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.

 Hulksmash wrote:


Now, that being said lists honestly barely matter once you hit a certain point. And are very, very heavily dependant on your playstyle or personality. If the list has the tools you, as a player, need to deal with what you're likely to see then you're in good shape. How you get to that goal differs between people. Look at the lists of generally top placing players. It's never what the internet says is amazing. It might contain some elements but it's normally a pretty heavy departure.

Things like multiple deployment options, disruption capability, general and direct support. Those are just a few off the top of my head.

Basically I don't think it's to hard to get "good" (winning 2/3 games) at this game. But I do think it's pretty hard to get "excellent" (winning 80%+) at it.

I agree to the essence of this right here (though the meta may drastically change your win ratios if you play in a pool of tourney enthusiasts).

If your army fits your style, the enemy is in for a tough row to hoe because you already know that your army an do X and so it becomes a matter of anticipation and execution rather than a math contest. Over time as you learn to use your Codex, you will see that it is sometimes about what you take away from the enemy that is important. feints work when you face an enemy that wants to come to grips. Knowing that and when to do it is the trick. Recognizing the opportunity you can set up in the next turn (anticipation) is a playstyle and skill thing.

In my games, I feel like I use TIME as a weapon against the enemy. Its a game element that I can control if i am WILLING to tailor tactics to it. I nver hear much about this particular tactic or how to execute it with XYZ army but it's a valuable tool in the tol bag. Some enemy armies are just built in a way wherein the clock penalizes them. recognizing when that is and using it is a skill that can be taught.

I differ in this regard: I think its not hard to use words to describe tactics. I think if a person is cerebral enough to comprehend the thought PROCESS that got you to a conclusion, they'll follow what you are saying. I think if you can give them the THEORY that goes with the advice, they will retain it and remember it for later so that when the terrain is there to execute something cool, they know to do it.

Just my opinion.

That time comment sits poorly with me. Discussing using time against your opponent implies a failure to play as swiftly as possible to reach a proper conclusion. In other words stalling/slow play.

Then you can safely assume that isn't what I am talking about.

Explain how to use time against your opponent then? I'm genuinely curious as it's not something I apparently have in my tool kit

 Hulksmash wrote:
Explain how to use time against your opponent then? I'm genuinely curious as it's not something I apparently have in my tool kit

First you need a time machine. You go back in time and kill your opponents mother before your opponent is born. If that fails you can go back in time and try to kill your opponent when they are a kid.

 Seb wrote:

This is tactics (maybe even strategy). It may come natural for some of you, some of the seasonned generals might even call that "low ceiling tactics" ( @gpfunk)

It's just nice to be noticed.

Time is as much an abstract concept as it is the idea that you have a finite amount of actions in which to accomplish them.

Let's say it's turn 4, and your opponent has nothing within 12" of your deployment zone. It's tight, you want to make sure they don't get linebreaker.

So, you use time. Trade material for his ability to get upfield. Toss something throwaway in front of him to deny him movement.

Or at least that's what I take away from his comment. Not stalling the clock, but stalling the turn counter.

I was up against a Space Wolves that had ADL and just sat there the entire game with 36" weapons...

The game doesnt allow tactics it allows camping.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Explain how to use time against your opponent then? I'm genuinely curious as it's not something I apparently have in my tool kit

PM sent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracoknight wrote:
I was up against a Space Wolves that had ADL and just sat there the entire game with 36" weapons...

The game doesnt allow tactics it allows camping.

The diamtric opposite of what I use. Lol. But everyone has a way they LIKE to play. Or... a way they cannot depart from and win as the case may be. but its not because the game says no.

I created a thread some time ago (back in 5th) about tactics in 40k that had a lot of broad ideas in it. Although much of the information is outdated, some people may still find it helpful. I've been kicking around the idea of updating it for some time now (maybe making it into an article.)

Here it is: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/320368.page

If you get any use out of it glad I could help! It's old though, so don't necro it...

 Jancoran wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Explain how to use time against your opponent then? I'm genuinely curious as it's not something I apparently have in my tool kit

PM sent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracoknight wrote:
I was up against a Space Wolves that had ADL and just sat there the entire game with 36" weapons...

The game doesnt allow tactics it allows camping.

The diamtric opposite of what I use. Lol. But everyone has a way they LIKE to play. Or... a way they cannot depart from and win as the case may be. but its not because the game says no.

Still my point is that such weaponry just allows people to stay in cover across the map without even MOVING, then again i play tyranids and the longest weaponry they have is 18" or pick something flying, but i got shot from his deploy zone to mine ( even tho i can blame the board for lack of LOS barriers ) but still, there isnt any negatives picking mass "across the board" weaponry at all, so tactics is basically reduced to "pick stuff that shoot further" or "things that get close fast"... thats like picking a paper cut or burn yourself on hot water.

 Omega_Warlord wrote:
I created a thread some time ago (back in 5th) about tactics in 40k that had a lot of broad ideas in it. Although much of the information is outdated, some people may still find it helpful. I've been kicking around the idea of updating it for some time now (maybe making it into an article.)

Here it is: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/320368.page

If you get any use out of it glad I could help! It's old though, so don't necro it...

Well this thread isn't a terrible one to use for some tactics. Would love for you to post on my blog about any good newer tactics.I myself am kinda gearing up for a big post but I love reading tactics stuff. It's the part of the game I enjoy the most. Planning out the moves and counter moves is fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracoknight wrote:

Still my point is that such weaponry just allows people to stay in cover across the map without even MOVING, then again i play tyranids and the longest weaponry they have is 18" or pick something flying, but i got shot from his deploy zone to mine ( even tho i can blame the board for lack of LOS barriers ) but still, there isnt any negatives picking mass "across the board" weaponry at all, so tactics is basically reduced to "pick stuff that shoot further" or "things that get close fast"... thats like picking a paper cut or burn yourself on hot water.

My copious outflankers may not be in agreement that there is no penalty for sitting and shooting. I feast on that. =)

My most recent (admittedly NOT my normal) list had three Dominion squads. Would not recommend turtling up with them around, just as one example.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Basically I don't think it's to hard to get "good" (winning 2/3 games) at this game. But I do think it's pretty hard to get "excellent" (winning 80%+) at it.

Well said.

I know that every time I attend a tourney, local or GT level, I tend to see the same faces at the top tables. This is anecdotal of course, but I do think it serves as some evidence of there being a definite and tangible skill factor in the game.

As others have said, almost all games have an element of luck, it's how you react to luck and mitigate luck that really sets the good apart from the bad or average players.

Tony Kopach.

**Drops mic and walks away**

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jasper wrote:
This particular trick has worked several times for me, on my terms, against experienced players because everyone underestimates a single razor back.

That makes no sense. I wouldn't even consider ignoring the Razorback unless I didn't have any tanks I needed to protect, it's a much bigger anti-tank threat than the Predator (which is weak, its sole redeeming factor is it's dirt cheap) and is much less durable. Your opponent made a newbie mistake, and that strategy isn't going to work against someone who has a better understanding of the game.

In this particular case he just valued his weapons teams more and went for the dakkapred, not realisting that I was not one bit interseted in his weapon teams.

(Bit random go back to page 4, I've just slogged through from there)

 Jancoran wrote:
Tony Kopach.

**Drops mic and walks away**

This was actually brought up earlier by Redbeard. The circumstances revolving around his "wins" were incredibly suspicious.

 gpfunk wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Tony Kopach.

**Drops mic and walks away**

This was actually brought up earlier by Redbeard. The circumstances revolving around his "wins" were incredibly suspicious.

I was there it really isn't that just internet woolgathering on the last tournament.

Also keep in mind I wouldn't hold up his results from that tournament for one reason 6th had just been released there were still several kinks that had not been fixed yet.

and...he won with the same kinks everyone else had.

Look Im not into hero worship. But the dude has shown MORE than enough times that he can take what I think is a "normal" Space Puppies list and beat the face in of some very good players, repeatedly.

Skill matters. The General matters! Beleive it or not, there is such thing as skill and I have proven it many times. So have a lot of Generals.

There is a large percentage of Netexperts who like to point out the "suboptimal" nature of some of my army lists To which I respond "And have you seen my win totals?"

And then they proceed with the usual litany of lame "Well who did you play" crap. Look. Tony Kopachs wins happened. So did many other notable and well known Generals. They happened and in some cases it happened using a pedestrian well thought out but ultimately normal, EXPECTED list.

The scoreboard does not lie. You can bring whatever list you want. Triple Heldrakes? Bring it. I'll still win if I have the better plan and I execute (which the dice DO have a say in). If dice beat me I can live with it. I wont beat myself.

Tony won't either 99% of the time. So build your lists til the cows come home. You still gotta' play the game on an infinite number of Battlefields with an infinite number of possibilities against you.

 Jancoran wrote:
and...he won with the same kinks everyone else had.

Look Im not into hero worship. But the dude has shown MORE than enough times that he can take what I think is a "normal" Space Puppies list and beat the face in of some very good players, repeatedly.

Skill matters. The General matters! Beleive it or not, there is such thing as skill and I have proven it many times. So have a lot of Generals.

There is a large percentage of Netexperts who like to point out the "suboptimal" nature of some of my army lists To which I respond "And have you seen my win totals?"

And then they proceed with the usual litany of lame "Well who did you play" crap. Look. Tony Kopachs wins happened. So did many other notable and well known Generals. They happened and in some cases it happened using a pedestrian well thought out but ultimately normal, EXPECTED list.

The scoreboard does not lie. You can bring whatever list you want. Triple Heldrakes? Bring it. I'll still win if I have the better plan and I execute (which the dice DO have a say in). If dice beat me I can live with it. I wont beat myself.

Tony won't either 99% of the time. So build your lists til the cows come home. You still gotta' play the game on an infinite number of Battlefields with an infinite number of possibilities against you.

Read the links in Redbeard's post. It's just a page back. I don't think he won with the same kinks at all. I think he had distinct advantages that didn't involve his player skill or tactics. They're all enumerated pretty well. That aside, I think the point of the thread got lost a bit back. If you really want to get my opinion on this, just look back at the previous posts. There isn't much more to say. Now it's sort of like regurgitation from both sides.

the best way to efficiently teach tactics is to look at battle reports. Produce your own video battle reports, or whatever, then get other people to go over them and see what you did wrong, why it was wrong and what its consequences were.

 gpfunk wrote:
Read the links in Redbeard's post. It's just a page back. I don't think he won with the same kinks at all. I think he had distinct advantages that didn't involve his player skill or tactics.

Sure it involved tactics. Maybe this is the problem, we're too focused on legal tactics instead of looking for better ways to optimize our cheating. Maybe that's the solution, the list building forum can focus on optimizing the perfect list, while the tactics forum can focus on optimizing the perfect cheating methods.

A lot of the anti-Kopach stuff is a bit silly. Brandt releases the tourney scenarios for everyone, multiple people from their gaming group attended NOVA, anyone who has played there knows what to expect terrain-wise, they even post pictures before the event.

Also, players make mistakes with rules. I've seen it happen to very good players. That in no way invalidates Tony doing well. Watch him play and you can see why he does well. He is calculated and makes good decisions.

Indeed. Mistakes happen. made a bone headed one tonight, to my own detriment. Still won though. Hooray.

LValx wrote:

Also, players make mistakes with rules. I've seen it happen to very good players. That in no way invalidates Tony doing well. Watch him play and you can see why he does well. He is calculated and makes good decisions.

Like bringing lists that are over points? Sorry, low hanging fruit and all.

I agree, he makes good decisions in-game. But so do a lot of other people who didn't have the advantages that he had going into the event.

 Redbeard wrote:

LValx wrote:

Also, players make mistakes with rules. I've seen it happen to very good players. That in no way invalidates Tony doing well. Watch him play and you can see why he does well. He is calculated and makes good decisions.

Like bringing lists that are over points? Sorry, low hanging fruit and all.

I agree, he makes good decisions in-game. But so do a lot of other people who didn't have the advantages that he had going into the event.

3 Points is hardly backbreaking. It's a silly mistake, but lets be real about it, 3 points doesn't swing a game. All it does it put you up for scrutiny. I agree that it was dumb for him to do, but only because it lets people on the internet rag on him.

And once again, you said "advantages." One NOVA he was over in points.... All the other "advantages" he had, other folks had too. In fact, MVBrandt even runs local events before NOVA with NOVA missions and terrain setups. So you can have the experience before attending. In that case, I guess I had an unfair advantage too? I guess a nice chunk of MD/DC/VA did. But I disagree with this. If you read his blog, he updates and does a good job of filling in all prospective attendees about what to expect, mission and terrain-wise.

LValx wrote:
3 Points is hardly backbreaking.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Those 3 points could've been part of a 20 point upgrade or even a hundred point tank. 3 points makes a huge difference and it is why most tournaments have a hard cap point level. It's what makes the game fair. Any time you're over points, you're cheating. End of story. Tournament players should be expected to be very precise with their calcualtions. Someone as 'skilled' as Mr. Kopach would surely be able to do simple mathematics and addition, right?

Right?

We're talking tournaments here. No one gets let off the hook so easy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Sure it involved tactics. Maybe this is the problem, we're too focused on legal tactics instead of looking for better ways to optimize our cheating. Maybe that's the solution, the list building forum can focus on optimizing the perfect list, while the tactics forum can focus on optimizing the perfect cheating methods.

Like bringing lists over points!

Ok, invalidate one win. The problem is he has more NOVA wins when his list clearly wasn't over. IMO, 3 pts doesnt make me question the legitimacy of his win. Stupid mistake and certainly one that is very wrong. But not only did he miss it, so did his opponents.. I dont know if i'm alone in this but I often check lists and calculate things just to make sure.

You know, what's really funny is that I agree with your point, that skill most certainly is a factor, I simply disagree with your choice of example. You could have named any one of a good dozen or so players with multiple GT wins under their belt (at events not run by their friends).

Instead, sure, pick Lance Armstrong. Great guy, lots of wins. Who cares if there's anything shady about how he got there. Then make up all the excuses in the world for how that shadyness was something everyone was doing. Right?

No one is saying Lance Armstrong wasn't a great cyclist, just that you might want to pick someone else if you're looking for a role model.

He isn't necessarily the best choice, i'm also pretty sure I didn't bring him up. I'm just offering another side to the story, since you provided yours. The points thing is understandable, but a lot of the stuff, such as odd rulings on powers, were in the NOVA FAQ. I don't think its anything Lance Armstrong-level. And some of the things that have been said about him, or complained about, such as knowledge of missions, terrain, etc, aren't good points because most of the guys who play in NOVA have inside knowledge. And anyone who cares to keep up with Mike's blog also has inside knowledge.

Outside of the 3pt over debacle, I think Tony works fine as an example. His win last year wasn't tarnished by anything more than an odd ruling on Njals power being able to hit Flyers (which was in the FAQ).

But sure, we can mention Andrew Gonyo, Hulksmash, Reecius, Nanavati, Kurt Clauss, Fennell, etc. There are a multitude of guys who always seem to place in the top third or so of every tournament they attend.

I definitely don't think 40k is THAT skill-based, though I think it is more of a factor than some want to believe and less of a factor than some other folks would like to believe. In the end luck is certainly a factor and can definitely be the small difference when two really good players match-up.