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.

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

This "tactic" is done in Army Selection by thinking about a narrow-minded, one-trick-pony combo that may or may not work. Not very "tactical" in my opinion.

Nurglitch wrote: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.

Shoot into hand to hand combat? There goes a chunk of your "tactic" example.


Give examples all you want. It doesn't change the fact that 40k is basically devoid of any tactics.

Look at the sport of Boxing. Very skilled combat where manuvering, offense, and defense are key to victory. Do you press to the ropes? Do you bob or weave? Do you jab, uppercut, or hook? Is your opponent a southpaw? That changes ALL your tactics in the ring.
Now, if the rules for boxing said, "Boxer A, move to your desired positon for the turn and throw your punches. Now, prepare your defense for your opponent's turn. Boxer B, move to your desired position and throw your punches. Now prepare your defenses for your opponent's turn. Repeat."

No longer a tactical sport. Not to mention boring as hell...





Ghidorah

I agree. Compared to Epic 40K (and Epic: Armageddon), Warhammer 40K isn't very tactical. I was hoping that some of the Epic rules would migrate over to 40K in this latest edition, but not many of them did. Even getting rid of IgoUgo would be a major step in the right direction.

Pariah Press wrote: I agree. Compared to Epic 40K (and Epic: Armageddon), Warhammer 40K isn't very tactical. I was hoping that some of the Epic rules would migrate over to 40K in this latest edition, but not many of them did. Even getting rid of IgoUgo would be a major step in the right direction.

when i started playing battleteck this was the biggest perk to me.

there where 10 poker chips in a hat (for each player) and we each drew one out. I'd laugh when i go last (a good thing because all fireing was simo and i could get into position) overheat fireing all my weapons into their back armour and watch it blow up in a marvelous fashion. however this was only 1 out of 10 times and i loved moving around the little robots and having a good time.

what i don't like about 40k, only 2 people play, and there's so many different options that you'll never be able to play them all.

what i do like about 40k, an endless stream of convertability (word?), and my own personalized army. The game comes second to me.

I really think that a list will make or break your army, a lot more then tactics will. As i've said before, putting a golden demon worth model in someone's hands doesn't make them a master painter. Neither does giving someone the best most balanced and powerful list in the game make someone a great general.

10-player BTech? 1 'Mech each. That must've been interesting... and taken forever.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:10-player BTech? 1 'Mech each. That must've been interesting... and taken forever.

BYE

it was fun, we where just learning the rules but it did go rather quickly. everyone picked a meck out of a pile and we just went to town getting what we got.

my marauder was awsome, i wish i still had it.

Most I've done is 4 player, 2 'Mechs a side. That was a fun game. A lot of alliances made and broken, double-crosses, betrayals, retreating, mad charges. Great fun.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Most I've done is 4 player, 2 'Mechs a side. That was a fun game. A lot of alliances made and broken, double-crosses, betrayals, retreating, mad charges. Great fun.

BYE

"you only play battleteck for fun the first time, the rest is for revenge."

From a Fantasy point of view, spectacularly bad luck aside, it is typically the better player, than the better list that wins.

Why? How combat works, and how well the players understand how to make it work for them.

As an example, a newcomer, particularly one from 40k, will use shooting to eradicate enemy units, whether through panic or casualties. An experienced player knows not only is this generally difficult to do, but that simply picking off two or three models for any unit tips combat in their favour (unless it gobbos, when you need to kill *lots!*). Why? Combat Resolution. Static Res, for most units, is a comfortable +4. 3 points from Ranks, 1 point from Banner. In this example, I will work with 5 wide, 4 deep in both instances of exactly matched units, lets say, 20 Empire Swordsmen, purely for arguements sake.

Now, if I can kill even a single Swordsman from the enemy unit, without losing a single wound, I gain the upper hand considerably. He loses a single Rank, taking him to +3 Static Resolution, and I (typically) gain outnumber, giving me +5. This means he has to cause two more casualties than I do to *draw* the combat, and 3 to kill it. In this instance, the combat really should be dawdle for my lads.

Of course, with less matched units, the outcome becomes less and less certain, but just by knocking off that single rank, I really do gain a massive advantage, regardless of who or what I am fighting. So a single turns bowfire is usually enough to soften the enemy up.

Then you have flanks and rear. Hit them, the opponent loses his ranks (provided you're not Skirmishers and have at least US5 at the end of combat of course) this is about as close to a guaranteed win as you can get. He'll have +1 for banner, *possibly* +1 for Outnumber (they generally do in my experience, as smaller units are easier to position for flank charges) where I get +1 for Banner +3 for Ranks, and a further +1 for the Flank Charge (+2 if it's the rear)

So, some things in Warhammer are very, very nasty, but it is rare when it is immune to a single unit in the game. Even a Greater Daemon going up against a full combat block is risking it, as to win, they need 6 points of combat Resolution, all of which has to come from combat (he needs 6, because in the event of a draw, if one side has a musician, that side wins, so 5 won't cut it). Even a Bloodthirster with 2D6+2(I think he gets the +2!) is taking a massive risk in charging the front.

So, in short, in Fantasy, with very few notable exceptions (Thorek Gunline is one) it is genuinely tactics and strategy that carry the day. Of course, for your tactics to work, you need to know your force inside out!

Ghidorah wrote:

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

This "tactic" is done in Army Selection by thinking about a narrow-minded, one-trick-pony combo that may or may not work. Not very "tactical" in my opinion.

Nurglitch wrote: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.

Shoot into hand to hand combat? There goes a chunk of your "tactic" example.


Give examples all you want. It doesn't change the fact that 40k is basically devoid of any tactics.

Look at the sport of Boxing. Very skilled combat where manuvering, offense, and defense are key to victory. Do you press to the ropes? Do you bob or weave? Do you jab, uppercut, or hook? Is your opponent a southpaw? That changes ALL your tactics in the ring.
Now, if the rules for boxing said, "Boxer A, move to your desired positon for the turn and throw your punches. Now, prepare your defense for your opponent's turn. Boxer B, move to your desired position and throw your punches. Now prepare your defenses for your opponent's turn. Repeat."

No longer a tactical sport. Not to mention boring as hell...





Ghidorah

Of course the Grot/Burna is a tactic. What else is it? The Grots give the Burnas an important cover save, are very much expendible. The Burnas make the Grots more of a threat, as HTH is likely to land you with a good, old fashioned roasting followed by a thorough doing over. Why? Charge the Grots. Go on. Hey, look, you massacred them in a single turn. And now, you cannot consolidate into a new combat, you are left standing. Movement phase, Burnas shuffle forward, hats down ROASTYTOASTY! and then charge the survivors.

Sounds a pretty solid tactic to me, as it produces decisions for your opponent, and gives you various reactionary options as well.

So good "tactics" in 40k (as in all tabletop/board games of abstraction) boils down to good knowledge of the rules and how to apply them to maximum effect.

The tactics Nurglitch described above simply take advantage of the "No consolidating into new combats" and "template resolution" 5th edition rules. Other "tactics" include using the counter-charge rules to "pull" a unit off an objective. Using wound allocation rules to mitigate casualties. Positioning two vehicles so that one has a 3+ cover save vs shooting.

Likewise in 4th you combine the rules for Line of Sight/Range and Casualty removal to get "Line of Sight/Range sniping". Or combine rules for Combat initiative and "who can fight" and you get "clearing the kill zone."

So "using tactics" is simply "know the rules" and how to apply them.

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

How so? If tactics are based on rules, they change when rules change. Because of rules changes you can no longer "Range snipe" or clear a kill zone or Fish of Fury (unless your Devil Fish are mounted very high).

H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

Priceless!

(And, sadly, true!)

yea i prefer tatics more then uber characters or broken stuff. simply because when someone blows the hell outta those, your basically screwed. like in the 4th edition chaos dex you could make a super killy demon prince that pretty much kills armies on its own. as soon as you get some bad rolls tho, i hope your other units have a good life insurance plan.
Depends really on what the game is tho. if its smaller and you have only one or two "key" things then yea i screen the pooh outta them. cannon fodder is a great tactic. but when the game is bigger, shoot man, its all about terminators and dreds.... as many as you can field.

Give examples all you want. It doesn't change the fact that 40k is basically devoid of any tactics.

It all depends what I am in the mood for. If I want to play checkers I play 40K. If I want to play chess I play Warmachine. 40K really is about power build lists and veteren players playing Rock, Paper, and Scissors. You kind of get a sense of who wins or loses most times in 40K after about round two or three.

Kadun wrote:So "using tactics" is simply "know the rules" and how to apply them.

Hopefully that does not come as a shock to you. That is how games work. The rules give a structure combining starting positions to give a series of endgames, the value of which is ranked by the game. Tactics are simply the little non-game sub-problems that you need to solve to solve the strategic problem of winning the game.

The problem is that, if you wave away tactics as knowing the rules and applying them, you miss the niceties that make the difference between winning and losing. Anyone can know the rules, and not be able to solve the tactical problems that the rules will present in combination with an opponent and the strategic boundaries of that particular game (terrain, objectives, etc).

Moveover it takes a well-trained eye to be able to solve many Warhammer tactical problems because the rules disallow pre-measuring, giving a distinct advantage to the player that can eyeball it to the nearest 1/2" or 1/4", because that player will be able to play the ranges on shooting and charges such that their opponent will constantly be missing 'opportunities', or taking one more turn to get into assault or to shoot a unit.

While range-clipping and sniping has gone the way of the dodo, you can still arrange units so that casualties from one attacker put another attacker out of range.

kadun wrote:So good "tactics" in 40k (as in all tabletop/board games of abstraction) boils down to good knowledge of the rules and how to apply them to maximum effect.

The tactics Nurglitch described above simply take advantage of the "No consolidating into new combats" and "template resolution" 5th edition rules. Other "tactics" include using the counter-charge rules to "pull" a unit off an objective. Using wound allocation rules to mitigate casualties. Positioning two vehicles so that one has a 3+ cover save vs shooting.

Likewise in 4th you combine the rules for Line of Sight/Range and Casualty removal to get "Line of Sight/Range sniping". Or combine rules for Combat initiative and "who can fight" and you get "clearing the kill zone."

So "using tactics" is simply "know the rules" and how to apply them.

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

How so? If tactics are based on rules, they change when rules change. Because of rules changes you can no longer "Range snipe" or clear a kill zone or Fish of Fury (unless your Devil Fish are mounted very high).

If you play a range of wargames you find there are standard sorts of tactics or principles of war which work in all situations. For example, making flank attacks.

These tactics are not rules dependent because any set of rules will incorporate them. A new player will know that if he does a flank attack it will be more effective than a head on attack. He doesn't need to know exactly how it works in the rules.

I build lists that look fun, which includes powerful units because they are fun. Then, when playing, I use tactics to try and win with that list. I think everyone does this. No one lines up a Godzilla army and then just doesn't move or shoot, and expect to win.
The reason we talk about lists and units is because it's easier. We all have the books, it's all simple and laid out. Tactics require knowledge of your list, the opponents list, and the terrain. It's difficult to talk about it beyond a sort of vague and obvious level, because tactics vary from situation to situation. That doesn't mean that many of the players here ignore tactics, just that we find list building easier to talk about.

OH, and utilising two units together, whether to the benefit of one or both, is Synergy. Synergy is something you engineer into your list, and make happen with tactics.

A good example is the tactical application of Markerlight Hits with Tau. Light up the right target, expend them strategically, and there you have it. A Tactic.

BUt of course, you've already made up your mind, haven't you, so there is no real point in debating the issue at all.

Kilkrazy wrote:
If you play a range of wargames you find there are standard sorts of tactics or principles of war which work in all situations. For example, making flank attacks.

These tactics are not rules dependent because any set of rules will incorporate them. A new player will know that if he does a flank attack it will be more effective than a head on attack. He doesn't need to know exactly how it works in the rules.

Can you detail how to make a flanking attack in 40k? If you do I will attempt to break it down to simply applying rules to your benefit.

Nurglitch wrote:
Hopefully that does not come as a shock to you. That is how games work. The rules give a structure combining starting positions to give a series of endgames, the value of which is ranked by the game. Tactics are simply the little non-game sub-problems that you need to solve to solve the strategic problem of winning the game

Yes that is of no shock to me, it follows from my experience in wargaming. Care to elaborate what you mean by solving "non-game sub-problems" and give some 40k related examples? What do you mean by "non-game"?

Nuglitch wrote:
The problem is that, if you wave away tactics as knowing the rules and applying them, you miss the niceties that make the difference between winning and losing. Anyone can know the rules, and not be able to solve the tactical problems that the rules will present in combination with an opponent and the strategic boundaries of that particular game (terrain, objectives, etc).

Can you give examples of these "niceties that make the difference between winning and losing"?

Nurglitch wrote:
Moveover it takes a well-trained eye to be able to solve many Warhammer tactical problems because the rules disallow pre-measuring, giving a distinct advantage to the player that can eyeball it to the nearest 1/2" or 1/4", because that player will be able to play the ranges on shooting and charges such that their opponent will constantly be missing 'opportunities', or taking one more turn to get into assault or to shoot a unit.

Well thats knowing how to guage distances, an excellent skill to have for sure that helps at winning games, but not a tactic in of itself. In fact, it's only useful if you are at first familiar with the rules and why those distances that you are accurately judging are important.

kadun wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
If you play a range of wargames you find there are standard sorts of tactics or principles of war which work in all situations. For example, making flank attacks.

These tactics are not rules dependent because any set of rules will incorporate them. A new player will know that if he does a flank attack it will be more effective than a head on attack. He doesn't need to know exactly how it works in the rules.

Can you detail how to make a flanking attack in 40k? If you do I will attempt to break it down to simply applying rules to your benefit.
.

I don't think there is any benefit in making flank attacks in 40K. Neither side gets any benefit or penalty to firepower, cover or morale because of a flank attack.

Kadun:

Non-game sub-problems are simply those procedures that players must go through to resolve actions in the game, such as moving, shooting, etc. However, unlike Chess, for example, the solutions to non-game sub-problems like moving can be better or worse. In Chess a piece is either moved into a square or it isn't, whereas in Warhammer 40k with its composite model/unit elements, the success of a movement action will depend on a set of variables such as whether the enemy has many blast weapons available to affect the unit and so on.

The niceties that make the difference between winning and losing in 40k, and get waved away by talking about tactics reductively, as 'just knowing the rules', include knowing what distance to move models relative to the enemy and in what order, knowing what order in to shoot with units given the expected value of their shooting and the threat value of possible targets, knowing when to engage the enemy, knowing the amount of material and its position to efficiently assault and defeat the enemy, etc.

All of these things are only useful if you know the rules, but that's because they constitute another level of the game above and beyond the mere application of the rules, the level of the game on which tactics are used rather than the level of the game described by the rules.

If this is confusing, let me give you a toy example, using that old saw, the Prisoner's Dilemma, modified to be about dividing up a pot of money.

These are the rules of the game: You and your opponent have two choices: either give the other $2 out of the pot, or keep $1 for yourself. Depending on whether one's opponent is a Giver or a Taker, a Giver will make either $2 or $0. Similarly, a Taker will make either $3 or $1.

Now, the Prisoner's Dilemma can be considered a game in itself, in which case it's a very uninteresting game because you should always Take (though a very interesting schema for certain types of game), or at a non-game sub-problem in a game consisting of variably iterated Prisoner's Dilemmas. Although taken as a single one-off the Prisoner's Dilemma is a no-brainer, taken as part of a variably iterated series the Prisoner's Dilemma makes both choices a live option for the player to use, so that sometimes it's better to Give than to Take. Which tactic of Giving or Taking is preferred in any particular iteration will depend both on the level at which single games, the rules, prescribe what must be done, and the level at which prior iterations and current assessment of opposing strategy, the tactical level, prescribe what must be done.

the only benefit I can see is if it's a snikrot style flank attack that lets you assault without being shot.

Killkrazy:

I think it depends on whether the unit or the army has flanks. I think a unit has flanks when its formation is across one axis greater than 2" plus its assault move. Likewise an army has flanks when it has units that are outside of the range of shooting and counter-assaults, such as happens occasionally when they are near a side of the board.

One benefit to flank attacks in 40k are minimizing the number enemy models getting into a counter-assault, or being able to shoot or assault the enemy unit in the following turn. Minimizing resistance to attacks.

Another benefit to flank attacks in 40k is maximizing the number of friendly models that can shoot or assault a single unit without getting in each other's way.

Fair points. I was thinking of traditional things like morale effects.

Exact army lists don't matter much to me. You need to evaluate the effectiveness of units that you use and use them effectivly to accomplish tasks. Part of this needs to be done when builing your list. Having a plan for your list is the first biggest step to building effective lists. Followed by using the plan.

For example, I had a rhino rushish assault army. The plan was to have 7 + of my untis move as far forward as possible on the first turns to minimize shooting and get into assault quickly. My opponent deployed first and I used cover to hide from his shooting attacks. This left me not moving very far forward, and bottle neckign my units so that only one or two of them were threatening to his army on the first turn. Had I stuck to my plan, I should have been able to overwhelm his shooting attacks and put 3/4 of my army into assault 2nd turn, rather than the none that I actually managed buy hanging back in cover with an army designed to rush.

I think 5th's deployment mechanic helps stop a lot fo the knee jerk reactions that were so fatal to lists in 4th. "Oh, you put your land raider right there, well then I put my anti tank unit right here ... ooh why are you putting that assault sqaud so close to my anti tank sqaud ... no fair!"

So, I think evaluating tactics and using them appropriatly are more important than an optimizesd list. Evaluating is the key word. For instance, Lemartes had a pretty killer chaos shooty list he was using. He sold it to a kid in the LGS and the kid couldn't win, couldn't win, couldn't win and was trying to get rid of the "crappy army." He was newer and jsut expected things to work because "unit a is so darn cool." Lemartes expalined the army, why it worked, and how to use it to use it well and win with it. The kid just couldn't or wouldn't play that way so the army sucked for him.

I like straight forward beatstick tactics so my chaos assault army works for me pretty well. I donlt like finesse tactic armies becuase I get caught up in things and forget to do the finesse I planned out. Evaluation of what is working and what isn't is a key skill in doing well at any task that requires adaptation.

Meph

Killkrazy:

Could winning an assault by a higher margin count as a morale effect? It seems to me that it does, within the confines of what can count as a morale effect in Warhammer 40k.

Likewise, the effect of a unit being picked off without retaliation, requiring either repositioning of the army, or leaving an opening on that flank, seems to me like it covers an implicit morale effect for the army.

Hi all.
40k has moral effects , but they are severly played down.(Compared to other games.)
And 40k has ALOT of strategic loading.(Cos' cool rules sells many varied models...)
But it is a bit limited as far as actual tactics goes.

I can only think of the following actual tactics.(In game decisions.)

A/ Targeting priority.(Which of your units attack which enemy units.)

B/ Deciding the method of attack.(How you attack enemy units .)

And thats about it, unless you can think of any more?
I am not being obtuse-negative here, I realy am at a loss of thinking of any other ACTUAL tactical choices other than those two.
(Try playing Blood Bowl, for a tacticaly rich game. )

Because of the loading towards strategic conciderations , I feel lists have FAR more influence on the end result of a game of 40k than any actual 'tactics'.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Nurglitch wrote:Killkrazy:

Could winning an assault by a higher margin count as a morale effect? It seems to me that it does, within the confines of what can count as a morale effect in Warhammer 40k.

Likewise, the effect of a unit being picked off without retaliation, requiring either repositioning of the army, or leaving an opening on that flank, seems to me like it covers an implicit morale effect for the army.

As Lanrak says the morale effects are limited compared to a lot of other rules.

40K is a fast-playing game, not intended to be as in-depth as something like WRG 7th edition.

Killkrazy:

Yes, Warhammer 40k does not have much in the way of explicitly labeled 'morale effects' beyond morale checks and pinning tests. That in no way disagrees with my statement that, within the confines of what can count as a morale effect in Warhammer 40k, winning an assault by a higher margin than otherwise counts as a morale effect of a flank attack.

Furthermore I see nothing more realistic about having a set of specific morale rules rather than building morale effects into the regular game rules, and I don't see how a fast-playing game need by any less in depth because its rules don't labour under their application. In fact, I think it is more realistic to have morale effects incorporated by the game rules, than as a sub-set of the game rules. I think it is a mark of sophistication that a game treats morale both realistically and dynamically so that the inclusion of morale effects does not slow the game down.

Crossfire is a good example of this, since it is about morale effects, and thus builds morale effects into its basic mechanics rather than smearing them on over top some basic morale-neutral mechanics, and it plays fast and realistically.

I haven't read or played Crossfire.

I don't think it's true that morale is overlaid in a game like WRG 7th, any more than pinning effects are overlaid in 40K. The difference is that the morale effects are like a complement to combat in that positioning a unit on a flank affects the enemy's morale even without making an attack.

It can be argued this is an unnecessary level or complication, or it can be argued that it adds subtlety to the game.

BTW WRG and other ancients rules have always had their "power lists" as well as 40K.