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.

Bringing the best (or one of the best lists) and knowing what it does against the diffrent armies out there is pretty much as much tactics you will get out of the game. The only thing that might flex it up a bit is when the organizers are creative with new missions wich may favour other types of armies, but if they stick to the ones in the corebook or similars you are on the road.

Bringing some pile of balanced yaddayadda wont get you anywhere, not in 40k and not in WFB. The people who speaks so highly of armybox armies (ala johnDD) obviously havent ever read the top 10 in the tournaments running around, where pretty much the same 3ish armies are running rampage in the top.

Kallbrand wrote:Bringing some pile of balanced yaddayadda wont get you anywhere, not in 40k and not in WFB. The people who speaks so highly of armybox armies (ala johnDD) obviously havent ever read the top 10 in the tournaments running around, where pretty much the same 3ish armies are running rampage in the top.

I've won GTs and the Semis at aard boys with balanced lists.

Sure the way you build your army is going to determine a lot. Many times drawing the right opponent makes your job pretty easy.

At the same time, knowing how to handle what's on the other side of the table with what you are fielding determines who wins the game more often than not.. Having a plan and adapting when it all blows up in your face is what this game is all about. It's what makes the game fun. Especially in tournament play.

dereksatkinson wrote:

Kallbrand wrote:Bringing some pile of balanced yaddayadda wont get you anywhere, not in 40k and not in WFB. The people who speaks so highly of armybox armies (ala johnDD) obviously havent ever read the top 10 in the tournaments running around, where pretty much the same 3ish armies are running rampage in the top.

I've won GTs and the Semis at aard boys with balanced lists.

Sure the way you build your army is going to determine a lot. Many times drawing the right opponent makes your job pretty easy.

At the same time, knowing how to handle what's on the other side of the table with what you are fielding determines who wins the game more often than not.. Having a plan and adapting when it all blows up in your face is what this game is all about. It's what makes the game fun. Especially in tournament play.

Thats wierd, I also won a national here and played lots. And read the internetz for the last years for results and preformence all around and the balanced lists that make top 10 are very few. Even fewer that wins something, wich GT did you win and with what army?

Kallbrand wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

Kallbrand wrote:Bringing some pile of balanced yaddayadda wont get you anywhere, not in 40k and not in WFB. The people who speaks so highly of armybox armies (ala johnDD) obviously havent ever read the top 10 in the tournaments running around, where pretty much the same 3ish armies are running rampage in the top.

I've won GTs and the Semis at aard boys with balanced lists.

Sure the way you build your army is going to determine a lot. Many times drawing the right opponent makes your job pretty easy.

At the same time, knowing how to handle what's on the other side of the table with what you are fielding determines who wins the game more often than not.. Having a plan and adapting when it all blows up in your face is what this game is all about. It's what makes the game fun. Especially in tournament play.

Thats wierd, I also won a national here and played lots. And read the internetz for the last years for results and preformence all around and the balanced lists that make top 10 are very few. Even fewer that wins something, wich GT did you win and with what army?

Weirder still, I've won all GTs and Semis at 'ard boys with balanced lists and I've never heard of either of you.

Kallbrand wrote: Bringing some pile of balanced yaddayadda wont get you anywhere, not in 40k and not in WFB. The people who speaks so highly of armybox armies (ala johnDD) obviously havent ever read the top 10 in the tournaments running around, where pretty much the same 3ish armies are running rampage in the top.

I have no idea what you mean by "armybox armies".

All I know is that I ran up a huge winning record with a (more-or-less) "balanced" Eldar army, taking it to a Best General award. Partly, it's big fish/small pond, partly it's a strong Codex, and partly it's years of experience playing & tweaking an army. But if certain things work consistently, then there's something to be said for knowing where you have the advantage, and where you don't.

In 40k, I feel pretty comfortable calling the use of that knowledge "tactics", and think it's pretty helpful towards winning, when that's your objective.

Hi all.
I would like to say tactics are alive and well in lots of tournaments.
Not quite as much in 40k tournaments though.
Due to the comparitivley limited amount of tactics in the 40k game.

There are huge amounts of strategy in the 40k game though ,army compostion , deployment , and in using specialised units in a specific way etc.
And this requires a lot of time and dedication to aquire the high level of sucesses found at large 40k tournaments.

Unfortunatley its the rock/paper/scissors nature of the 40k marketing , er I mean game development, , that lend the game play more strategic bias.

So the best 40k players are very skilled , but in the complicated strategic conciderations involved in the 40k game , and not so much the limited tactical interaction.

TTFN
Lanrak.

You still have to play properly. Twin Lash is a poor matchup to Mech Vet IG usually. ( I am 12-0 vs Lash, well 12-1 now ) But I played poorly this last weekend and My opponent played well.

Guess what,

he won.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another even better example is this last march I had not played 40k in three years and went to my first 5th ed tourney to see if I liked the new game. I took my friends DA army and went 0-5 over two days. He took that same army two weeks later against most of the same opponents and went 3-0.

Same army, same opponents, but he knew how to play his army and I did not. I lacked the skill to win with it.

I still had 5 very fun games agains great opponents and now Im all 40k fanboi again ;-)

Skill does matter.

Hi bigtmac68.
There IS alot of skill required to concistanly win games of 40k.
But it is mainly focused on STRATEGIC elements,NOT TACTICAL elements.

CBT starter rules are only 13 pages long and have more tactical game play than the whole of 40k!

But GW is a minatures company NOT a games company.As Jervis Johnson said,'...the games are just the iceing on the cake...'

TTFN
Lanrak.

As repeatedly noted, skill is required to play the game well, and if you have it, you can consistently perform well.

The recurring names at the tops of the tournament standings over the years make this perfectly clear. As does Kilkrazy’s thought experiment about putting whatever power list you choose in the hands of a nine year old and having them run it (with a rules expert on hand to help them procedurally, but not give any advice or direction about what decisions to make).

Where you draw the line between strategy and tactics will vary from person to person. Personally, I consider list design and pre-tournament planning (such as metagame considerations like knowing of particular armies at a given store you need to be prepared for) to be Strategic, and everything you do at the table (from deployment on) to be Tactical.

In my experience, 40k most certainly has tactics. They are the tactics of the game, which, like Chess, often do not realistically model real life tactics. But they are still tactics. These tactics center around target selection, threat evaluation, choosing when and where you need to move which units. And all of these decisions are dependent on the army you are playing, your exact unit selections, the army your opponent is playing, his exact unit selections, the mission being played, the terrain on the table, and the die rolls made so far up to the exact moment of each decision.

As for "power armies", some armies are easier to pilot than others, as Kallbrand has intimated. But they still require good decisions to perform well against another strong list. And a better player will perform better in unfamiliar missions, against unfamiliar armies, on unfamiliar terrain, or when his dice go south, than a less-skilled player.

Exactly, to follow on my example above in Ard Boyz for game 3 my strategy was solid. My Mech Vet list had all the necessary elements to beat a Mech Lash Sorceror List.

I made three key Tactical errors during the game.

1 - I chose to deploy all in reserve giving my opponent two free turns to advance on the objective and solidify his posiition. (Usually very good for me but bad in this particular scenario)

2 - I chose NOT to outflank my Vendettas. I did this as he was deployed in the center but by doing so I allowed him to concentrate all of his force in the same area and achieve localized numerical supremacy.

3 - I advanced my Bane Wolf Squadron too far to the right allowing his outflanking Chosen to eliminate them before they could begin wiping out his troops.

These were all purely tactical decisons ( bad ones ). My opponent needed to see them, take advantage of them and avoid making any mistakes of his own. He did all three and crushed me as he deserved to.

I did not loose because of dice, or lists, or scenario choices or any of the other excuses usually given.

I lost because my oppoent played better, on the table, with tactics.

Q.E.D