What's the big flaw in your playstyle that costs you games? How do you compensate? Why do you see it as your biggest struggle?

Only by examining your weaknesses can we become stronger.

Nobody may comment in this thread unless they first post their own struggles. Don't criticize others before examining yourself.

I often get demoralized by early losses. Spending the time to build and paint a new, impressive model or models, I lose focus from the game if it's simply removed before it gets to do something interesting. To that end, most of my lists are constructed in such a way to heavily punish "alpha strike" style lists, and to have options when my opponent seeks to limit mine with super aggressive strategies. Having wasted points in a normal game is worth it to me if, when facing against my most hated opponent the full drop pod spam list, I can kill half their silly walking tin can men before they pop out of their Ultrasmurf Express Delivery Boxes.

Still, I find I often make stupid mistakes more often if my opponent for instance seizes initiative and blows up two expensive vehicles before they get to move.

In 5th ed, I feared the hidden power fist/claw too much. That, and I often tried to minimize casualties when I shouldn't have bothered.

In 6th/7th, I have no idea because I feel like more of a spectator. I roll dice, but then nothing happens. All the action is coming from the other player's list.

I also tend to become demoralized by early losses. I struggle enough to paint as is, and seeing that Leman Russ I spent hours painting get wrecked by grav fire is just like a kick in the teeth. I deal with it by ensuring that for every unit of mine that is killed, that my opponent loses 2 units. I also struggle a lot with proper deployment. I get to play so infrequently and I play against such a wide variety of opponents that I never quite know how to deploy, especially against Drop Pod lists

Use regular IG squads with no equipment at all as your bubblewrap. Physically block landing sites and force drop pod lists to come down in suboptimal places and kill zones. Also, accept that Leman Russes are now garbage because of 7th ed rules.

In maelstrom games, I play way too offensively, always going for the kill rather than trying to grab objectives. This has caused me a few losses on points when I really should have won based on what was left on the table.

I played against an opponent with chaos renegades eith necron allies. He runs three squads of 6 wraiths and lots of rapier batters and earth shakers.... I'll beat him one day!

Martel732 wrote:
.

In 6th/7th, I have no idea because I feel like more of a spectator. I roll dice, but then nothing happens. All the action is coming from the other player's list.

Truth

 War Kitten wrote:
I also tend to become demoralized by early losses. I struggle enough to paint as is, and seeing that Leman Russ I spent hours painting get wrecked by grav fire is just like a kick in the teeth. I deal with it by ensuring that for every unit of mine that is killed, that my opponent loses 2 units. I also struggle a lot with proper deployment. I get to play so infrequently and I play against such a wide variety of opponents that I never quite know how to deploy, especially against Drop Pod lists

I have shifted my strategy in favor of having a blob squad with conscripts deployed in front of it in the bulk of my IG list. Inquisitor Coteaz gives the blob teeth. Half my deployment can be covered by physical bodies preventing a successful drop, the other half by Coteaz' I Was Expecting You and the risk of board edge scatter.

Additionally, to be extra mean, or if you lack sufficient bodies to protect, remember you can construct pod traps. Any models that can't disembark from a drop pod are instantly removed, and if a pod scatters it goes in the "closest allowable area where it can land"-no regard for the passengers.

Use your vehicles and soldiers to create a ring large enough for a pod to deploy, but without enough space for its occupants to disembark. If the pod scatters such that that trap is the closest empty space your opponent immediately loses the occupying squad.

Use that tactic with caution though-in a tournament setting it's powerful and pretty well known
, in a casual setting it's likely to cause a lot of very butthurt anger and a rules argument.

Drop pods traps almost got me into a fist fight. Totally worth it, though. Especially because it was SW.

I always go first. I should learn to stay calm and fire a few turns before assaulting...

 Matthew wrote:
I always go first. I should learn to stay calm and fire a few turns before assaulting...

Which list? For many, that's suicidal. You can't out outshoot the Eldar or Tau.

 Green is Best! wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
.

In 6th/7th, I have no idea because I feel like more of a spectator. I roll dice, but then nothing happens. All the action is coming from the other player's list.

Truth

This is not a thread for complaining about 6th/7th. If you believe this edition is devoid of tactics, there is no point of entering into a tactical discussion. I appreciate that it is a prevailing opinion that the game this forum centers on is terrible and nobody should want to play and enjoy it. There are a number of threads centering around that opinion, I'm not sure where you got the impression that that is the purpose of this one.

Please don't think I'm attacking you for your opinion. Just that "the game sucks!" Doesn't really apply as an answer to "what do you find to be your tactical weakness?"

Answering discussion threads with non sequiturs and celebrating them with imaginary points is part of the grand tradition of the internet, but I would really appreciate if you would not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matthew wrote:
I always go first. I should learn to stay calm and fire a few turns before assaulting...

Depends on your list, though. I'm curious how you always go first though. Just how the dice tend to go? My games seem to have seized initiative (against or by me) waaaay more than 1/6 of the time.

I usually play Grey Hunters in Drop Pods with Thunderwolves and Lone Wolves.

 Matthew wrote:
I usually play Grey Hunters in Drop Pods with Thunderwolves and Lone Wolves.

There's no point in holding back. You should be able to run over just about everything in the game. Literally.

Yeah, but I play against a guy who SPAMS Devastators and Plasma.

 Matthew wrote:
Yeah, but I play against a guy who SPAMS Devastators and Plasma.

The sooner you get there, the sooner they die. Devastators and plasma is very 5th ed anyway, you should have no problems at all running him over. I'd kill to go against devastators and plasma with BA.

Using the wrong whatever in an attempt to earn more than a models points back. For example, using the Vindicare's Turbo-Penetrator round to try and knock out their Warlord in one shot (and having every wound in six turns saved) instead of Shield-Breaker rounds (which would guaranteed take the model out in three turns).

 Carlson793 wrote:
Using the wrong whatever in an attempt to earn more than a models points back. For example, using the Vindicare's Turbo-Penetrator round to try and knock out their Warlord in one shot (and having every wound in six turns saved) instead of Shield-Breaker rounds (which would guaranteed take the model out in three turns).

Ah, the ol' shoot for the moon play. Most of the reason my ork lists still include Battlewagons-you can always count on an opponent thinking it'd be sweet if they managed a lucky explodes on that AV14 face with their Lascannons rather than the near sure-thing attack against a Trukk or looted wagon.

The real thing to do is consider which move would really impede your opponent. If for instance you have a nice anti tank weapon, and your opponent has an expensive vehicle deployed behind a cheap transport, yes, the transport is only worth a few points, but if you take it out rather than going for the long odds, you've effectively removed it and its occupants from the game (as they now must walk) and impeded the more expensive vehicle as now it needs to work around his now footslogging infantry unit if it wants to advance.

Not seeing my own models and forgetting they are there. It happens way too often to me because of how much I tunnel-vision when doing strategy

I'm definately too aggressive. I move as fast as possible, flanking and cornering the enemy force through that method, but if something can't be beaten in my alpha stage, I'm suddenly stumped. I also have a love for underused units. Come the five-man outflanking Speshul Unit Kommando unit.

Plus, my friends know how I play now, and I have to try and keep up by trying to be imaginative... Which I barely can.

I tend to play a little too recklessly, going for kills instead of getting the objectives (but I'm getting better at this). I also have problems with target selection. I've wasted entire armies' worth of shooting to try to knock down fliers before...

Another problem I have is good deployment strategy. I'm never sure what the best place to put some units is. Some are no-brainers (like putting lascannon Devs in ruins), but other things...

i show up :(

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I tend to play a little too recklessly, going for kills instead of getting the objectives (but I'm getting better at this). I also have problems with target selection. I've wasted entire armies' worth of shooting to try to knock down fliers before...

Another problem I have is good deployment strategy. I'm never sure what the best place to put some units is. Some are no-brainers (like putting lascannon Devs in ruins), but other things...

I know that playing fragile armies like Harlequins has really forced me to think more about deployment, how to use terrain to my advantage for more than just a cover save, and to think more about where I'd like to be positioned turn two rather than just what I'd like to shoot turn one.

my lists generally have maybe one or two units that actually do anything, and the rest of my army is basically useless
example of effectively useless units, 5 man tac squad with a missile launcher/plasma cannon sitting back. i keep using it for some reason but it never does anything.
Or a 5 man tac squad in a rhino with a melta, which never actually pops a tank or kills anything important. Instead it just gets assaulted and dies

As for tactical stuff, every time i face Tau I can never figure out what to do and get shot apart and die

My biggest problem is that I have trouble determining the threat ranges of enemy units on the assault. More than once I have unintentionally put my models in a position where enemy units can easily assault them.

In most cases, the best thing that can happen is for me to lose combat, fail leadership, and successfully break away due to high Initiative.

Playing against Khorne Daemonkin regularly has helped significantly, but I still find myself making mistakes with my movement that let my models get caught out of position and charged. I think the main issue might be that I'm being too aggressive with my models in the movement phase when close to the enemy.

In terms of list-building, I think I often spend too much on characters. Similarly, I'll often buy inferior wargear or such because it fits my character's fluff better.

Also, I rarely use the same list twice, which I suspect to be a mistake.

In terms of tactics on the field:

- With my DE, I think I struggle to find the right balance with my characters and melee units. My characters are fragile, so I'm kinda wary about throwing them forward early on, but on the other hand I can rarely afford for them and their squad to be sitting on the sidelines for most of the game. If I win, fine. if I lose, I usually overcompensate. e.g. If I was too aggressive with my Archon and lost him early, next game he'll spend almost the entire match hiding somehwere. Or, if he was bunkered in my last game, I'll be overly aggressive with him and probably lose him.

- I think I suffer from 'wanting to see stuff happen' syndrome. As in, even if it's advantageous for me to do nothing or stay bunkered (for whatever reason), I'm usually disinclined to do so. I'd rather be losing but having stuff happen than winning by doing sod-all. If you see what I mean.

- With my IG, I forget that I'm not playing DE and end up with massive pile-ups as I realise my vehicles can't just hop over one another.

With Space Wolves I spend too much on hq's.
With Eldar I always put the Avatar in the wrong place during deployment so the buff bubble doesn't reach the right units so turns 1 and 2 are spent fixing it.

Forgetting one of the squads inside one of my transports is still inside and has done zip the entire game until the game is over...

I also usually pick the worst places to deepstrike my terminators, just because there is more room over near those thunderwolf cavalry, or by that riptide, or that other big scary thing

My achillies heel is not accepting that I should have given up on this hobby almost a decade ago. I will never go pro. I hate the maelstrom and I dont build lists with enough troops to go score obj. Troops and HQs to me are just a marketing scheme to get people to buy them as minimum requirements. I just do the minimum 1 sorc and 2x10 cultists and thats it as I spend the rest of my points on other slots.
Formations are great at this.

My other achillies heel is playing CSM.

I excuse myself by claiming that I'm playing in keeping with my army (Khorne CSMs), but I get too fixated on killing the other guy and don't devote enough to taking and holding objectives.

Maelstrom seems silly to me. Why worry about capturing that bit of ruined building this turn, when there's the HATED IMPERIAL FILTH over there to kill???

I'm bad at focusing squads to death.

Not tanks and MCs, those I'm just fine at pouring fire into until they're totally dead. But with squads themselves I'm very bad about spreading my fire too thin so that it all has the most effect and not 'wasting shots', but as a result my enemy often ends up with a lot of wounded but still functional squads.

As an Eldar player: Sicarians.

Crispy78 wrote:
I excuse myself by claiming that I'm playing in keeping with my army (Khorne CSMs), but I get too fixated on killing the other guy and don't devote enough to taking and holding objectives.

Maelstrom seems silly to me. Why worry about capturing that bit of ruined building this turn, when there's the HATED IMPERIAL FILTH over there to kill???

That's why you make objectives out of things your army would want to get. All mine are gretchins stealing really sweet gubbinz. Yours could be a chaos icon, an awesome daemon weapon, a desecrated Astartes symbol, etc...

I also have the issue of focusing too much on killing and not scoring/denial. I had a game the other day where I could have won if I had denied him at least one objective (and if I hadn't rolled two 1's for two separate D3 objective cards.)

Also, anything that denies cover screws me over, so Tau.

Not tactically redeploying my Bloodthirster through the use of his wings and glide, in favour of killing something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or scouting with Khorne dogs. That literally makes them useless for a full turn.

My problem is mainly lack of high strength ignore cover outside lucky roll on Divination psychic table. As marines, the only reliable ignore cover fire power is flamer weapons and TFC, while they are dangerous to Nids little bugs and Ork boyz, most MCs could shrug off with no troubles, those MCs would also easily stopped plasma fire or grav fire without psychic support (perfect timing) by gaining the 4+ cover or 2+ cover.

As a noob, doing battle with other noobs, I tend to have an interesting issue: I'll wipe out most of the enemy team by the end of the game, however my opponent always manages to have gotten more points via objectives.

The most dramatic example was when my Imperial Guard forces had reduced the enemy team down to a damaged broadside, half a squad of Fire Warriors, and an injured Crisis Suit Commander (my Guard still had two tanks, artillery, and numerous infantry left) but the game ended before I could finish them off. My opponent earlier in the game had been more successful with point holding and completing tactical objectives than I, so I technically lost (though both I and my opponent joked about how hollow a victory it was for him.)

eldar anf farsight enclave lists aggrivate me too much, i often go out of my way to not even play them. this is rather harsh but i feel that the rules list you need to account for with both armies is far too high and the number of things individual units can do that are just devestating to our army is overwhelming. its like playing against grim patron in hearthstone, its not one or two bad cards in the deck its the fact that the whole list is way to overwhelming and often you find yourself starring at what looks like a stacked deck and just give up and defeat yourself. though objectively with the eldar its just your defeated anyway you just dont know it yet so yeah. i dislike them to the point where i dont bother and will go out of my way to avoid them

with 4th edition my biggest issue was that i had trouble with picking when i would abandon holding objectives when scoring points in objective missions. and would pick all the wrong time to give them up

As a Necron player, I mainly struggle with 2+ Sv armies. The only AP2 weapons I even consider bringing are Triarch Stalkers w/HGC or Szeras. I don't run Wraiths either. I rely on Volume and there are times where it gets me. I rolled over 120 Dice the other night against 1 DreadKnight, putting over 40 Wounds on it. He limped away with 1 wound left.

Other than that, it's usually Tau players in general. It's always a really difficult game, and I feel like Im fighting up a cliff compared to other armies. It's always after the game, that I learn that they were playing some rule wrong that made it really difficult.

Losing track against Hull points. Lost a game against a Knight list in a tournament because I thought I had shot at a Knight previously but was a different Knight I had shot at. Cost me the game.

I struggle with the above and deployment. That and I have always loved Assault Marines and Jump Packs even if they aren't as competitive as there Bike partners.

I also struggle because I try to build competitive fluffy list. Hard to do in today's meta.

I struggle against very mobile and shooty armies with my Orks as I don't go for a speed freak style army nor a green tide. I've been lucky so far at my FLGS by not facing eldar yet but soon that luck runs out. For my wolves I struggle against lots of bodies tying my guys up. I don't have a lot of TWC and run a good amount to of infantry without drop pods. They also had trouble against deathstar units like ravenwing and demons with 2++ from psychics. But fortunately lately I have not run into those recently and have been winning as well.

Going for fluffy forces when i'm taking on quite serious opposition and not bringing enough scoring units. Recent rulebooks have helped mitigate the second one a bit, but my former is definitely getting worse!

I have a bad tendency of going for the killing blow and under committing the combat power needed to kill off the truly important target. That kind of aggression usually tends to bite me in the butt. Need to maintain that tactical patience.

I don't do close combat at all as sm player I try to avoid it all cost even thou I use a assault squad with flamers. I just can't get it out my head that close combat sucks and you should stick with shooting. Fun thing is my brother is their person I play the most and he uses tau old dexs still but still

 Cothonian wrote:
As a noob, doing battle with other noobs, I tend to have an interesting issue: I'll wipe out most of the enemy team by the end of the game, however my opponent always manages to have gotten more points via objectives.

The most dramatic example was when my Imperial Guard forces had reduced the enemy team down to a damaged broadside, half a squad of Fire Warriors, and an injured Crisis Suit Commander (my Guard still had two tanks, artillery, and numerous infantry left) but the game ended before I could finish them off. My opponent earlier in the game had been more successful with point holding and completing tactical objectives than I, so I technically lost (though both I and my opponent joked about how hollow a victory it was for him.)

I had that same issue, and I use infantry guard so I didn't want to try fixing it with lots of chimeras. What I did do was transform my big infantry platoon into a close combat beast.

I took a Priest, a Primaris Psyker with a Force Axe, and added Inquisitor Coteaz and another Inquisitor with Rad Grenades. I run a small line of conscripts out in front of them so I can Go to Ground for a 4+ cover save. Then I just run them up the field while my tanks and artillery pound away.

It's actually surprisingly hard to take these guys on in close combat, even for stuff like Ork green tides, because they have to get through the conscripts to get to me and if I get the charge they eat 5 flamers and FRFSRF lasguns (I can usually get the relentless warlord trait or the Biomancy power that gives it and 4+ Feel No Pain) and then 120+ attacks rerolling to hit and to wound with -1 toughness.

It's not impossible to shoot them all to death, but it takes a bloody long time and the rest of the list is a dedicated gunline.

From a list-building standpoint:

-trying to build TAC lists in a rock/paper/scissor tournament environment, although I am getting better at that
-faithfully sticking with my fluff CT options (IF/Sentinels) over the much better WS CT (somewhat debatable, but with Kauyon it's hard to NOT pick WS these days)

From a game-play standpoint:

-keeping track of objectives and scores, there are plenty of times where a game could have been won or at least tied if I had kept closer track of "table-quarters" or "line-breaker" or kill-points
-first turn. What I mean by that is that I can usually retrace my game-losing moments to a deployment mistake, or a wrong decision (going first/second), or an early mistake in target-priority

Since my main army is IG, I rely heavily on cover. unfortunately my main opponent is Tau. I struggle against extremely maneuverable armies like my wife's DE or my buddy's Tau assault move shenanigans too. I just don't have enough ignore cove orders to pass around or the maneuverability to draw LOS without putting myself in lanes of fire. These and my dice hate me except for the few times when they love me and I consecutively roll 5s and 6s.

I can usually back up my IG with AM the toughen up my forces but I still hurt in the maneuverability department.

I struggle against high-firepower long-range armies. Against enemies who like to get up close like Orks, I do well. Against low firepower armies like Space Marines (outside of grav), I also do well. IG with lots of high strength low AP blasts, Tau, Eldar... Those are my bane.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SirDonlad wrote:
Going for fluffy forces when i'm taking on quite serious opposition and not bringing enough scoring units. Recent rulebooks have helped mitigate the second one a bit, but my former is definitely getting worse!

Also this. Hooo boy, this.

My biggest flaw is that I play Orks. The internet keeps saying that Orks are bad and I can see it but all the other factions just aren't Orky enough for a proper scrap. Its truly isn't easy being green. Unfortunately I tend to enjoy taking the less optimal units like Battlewagons, Flash Gitz, Weirdboyz, Nobz, and even...... I'm afraid to say it..... Killa Kanz . If I really wanted to up my game then I would play a top tier army but then I would be an unorky git. Oh yeah I also play Tau. Even with the blue gitz I tend to stubbornly play the units I like instead of the optimal net lists. Fire Warriors, Pathfinders, Hammerheads, Ethereal, and Crisis Suits are my jam and up until now I have never used a Riptide (Retaliation Cadre looks like too much fun despite the Riptide).

Ignoring my unit/army selection "problem" I tend to focus too much on killing everything over working towards objectives. With the Orks its because I think most of my units can't survive weathering the shooting so I need to get stuck in ASAP and worry about objectives later (this is even on maelstrom). With my Tau I often feel like I'm too passive in my movement because I don't want to get my units in close combat. I let my Crisis Suits deep strike behind enemy lines but rarely will I send my Fire Warriors forward until most of the enemy has been obliterated or too far away to be a threat. Rarely will I risk a unit in the early game for an objective but I often find myself in a points hole by turn 3-4 as I have scored very little while my opponent is up by a decent amount. For the Orks I think maybe having more mobile objective grabbers in the list who I can spare to focus on objectives while my heavy hitters work on crushing the enemy. For Tau having a few suicide Piranhas in my lists might be a good thing as they can get the early objectives and then let my Fire Warriors and Crisis Suits grab objectives when the opponent's army is less alive to contest.

Wraithknights. As chaos with a love of spawn, princes and jugger lords it just counters everything I have at half the price.

My Achilles' Heel?
Not telling the spectators to STFU when me or my opponent is thinking on what to do. Already cost me basically 2 games, since I was against 3 persons debating EVERY.SINGLE.TURN. what was best for the other guy.
After that? Not jinking enough for fear to lose too much firepower and relying too much on HIt and Run to escape hairy situations.

As a Necron player:
- being slow. I find I cannot ever get to where I need to be in enough time to make a difference, whether that be scoring an objective or being close enough to make that key assault.
- lack of high strength weapons with an actual ap value. Against (G)MCs & multiwound characters I struggle to chip them to death relying solely on weight of dice.

As a marine player:
- not supporting my forces poroperly. I end up having units stuck in a certain area and being slaughtered because they're on their own.
- Being elitist. I find I spend too much on my squads. every loss I take I can feel in every unit.

 Vankraken wrote:
My biggest flaw is that I play Orks. The internet keeps saying that Orks are bad and I can see it but all the other factions just aren't Orky enough for a proper scrap. Its truly isn't easy being green. Unfortunately I tend to enjoy taking the less optimal units like Battlewagons, Flash Gitz, Weirdboyz, Nobz, and even...... I'm afraid to say it..... Killa Kanz

I'd fight you. It'd be a mosh pit worthy of legend.

My biggest weakness is my love of special characters and relics and my "toys before boys" attitude {maybe not the right wordage as i don't play orks but you get the gist). Why have a whole other unit when I can have a leader that can punch something in the face really hard or have that one unit really do a number on my opponent.

One of my favorite units are the Dark Reapers and I kit them out with the missiles and the exarch with his toys, so my 10 man squad comes out to 357 pts, then I throw in Eldrad and Mugan Ra for another 400 points and it may or may not be (definitely is) a little overkill.

I play in an assault heavy meta, and I favor alpha strikey shooty units.
I also favor heavy weapons over much more practical special weapons.

Most games I blow my alpha strike on the wrong thing, or on the bait, and then get wiped up by fast moving assault forces.

I need to consider deployments and force selection for a longer game. Greater maneuverability with heavy weapons to draw in and whittle down assault units would work better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IHateNids wrote:
As a Necron player:
- being slow. I find I cannot ever get to where I need to be in enough time to make a difference, whether that be scoring an objective or being close enough to make that key assault.

I played a Guard Heavy weapons army for a long time before I realized sometimes you need to run. You need to run instead of shooting if it will mean making an assault or taking an objective later in the game. Boy is that hard to do with a lazcanon squad. Mybe this doesn't help you precisely. I was under the impression that Necrons had some great maneuverability options.

I don't have a whole lot of bodies on the field. I have a total of 43 bodies(Pedro, 7 Honour Guard, 20 Sternguard, 10 Scouts, 5 Devastators). I also have a lot of points tied up in one spot (Pedro, 7 Honour Guard, Land Raider Redeemer = 690 pts). So if that unit gets obliterated, I lose a third of my points. Also, that unit is geared toward assault, so if it doesn't get into assault, it is pretty ineffective.

I am also pretty sure I could smash those 690 points fairly reliably in melee with 450 points of my own.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I am also pretty sure I could smash those 690 points fairly reliably in melee with 450 points of my own.

Spoiler:

Lorgar.

Most of the Primarchs do fine in melee against non-Primarchs. I could try to overwhelm him with attacks (that squad has 50 attacks), but they are probably going to lose.

Lorgar's trick is his very reliable casting of Precognition on himself, granting himself rerolls to hit, to wound, and to save.

While he only has 5 attacks, he is not going to die any time soon with WS6 T6 W6 2+/4++, both rerollable.

Anyway, I also struggle with other LoW. Lorgar fares well in melee but against actual D my army falls flat, and fast.

My main fail sauce comes from not knowing each factions rules that well mainly play marines of all forms and a bit of daemons so when i come against tau eldar, crons or the like i get done by the diffent guns etc. also my deployment leaves a lot to be desired always think turn 2 like why the feth are these guys here they should be there killing the unit they could easily squish.

Impatience, theatricality, playing Tyranids as a first army.

I can't count the amount of times I've forgotten to draw Tactical Objectives because I just wanted to kill things. And I forget to take my time and make the kill in Turn 4. I always want to rush forward, as Tyranids used to do, and use my hordes to shield my army. A wall of bodies to protect the ones behind. That's not how the game works now and it really makes me struggle with Tyranids and with other MEQ armies too. All the premeasuring involved in my ACTUALLY playing is usually too much for me to keep up with. I just switch back to 'devour' mode, even when I play Astral Claws...

And the other bit is 'I'm going to Deep Strike here where an inch scatter means I mishap. 33% chance of it going right. No sweat!' Stupid choices like that mean I will never be a tournament player.

My memory (I've skipped the movement, psychic and shooting phase in the same turn because I wanted to charge with 4 units) and kitted out sergants.

I never kit my own sergants with anything, so I expect sergants to have no gear, and that have caused me a couple of squads.

 Ubl1k wrote:
My main fail sauce comes from not knowing each factions rules that well mainly play marines of all forms and a bit of daemons so when i come against tau eldar, crons or the like i get done by the diffent guns etc. also my deployment leaves a lot to be desired always think turn 2 like why the feth are these guys here they should be there killing the unit they could easily squish.

This is me against Dark Eldar and Tyranids. Especially Tyranids. I have never been more thankful for a mono build codex because I can never keep straight a Tyranid Hybrofaffler with Double-Toxic Grooblecannon vs the Tyranid Snarglemuncher with Strangling Tentospindrels. Not being able to tell Hormagonts and Genestealers apart in particular has cost at least three games.

Even right now, I know the difference is one of them has blobby heads and the other has skinny heads and I just can't for the life of me remember which is which.

If I come up against essentially a wall, I have no idea what to do with my units. I played a game against a Renegades army that was all Chimaeras and Hellhounds with a big zombie blob. I only had 1 or 2 secure objective cards, and my Shrikes and a 13 model Gargoyle squad sat and did nothing for 2 turns because I just didn't know what to do with them.

My biggest flaw is when I want to play a "friendly game" with "fluffy units" and I get annihilated to a "win at all costs" type of opponent.

 womprat49 wrote:
My biggest flaw is when I want to play a "friendly game" with "fluffy units" and I get annihilated to a "win at all costs" type of opponent.

Find BA opponents. They can't field a "win at all costs" list.

I forget basic rules that could be helping me out often, typically it's confusion caused by homebrew bandaids thrown on things I do at home and can't do in a store.

I almost always can't pay attention when being explained the opponents list and it's rules and equipment. So I make mistakes

I'm an ork, I always issue a challenge, always, got to.

I always play for turn 6, I think I'm smart, roughly 33% of the time it's 100% stupid.

I have a tendancy to overkill things, and then get mopped in a counterattack.

I don't magnetize enough, and am too proud to proxy, so I often list build non-optimal stuff.

I'm prone to strangely good success with stuff that is, on paper, horrible. Like Nobz, and Dakkajets, nothing efficient or correct about either, but when I role dice with that Dakkajet seems like everything hits, then half of it wounds. I learn, anecdotal as it is, that this works, then it lets me down completely when I double up on the build and depend on it. Nobz are the same, Five Nobz two Klaws, anybody would go "no, don't do that". I go into a game here and there and watch them make points and win games. Then I put three of those units out there and they suck, roll ones, and feed.

I tend to put theme and fluffiness in my list ahead of competitiveness.

I am normally a little bloodthirsty. This loses me games a fair bit. For instance recently I ran a green tide in a highlander tournament and i would have won all three games except that on the first one I decided to multicharge a wraithknight and a squad of spiders I think. The spiders died instantly but due to pile in the pks couldn't hit the wraithknight. That combat dragged on for a while due to whiffing on my part and saving on his. If I had just let the 30 stormboyz tie it up for a turn then I could have caught the rest of his army easily the next turn on the WAAAGH. Oh well though. Also sometimes I try to charge from too far away and after overwatch I can't make it.

Head hunting premium scalps in the opposing army to the expense of the success of the actual mission. I'm particularly a sucker for Primarchs, Knights and Wraithlords.

Not knowing where to set my guys up. I have a tendency to put my guys either right in the line of artillery fire or right into a kill zone after my opponent moves the next turn.
The only other thing I'm having an issue with is when I play with allies I find they get shellshocked quickly and suddenly I'm the one having to deal with the enemy while my allies turtle up behind cover or run.

I have a bad tendency to overthink my deployment, and so I'll often have all my units in deep cover, where they can't see or shoot at the enemy unless I move out of said cover.

tactics? what is that. I've been told i deploy well, not sure if thats bc my opponent can kill my army in one shooting phase bc i deployed well for them or for me, but i really struggle in matching units against things that they can actually kill. I tend to fight an uphill battle that i created myself. Also i have become the standard, in my gaming group, that they hold as bad dice rolls. A bad dice roll in games im not even playing in are referred to as beavering that roll.

Army wise though, skitarii/admech armies and IG mech lists are unbeatable to me. The two players in my group that play those armies are our best tactical players and are unable to play "friendly" games. I know this going into games with them, but i cant even tell you how many times they have completely obliterated my entire army in turn 1 shooting phase, with units that dont even get to shoot bc i dont have any more models to pull off of the board. Needless to say, its frustrating.

I'll be honest: the best solution to getting hammered by shooting armies is more cover.

Seems like every time I see someone who goes "man, IG tank armies/tau/whatever are unbeatable" and I offer to play them, they set up like a rock and two bushes and say "ok let's go".

Your table should have LARGE LOS blockers (large enough for a tank or unit to be untargetable from the other side) and large ruins you can hide a unit in without being super clustered.

6th ed had a setup guideline where you and your opponent would completely fill a quarter of the board with terrain, then spread it out over the board evenly. I still play by that most of the time, and often it just blows my mind how many people play with three solo cups and a rock on the board (or worse, flat drawings of terrain they don't say block LOS)

Most players wont agree to large los blockers. The compromise is a board with a lot of cover and lots of los. You can imagine how much this benefits power armor lists.

Also realize that lots of battles are fought out in the open.

Most players won't agree to LOS blockers?

Uh. Why? LOS is a huge part of the game. Every tournament plays with large LOS blocking terrain. The ITC (widely used to supplement 40ks base rules) has guidelines for terrain placement that includes LOS blockers.

This is like when I hear about players refusing to play anything but Killteams, or, I dunno. "No shooting phase allowed" or something.

Lack of Terrain... Marines dont fair well against Tau gunlines...

Another is my want to kill things... I went to MWG and used 20 tacticals to kill Leland's 5 assault terminators... In assault

the_scotsman wrote:
Most players won't agree to LOS blockers?

Uh. Why? LOS is a huge part of the game. Every tournament plays with large LOS blocking terrain. The ITC (widely used to supplement 40ks base rules) has guidelines for terrain placement that includes LOS blockers.

This is like when I hear about players refusing to play anything but Killteams, or, I dunno. "No shooting phase allowed" or something.

Not huge ones. LOS is not blocked for things like Riptides/IKs/WKs. Limited LOS, tons of cover.

Martel732 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Most players won't agree to LOS blockers?

Uh. Why? LOS is a huge part of the game. Every tournament plays with large LOS blocking terrain. The ITC (widely used to supplement 40ks base rules) has guidelines for terrain placement that includes LOS blockers.

This is like when I hear about players refusing to play anything but Killteams, or, I dunno. "No shooting phase allowed" or something.

Not huge ones. LOS is not blocked for things like Riptides/IKs/WKs. Limited LOS, tons of cover.

Why not? Big buildings, big mesas, mountains, whatever. If people want apoc units in normal games you gotta use apoc terrain as well. Watch some online batreps, you're gonna see at least 2 or 3 4-5 story buildings.

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Most players won't agree to LOS blockers?

Uh. Why? LOS is a huge part of the game. Every tournament plays with large LOS blocking terrain. The ITC (widely used to supplement 40ks base rules) has guidelines for terrain placement that includes LOS blockers.

This is like when I hear about players refusing to play anything but Killteams, or, I dunno. "No shooting phase allowed" or something.

Not huge ones. LOS is not blocked for things like Riptides/IKs/WKs. Limited LOS, tons of cover.

Why not? Big buildings, big mesas, mountains, whatever. If people want apoc units in normal games you gotta use apoc terrain as well. Watch some online batreps, you're gonna see at least 2 or 3 4-5 story buildings.

I'm not a mind reader. I don't know why. People have apoc units in games whether they want it or not. There's no magical rule saying the terrain has to change. Not all battles are fought in cities. Or around high hills for that matter.

My soft heel is loving big models too much, just because a model is large doesnt make it good and just because the enemy had a large model doesnt mean I need to blindly throw everything at it into glorious combat to try to kill it.

Also im addicted to CC heavy weights too. Abbadon, swarmlord, greater daemons, Calgar, old one eye, ect...ect... if its big or hits big in CC I usually dont care about point costs all I know is I need to run it and get it to kill something. Many times I have had abby kill only a scout squad all game because it was the first unit in my path....which lead him to getting shot to pieces outside his LR. Blood my fiends.....blood for the blood god

Martel732 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Most players won't agree to LOS blockers?

Uh. Why? LOS is a huge part of the game. Every tournament plays with large LOS blocking terrain. The ITC (widely used to supplement 40ks base rules) has guidelines for terrain placement that includes LOS blockers.

This is like when I hear about players refusing to play anything but Killteams, or, I dunno. "No shooting phase allowed" or something.

Not huge ones. LOS is not blocked for things like Riptides/IKs/WKs. Limited LOS, tons of cover.

Why not? Big buildings, big mesas, mountains, whatever. If people want apoc units in normal games you gotta use apoc terrain as well. Watch some online batreps, you're gonna see at least 2 or 3 4-5 story buildings.

I'm not a mind reader. I don't know why. People have apoc units in games whether they want it or not. There's no magical rule saying the terrain has to change. Not all battles are fought in cities. Or around high hills for that matter.

If you play on a board where you're not using LOS blocking terrain, you're removing a lot of tactical potential from the game. Ultimately, it buffs shooting and neuters assault. Then it comes down to a boring "time to roll dice and see who wins" style of gameplay. When you do play with it, LOS blocking terrain adds the option to utilise assault units by taking less losses on the way in. Makes list building more fun and challenging. Rather than just choosing big guns, big guns.

I tend to run off in seemingly random directions, that confuse and sometimes panic my opponent with lack of transparency. Problem is I forget why I'm doing it quite often due to having too many plates spinning at once.
"Where is that squad going?"
"I wish I knew."

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I tend to run off in seemingly random directions, that confuse and sometimes panic my opponent with lack of transparency. Problem is I forget why I'm doing it quite often due to having too many plates spinning at once.
"Where is that squad going?"
"I wish I knew."

This kinda reminds me of a thing I saw about US military tactics, and how it is organized chaos. If we don't know what we're doing then the enemy certainly doesn't.

I love making terrain especially ruins and containers but I never put enough LOS blocking stuff on the table.

My biggest struggle is the army I play. I don't lose games, but I lose friends.

I get pretty stressed out against armies that are in my face t1/2, like drop pods, war convocations with all their Scout and Dunestrider stuff, etc. Instead of calmly tarpitting stuff, I direct too much firepower at bait units, when I should focus on their shooting or support, even if it's further away.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I tend to run off in seemingly random directions, that confuse and sometimes panic my opponent with lack of transparency. Problem is I forget why I'm doing it quite often due to having too many plates spinning at once.
"Where is that squad going?"
"I wish I knew."

"Just as planned."

 Clan Lykos wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Most players won't agree to LOS blockers?

Uh. Why? LOS is a huge part of the game. Every tournament plays with large LOS blocking terrain. The ITC (widely used to supplement 40ks base rules) has guidelines for terrain placement that includes LOS blockers.

This is like when I hear about players refusing to play anything but Killteams, or, I dunno. "No shooting phase allowed" or something.

Not huge ones. LOS is not blocked for things like Riptides/IKs/WKs. Limited LOS, tons of cover.

Why not? Big buildings, big mesas, mountains, whatever. If people want apoc units in normal games you gotta use apoc terrain as well. Watch some online batreps, you're gonna see at least 2 or 3 4-5 story buildings.

I'm not a mind reader. I don't know why. People have apoc units in games whether they want it or not. There's no magical rule saying the terrain has to change. Not all battles are fought in cities. Or around high hills for that matter.

If you play on a board where you're not using LOS blocking terrain, you're removing a lot of tactical potential from the game. Ultimately, it buffs shooting and neuters assault. Then it comes down to a boring "time to roll dice and see who wins" style of gameplay. When you do play with it, LOS blocking terrain adds the option to utilise assault units by taking less losses on the way in. Makes list building more fun and challenging. Rather than just choosing big guns, big guns.

There's some, but not much and the big units can see over it.

Martel732 wrote:
Drop pods traps almost got me into a fist fight. Totally worth it, though. Especially because it was SW.

This story sounds interesting. Can you elaborate it in all its juicy scandalous glory?

 chalkobob wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Drop pods traps almost got me into a fist fight. Totally worth it, though. Especially because it was SW.

This story sounds interesting. Can you elaborate it in all its juicy scandalous glory?

It's not that great. Just someone who wasn't aware of the issue with not being able to disembark from a pod. This was also back in 5th, where every dead grey hunter was precious. Dude had quit the win streak that this threatened. It was really a long shot, too, he had to roll an "11" and an arrow pointed just right.

Sounds like his fault for not knowing the rules. Frustrating sure, but fist fight worthy? Sounds like this guy is a real piece of work.

 chalkobob wrote:
Sounds like his fault for not knowing the rules. Frustrating sure, but fist fight worthy? Sounds like this guy is a real piece of work.

Lots of interesting people play this game. I learned to take a loss immediately in 2nd ed. A lot of people who start with the new hotness army learn much later. Can you imagine starting Eldar in 7th?

It would give you a false sense of confidence, maybe even an entitled to victory attitude, but threatening to fight someone for losing is definitely not normal. For the record, my first game was in 3rd as Imperial guard, went up against a blood angel army designed to generate as much death company as possible. I got tabled. It was a rude awakening.

I tend to forget the mission and try to kill everything if there aren't cards involved... It causes a few losses.

Martel732 wrote:

 chalkobob wrote:
Sounds like his fault for not knowing the rules. Frustrating sure, but fist fight worthy? Sounds like this guy is a real piece of work.

Lots of interesting people play this game. I learned to take a loss immediately in 2nd ed. A lot of people who start with the new hotness army learn much later. Can you imagine starting Eldar in 7th?

I can since I'M starting an Eldar army. I fully expect to lose several times before I learn how to play them properly. The army type I intend to run can't take a hit like my marines could.

my new achillies heel is heavy flamers. amazing how squishy skitarii are when you burn them to death :(. I need some rent-a-pods.

Something I do in most of my casual games, and was reminded in my game vs. Tau this week.

I lost the roll to deploy first. I pulled out my models and had finished my setup before my opponent had finished to get to the game. While he did place some models after I had finished, I didn't take the opportunity to redeploy as needed. The result was that I had mis-paired the units because I just wanted to play and spent the first part of the game getting my units where I needed to go.

While it is funny sometimes to see my opponents face when I say I'm done setting up before he's finished, it's a bit unnerving because I'm also saying that I don't care how he deploys. While this might come across as arrogant, it couldn't be further from the truth, and the confusion means he spends the game trying to throw me off, when all I'm trying to do is fix my impatience.

StarHunter25 wrote:
my new achillies heel is heavy flamers. amazing how squishy skitarii are when you burn them to death :(. I need some rent-a-pods.

Get your own pods! Leave ours alone! /grumble

 Akar wrote:
Something I do in most of my casual games, and was reminded in my game vs. Tau this week.

I lost the roll to deploy first. I pulled out my models and had finished my setup before my opponent had finished to get to the game. While he did place some models after I had finished, I didn't take the opportunity to redeploy as needed. The result was that I had mis-paired the units because I just wanted to play and spent the first part of the game getting my units where I needed to go.

While it is funny sometimes to see my opponents face when I say I'm done setting up before he's finished, it's a bit unnerving because I'm also saying that I don't care how he deploys. While this might come across as arrogant, it couldn't be further from the truth, and the confusion means he spends the game trying to throw me off, when all I'm trying to do is fix my impatience.

This is a larg part of having SlowCrons problem. I spend a little while trying to correct the deployment errors while still reacting to whats going on elsewhere on the table.Not running Wraiths makers it difficult to stay manuverable

Footslogging orks have a similar problem. Although if I finish setting up before my opponent then it will be a very long game. Also I can sympathize with the big models. I like to assault stuff but with my dread mob I wish there was no terrain lol. Everything is too big to get cover often and even then the KFF is normally just as good so all terrain does is slow me down. Then again I like to hide gretchin behind every bump on the table lol. I had someone try to shoot gretchin behind a 3/4 inch hill and when I said they couldn't because they couldn't see them they started cracking up lol.

Tau. I play Combined Admech, the longest range guns I have are 48" and my regular guys have 18" range guns (I run lot's of Vanguard) so they just out-range AND outgun me. I'm used to blasting my enemy apart with my stupid SHORT RANGE firepower, not being blasted apart by their stupid LONG RANGE firepower.

Bloody Xenos stealing jobs from hard working tech-priests...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

StarHunter25 wrote:
my new achillies heel is heavy flamers. amazing how squishy skitarii are when you burn them to death :(. I need some rent-a-pods.

WOW someone else who plays Admech! also yes, skitarii are squishy (or is that crunchy?). Try some plasma Calavers and ALWAYS take first turn, 12" of movements means that your in range 2 turns earlier.

 IHateNids wrote:
This is a large part of having SlowCrons problem. I spend a little while trying to correct the deployment errors while still reacting to whats going on elsewhere on the table.Not running Wraiths makers it difficult to stay manuverable

I've actually not had an issue with MTC/Relentless. My usual list also has 8-10 Tomb Blades, and ~30 Flayed Ones, so I don't find myself missing Wraiths at all. This particular list I sub'd out the FO's for DM's to try them out, so I didn't have my Infiltrators to cover my flaws in deployment. I often REALLY don't care how my opponent deploys in most games, and it's just become so common for me that I end up deploying the same way. In this game, all of his troop choices ended up in cover on the opposite side of where I had deployed my TB's, so they ended up across from his Ghostkeels, where I didn't want them. Wouldn't have been an issue if I had just waited for him to finish, or realize what I had done when he asked 'Do you want to change any of your deployment, since I wasn't finished'. Just wanted to get to the game.

 Swampmist wrote:
Not seeing my own models and forgetting they are there. It happens way too often to me because of how much I tunnel-vision when doing strategy

Hah! My last game, it was turn 5 before I remembered a LotD squad that didn't come in with the rest turn 2. But it worked out okay: when I remembered that, my opponent looked down and saw the squad of Swooping Hawks he'd forgotten on the side board.

my major flaw would be long ranged fire power, my armies are either close combat or fast striking short ranged weapons, in the form of ork green tide and necron deep striking and transports. in larger games I can bring super heavies which balance it but other than that I will
usually by shot down by tau or eldar before I get close to bring all of my weapons to bare.

Sometimes i feel that my Achilles' heel is all around the body except for the tiiiiny part in some unexpected place. First must find this place, stick it out and push against the opponent's Achilles' heel as hard as possible. Oh, and it's changing location from game to game. Footslogging orkses here.

What's the big flaw in your playstyle that costs you games? How do you compensate? Why do you see it as your biggest struggle?

This thread is very interesting.. i'll post so I can comment =)

My bigest flaw I would say is my elitest play style, so larger horde armies are the worst for me. To compensate I try and consolidate my army together, when I play Tau I drop most of my army and focus down one flank, then try to sweep the field taking on the opponent piece meal. Many times this works.. but sometimes their is just no way to do this (deployment, terrain, objective game, lots of variables).

In other cases, I do often lose my wits, or get to emotional if i start the game with a terrible loss of a key model to bad dice rolls. For example, just yesterday Pask shot at my riptide. I had 4 wounds to start... rolled 6/8 1s to save. and rolled 0 FNPs after. That sucked. This was also turn 3 after my riptide failed nova. and failed his ion overcharge the previous turn.

Does expecting to lose every game count?

But seriously, I can't deconvolute my codex deficiencies from errors in pushing the plastic.

My turn: I shoot some meltas and a couple predators at the Wave Serpents and WK. Nothing dies.

Their turn: Pick up four units. That one, that one, that one, and that one.

There's no where I can put my stuff that the Eldar can't get to it. Same thing happens with say, DA, it just takes longer for them.

Well personally I play footslogging orks. Or the dread mob but I'm branching out some. I've got a snakebites themed one with squiggoths and I'm working on my tank line for the blood axes. Also I like the dread mob with all the walkers. My biggest issue due to this footslogging type of list is reaching the enemy. Also since I like to assault and orks don't have cc invul saves that can cause problems. If I'm running the horde ill normally bring some kommandos and stormboyz for more pressure. My shooting units don't like to hit so ya. For the dread mob I take some trukk boys to fly up the field turn one and remove some pressure from the mob hopefully. Now I'm trying stupid amounts of killkannons because its hilarious. Also for me my nemesis is the IG. I would rather fight the eldar. At least we can reach combat with them.

Martel732 wrote:
Does expecting to lose every game count?

But seriously, I can't deconvolute my codex deficiencies from errors in pushing the plastic.

My turn: I shoot some meltas and a couple predators at the Wave Serpents and WK. Nothing dies.

Their turn: Pick up four units. That one, that one, that one, and that one.

There's no where I can put my stuff that the Eldar can't get to it. Same thing happens with say, DA, it just takes longer for them.

Yes, it really does. I recently found an awesome batrep channel with a guy who plays basically nothing but dark Eldar, taking on basically everything in the competitive meta right now, and never seeming like he doesn't have a chance. I don't exactly play DE (harlequins) but the whole theme of "every game can be won" has really changed how I approach the game. It's called Skaredcast, I recommend looking him up on youtube if you're ever interested in what people do to fight against serious codex deficiencies.

I definitely need to work on my deployment.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Impatience, theatricality, playing Tyranids as a first army.

I think some theatricality is the cornerstone of an enjoyable game. Anytime a commissar stands vigilant against superior forces, I find myself pleased. It doesn't matter if it is my commissar.
Impatience is a difficult trait to overcome, and any length of time spent playing nids seems to really hamper progress in that department. I find myself, and other nid players to have a similar confusion about nids. Although now with MTO (check out the awsome nid tactics forum) you can have a working, eat everything as fast as possible strategy. Still try some sit there and come move me units like the Tervigon to balance out your play style.

Just a thought.

Usually I have 20-30 warp charges flying round a turn and usually I'm taking psychic disciplines from 4 different books... the need to not make every psychic phase not take half an hour or more generally leads me to make mistakes.

Then we have Tau, now its not so much a power level difference (I play Eldar for goodness sake) but I don't know how to interact with them without using a Seerstar or other horrifically OP lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Does expecting to lose every game count?

But seriously, I can't deconvolute my codex deficiencies from errors in pushing the plastic.

My turn: I shoot some meltas and a couple predators at the Wave Serpents and WK. Nothing dies.

Their turn: Pick up four units. That one, that one, that one, and that one.

There's no where I can put my stuff that the Eldar can't get to it. Same thing happens with say, DA, it just takes longer for them.

This maybe slightly off topic but I really do find this disheartening, do all Eldar players that play you just not tone down their lists? I mean I know it's a sad state of afairs when you have to do that but sure, do players really have to bring out the D, scatpack spam and Wraithknights for non-competitive matches and pick up games?

Heck, I've got a game with Eldar vs Blood Angels today and I'm bringing 30 howling banshees, Avatar and Melee Autarch against a Death company melee list because I think that might have the most fun interactions... but going all out with any of the top codexes outside of say a league, tournament or any other competitive game just irks me, especially against the lower tier factions.

I tend too rush my raiders forward to get into rapid fire range, which gets themm charged and wrecked alot whenn they don;t kil their target.

Staying back and schooting an extra turn would often be smarter yet i keep doing it annyways.

I have a few big ones.

1) Forgetting which army I'm playing. I play Tau, Eldar, DE, Harlies, Sisters, Iron Hands and Inquisition (the last three usually in combination), and I find all too often I get myself in one mindset and stink up the whole first turn as a result - like I'll hang my Raiders in the breeze forgetting that they really shouldn't do that, or I'll castle a Skyray, when there's only one single lascannon that could even hit it, and it has AV13...

2) Derping. More than once I've just plain forgotten to roll for reserves, or forgotten my psychic phase, or let a unit that I outflanked into the backfield just sit there for a turn. This is better with more caffeine.

3) Being too aggressive. I tend to move forward to close the distance way too aggressively, even with lists that don't want to assault, and I get myself in trouble that way. I don't always need to move forward into double-tap range - that Death Company squad, or Genestealer squad, or Raider full of Grotesques or what have ye will come to me...

4) Getting tunnel vision. I sometimes laser-focus on killing a unit, figuring I can grab the objective once they're dead - but then they don't die, and now I've got my arse in the breeze, not holding the objective. Oops.

5) Not meta-tailoring enough. At my usual LGS, nobody plays null-deployment pod lists or the like - at least, not often enough to plan on. At the other shop, they do it all the time - but I forget to tweak things to compensate. Tailoring to a specific opponent's list is bad sportsmanship - but not planning on alpha strikes when all your opponents will be playing pod marines is just dain-bramaged.

6) Having too many "favorite units" that are cool but not really competitive.

Overspending on upgrades....I want my guys to be awesome sauce.

Also getting hyper focused on the strategy I thought up to the point where I get blinded to other options that would be better. Also not recognizing when a random new idea is not better than my fixed battle plan....

Its an interactive problem.

Also I find that victory is what you decide is a victory. If your actual goal is to kill his stuff then make that your objective. Many times in a tournament I face a list where it is gonna be a huge uphill battle, for those games I decide I am going to try and play for a tie. In those cases anything other than a slaughter feels like a victory. Getting as many points as I can, trying out new tactics. Being really smart, sometimes it turns into a win because they start to get sloppy.

My biggest heel is I usually end up going second because I am unlucky. And I get seized on too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Does expecting to lose every game count?

But seriously, I can't deconvolute my codex deficiencies from errors in pushing the plastic.

My turn: I shoot some meltas and a couple predators at the Wave Serpents and WK. Nothing dies.

Their turn: Pick up four units. That one, that one, that one, and that one.

There's no where I can put my stuff that the Eldar can't get to it. Same thing happens with say, DA, it just takes longer for them.

Yes, it really does. I recently found an awesome batrep channel with a guy who plays basically nothing but dark Eldar, taking on basically everything in the competitive meta right now, and never seeming like he doesn't have a chance. I don't exactly play DE (harlequins) but the whole theme of "every game can be won" has really changed how I approach the game. It's called Skaredcast, I recommend looking him up on youtube if you're ever interested in what people do to fight against serious codex deficiencies.

If you spam nothing but the good stuff in DE they are pretty dang good.

I've lost some wins to draws by not doing my backfield housekeeping. Ignored a couple of pods which gave my opponent Linebreaker when I chased off to wipe out the rest of his troops and characters. Silly, silly me.

Also, a general weakness of Sisters is armor at range commanded by someone who knows not to put it near an outflank edge.

My achilles' heel is when I play and find get be bad. I can lose and be okay, but its when I get table at the bottom of turn two or top of 3. Or if I feel like I did nothing to my opponent and then get table. Its like," Why do I even play this game?" Usually have to take a break from 40k and do something else.

My weakness is focussing too much on the 150 boys running towards me and not enough on my objectives during maelstrom.

I play a Grey Knight Nemesis Strike Force, with a heavy emphasis on the Alpha Strike. So shunt forward with NDK(s) and interceptors, deep strike/gate with libby and terminator friends, etc.
As far as issues, it's a rare game in which I'm not outnumbered, but that's nothing new to GK. The biggest problem is eliminating certain high priority targets turn one. Grav-Centurions, Riptides, and Wraith Knights can pretty much look at something in my list and kill it, with little say on my part. With psycannons as our only widely available source of high strength, armor ignoring shooting, getting rid of certain 2+ save units efficiently is an issue. I have gotten much better at playing the objective game, saving shunt moves and what not. My allocation of WC though can use some work. often I'll forget to allocate dice to Sanctuary or Force or some such in exchange for more offensive powers. While they often do the work, the group that is set up for a charge has no dice left to buff themselves.
For compensating? Using Gate gets around interceptor fire given that interceptor takes place at the end of the movement phase, which helps against EWO Riptides, and I'm becoming more of a fan of a Grand Master with Psycannon. Roll on divination and put him with another group with psycannons. 12, TL, S7, rending shots can put the hurt on just about anything.
As for WC allocation, I've been trying to throw dice at my buff and utility powers first. After the essential powers there, and only after, will I look at my remaining dice for more offensive powers.

I need to learn when to run away from certain strong enemy units. Recently I had a game in a tournament that was my Ravenwing against my opponent's Dark Eldar. He had two squads of Reavers, 3 Ravagers, and a bunch of Venoms with Kabalites in them, and another Venom with 2 Lhameans as his HQ. I just foolishly left myself in charge range from the Reavers and just got splatted by them thanks to those Cluster Caltrops on those bikes. I should have turbo-boosted over to one side of the table for the jink bonus on turn 1, then started eating Venoms. Instead, I tried to force all his units to Jink on the first turn, and I didn't kill much other than a couple of jetbikes due to Night Fighting (and DE don't have to worry about night fighting). Only thing that went right was that I did force all of the Ravagers to jink, which negated their shooting, as they would have immediately started popping my Land Speeders.

If you're wondering how that game went, by turn 3 it was going so bad and I was getting so disgusted that I surrendered. My command squad got mulched on the first turn, and it just got worse from there.

My love of impressive models, Elite armies, and making tactically unsound design choices.

My lists have dangerously low body counts (21-24) to maximize the amount of big Tanks on my field.

I am the great and powerful Tinkrr, I am without flaws for I am powerful, great, and uh-mazing.

That being said, I think my biggest flaw is getting too comfortable, as in a lot of games I'll establish an early lead, or pick up how to play quickly, but I won't necessarily continue my growth, making me a great early adapter and learner but also someone who falls off and stagnates more.

I just need to always push myself so I don't get complacent.

the_scotsman wrote:
What's the big flaw in your playstyle that costs you games? How do you compensate? Why do you see it as your biggest struggle?

I still focus to much on tactics and not enough strategy.
I find myself grabbing quick point and point, and don't think more than 2 turns ahead.

This lets me win a lot of games, but against extremely skilled players, I lose. I just need to read more chess strategy books.

My Achilles' heel from a strategic viewpoint is that I focus too much on the grand strategy that I've laid out, and not how to modify it to deal with that unexpected failure. Like the surprise flayed ones. It gets me every time.

As I found out to my cost in a game last night, charging things. From T1 I had a pretty much gaurunteed victory on my hands; objectives in the four corners of the map and infiltrating units in a position to take them; to dislodge one, the enemy would have to apply enough force that the others would go pretty much unmolested (we were only playing 1000 points, I had 3 pretty tough units in opposite board corners)... Could have gone as planned, but on T3 I threw my CCW Tactical Squad, Apothecary and Centurion (my primary objective cappers) into 10 Necron immortals and a Cryptek...

They were still there at turn 5, leaving me with only 1 objective. Had I stayed back, shot and gone for the far objective with the Tacs, they could easily have held it and won me the game.

So basically, when I make a plan, I need the patience and attention span to stick to it, no matter how cool no guts, no glory charge might be...

2 major failings from reading this thread (went kind of fast, I may have skipped a couple pages ):
1. I rarely bring the same list twice.
2. I am unable to let my opponent make a mistake. The saying, 'Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake.' doesn't apply when I play. If I see them making what I believe to be a mistake, I must say something about it. And let me say, it is less appreciated in tournaments.

Tactically I am very guilty of enjoying removing models more than playing to the mission objectives. I am sure I have lost many games due to taking bait, and having too much fun killing things. :-p

Hobby-wise, I am horrific about army ADD in any game I play. I always need to have two or three armies/lists going for any game or I get bored.

Honestly with only having a few games under my belt I have quite a few weaknesses that I've noticed.

First and foremost I blob every damned unit I pick (GH mostly) which I tend to try and combat squad but my rhinos almost never survive the first round of shooting and routinely explode dashing their use before they do anything.

Second I rarely regard objectives as things to pay attention to and just aim to kill everything at random to little or no effect.

Lastly I keep forgetting about the damned psychic phase exists when I field my Rune Priests

 labmouse42 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
What's the big flaw in your playstyle that costs you games? How do you compensate? Why do you see it as your biggest struggle?

I still focus to much on tactics and not enough strategy.
I find myself grabbing quick point and point, and don't think more than 2 turns ahead.

This lets me win a lot of games, but against extremely skilled players, I lose. I just need to read more chess strategy books.

I don't want to nitpick, and we could all do with looking a few extra turns ahead, but that is still tactics. Tactics vs strategy is long discussion, but suffice to say there are only tactics in a game like chess or 40k. Strategy is a larger concern and would really only come into most tabletop games in a campaign setting where you had to divide your forces between differing playing fields.

Redleg wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
What's the big flaw in your playstyle that costs you games? How do you compensate? Why do you see it as your biggest struggle?

I still focus to much on tactics and not enough strategy.
I find myself grabbing quick point and point, and don't think more than 2 turns ahead.

This lets me win a lot of games, but against extremely skilled players, I lose. I just need to read more chess strategy books.

I don't want to nitpick, and we could all do with looking a few extra turns ahead, but that is still tactics. Tactics vs strategy is long discussion, but suffice to say there are only tactics in a game like chess or 40k. Strategy is a larger concern and would really only come into most tabletop games in a campaign setting where you had to divide your forces between differing playing fields.

To be fair, I think in the context of 40k the term strategy can be applied to things like pre-game plans, deployment, makeup of your army and the general intentions you have for each of your units. For example, deploying an assault-based army with a surrendered flank and terrain covering on one side, then placing an objective mid-field or deeper (ie. where you expect to be on T5) could be considered a strategy, not in the military sense of course but more generally, I think it's a fair application of the term. What's not strategy is flanking a single unit, or choosing when to charge and other, single decisions.

40k is a simulation of combat at the tactical level, but as a game I think there is room for strategic thinking.

carldooley wrote:2 major failings from reading this thread (went kind of fast, I may have skipped a couple pages ):
1. I rarely bring the same list twice.

That's not a failing, that's great! I've played the same guy with the same list about 3 times in a row, now, and it's getting really quite dull! Even though he's saying his next list will be more powerful, I still don't care, anything but the same half a dozen units again!

I honestly can't ever remember running with exactly the same list twice in 6 years of 40k.

 carldooley wrote:
1. I rarely bring the same list twice.

It's not that you need to bring the same exact list, you need to bring enough of the same elements so learn how they work together and what they can work against.
In other words, it's OK to try "What if I use a combi-weapon on this leader" or "How will this wargear effect my game?"
What I try and avoid doing is radically changing my list from game to game. A good rule of thumb is to keep your list 10%-20% the same every game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redleg wrote:
I don't want to nitpick, and we could all do with looking a few extra turns ahead, but that is still tactics. Tactics vs strategy is long discussion, but suffice to say there are only tactics in a game like chess or 40k. Strategy is a larger concern and would really only come into most tabletop games in a campaign setting where you had to divide your forces between differing playing fields.

Larry Evans says tactics is attacking the chess set, and strategy is attacking the chess board.

You can group them all discussion into the same category, but I describe them as two different functions.

I disagree with people that say that there is no strategy in 40k. Frankly, I agree with Paradigm - predeployment is strategy. what you do on the table is tactics. A proper utilization of strategy is the essence of what Take All Comer lists are for. Anyone who disagrees, they are welcome to field an AM infantry list of just infantry platoons with no upgrades against a 5 Knight list.

Xafilah wrote:
My Achilles' heel from a strategic viewpoint is that I focus too much on the grand strategy that I've laid out, and not how to modify it to deal with that unexpected failure

I see this happen more than anything else. On Friday night I played another Eldar player who stuffed a wraithknight down my face, and was shocked to see it destroyed in one turn when my dire avengers, warp spiders, and dark reapers lit it up.

He never recovered mentally and beat himself. From that point on it was just cleanup on my part, even though he had the tools to still beat me.

 carldooley wrote:
A proper utilization of strategy is the essence of what Take All Comer lists are for

List building I think could be considered strategic, especially if one will be playing in an environment of unknowns. A new exploit of unintended rules combinations, or a theory regarding unused or uncommon units could at its core be strategic. Lictor Shame was, at the first few tournaments it was dropped at, a strategic development. If someone fielded Ogryn to great effect because they had worked out some new use or ventured a new maneuver with them, then that would be strategic.
If, however, the list building involves primarily the balancing of known counters to known threats it is tactical. The choice to bring LR vanquishers to a tournament or FLGS where people will be bringing Knights is not strategic. It is known what each unit does. However if you have sussed out a way to make your humble Ogryn modular with different buffs or characters such that they can deploy to collapse the knight or brake tarpits or threaten scatbikes then that would be strategy (and darn brilliant at that).

I suppose that my position was a bit hardline, and I have no intent on hijacking the thread (or offering offense), but now I am intrigued. Are there maneuvers you have considered or tried that are somewhere between flying rodent gak crazy and possibly brilliant. I like this type of play-style, but my group largely wont go for it.
I know it all sounds nit picky, but it is important to regard tactical brilliance as different and no less important than strategy. A great plan is easily tossed out the window when SHTF, but a tactically proficient leader can turn even the biggest SNAFUs into a victory.

My weakness is in deployment. I've gotten a lot better about not splitting my forces up too much (and recognizing which units can be split off), but I still fail to read the terrain and my opponent's army well during the deployment step. This is especially so with CC armies, as I'm not used to melee myself and so underestimate enemy threat ranges.

On the positive side, I can recognize my mistakes, which means that I can improve upon them.

I had thought up several events that would make the game more strategic, but there seemed little interest in it.
For example a tournament where you played 4 to 6 games and had greater control over late game reserves, but models and units lost in earlier games did not follow your list to the later games. Death is final for your minis and so you must consider the balance of conservation to overpowering your opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I've gotten a lot better about not splitting my forces up too much (and recognizing which units can be split off)

I joke about playing nids, but it definitely teaches you to organize your army into smaller Cells. Cells that should always be used in conjunction, and when and where to reorganize those into different cells.

 Redleg wrote:
Are there maneuvers you have considered or tried that are somewhere between flying rodent gak crazy and possibly brilliant. I like this type of play-style, but my group largely wont go for it.

"The Crazy Ivan" maneuver.

It is done by doing the following. Deep strike a unit or MC on a specific spot. Lets say that spot is marked by X below.
X

Now, deep strike your next MC or unit right next to it. The idea is that the chance of devating on your own model and mishaping is incredibly small, given that there is a 2d6 range. So your next deep strike looks like this, with your first model at X, and second at Y.
XY

Continue deep striking in a line until you get to about 6" from the first unit to the last. At that point the chances of deviating on your own unit is high enough to where it's not advisable.

The advantage of "The Crazy Ivan" is that it centers a lot of your power in a very small area though deep strike. It utilizes the 2d6 probabilities to greatly reduce the chance of a mishap.

I've used this tactic successfully multiple times during various tournaments. I've used it primary to deep strike greater daemons and daemon princes, but it works with anything.

I tend to just want to get to the fub stuff where things die so tend to bullrush the first turn and spend the rest of the game making up for my initial cock up

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Redleg wrote:
Are there maneuvers you have considered or tried that are somewhere between flying rodent gak crazy and possibly brilliant. I like this type of play-style, but my group largely wont go for it.

"The Crazy Ivan" maneuver.

Especially for nids or other units with AOE buffs this sounds useful. I had been wondering a best way to apply Venomthrope drops, this would be it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I had been considering running a CC flyrant and droping tyrant guard appx where I will want to land for next round's combat. I think that would mitigate the worst of the CC flyrant's risks.
Of course at 225 pts I am not sure if it is a better option than just running another flyrant. It would be cinematic as all get out though.