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.

alright so i see so many people on here say 'this unit is so bad ass look at its stats!' 'this sucks, so many points for just this?' However in the game shop i see people talking about tactics and bad dice rolls at key points of the game.

so whats more important to your game play? do you look through your codex for the most broken unit/army you can and hope for the best?

the other side there's the tactics that bring the game into line with the old 'art of war' war genre

I've been running the same kind of lists since i first picked up 40k. learning from tactics and past mistakes.

however at a diffferent not so local game store everyone is raving about vulcan he'stan and if he sucks any harder it'll fall off, pedro kantor has fallen snugly into the 'required' slot of my army that i've been looking for for year however i catch so much gak for him that i pack TP with my codex.

back to the question,

vulcan he'stan, = power list, flamers, thunderhammers, SoB ap1 flamers, etc.

Pedro Kantor = elite marine army, requires control of area's and limiting your opponents fireing ability while maximizing your own.

both improve shooting/assault in their own way, one re rolling one missed hit from each guy the other giving you 40 attacks on an assault squad charging.

wich is more important to your game play? and for christ sake don't say 'I try to get both in' give examples of wich you prefer, a tactical/"simple" list, or the finding the broken unit and running with it.

Mod on.

Edited for sweariness by me, Kilkrazy.

Mod off.

This is an interesting question though it has the potential to set off an argument about "power gaming" so let's try and stick to the topic.

There is no doubt in my mind that good tactics are more important than the list. At the same time, a good player recognises that some units are better than others, or that they fit a certain sort of tactics better, so he will choose units partly on their capability.

My own army is Tau and just doesn't have the kind of super characters possible in some armies, nor any "broken" units. Some people might say Hammerheads are too powerful.

The problems with relying on uber units are (1) that players can find tactics to beat them and (2) they are a crutch, and stop you from learning good tactics.

hm interesting question.

In some ways it all depends on your play style, some people prefer assault or shooting or a combination of both, me i favor shooting so in my chaos marine army i try to include as many shooty units as i can (examples being obliterators and the humble chaos marine squad) and in my marine army i have lots of shooty dreads and vindicators, whilst most of these units would be considered 'broken' (vindicators and oblits being a prime example) you can't rely on them, i find that to include units to support these units, as they are not without thier weaknesses for example Vindicators have relatively weak Armour on the sides and if a powerfist or krak armed unit charges them they can be stop fairly easy.

and its true bad dice rolls can end up as a key point in the game, say take what at the moment is considered an uber unit atm for example a lash prince, what happens if he fails his physic test and can't lash the unit into his assault range and gets left stranded in the open, if you concentrate fire on the prince in the following turn he should die and therefore one of the main focuses of your opponents army has been destroyed and puts him entirely on the back foot as his army won't work as well without that prince moving units into assault ranges of things or moving units out of favorable positions

I agree with KillKrazy uber units are a crutch, in my first GT i took a Crystal Targeting Matrix army and qualified with ease, however in the subsequent years i took space marine armies (not exactly bad lists but no potential uber unit game winners (no assault cannon spam for example) and haven't done as well, the result? i have grown as a player and am now forcing myself to use not exactly bad lists but not ones that have the "i win button and you can't do anything about it"

This is a false dilema...

You can use tactics with powerful lists. The best players do that.

Well, I know you asked us not to, but I think most players really do both. I mean, you sort of set of a false dichotomy between simple lists and riding a broken unit like a rented mule. If you look at some of the nastiest lists floating around, you'll see they are quite simple: find what's good, take as much of it as you can.

If what you're really asking is if when I build a list do I build it around a unit I know is uber good or if I instead build up from a theme, or an idea, or a list of units that I like, then that's a better question.

When I build a list I tend to build it more around a concept of "how will I win game," and select units that help with that plan. My 'Ard Boys list was based on that principle (and limited to what I owned). I wanted to run Mech Eldar and win through manuever and shooting. From that base I started with three units of Dire Avengers in Serpents, added three fire prisms for all purpose fire support, and then tinkered with the rest of the list for a while. I tried a warlock jetbike council, a fourth DA squad, and so on until I settled on Eldrad, fire dragons in a serpent and two squads of banshees in serpents. The only really "uber" unit in the roster was eldrad, and he was my weakest link in most games. If not for the KP structure of the 'Ardboys I would have replaced him with two regular farseers, but as it was his durability kept me in a few close games.

Now, you could argue that I could come up with the same list by decided to spam what's good, but for all the static mech eldar got in 4th it's probably not the most broken army in 5th (although still undeniably good).

that's not to say you can't be successful the other way: triple faclon eldar had a heydey in late fourth, while Nidzilla dominated early fourth based on it's spamming of top shelf units.

In my experience, I'm limited less by my army roster than by my skills as a player. I've won tournies with balanced IG and lost hard with AC spam space marines. I'm always better playing an army that I'm comfortable with and know how to play then with a gimmicky list.

skyth wrote:This is a false dilema...

You can use tactics with powerful lists. The best players do that.

Hey now, that's some dangerous talk.

Seriously, I recast the question as less "tactics or a good list" and went more with a "how do you build a strong list" type answer.

It's probably worth restating that a good player with a bad list will always do better than a bad player with a good list.

The nastiest lists will be beaten by the better player with more experiance and better tactics.

Experiance is everything.

However 2 equaly good opponents game will be decided on luck or paper beats rock

Usualy, when I figure out who my opponent is, I chose to beat them with either a "cheese" list or use some super "ace in the hole" tactic. But I always know my direction before I count up a list. For my DA, I either run a death raven list(with mixed results, its hard to use), A template heavy list(when vs orks), a assaut squad w/ chaplin list (for fun) or a static one. Not too much cheese. For my necrons, Its almost always cheese time. 1750 pts? 2 monoliths and Ctan. But occasionaly I will just use a normal list without the gods or monoliths. Guard has very few options when making a power list, so the only thing I change is the heavy/ special wepons. If you start using all the broken units in the guard codex ( commisars, ogryns, techpriests, and the plentiful crappy docterines) you will find it very hard to win. The only power list Guard has really is a mech spam. And that needs a lot of tactics to win.

There is nothing wrong with powerful lists. Each codex contains some very good and very bad units; GW made units that are almost useless.
Building a strong list and playing a strong list at a high level are two issues that are not easy to achieve.

skyth wrote:This is a false dilema...

You can use tactics with powerful lists. The best players do that.

This is the truth. A power list with good tactics behind it will beat a regular list with good tactics. It will also beat a power list without it. Just because you comb your codex for the most powerful choices and cram them into a list doesn't mean you are any less likely to use tactics thoughtfully.

ITT people realize that two good things are better than one. Duh.

okay i guess i didn't word the question very well,

what i ment was do you spend more time making a list then you do playing it?

Or do you have enough experience that you can run a bad list and you've found enough ways to play a multittude of them.

i know people that read there codex front to back and look for broken units that you can use.

on the other hand people that know what basic units are good and use them to their full potential.

super units? tactical stuff?

I spend most of my time having just enough models to cram it all into the same lists I use in every game. Stupid college and high model prices :( . I do get a lot of practice with said lists though, so I tend to be able to play them better than people who alter their army per game.

A good list won't win you a game, but a bad list will lose you a game. You have to be able to use a good list; just chosing a killer list won't give you an auto-win (unless you're Stelek that is).

BYE

Well the best tactics can do nothing with a WS1, BS1 S1 T1 list. likeiwse the worst tactics can be saved by WS10 BS10 S10 AP1 A9 reroll etc....

I buy a Codex, I make a balanced list, collect the models, and then use the same list over and over until I stop losing with it. I used the same White Scars list for the entire lifespan of the 4th ed SM Codex. Once you know an army that well, you can't lose to someone who changes their list all the time, even if he tools up specifically against you.

Broken armies come and go but solid tactics will help you through any battle, in any version.

I think that using good tactics is especially important in games with objectives and games that have enough terrain.

The latter can really skew tournaments as being all about the build (see: Loota gunline).

One could say that choosing a powergaming list is a part of good tactics. It's more a case of 'powergaming vs fluff'. Though using a non-powergameing list with good tactics shows that you're a better player; and like Kilkrazy said, relying on uber units is a crutch.

lord_blackfang wrote:I buy a Codex, I make a balanced list, collect the models, and then use the same list over and over until I stop losing with it. I used the same White Scars list for the entire lifespan of the 4th ed SM Codex. Once you know an army that well, you can't lose to someone who changes their list all the time, even if he tools up specifically against you.

thats what i do.

I use to use super units and try to use them effectivly, however i've turned more towards using a couply squads of weaker units to do the same job.

now this isn't a 'fluffy' armys vs 'power lists' i've seen perfectly fluffy templar lists win tournaments, and i've seen 'power lists' broken by those lists.

i just thought of a new thread topic.

I used to win with orks in 4th ed all the time... Tactics win out against strong lists if the player doesn't know how to use it.

However... run into that player that knows tactics AND has a good list and the game becomes much harder...

I have a very well balanced list going to the Baltimore GT... I will let you know how my Witch hunters do

Choosing a good list is strategy, not tactics.

BYE

I have to go with the list is everything.

If you could theoretically split yourself in half and use the tactics and knowledge that you have to run both armies, the stronger list will win.

Against equally talented opponents the stronger list will win. The best win/loss records are from players that are strong tacticans and don't bring weak lists.

While you do need a combination of both if I had to choose one or the other it would be tactics. I justify this because a bad player even with a good list usually will still not beat a good player with a bad to average list unless the dice gods just don't love him at all. Case in point I was playing my guard army, which I'm pretty sure you have seen me run with all the stuff everyone tells me not to i.e. ogryns, ratlings, stormtroopers and didn't hide in terrain. This was a tactical mistake because of too much Warmachine lately but anyway... I played against a certain bearded DA player whom we are both acquainted and almost wiped him because of tactics.

Hi all.
Compared to the other games I play, 40k is more focused on strategic chioces than tactical chioces.(Army composition and deployment seem to have a greater impact on the end result.)

Also the way the game is structured , it is more efficient to have units that are taylord to specific tasks.

So by enlarge , a theme for the force , then optimising the unit choices to get the most efficient build for the theme.

(To answer the question , power lists due to low level of actual tactics in 40k. )

Happy gameing.
TTFN
Lanrak.

"Tactics" is a pretty generous word to use for this game. For lack of a BETTER word, I suppose tactics will do. However, there isn't a whole lot of actual tactics in this game. The tactics are in army list building and deployment. After that, there'ss not much tactical about the game at all.

There never will be much in the way of REAL tactical wargaming in WH40k as long as they stick with the turn sequence the way it is now and has always been.
Ex: After your opponent's assault, knowing that you have the entire next turn with no interference from the other side allows you to move (Hit and Run) in ways or to places that you never would if there was an initiative system for each phase.

Epic40k (not Space Marine, but 3rd. ed.) had tactics. The turn sequence is far better and makes you think about where you're gonna move or whom you're going to shoot with next.

40k is a tactics void.



Ghidorah

Ghidorah:

I take it you don't know any 40k tactics then.

Please detail some 40k "tactics" for me.

kadun wrote:Please detail some 40k "tactics" for me.

I braved a trip over to Warseer to find out for you, but all they could tell me about Tactics was that I had to 'use them'. Then they started babbling incoherently about fluff and paintjobs in an army list construction advice forum, so I left.

So yeah, apparently you need to 'use tactics' in 40K, and that's all there is to it.

BYE

Here's one:

Take a unit of Grots and a unit of Burnas. Arrange them so that the Grots are in front of the Burnas.

If anyone tries to charge the mass, they will get bogged down in the Grots, and be at perfect range for the Burnas to shoot or charge in the next turn.

If your opponent does not fall for such an obvious trap, then you can move the mass up to a unit or units that you want the Burnas to attack. In the movement phrase, the Grots move into columns, allowing the Burnas moving afterwards to pass through the unit. In the shooting phase the Burnas shoot, and then the Gretchin unit runs back into screening position.

A similar tactic can be used by the Imperial Guard. You can screen your Special Weapon Squads with regular Imperial Guard Squads, in the fashion above. Have them advance in a line in front while the Special Weapons Squad (and other squads) advance closely behind. Anyone charging that skirmishing unit will hopefully wipe it out or break it, and allow you to rapid fire it to swiss cheese in your turn. You don't need to buy these screening squads Heavy Weapons, since their job is to move and soak fire/charges, but taking Flamethrowers on squads following them is great because the enemy that has demolished the screening squad will be at perfect template range. Remember not to leave any room where Jump Infantry might be able to fit in! For shooting, resolve as with Burnas and Grotz.

You can do the same thing with Heavy Weapon Squads and picketing Imperial Guard Squads, moving the squads out of the way in the movement phase, and moving them back in the shooting phase.