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

Do tactics matter enough to effect a win regardless of your army/race?, this is a follow up to people saying my army is gak and me thinking they're wrong no matter how much facts there are lollll.


Like for e.g could 30 troops face off against 120 troops and win?

Not in 40k, no. It's a dice game. Tactics are targeting priority and screening (and knowing when to use what stratagem - but this comes with familiarity of your codex). That's it. I find a lot of games in 8th are decided at the list building stage.

In your scenario, suppose we have 30 marines Vs 120 guardsmen interspersed with officers. Let's make it fairer and give you a captain or lieutenant (or both) so you re-roll 1s for hits and wounds. The guard will still outgun you. And they have more board control so will be harder to shift off of objectives.

I think 30 burna boys could potentially kill 120 hormagaunts? 30 stormcast protectors could kill 120 goblins.

I mean if you have the strongest from one race in theory they could kill droves of the weakest of another race. If we're talking equivalent Soldiers I don't believe the best tactics could win in face of overwhelming numbers.

I don't understand what you're getting after though?

Tactics still has a place. But so does army composition. If you bring a sub-par list, but are a great player, you might take down someone who just downloaded a recent tournament winning list but doesn’t know how to play it well.

There is also a lot to be laid at the feet of our fickle little 6-sided friends.

But assuming players of equal skill, and average dice rolls, the better list is going to win.

There is also the factor of rock/paper/scissor matchups, meta/counter-meta lists etc.

And in more casual play, it’s OK to not squeeze all the power out of your list. Your opponent is probably also choosing units because he likes the look/lore of them as well. So it evens out. Different levels of play. What works fine for a fun game at the FLGS will just get tabled in the competitive circuits.

The issue isn't the firepower. Those 30 marines will kill more guardsmen than the guardsmen will kill marines.

The issue is wounds. The Guardsmen do give or take 13-14 wounds, while the Marines will do 18 wounds.

That's the Marines nearly halved and the guardsmen barely chipped. The durability of Marines is entirely smoke and mirrors, and without reliable ways to deal massed shots at a cost effective way against hordes, hordes will just be more durable than elites.

I am a very strong advocate of bringing over the wounding system of AoS, where all damage continues to carry over in the unit. It would fix hordes instantly, and would only need soft tweaking like a nerf to lascannons.

Not a lot in 40k. There are some tactics, but the vast majority of "skill" in Warhammer is listbuilding and what you play, not how you play it.

Not in 8th no it's far too dependent on random rolls.

 vaklor4 wrote:
The issue isn't the firepower. Those 30 marines will kill more guardsmen than the guardsmen will kill marines.

The issue is wounds. The Guardsmen do give or take 13-14 wounds, while the Marines will do 18 wounds.

That's the Marines nearly halved and the guardsmen barely chipped. The durability of Marines is entirely smoke and mirrors, and without reliable ways to deal massed shots at a cost effective way against hordes, hordes will just be more durable than elites.

I am a very strong advocate of bringing over the wounding system of AoS, where all damage continues to carry over in the unit. It would fix hordes instantly, and would only need soft tweaking like a nerf to lascannons.

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure that it would fix the issue with hordes that you describe. The marines would kill a few more guardsmen due to their melta/plasma damage not being lost, but then the special/heavy weapons from the guardsmen murder an equal amount of more valuable marines. I'd hesitate to make 8th even more lethal. A full squad with melta guns would be incredible under these rules.


On topic: I don't see a lot of tactical depth in 40k. Positioning is important, but this is limited by a lack of rules that incentivize movement. Why bother going for a flank charge or setting up a crossfire when it has zero additional effect over frontal charges/shooting? Line of sight-blocking terrain helps here, but as far as the rules are concerned there's using meatshields, there's target priority and there's using the gamey charge mechanics to lock stuff in combat (which you have to do, else the enemy just walks away and shoots your assault squad with some other units). Don't get me wrong, I like 8th overall, but it's important to realize that it's more a game than it is a simulation.

I'd argue Warhammer 40K has never been strategic or tactical outside of the bare minimum. It was at its height in 2nd edition when it was much smaller scale (and having played loads of 2nd, most people still didn't use all the rules!). Even then it still didn't have many common actual wargaming functions. It's partly why I chuckle when people pretend 7th had tactical depth outside of vehicle firing arcs/armour facings (which were subsequently abused in super-gamey ways anyway).

The most tactical/wargame-esque 40K has ever been is still quite a shadow of a normal tactical game, mainly those in the historical genre.

That's not to say it's not a wargame by definition, but it's a very arcade style RTS in place of an actual combat simulation. This is a large reason why I'm not sure it's terribly well suited to tournaments, and generally why I think the game is best enjoyed as fun entertainment, playing out battles to enjoy the silliness of the story it can tell. From a "fun" perspective, 8th ed. is excellent when played with that idea.

To the OP's question....sort of? As mentioned, units in this game represent relatively different power levels due to dice mechanics (armour saves, equipment, skill at combat etc.). In an open field, math is simply heavily, heavily against an outnumbered side if you're using the same stats. However, are there ways to do it? Sure. Having cover while your opponent doesn't. Playing your CP/stratagems to make the most of that one unit (while perhaps your opponent doesn't). Being in the right place to benefit from the right weapons, and having good luck. That's about the only way possible.

Say, for instance, you used some of the Cities of Death rules in a normal game of 40K. You took 10 Guardsman and put them in an Imperial Bastion (ignoring it's guns). You counted this as hard cover so the Guardsman went to a 3+ save, and being elevated gave them -1 AP lasguns...could you hold off 30-40 Guardsman advancing on you in the open? Very probably, yes. However being in that building isn't necessarily a tactic/strategy.

 Stormatious wrote:
Do tactics matter enough to effect a win regardless of your army/race?, this is a follow up to people saying my army is gak and me thinking they're wrong no matter how much facts there are lollll.

Like for e.g could 30 troops face off against 120 troops and win?

If the 30 troops were of roughly equivalent cost to the 120, potentially.


That said, yes, tactics do matter. What's missed, though, is that you need both a good list and effective tactics. If your list is crap you'll lose. But, if you just take a good list and don't know what you're doing with it, you'll also lose.


The randomness can be generally discounted if you roll enough dice at a time, but can hurt you badly if you only roll a few dice and they just all have to be a 3+.

 Stormatious wrote:
Do tactics matter enough to effect a win regardless of your army/race?, this is a follow up to people saying my army is gak and me thinking they're wrong no matter how much facts there are lollll.


Like for e.g could 30 troops face off against 120 troops and win?

This depends a lot on what we're talking about. The troops/forces involved, the mission and objectives, etc.

That said, if you're talking about just straight up lining up X vs Y, then yes, there are comparisons where, no matter how genius you are, no matter what tactics you use, unless the dice do something extraordinarily out of the ordinary, the outcome is going to be basically pre-determined.

Ultimately, 40k, is a relatively tactically shallow game built more around attritional value than anything else, always has been. Tactics matter, if you don't use the tools you have correctly, you will lose, but the game very definitely also has situations where you just don't have a good enough tool to match those of the opponent. List building has always been the most important phase of the game to victory.

 Elbows wrote:

Spoiler:

I'd argue Warhammer 40K has never been strategic or tactical outside of the bare minimum. It was at its height in 2nd edition when it was much smaller scale (and having played loads of 2nd, most people still didn't use all the rules!). Even then it still didn't have many common actual wargaming functions. It's partly why I chuckle when people pretend 7th had tactical depth outside of vehicle firing arcs/armour facings (which were subsequently abused in super-gamey ways anyway).

The most tactical/wargame-esque 40K has ever been is still quite a shadow of a normal tactical game, mainly those in the historical genre.

That's not to say it's not a wargame by definition, but it's a very arcade style RTS in place of an actual combat simulation. This is a large reason why I'm not sure it's terribly well suited to tournaments, and generally why I think the game is best enjoyed as fun entertainment, playing out battles to enjoy the silliness of the story it can tell. From a "fun" perspective, 8th ed. is excellent when played with that idea.

To the OP's question....sort of? As mentioned, units in this game represent relatively different power levels due to dice mechanics (armour saves, equipment, skill at combat etc.). In an open field, math is simply heavily, heavily against an outnumbered side if you're using the same stats. However, are there ways to do it? Sure. Having cover while your opponent doesn't. Playing your CP/stratagems to make the most of that one unit (while perhaps your opponent doesn't). Being in the right place to benefit from the right weapons, and having good luck. That's about the only way possible
.

Say, for instance, you used some of the Cities of Death rules in a normal game of 40K. You took 10 Guardsman and put them in an Imperial Bastion (ignoring it's guns). You counted this as hard cover so the Guardsman went to a 3+ save, and being elevated gave them -1 AP lasguns...could you hold off 30-40 Guardsman advancing on you in the open? Very probably, yes. However being in that building isn't necessarily a tactic/strategy.

There are tactics in 8th. Now since stuff like invisible death stars (gone) and everything can wound anything(new) it's not so easy to just delete stuff. Yes stiff still does enmasse, but now you actually have a chance. If you just spam stuff or minmax, play against the same. You just need to be a little more creative in how/who you deploy where & which units to use when on what.

If you are playing with like minded people and choose the fun of the insane stuff that happens in 40k on the tabletop, you will never have a bad game.

Ummm killing has never been so easy. 8th ed is the edition of "just delete X". Knight? One shot it. Unit of 30 boyz? Poof goes in turn. 20 stealers? Kaboom. Question isn't can something killed. Question is who alpha strikes crippling blow best.

My experience has been that knowledge is the biggest factor. Knowing what your army can and cannot do; knowing what your opponent's army can and cannot do.

I think the armies do have differences in power level, but the difference in knowledge and experience is going to make a much bigger difference.

As others have said, 40k lacks tactical depth. That's not to say tactics don't exist but they are relatively simplistic. In any game tactics are essentially a force multiplier but because 40k has fairly shallow tactics the effect of that multiplier is much, much weaker than in other games. So being tactically superior to your opponent might improve the effectiveness of your troops by, say, 5-10%, but if the difference in relative power between 2 armies is more like 20-30% the extra boost your superior tactics provides isn't going ot be very meaningful. This problem of lack of depth is exacerbated by 40k's pretty shocking balance.

So tactics matter, but list construction matters a lot more in 40k. The lack of tactical depth makes it extremely difficult to overcome a mismatch in list strength compared to other, deeper games.

 Stormatious wrote:
Do tactics matter enough to effect a win regardless of your army/race?, this is a follow up to people saying my army is gak and me thinking they're wrong no matter how much facts there are lollll.


Like for e.g could 30 troops face off against 120 troops and win?

tactics matter if there is a big difference in skill between both players or if there is a scenario or match up skew between two playing people.

tneva82 wrote:
Ummm killing has never been so easy. 8th ed is the edition of "just delete X". Knight? One shot it. Unit of 30 boyz? Poof goes in turn. 20 stealers? Kaboom. Question isn't can something killed. Question is who alpha strikes crippling blow best.

This, 8th is by far the edition of hyper lethal options. I remember back in 5th edition when killing a Rhino in one turn or removing a mob of 30 boys took effort. Not so much any more.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:

Spoiler:

I'd argue Warhammer 40K has never been strategic or tactical outside of the bare minimum. It was at its height in 2nd edition when it was much smaller scale (and having played loads of 2nd, most people still didn't use all the rules!). Even then it still didn't have many common actual wargaming functions. It's partly why I chuckle when people pretend 7th had tactical depth outside of vehicle firing arcs/armour facings (which were subsequently abused in super-gamey ways anyway).

The most tactical/wargame-esque 40K has ever been is still quite a shadow of a normal tactical game, mainly those in the historical genre.

That's not to say it's not a wargame by definition, but it's a very arcade style RTS in place of an actual combat simulation. This is a large reason why I'm not sure it's terribly well suited to tournaments, and generally why I think the game is best enjoyed as fun entertainment, playing out battles to enjoy the silliness of the story it can tell. From a "fun" perspective, 8th ed. is excellent when played with that idea.

To the OP's question....sort of? As mentioned, units in this game represent relatively different power levels due to dice mechanics (armour saves, equipment, skill at combat etc.). In an open field, math is simply heavily, heavily against an outnumbered side if you're using the same stats. However, are there ways to do it? Sure. Having cover while your opponent doesn't. Playing your CP/stratagems to make the most of that one unit (while perhaps your opponent doesn't). Being in the right place to benefit from the right weapons, and having good luck. That's about the only way possible
.

Say, for instance, you used some of the Cities of Death rules in a normal game of 40K. You took 10 Guardsman and put them in an Imperial Bastion (ignoring it's guns). You counted this as hard cover so the Guardsman went to a 3+ save, and being elevated gave them -1 AP lasguns...could you hold off 30-40 Guardsman advancing on you in the open? Very probably, yes. However being in that building isn't necessarily a tactic/strategy.

There are tactics in 8th. Now since stuff like invisible death stars (gone) and everything can wound anything(new) it's not so easy to just delete stuff. Yes stiff still does enmasse, but now you actually have a chance. If you just spam stuff or minmax, play against the same. You just need to be a little more creative in how/who you deploy where & which units to use when on what.

If you are playing with like minded people and choose the fun of the insane stuff that happens in 40k on the tabletop, you will never have a bad game.

Sure, but when someone says "tactics" to me, I think of real world military tactics, not "game" tactics. I agree there is a type of tactics involved with 40K, but it's not military tactics as one would actually employ if you were in the universe instead of playing the tabletop game. There's plenty of depth in 40K, in almost any edition. But you're very much playing a game vs. playing a portrayal of actual combat.

I think 40K is a good time with like-minded people, absolutely.

40K's idea of tactics are primarily listbuilding, deployment, and target priority. So I mean, if you consider those tactics, then sure, tactics matter.

If you're looking for tactics involving command and control, fire and movement, encirclement, or anything you've read in a history book, this has literally never been the game you're looking for.

In 40k, bad tactics will lose you a game, regardless of list power. If you don’t play to the objectives of the scenario, you’re going to lose.

Good strategy (mostly list building) ensures you have tactical options on the battlefield. If you have a strong list, coupled with good tactical decisions, you can beat a “Power” list played with poor tactics, because the poor tactics player does not create a win condition.

Essentially, list building / pre-game strategy establishes a cap on what you can achieve tactically in-game.

Counter-strategy / skill at counter-tactics influences how difficult you make it for your opponent to achieve their win condition.

Hypothetically, assault-focussed strategy / tactics should be viable [in 40k]. But the counter-strategy of bubble-wrapping with expendable infantry and then falling back to shoot the assault specialists is easy for most armies to include (list building / strategy) and to then apply in-game (tactically, a small squad creates a 20” diameter circle that deep strikers and the like can’t deploy into).

I’d personally like to see the deep strike range reduced to 6”, to at least give assaulting armies a better-than average chance to connect with screening troops, given how easy it is to deny “juicy” targets, but I digress.

So, yes, good tactics can overcome list shortages, and the poor tactics of other players. List building does establish the limit of tactical options you’ll have available in-game.

Oh ok, im getting it, and feel after this conversation that with the right tactics my army can win.


Thank you.

No, tactics don't matter. The game is won or lost in the listbuilding stage.

Hey Storm, for the giggles, what’s your army / theme?

 greatbigtree wrote:
In 40k, bad tactics will lose you a game, regardless of list power. If you don’t play to the objectives of the scenario, you’re going to lose.

Disagree here, because "table them" is almost always an objective, and even when it isn't it creates such an easy game state that you just win soon after. If you have a much stronger list you can just roll better dice and kill more stuff until the other objectives become meaningless.

Tactics matter in 40k? Not really, not until points represent how effective a unit is in isolation. Then tactics matter in getting them into the best position to do their job.

 Stormatious wrote:
Oh ok, im getting it, and feel after this conversation that with the right tactics my army can win.


Thank you.

I'm genuinely curious: how did you reach that conclusion after reading this thread? That's the opposite of what's been said. With one possible exception, everyone has pointed out that 40k's tactics are pretty shallow and it's list building, rather than tactics, that win games.

 Peregrine wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
In 40k, bad tactics will lose you a game, regardless of list power. If you don’t play to the objectives of the scenario, you’re going to lose.

Disagree here, because "table them" is almost always an objective, and even when it isn't it creates such an easy game state that you just win soon after. If you have a much stronger list you can just roll better dice and kill more stuff until the other objectives become meaningless.

The other aspect is that superior firepower can also drastically reduce the enemy's tactical options.

For example, Dark Eldar have options due to their speed and mobility. However, if you destroy all their transports and such, then all they've got is a load of footslogging troops, barely faster than guardsmen. Hence, at this point, the DE player is unable to use any tactics that relate to superior speed.

The same goes for Objective Secured troops. They can be used 'tactically' to sit on an objective and prevent enemy non-troop units from controlling it. However, if you reduce your opponent's troops to smouldering craters, then that tactical option is also removed for them. .

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, tactics don't matter. The game is won or lost in the listbuilding stage.

That isn't true. Just like any game where you build your army, deck, team or anything of that nature, you still have to actually be good at the game to win. Just netlisting the best build will only get you so far. If you give a top tier 40k player a list that is just start collecting space marine boxes, he could still make it work against a new player using a net list.

 vaklor4 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, tactics don't matter. The game is won or lost in the listbuilding stage.

That isn't true. Just like any game where you build your army, deck, team or anything of that nature, you still have to actually be good at the game to win. Just netlisting the best build will only get you so far. If you give a top tier 40k player a list that is just start collecting space marine boxes, he could still make it work against a new player using a net list.

I'd love to see a mono-Grey Knights list come even close to beating Guard+Castellan+Dakkabots.

With like-minded people, proper scenarios and terrain tactics do matter more than anything else. Positioning and target priority are essential. 40K is still not on a Level of Lotr or Star Trek Attack Wing or what have you, but it has gotten much more tactical than in 6th and 7th Edition. Decisions matter now, but overall 40k's main appeal is its diverse listsand factions and hilarious setting. That's why narrative missions are where the game is at its best.
There are of course still some Balance issues, but they're mainly visible in a WAAC tournament setting.