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.

Augustus wrote:
VS WHFB
40k has missions that drastically change the objective of the game, making one have to adapt, more so than to just what the opposing forces are.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I play both regularly and I can tell you right away, 40k is MUCH easier to learn and play well than fantasy. Your argument of taking a balanced list to deal with objectives is a good one, but that isn't what I think the OP was talking about when he was suggesting "tactics." Once the game is underway, fantasy has tactics in every phase of the game, there's a reason a 2k fantasy game (atleast around my parts) takes almost twice as long as a 40k game.

Really? If you are implying it is longer for more "tactics planning" allow me to retorte; maybe it's longer because there are 300 miniatures, and an extra magic phase...

That "baiting and misdirecting" you were talking about is much more trickier than what it seems.

Put a skrimish line in front of your primary charge unit, retreat it to draw chargers out of position and then counter charge. Whats tricky about it? Honestly, it's not tricky, it's gamey and gimmicky, and guess what... The EXACT same tactic, in every army and every mission in WHFB, chaos dogs and Knights, undead dogs and nights, Dark Elf light cav and Cold one Knights, Empire Pistoleers and Knights and... etc. need I go on?

No it's not.

Orcs and goblins are considered one of the (if not the) weakest army in fantasy, yet I've beaten daemons and VCs in massacres, and have read about others winning large tournies with them. There has to be a certain level of tactical knowledge needed to pull that off.

Well done, (I wouldn't even paint WHFB Orks with the animosity rules they have in WHFB, I mean sometimes they just kill eachother and you loose the game, no thanks). I wouldn't say WHFB has NO tactics, far from it, but it's an empiricly smaller subset (from the definition I am using for tactics) when you're essentially just lining up and charging in every engagement.

As far as tactics in 40k, I started not too long ago (couple months) and quickly put together a 2200 point army of orks, knowing little to nothing of the game and it's mechanics when deciding my troops (I went off which looked the coolest) and have actually done really well at my local FLGS.

40K Orks can be a very blunt army, line up and charge with the green wave (not surprising a WHFB player would like that)... Any army that has a way to essentially subvert the all the morale rules (in either game) is certainly an easier army to play, and considerably more fake and irritating. (In short, not really a lot of tactics to play in most Ork armies, some, but it's always going to be Waagh with fearless units of whatever flavor you like best.) At least an army like Tyranids, has to use some tactics to keep the hive mind around for fearlessness.

Brightdarkness wrote:I have never played any turnys other then the one at my local once a year.

To answear your question, no there is no tactics in 40k once you have made your list thats it, games are won by lists and dice not by generals.

You should try fantasy it is way more tactical but if you run into a demon play just walk away dont even put stuff on the board just walk away.

my 2 cents

You can test if this is true by the following thought experiment.

1. Prepare a killer power list for a tournament.
2. Your list is played by my daughter, age 9. She is helped by the senior judge, who knows all the rules but doesn't offer any advice about what to do.
3. Assume average luck in six games -- she rolls up in three, her opponent rolls up in three.

How many games might she win?

Dont feed the troll. And yes tactics can and are used in tournament gaming.

ITT: People who don't understand the Nuances of 40k Tactics claim that 40k Has no tactics.

Not sure how that works. But while list building _is_ important. As much as laying the foundation to any house is important. How you field that army is _just_ as incredibly important.

Augustus wrote:

Really? If you are implying it is longer for more "tactics planning" allow me to retorte; maybe it's longer because there are 300 miniatures, and an extra magic phase...

Put a skrimish line in front of your primary charge unit, retreat it to draw chargers out of position and then counter charge. Whats tricky about it? Honestly, it's not tricky, it's gamey and gimmicky, and guess what... The EXACT same tactic, in every army and every mission in WHFB, chaos dogs and Knights, undead dogs and nights, Dark Elf light cav and Cold one Knights, Empire Pistoleers and Knights and... etc. need I go on?

No it's not.


Well done, (I wouldn't even paint WHFB Orks with the animosity rules they have in WHFB, I mean sometimes they just kill eachother and you loose the game, no thanks). I wouldn't say WHFB has NO tactics, far from it, but it's an empiricly smaller subset (from the definition I am using for tactics) when you're essentially just lining up and charging in every engagement.


40K Orks can be a very blunt army, line up and charge with the green wave (not surprising a WHFB player would like that)... Any army that has a way to essentially subvert the all the morale rules (in either game) is certainly an easier army to play, and considerably more fake and irritating. (In short, not really a lot of tactics to play in most Ork armies, some, but it's always going to be Waagh with fearless units of whatever flavor you like best.) At least an army like Tyranids, has to use some tactics to keep the hive mind around for fearlessness.

Well said. But that baiting and counter-charge tactic - like you said - is so over used that everyone knows it's coming. I'll agree I was exaggerating the playing time differences, the reason fantasy does take longer is because of the magic phase, but not because of more minis, but mostly the movement phase is the longest past of the turn. Which is also where all the strategy comes in. I read somewhere on da-warpath I think it was, that fantasy games are won and lost in the movement phase. There's no turbo boosts, standardized movement rates, and outside of warmachines, no long range weaponry. So if I take my high point counter charge unit with M4 and march them off to one side, all my opponent needs to do is know how to properly outflank and I'm screwed.

Your idea of fantasy army lists is just a bit off. Each army can create a very different army with a much different feel. For example, I can go an all night goblin horde, supported by fast cav goblins, trolls, giants etc...or I can go with an orc horde supported by chariots and boar boyz. Same can be said for any fantasy army. Another example is lizardmen. You can line up an all skink/steg/other big monster list and have excellent manouverability with M6 on everything, or you can take saurus warriors/TG and play a very strong defensive game.

Like I said, I wasn't saying 40k "Has noe taktiks omg!" I'm just trying to say that fantasy does carry more weight to it than you were giving it credit for.

Cairnius wrote:...

I'll be physically quoting this to a few people that just don't understand over the next few days. Well put!

Here's something to keep in mind. When mediocre players lose, they are more likely than top players to point out a cheesy list, a messed up mission, bad dice, etc. Top players, when they lose, almost always point to mistakes they made that cost them, if not the game, their best chances of winning.
l
I'm not trying to denigrate players that complain, it's just that I think it's revealing that the players best at the game can explain what decisions they made that caused them to do poorly.

yes, there are tactics. No, it's not like chess, but there are decisions to make, priorities to list, and nearly unlimited movement. And 5th edition, by adding voluntary reserves and outflanking, is adding more depth.

Tactics and WAAC lists are not the same thing.

Two good players who are using WAAC lists makes for a great game as both understand/appreciate the 1) rules, 2) strengths/weakness of build, 3) way to counter the build, 4) probability of a specific move, and 5) how to fit these variables into either a) point capping or b) KPs.

One could assert that tactical advantage begins at the Codex and list choices. Point per game effectiveness ratios and combination of specific units (what some may refer to as cheese or WAAC). Secondly, tactical advantage builds once the mission/map are selected as one has to understand the mission, the opponent's list, and what is the best way to achieve the win. Next, there are the first two moves which set up the 3rd and 4th turns where the game matures. In sum, to a casual bystander, this may appear as pushing WAAC models/armies on a board and obilterating the opposition, but it can be seen as a surgeon manipulating a knife and making precision moves for the win.

Do not discount dice and probability. Afterall, there are solid builds, game plans, and very talented gamers out there...however, there will always be a time where probability does not prevail and that's why we use dice in this game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Here's something to keep in mind. When mediocre players lose, they are more likely than top players to point out a cheesy list, a messed up mission, bad dice, etc. Top players, when they lose, almost always point to mistakes they made that cost them, if not the game, their best chances of winning.
l
I'm not trying to denigrate players that complain, it's just that I think it's revealing that the players best at the game can explain what decisions they made that caused them to do poorly.

yes, there are tactics. No, it's not like chess, but there are decisions to make, priorities to list, and nearly unlimited movement. And 5th edition, by adding voluntary reserves and outflanking, is adding more depth.

Bravo! I should've just waited for you to post and then I wouldn't have to have wasted my post.

For the most part the people who say thereare no tactics in 40k don't win very many games outside of 2 people. One trick pony armies are not powergamer armies. They are mid-level armies that can easily beat the novice player. High level armies are indeed take-on-all-comers lists that adapt to scenarios, terrain and the enemies army.

Tactics begin at army design and continue through deployment and the game. Let's face it if you make a lousy list there is not much you can do. No amount of tactics will get Napoleon to defeat the current 101 airborne cav.

For me deployment is one of the most crucial aspects of tactics in 40k. I must deploy units in such a way that they support each other, can succeed in shootin/assault even if 1-2 of them are lost to the enemy and finally I must deploy in such a way that I can expect a reasonable chance to complete the objective.

During the game the dice rule, however good army building and deployment can begin to affect the dice odds. You can never make sure of success (even a pair of aces can still lose in Hold'em), but your tactics can shift the % in your favor to make a positive outcome more likely.

Some things to increase your chances, in no particular order.

1) Multiple units must be able to accomplish the same thing. That doesn't mean 3 units of Oblits to kill tanks, it means you need Oblits, Troops and probably a tank or two that can all destroy tanks. If you only bring troops and Oblits you might face an army of nothing but starcannons, then you'd wish you had a lascannon toting tank. If you only brought Oblits, then a single outflanking Demolisher can wipe out your tank killing power in one shot.

2) Make sure more than half your army can move and still be affective. Whether that means troops embarked on transports or a lot of move and fire weaponery it often pays to be able to move somehwere and still inflict some damage on the enemy.

3) Keep the scenario objective in mind each turn. I've seen plenty of players who decide killing the enemy is to much fun to win. They either move off objectives or more so, leave only one unit behind to secure the primary objective while the rest of the army runs off to kill the last fire warrior which means nothing. Also deploy your army with the intent of securing the primery objective, not just hiding every game.

4) Target priority. During the shooting phase and assault phase, make sure you know which enemy units are the biggest threat to your army and what you need to do to win the game. It is not always the big poiint models/units that are the biggest threat to winning a game and many players get caught up either killing or protecting the big stuff.

5) Know the rules. This means core rulebook, but also the army rules for each army out there. I don't know how many times I read a DE Ard Boyz battle report that had the following words in there "....and they were out of range because of the nightshields.." Or how many times I heard someone forget to use their own searchlights during the first turn nightfight.


There are other strategies in 40k for army building, deployment and in-game tactics which need to be learned from experience.

This is it.

Polonius wrote:Here's something to keep in mind. When mediocre players lose, they are more likely than top players to point out a cheesy list, a messed up mission, bad dice, etc. Top players, when they lose, almost always point to mistakes they made that cost them, if not the game, their best chances of winning.

Don't get me wrong, I'm the first to point out my own mistakes, it's the only way we get better as gamers. Accepting your mistakes and learning from them. I have also played power gamers who are still nice guys and good sports. A particular friend of mine plays Dark Eldar, Eldar and Chaos Demons and he writes very powerful armies, but the games are always fun as he is sporting and polite.

I feel there is a limit to what you have said though, which is where I was trying to go with my original post. A lot of power gamers have armies that are so strong that unless you have worked out a list which is the direct antithesis of theirs (impossible unless you know their list in advance) you have little hope of winning whatever you do. This is why I posed the question, as winning against a lot of power gamers depends more on sheer luck then tactical play. While I accept that a lot of people posting here view writing a power list as sound tactics and applaude the skill of the list writer, I don't. I'm not going to get all gamer tyrant about this, because its only my opinion and I don't feel that passionately about it and my opinion is not the right one, just another view.
I will accept that writing the list is where tactics do begin (not a power list specifically, just the list in general). Until reading the responses to my thread I hadn't considered this as a part of it, but I have to agree with what has been stated.
I will also admit that a lot of the 'pro-power list' posters here have made valid arguments and I am prepared to conceed their points. I certainly think that the opportunity to beat power lists has improved since 4th Ed 40K as it no longer relies on VPs, therefore having your army slaughtered at the hands of your foe may not necessarily mean defeat (unless it's a KP mission ).

I guess this is one of those issues that will always abound in wargaming. Can power lists really be beaten? Are tactics an issue at competative levels? Hopefully I'll have a better idea after the GT in November, but as I'll probably be in the bottom row of tables I doubt I'll be able to test my theory on the power lists on the top tables .

DarthDiggler wrote: One trick pony armies are not powergamer armies. They are mid-level armies that can easily beat the novice player. High level armies are indeed take-on-all-comers lists that adapt to scenarios, terrain and the enemies army.

1) Multiple units must be able to accomplish the same thing.
2) Make sure more than half your army can move and still be affective.
3) Keep the scenario objective in mind each turn.
4) Target priority.
5) Know the rules.

I generally agree with the above. In the hands of an experienced general, a flexible list will generally win more often than a one-trick list.

A few comments:
1. There is nothing wrong with taking lots of the same stuff, as long as you have critical mass of whatever you're taking. Triple Oblits / Defilers / whatever aren't bad, assuming that the rest of the list complements accordingly.
2. With Objectives being gold in 5th, I'd say at least 2/3 of the army should be mobile - one of the main reasons I despise how the current IG were designed.
3. Objectives focus should probably be task 1 if you want to win.
4. Target priority is something from experience, knowing what to kill, and *when* to kill it.
5. Short of rules-lawyering, know the rules - or at least be gracious about it.

As an Eldar player I choose to play defensively so I can see what my opponent has in store for me. I would play denial lists (all reserves, all hiding, all game) for tourneys but it is just boring quite frankly. The single biggest factor for my success in a game is the terrain and it's placement. If I really want to win or at the very least tie I need to know where I can hide, and where I can get cover.

Against certain armies my tactics will never change simply because it comes down to dice-mashing plain and simple. My main goal is to soak as much fire-power as possible while maintaining as strong as a reactionary force as possible. Most games I can deny all but one turn of shooting from any army, even with my standard lists. If I play the serious Warlock spamming lists I can guarantee wins against any new gamer simply because they won't understand the rules that make the squad so dynamically powerful... just shoot lasguns at them, probably the best overall counter their is.

Wannabe Writer wrote:
I feel there is a limit to what you have said though, which is where I was trying to go with my original post. A lot of power gamers have armies that are so strong that unless you have worked out a list which is the direct antithesis of theirs (impossible unless you know their list in advance) you have little hope of winning whatever you do. This is why I posed the question, as winning against a lot of power gamers depends more on sheer luck then tactical play. While I accept that a lot of people posting here view writing a power list as sound tactics and applaude the skill of the list writer, I don't. I'm not going to get all gamer tyrant about this, because its only my opinion and I don't feel that passionately about it and my opinion is not the right one, just another view.

Well, winning against power lists without also bringing a hard core list is going to be an uphill challenge. Certain match ups will also always be tough. I may be wrong, but I think you're conflating "this guy that wins all the time with really hard lists" with "having a good list means you don't have to play well." It is generally accepted that there are stronger and weaker army builds, and one of the hallmarks of the best builds is their ability to do well against other nasty lists.

It seems your also making a shift from asking what role in game tactics plays in 40k to lamenting powergaming and top builds in general. That's fine, but it's a pretty threadbare subject.

I will accept that writing the list is where tactics do begin (not a power list specifically, just the list in general). Until reading the responses to my thread I hadn't considered this as a part of it, but I have to agree with what has been stated.
I will also admit that a lot of the 'pro-power list' posters here have made valid arguments and I am prepared to conceed their points. I certainly think that the opportunity to beat power lists has improved since 4th Ed 40K as it no longer relies on VPs, therefore having your army slaughtered at the hands of your foe may not necessarily mean defeat (unless it's a KP mission ).

And again, my questions is, why not bring your own power?

I guess this is one of those issues that will always abound in wargaming. Can power lists really be beaten? Are tactics an issue at competative levels? Hopefully I'll have a better idea after the GT in November, but as I'll probably be in the bottom row of tables I doubt I'll be able to test my theory on the power lists on the top tables .

Yes and yes. And if you're serious about going to a GT, why not working on taking a harder list?

Wannabe Writer wrote:A lot of power gamers have armies that are so strong that unless you have worked out a list which is the direct antithesis of theirs (impossible unless you know their list in advance) you have little hope of winning whatever you do.

This is why I posed the question, as winning against a lot of power gamers depends more on sheer luck then tactical play.

Can power lists really be beaten? Are tactics an issue at competative levels?

Hopefully I'll have a better idea after the GT in November,

If you were coming from a WFB POV, I'd agree. But if you're talking 40k, I'd posit that a lot of power gamers focus relentlessly on the mission, know their lists inside and out, and know exactly how to take other armies apart piece by piece. Sure, their lists have very little fat on them, but very few 40k games play on auto-pilot.

Again, 40k isn't WFB, so winning simply doesn't depend on dumb luck to the same degree. 40k events and outcomes are far more predictable to an experienced general, so strategy and tactics have far more meaning. 40k (and WotR) is about rolling enough dice to get a (more-or-less) "average" result. WFB is about avoiding dice rolls entirely that can produce a negative result, because so much of WFB inherently requires small die rolls that can have extreme results. If you are depending on sheer luck to win against a good player with a good list in 40k, that just isn't going to happen.

In 40k, power lists can be beaten, but it requires a good general and a good list. When I played 40k competitively, "tactics" were a huge issue, along with mission focus. You don't get to the top table on luck, and you don't win "Best General" without tactics. *

IMO, you'll get the most out of the GT (or any competitive game) if you sit down with your opponent(s), and review why they made various choices at various points in the game. Most likely, when they won, they probably saw something that you missed, or had placed themselves in better position to cover something that came up. Similarly, when they lost, they probably forgot something, or didn't plan ahead.

*: By "tactics", I mean "knowing how to play your list against other lists"

I think the old saying soldiers win battles, and generals win wars is a good saying.

You can win all the close combat and dice rolls you want but if your not being a general your not going to win the game.

Polonius wrote:And again, my questions is, why not bring your own power?

It's limited to what models I have available and the lack of money to buy more models at present. I'm not going into this here though as it's covered in my thread about advice for a Nid GT list.

a dictionary wrote:
Tactic [Tak-tik] Noun
a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result.

compare the actions taken by a general running a green tide ork army to the actions taken by a mech eldar army and tell me there are no "tactics". Each makes decisions based upon the forces he controls, and the forces he confronts. Is the application and timing of military force not complex enough to qualify? Every modern military body would likely argue that it is.


As for the WHFB/40k tactics comarison, I think the main reason many players (myself included) feel WHFB 'feels' more tactical is because 40k is omnidirectional, and 90% of the time your previous turn has little bearing on the subsequent one. All your units can fire and move in any direction, often with very minimal impediment. Compare this to the strict movement rules for FB in regards to unit facings and direction change, and you can see how much stronger the planning element becomes when you're not allowed that level of freedom. Unfortunately for 40k, the term 'outmaneuvre' is often just a euphemism for 'run away from'.

This is why I fell in love with kill teams. Infact, when they didnt have kill teams in 5th, we converted it into 5th. You really have to rely on tactics (and some luck of course) to win those. The way the rules are, you cant just take a gob f*** of super units and spam the hell out of the other player. Its your small squad, against their small squad.

Augustus wrote:Put a skrimish line in front of your primary charge unit, retreat it to draw chargers out of position and then counter charge. Whats tricky about it? Honestly, it's not tricky, it's gamey and gimmicky, and guess what... The EXACT same tactic, in every army and every mission in WHFB, chaos dogs and Knights, undead dogs and nights, Dark Elf light cav and Cold one Knights, Empire Pistoleers and Knights and... etc. need I go on?

Just to follow up Augustus here, but my experience with WHFB has been broadly similar. Most games degenerate into "counter-charge with tricks". While this in and of itself doesn't make a game sink or swim, both of the gaming communities I've attempted to get into WHFB with were so... stringent about only wanting to play people whose armies caused the game to degenerate into "counter-charge with tricks" that trying to do something, well, different in the game was heavily discouraged. The cultural attitudes towards non-standard armies just makes 40k seem much more vibrant in comparison, where it's much less predictable how your opponent's army is going to be trying to win the game (and, in my experience, 40k players are much more likely to gracefully welcome a novel strategy for winning games than WHFB players).

And then most of them had a huge superiority complex to 40k players.

*shrug* I periodically get the urge to finish painting up my Lizardmen, but then I see 40k players at the LGS having more fun, so I never get around to it.

Lowinor wrote:
Just to follow up Augustus here, but my experience with WHFB has been broadly similar. Most games degenerate into "counter-charge with tricks". While this in and of itself doesn't make a game sink or swim, both of the gaming communities I've attempted to get into WHFB with were so... stringent about only wanting to play people whose armies caused the game to degenerate into "counter-charge with tricks" that trying to do something, well, different in the game was heavily discouraged. The cultural attitudes towards non-standard armies just makes 40k seem much more vibrant in comparison, where it's much less predictable how your opponent's army is going to be trying to win the game (and, in my experience, 40k players are much more likely to gracefully welcome a novel strategy for winning games than WHFB players).

And then most of them had a huge superiority complex to 40k players.

*shrug* I periodically get the urge to finish painting up my Lizardmen, but then I see 40k players at the LGS having more fun, so I never get around to it.

Many of the most negative things said about 40k, things like "every codex is stronger than the ones before it", "the best armies play themselves", "there aren't really any tactics," etc. are actually far more true about fantasy than about 40k. While "battle force" armies get curbstomped in both systems, you can build a pretty solid, balanced, fun to play list in 40k that can at least hang with the power lists. Far less true in fantasy.

The Defenestrator wrote:As for the WHFB/40k tactics comarison, I think the main reason many players (myself included) feel WHFB 'feels' more tactical is because 40k is omnidirectional, and 90% of the time your previous turn has little bearing on the subsequent one. All your units can fire and move in any direction, often with very minimal impediment. Compare this to the strict movement rules for FB in regards to unit facings and direction change, and you can see how much stronger the planning element becomes when you're not allowed that level of freedom. Unfortunately for 40k, the term 'outmaneuvre' is often just a euphemism for 'run away from'.

Well, 40k has vastly more modalities of movement and deployment. Unit facing would become unplayable in a hurry if you could take Drop Pods in WHFB. It's a pretty core tradeoff in game mechanics -- strict movement rules and facing adds depth when movement and deployment is more strictly limited, but quickly becomes unplayable as the amount of options for movement/deployment increase. It's not just a case of 40k having the strict movement rules removed, it's that they're removed so that other game elements like skimmers, turbo boosting, transports, outflanking, deep striking, etc can fit into the game without breaking the core infantry mechanics.

And your previous turn has bearing on the subsequent turn about 100% of the time, so long as the unit didn't just deploy on the turn. Where you moved them the last turn has an impact on where they are now, right? Seriously, though, I see a lot of 40k games lost because someone ran out of time to move a unit to an objective in the fading turns of the game.

For me there are always tactical choices, even if it is something as simple as threat-recognition and application of proper force.

I'm of the opinion that 40k and Fantasy can be tactical and completely broken. Fantasy is a game that is played a turn or two in advance, each movement has repercussions for further movement choices. 40k is a game where no army is taboo, and maximizing firepower, mobility, and scoring units is a delicate balancing act.

BlueDagger wrote:5 turns doesn't allow for a lot of strategy :/

On the contrary, the time limit of the game forces a lot more strategic choices than would otherwise be there. The ability of a unit to excel in combat goes along with its ability to *be* where it needs to be, and forces the player to make a lot more decisions in terms of deployment and movement that would be less relevant if the game was considerably longer. It also creates an entire category of harassment tactics -- games are often won and lost by suicidal units sent only to slow down strong units, thus keeping them from claiming an objective or knocking out another unit claiming an objective.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jive Professor wrote:Fantasy is a game that is played a turn or two in advance, each movement has repercussions for further movement choices.

And the exact same is true about 40k -- at least, if 40k is played well.

Kilkrazy wrote:40K is full of super units and special conditions and stuff. It doesn't mean tactics aren't important, but if you want a game with balanced units so it's all in the tactics, play Napoleonics.

Or do what I'm doing for an apocalypse game tomorrow, use the same armies for half (which is space marines for us), and then just take different armies for the other half.

I wasn't implying it was wholly absent, I meant that it was something FB seems to emphasize more.

Re-reading many of the posts again I think many have interpreted the question as 'are there tactics in 40K?' which was not the intent. I know there are tactics 40K as I use them a lot, particularly with Nids as they do not operate like a normal force primarily due to maintaining synapse cover.
What I was intending to be the discussion was are there tactics at tournaments, as they contain many power gamer armies. My experience with power gamers has been that as the armies are over specialised and allow for one role and can not change tactics/methods during the game. My intent was to discuss whether others felt that in a tournament due to the power armies doing their 'one thing' it meant for less tactical games.

I'm satisfied with the responses so far so I don't feel the need to post anymore myself, but I wanted to clarify the intent of the thread as it seems people were misunderstanding and generalising it.

@ Jive Prof - Nice taste in avatar by the way

The Defenestrator wrote:As for the WHFB/40k tactics comarison, I think the main reason many players (myself included) feel WHFB 'feels' more tactical is because 40k is omnidirectional, and 90% of the time your previous turn has little bearing on the subsequent one. All your units can fire and move in any direction, often with very minimal impediment. Compare this to the strict movement rules for FB in regards to unit facings and direction change, and you can see how much stronger the planning element becomes when you're not allowed that level of freedom. Unfortunately for 40k, the term 'outmaneuvre' is often just a euphemism for 'run away from'.

When played well, 40k movement decisions chain very tightly, so that units properly mutually support. I played a small 40k skirmish (500 pts, full board) over the weekend, and it was no accident that my key unit(s) were in the right place at the right time for the game. In such a small game, mobility is very critical, as you don't have "extra" units to cover roles or positions.

WFB movement is fiddly, but not so tactical, IMO. Due to the small distances, deployment (i.e. "planning") largely dictates where your checkers will move. But once the armies are deployed, actual planning and tactics are pretty weak.
____

Lowinor wrote: Well, 40k has vastly more modalities of movement and deployment. Unit facing would become unplayable in a hurry if you could take Drop Pods in WHFB. It's a pretty core tradeoff in game mechanics -- strict movement rules and facing adds depth when movement and deployment is more strictly limited, but quickly becomes unplayable as the amount of options for movement/deployment increase. It's not just a case of 40k having the strict movement rules removed, it's that they're removed so that other game elements like skimmers, turbo boosting, transports, outflanking, deep striking, etc can fit into the game without breaking the core infantry mechanics.

And your previous turn has bearing on the subsequent turn about 100% of the time, so long as the unit didn't just deploy on the turn. Where you moved them the last turn has an impact on where they are now, right? Seriously, though, I see a lot of 40k games lost because someone ran out of time to move a unit to an objective in the fading turns of the game.

Amen to the above. 40k is a more fluid battlefield, in which both forces maneuver to best position, trading immediate combat for potential combat. WFB fights in slow motion, by contrast.
____

Jive Professor wrote:I'm of the opinion that 40k and Fantasy can be tactical and completely broken. Fantasy is a game that is played a turn or two in advance, each movement has repercussions for further movement choices. 40k is a game where no army is taboo, and maximizing firepower, mobility, and scoring units is a delicate balancing act.

40k movement planning is very important, because *both* sides have high mobility. It's not like your opponent does you the favor of playing a static game. The point of engagement can shift very quickly, and you need to be in proper position to exploit or react when the moment appears. If you are out of position, because you didn't plan for potential outcomes, that's often the game.

Hwang were are not in disagreement on that point. I just feel that 40k emphasizes extremes of movement - units are either static or ridiculously fast (whether turbo boosting, deep striking, outflanking, whatever). FB emphasizes the minutia of movement.

Wannabe Writer - You know what they say, great Primes think alike.

Wannabe Writer wrote:...intending to be the discussion was are there tactics at tournaments

Ahhh, 40k tournament tactics. I have seen many of those:

Army building meta game tactics:

Minimize KP: in a list (to less than 10)
Remove an element: of vulnerability entirely, EG: Mech armies have little to fear from Assault or Lash, or all infantry armies ignore anti tank weapons

In Game tactics:

Refused Flank: (put everything on one side) aka Flank Load, Half Pincer

Avoidance/Evade: (don't put anything down at all, hide what is down)

Vehicle Leapfrog: (alternate getting cover saves from the leading smoke tank obscuring the ones behind it 50% and then rotate the lead smoke tank

Flying Wedge: Make a wall of MCs, that yield cover saves for infantry units behind them and advance

Kamikaze Push Back Setup: use a strung out troop unit to minimize the enemy deployment zone in missions where setup is >18 away from enemy

Kamikaze Transport: Intentionally drive a transport full of assault troops into minimum range of enemy hoping they destroy it, to get out their fire phase and charge next turn

Light Bulb Charge: set up a strung out assault unit with a minimal amount of attacks (In a reverse lightbulb shape) after the charge, to ensure they stay in assault in the opponents turn, the consolidation move brings in the remaining models, and then the combat is won in HtH narrowly round 2, vs overwhelmingly in round 1

Assault Bait: put a small (low points) melee poor unit out as an intentional charge target, then set up several units near it to rapid fire the enemy assault unit afterward

Outflank threat: bring a unit with an antitank weapon, to keep an opponent from using the back corner as great spot for indirect fire tanks

Outflank Denial: set up the entire army > 12 inches (18 for fleet out flankers) from either edge to deny an outflank charge

Multicharge: Charge multiple units with a wide frontage with assault units so they ALL have to take the morale check

Stab the Small ones: Always direct melee attacks in mixed melee's against the weakest (Low t and sv) enemy models to maximize kill counts, then the tougher units have to make saves if fearless, or tougher morale tests.

Character Smashing: Use a High st weapon on a squad leader to strike from safety and instant death an enemy character

Complex Unit: Create a unit with all unique elements and multiple wounds per model, wound allocation trumps casualty removal, very surviveable

Wound stacking: In blasts of mixed AP fire stack multiple high AP wounds on a unique single model (like a terminator sarge) to avoid loosing 1 model per kill in the larger group of wounds

Army Specific Tactics:

Lash Blast: Use Lash to cluster an enemy unit then hit it with plasma cannons, vindicators or defiler blasts

Mega Forcefield: Use an Ork Bigmek to grant an entire army 5+ invulnerable saves by stringing model chains back to him

Demon Load: create a massive points imbalance between squads in a demon army to get around demonic assault splitting the army

Demon Mirror: get around demonic assault by having 2 copies of every unit

Psyker Battery: Fuel a Culexus with 18 Sanctioned Battle Psykers

Pod Beacon: Drop Empty Pods @ enemy OBJs turn 1 use the homers for actual units turn 2, put the squads from the pods on the board turn 1 to hold friendly OBJs

Infinity Beacon: Use gate of infinity with pod beacons to move a psyker and squad around the board no deviation

Vulkan Sisters: Mastercraft all friendly flamers (REROLL WOUNDS), combine with faith for divine guidance Rending 6 wounds

Jive Professor wrote:Hwang were are not in disagreement on that point. I just feel that 40k emphasizes extremes of movement - units are either static or ridiculously fast (whether turbo boosting, deep striking, outflanking, whatever). FB emphasizes the minutia of movement.

Agreed!