knights vs. Tyranid Swarm
2. Where it is late in the game and you don't have many units left - being able to shoot an enemy off an objective, and then deny another unit's movement by locking them in HTH is potentially momentum changing.
When I read your examples to my examples - I don't see how the "tactics" described help the player - In the dreadnought example, these two units have little to no synergy, as the dreadnought doesn't need protection against infantry, since its AV12 makes it invulnerable to all small arms. The tactical squad can't protect the dread from anti-tank shooting, and the dread adds nothing to the tac squad other than some heavy weapons fire (which it could provide regardless of proximity to the tactical squad). If the dreadnought had the ability to engage multiple units during its turn, it could -reliably- act as "last line of defense" unit in your backfield to support your objective holder - safely away from enemy shooting. IMO, as it stands now, its ability to engage enemy forces is fairly pitiful considering its points and toughness. In the crisis suit example, you are ceeding initiative to your opponent rather than maintaining it. In particular, if the crisis suit squad was close enough to assault the Chaos Marines, those same Chaos Marines are close enough to assault you even if you jump back into cover. Granted, it is all situational but IMO, these kinds of "tactics" are reactionary, and do nothing to maintain momentum for your side.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
The infantry can prevent the Dreadnought being tied up in HTH. Less of a problem now with the Leadership modifiers, but still a pain if it holds it up for even a turn whilst it's own prime targets continue their rampage unabated. And the Dreads Heavy Weapons means less worrying about whether or not the Infantry heavy weapon, assuming they have one of course, need to spend a turn stationary.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
So, other than not being able to charge - what is stopping Rhino rush from being overpowered in the current edition?
Easy, 2d6 overrun moves that let you conduct another assault
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Exactly.
G
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Only being able to charge what shoots brings game balance because it tones down über units. Rhinos ate better in 5e but not as good as 3e.
G
8902
Post by: pavonis
Where is a good source to find said powerlists so I can compare them to what I have been making. I just started playing 40k so it would be nice to learn where I am hamstringing myself in my army list.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
pavonis wrote:Where is a good source to find said powerlists so I can compare them to what I have been making. I just started playing 40k so it would be nice to learn where I am hamstringing myself in my army list.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Don't get corrupted!
I ran a "non-power" list at the GT and did fine. At least thats what everyone told me when I made it.... closest thing to power was the 3 exorcists ;p
It's a lot more tactics. Sure you don't need as many when your list is very very good/efficient... but when you face a list yours is weak against and win then you know your tactics are sound.
I need a rematch MOZ!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Its a simple answer. Go to the Tactics forum of any 40K board. Try to find anything that doesn't involve list making. You'll almost never find anything. Occasionally you'l see someone saying "castle" or "refused flank" but its 99% "take this, not that."
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Depressing isn't it?
I once asked for advice on advice on a themed list on Warseer once. All I was told is ' take this unit, this unit and that unit. Do exactly as I do'
Not exactly what I asked, was it?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:Its a simple answer. Go to the Tactics forum of any 40K board. Try to find anything that doesn't involve list making. You'll almost never find anything. Occasionally you'l see someone saying "castle" or "refused flank" but its 99% "take this, not that."
The reason for that is that it's quite easy to play 40K without using tactics.
Top players use tactics, that is part of what makes them top.
What I mean is that there are units that more or less fight themselves without much player input.
2776
Post by: Reecius
tactics in 40K revolve around taking the right units and using them properly, obviously.
anyone who says there are no tactics in the game is sorely mistaken.
setup.
target prioritization.
well timed charges (as in knowking when to hold back, and when to assault).
knowing the other armies codexes (although that could be argued as strategy, but in the context of 40K there is not much difference between the two).
these are just a few of the many small choices that seperate a good player from bad.
But the biggest thing in the game, as had been stated, is chossing the right list. the whole power gamer, WAC bs is so annoying. If its in the codex, its legal, someone else´s opinion of it should have nothing to do with it.
If player A wants to take a ¨fluff¨ list (according to his own interpretation of the fluff, it constantly changes) but still expects to win games and gets angry when player B takes a good list and tables him, then tough cookies.
If you handicap yourself with arbitrary restrictions, then prepare to take it on the chin when you play someone who does not. Trying to drag other players down for not playing the way you do is rediculous, which is a prime attribute of the ¨fluff¨ players.
Good players dont blame you for taking a good list, they blame themselves for not taking a better list.
7743
Post by: Chrysaor686
Personally, my "Tactics" mostly consist of using people's conceptions (or in this case, misconceptions) of the weaknesses of units to my advantage.
My best example is with my Death Guard army. It's a general consensus that Jump Infantry aren't particularly useful, as they generally get targeted by everything and destroyed before they can really get any attacks in at all. So I like to run a unit of Havocs with Heavy Flamers directly behind every unit of Jump Infantry. Since the Jump Infantry seem to be the most immediate threat (no matter how fast they move), they are almost ALWAYS targeted first. Usually, since I try to keep the Havocs directly behind them as well as I can manage, when the Jump Infantry finally get destroyed (Which takes much longer with the Mark of Nurgle), the Havocs are relatively unharmed and ready to, well...wreak havoc on most infantry-based units. It works like a charm, and can work the same way if the Havocs have Grenade Launchers or Storm Bolters (Though it turns it into a slightly different, and easier, tactic). Sure, it's an expensive tactic, and you'll never get a massacre with it, but I think the best strategist is willing to sacrifice anything for total victory.
Another example I have is how people like to target Rhinos, because they like to think that when they destroy an undeployed Rhino, they take a few hundred points worth of troops along with it. So I like to put a Rhino or two on the table with literally nothing in it. This works so much better if you convert the Rhino A LOT, to make it look like it's carrying something very important, and make it a focal point. No matter if it would appear that there are too many points on the table. Most people don't pay attention to that. Though it usually gets destroyed within the first two turns, it is very worth losing 50 points on an empty Rhino than having all the enemy fire focused on my troops, or more importantly, my elites and HQ. That lascannon might tear a Rhino apart, but at least it's giving my HQ a chance to get a few hefty potshots in before it changes targets.
Again, I might sacrifice a lot of points with my tactics, but a win is still a win, no matter how you slice it.
8363
Post by: Tierlieb
I think there is a point to notion that the line between strategy and tactics being not very cleanly cut.
The basic idea seems to be:
Strategy: Everything I do before the army meets the gaming board.
Tactics: Everything happening on the board.
Now we already had synergy mentioned, that is using the power of 2+ units to a greater effect. This was considered tactics. Yet using these units together only gets possible by setting up the army list appropriately. You need to make the strategic decision to use Burna Boyz and Grotz to make the tactical move of sacrifying the grotz to get the boyz a shot. So, is this really tactics?
Same for Chrysaor686's idea of jump troops and heavy troops in their back or combining a vindicator and lashes to move enemies in range. I'd call this a "pattern", but then again, I am in a business where everything is considered a pattern... call it cookie-cutter (though a smarter one, because of synergy used) and you get a small flame war started.
I think we can only talk about tactics without any doubt of them being such when dealing with issues on the board that have not been planned ahead when creating the army.
So, an example for a tactical decision would be imho: In round 6, do I use the grotz to try to tarpit (see? My "pattern" got a name!) the enemy unit or do I use the burnaz to contest one objective and capture one with the grotz? What about a potential round 7?
Now, if you take this rather narrow definition of tactics, which omits the use of patterns, I'd say this is rather rare with power-builds. It is pretty stone-scissors-paper how to deal with nob bikers, jetbiking seer council, whatever.
But dealing with other builds, like the games I get to play with my friends, who nearly all use the "I like the look of my core army and I'll only buy a few of the more efficient units" approach, this happens a lot in objective-based games. Due to the relative unpredictability of 40k due to it's small amount of dice rolls per decision and also per game, this usually only happens from round 5 to 7, but then it is intense.
So:
1. I disagree with the idea that 40k itself is devoid of tactics.
2. I do agree that cookie-cutter-powerbuilds and their necessary counters ruin the possible complexity of tactics in 40k.
3. I do also agree that strategy plays a bigger role than tactics.
a) I do not see a reason to change the 3rd point. Strategy is fun, too. For me, it is always a week full of strategy and an evening full of tactics. More tactics and less strategy would mean I'd have time for another hobby. Who wants that?
b) I do think that the 2nd point can be remedied by better unit balancing. Yet this would distract from the fun of army list building and looking for exploits.
It also could also be remedied somewhat by using more dice rolls per game decision (or a different outcome-deciding system), because that would reduce the necessity for "sure deals" or "deal sealers" or whatever you call units that will win for sure even if you roll sub-par.
Note:
Stone-scissors-paper has been lauded as great approach in strategy games like Starcraft, because it reduces the amount of micro-management necessary in the actual combats. Good if you play against a computer that is faster than you, but not smarter. Not good if the main part of the game is supposed to be exactly that combat.
8902
Post by: pavonis
Ok, so could anyone please point me in the direction of some of these really good Space Marine lists as well as a few others so I can get an idea about other armies.
|
|
