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.

macexor wrote:
I don't want to be rude but, if you think that all (most) tournament players don't use any creative tactics and just go for the most OP units, could you give us an example of a tactic that you use but tournament players don't?

-anything involving the creative use of any "non tournament viable" unit.

A few examples of units I've used you'll never see on a tournament list:

-Rough Riders
-Kommandos
-Primaris psychers
-Deathmarks
-Tomb Blades
-Anrakyr the Traveler

These units, and the tactics available to them, are not used by competitive players, because they're not the single best unit for their slot; or they aren't the most consistent for their role.

Am I saying I'm better at 40k than them? No, obviously not, I've never won NOVA, or even competed. 40k is a great game to me but I don't have the free time to make it srs bsns

the_scotsman wrote:
-anything involving the creative use of any "non tournament viable" unit.

This is because even creative use of those units isn't worth the slot and points. You act like people don't test units to decide if they're non-tournament viable.
I can assure you, they do.

Let's assume my 2nd Tyranid list is our baseline - 100% performance.
If I swap out, say, a Dakkafex for some genestealers and, through multiple test games, come out to 85% performance.
I can conclude that, no matter how creative I was in those test games, the swap isn't worth it.

Did I try every creative tactic there is? No, of course not. But I feel like I'm a good enough tactician to see most available tactics and how to use them. Sure, it's possible that there's some supar sekrit way of using Rough Riders that stomps face, but someone would've found it and reported it by now.

rigeld2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
-anything involving the creative use of any "non tournament viable" unit.

This is because even creative use of those units isn't worth the slot and points. You act like people don't test units to decide if they're non-tournament viable.
I can assure you, they do.

Let's assume my 2nd Tyranid list is our baseline - 100% performance.
If I swap out, say, a Dakkafex for some genestealers and, through multiple test games, come out to 85% performance.
I can conclude that, no matter how creative I was in those test games, the swap isn't worth it.

Did I try every creative tactic there is? No, of course not. But I feel like I'm a good enough tactician to see most available tactics and how to use them. Sure, it's possible that there's some supar sekrit way of using Rough Riders that stomps face, but someone would've found it and reported it by now.

And yet...I don't care. Because, as you said, the fact that I've beaten the top tier tourney lists means that, within the group of thirty five odd people at my local group, I'm pretty decent at playing the game. With that known, I have decided that it's more fun to have a 50% chance of winning, with all the possible strategic options in the codex at least somewhat available and the highest variety of tactical options, than it is to have a 100% chance of winning because my list is Naked overlord-Warriors-Warriors-Transcendant Ctan in a 1000 point game, and I get to make one decision a turn.

If I enter a local tournament with a 20$ prize with that list, do you think is be justified in going "lol OUTPLAYED" at the end when I win?

the_scotsman wrote:
Tournament lists are, to me at least , representative of the absolute opposite of tactics, pouring the entirety of the game into planning and strategy. While obviously it works, because putting all your chips into the less-random aspect of the game is definitely the way to maximize your chance of winning, the actual games are absolutely not "competitive."

At the club I used to play at, there were two guys who held themselves above every other person there, and would always talk about how if anyone else wanted to step up and play some real competitive 40 k they'd be willing to but until then they'd just play each other. I don't think I ever saw a game they played that involved more than a single tactical decision. Every list was:

A) find a highly durable, cost efficient unit that can cause significant damage to pretty much anything, then take the maximum number of them in order to bet on your opponent not bringing enough powerful weaponry to beat them.

B) build the entire army into a single alpha strike of either deeps striking in and shooting or charging across the board and assaulting with everything, hoping to decimate the enemy army before they can ever respond

C) pump the majority of the points in the list into a single destructive Death Star, charge it straight at the enemy army and bet that they didn't take enough weight of fire to harm it.

Every single one of those lists involves you making at maximum a single decision a turn, or a few decisions on one single critical turn. Every game was all but over by turn 2, and I don't think I ever failed to predict who the winner would be that week when they set their models down on the table.

Is this really what people think competitive 40k is? Is that really a competition or has the game at that point just come down to strategic planning and no small amount of luck that your opponent didn't take the type of army that can always beat yours? And, for anyone that really enjoys that level of play, can I respectfully ask, why do you find it fun? Is it building the lists, searching the rules for that key thing that will beat anything, is it some kind of predictive mind game where you guess what your opponent will bring?

The underlying implication that your argument hinges upon is that in order for a game to be competitive there has to be a tactical element to it. That doesn't match with the definition of "competitive", which in turn means "to compete" which in turn means to match similar skills against opponents to win a contest.

It's true that in high-level 40K, tactics mean very little, while meta-strategy (list-building) means a lot. All that means though is that the skills they are using to compete against one another are the strategic ones.

Chess is a decent analogue. There is no tactical element to high-level chess. There is very little improvisation in chess,, or adapting to a changing scenario. High-level chess is almost entirely strategic, and the game is usually decided within just the opening moves. That doesn't make high-level chess "non-competitive" though.

You're confusing "not competitive" with "the skills that players use to compete with one another in high-level play aren't the skills I find interesting", which are two entirely different concepts. Ailarios is making the same mistake.

anything involving the creative use of any "non tournament viable" unit

Was thinking more generally about it. Obviously you won't get any tips when it comes to Pyrovores for known reasons apart from "leave it at home".
When I hear "tactics" I think about things that could be achieved by possibly more than 1 army and usually aren't limited to just one unit,
For example, when facing an unbeatable Deathstar you just avoid it and go for the supporting units. It doesn't matter what units you use. OP or UP you can still use this tactic.

Just because tournament players use best units avaible to them doesn't mean they don't use any tactics involving them.
Because some unit is stronger than the other doesn't mean it uses less tactics.
Do you need to use more tactics in order to get same results using weaker units? That's a thing I agree with.

Let's give you an example. Wave Serpent with some units inside and a Scout Squad.
You say that the Scout Squad has more tactics. I think that they just need more tactics to get the same results BUT all in all WS is IMO a more tactical unit (even though it's OP) since it has more possible things it can do each turn when compared to Scouts.

Wow, Alairos really needs to be a politician with those vague non-answers.

rigeld2 wrote:Your reference to the act of competing doesn't include the word "win" anywhere.

Because competition is a much broader term than a mere binary state of outcome.

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, the key word is striving. I strive to win - I don't always. If I did, it wouldn't be a competition. "Gunline yahtzee" is still competition - because while there isn't much tactical play, there is some.

And purposely trying to have less is against the point of competing. "Competitive" lists mean the opposite of what a lot of people use the word as. Which was the OP's point.

rigeld2 wrote:In addition, I'd love to know what lists you feel fall under "Gunline yahtzee" as you're accusing - because mobility is king in 7th edition 40k... and gunlines don't have it.

There is plenty of history on this, and 7th ed did little to change it. You still win games more easily by shooting hardest, fastest. You still reduce your opponent's ability to achieve objectives by killing things quickly. Your chances of winning still increase drastically the closer you come to tabling your opponent.

This is basic stuff, here. You shouldn't need the entire rulebook deconstructed for you to see the utility of killing power in a wargame. Tiny changes to missions don't change that basic dynamic, and having a single unit or two wiggle around slightly in the movement phase doesn't change the basic nature of gunlines.

rigeld2 wrote:There's no goal mentioned.

Yes there is:

rigeld2 wrote: You know, actually doing stuff. Using tactics, testing out your skill, looking for a challenge, etc.

Just because the goal doesn't include winning as easily as possible doesn't mean there isn't a goal.

BlaxicanX wrote:The underlying implication that your argument hinges upon is that in order for a game to be competitive there has to be a tactical element to it. That doesn't match with the definition of "competitive", which in turn means "to compete" which in turn means to match similar skills against opponents to win a contest.

Were that true then there would be competitive "see who predict the outcome of a coin toss best" tournaments. How is engaging in a random activity competing?

In that particular case, competing would be a synonym for guessing, nothing more. But that's just one example. If merely doing something that has an outcome around other people is what counts as competing, then we're at an impossibly broad definition of the word.

Surely what the players do has some bearing on whether something is a competition or not. Or, in the very least, how much of a competition something is.

Musashi363 wrote:Wow, Alairos really needs to be a politician with those vague non-answers.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.


---

But you know, let's say for a moment that we limit the definition of "competition" to literally nothing more than "an activity in which there is a winner". If that's true, then what is the definition of a "competitive list"?

It would mean nothing more than a list, the end result of which there was a winner. But ALL lists played in 40k yield a winner. The definition of competition has created a tautology, and stripped it of any meaning. In the vernacular, a competitive list isn't a list where the game ends with a winner, but something more. That extra part of the definition, whatever it is, is important.

Don't use personal attacks on dakka, motyak

TL;DR: redefine "winning" to be something other than the actual goals of the game, then brag about how awesome you are with weak choices when you lose.

I ve never thought about it but , since I never win at tournaments, maybe next time I go I should just try to play casual just for fun lists
Always wanted to have an army of genestealers and warriors !
To hell with competitive, I will just throw fodder to its death and ignore tac objectives lol !

 Ailaros wrote:
Were that true then there would be competitive "see who predict the outcome of a coin toss best" tournaments. How is engaging in a random activity competing?

Guessing isn't a skill, so what skills exactly are competing against one another? Now on the other, making an educated guess on what facing the coin will land on, based upon mathematical probabilites and the movements of the coin-flipper? That's an actual skill, and yeah, doing that can be a competition. There are professional card players, are there not?

Surely what the players do has some bearing on whether something is a competition or not. Or, in the very least, how much of a competition something is.

Yeah, and list-building, which encompasses 90% of high-level 40K play, is "doing something".

I know that in your mind, when two gunlines sit on opposite ends of the board and spend the entire game rolling dice, who wins comes down to luck. But you're objectively, empirically wrong in thinking that.

macexor wrote:

anything involving the creative use of any "non tournament viable" unit

Was thinking more generally about it. Obviously you won't get any tips when it comes to Pyrovores for known reasons apart from "leave it at home".
When I hear "tactics" I think about things that could be achieved by possibly more than 1 army and usually aren't limited to just one unit,
For example, when facing an unbeatable Deathstar you just avoid it and go for the supporting units. It doesn't matter what units you use. OP or UP you can still use this tactic.

Just because tournament players use best units avaible to them doesn't mean they don't use any tactics involving them.
Because some unit is stronger than the other doesn't mean it uses less tactics.
Do you need to use more tactics in order to get same results using weaker units? That's a thing I agree with.

Let's give you an example. Wave Serpent with some units inside and a Scout Squad.
You say that the Scout Squad has more tactics. I think that they just need more tactics to get the same results BUT all in all WS is IMO a more tactical unit (even though it's OP) since it has more possible things it can do each turn when compared to Scouts.

I didn't say scouts have more tactics

I do say that scouts represent tactics available to a space marine player. Looking at all available units Scouts are the only Infiltrate/Outflank/Sniper weaponry available to the Space Marines. If you exclude scouts as an option, Space Marines can no longer do those things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Don't use personal attacks on dakka, motyak

TL;DR: redefine "winning" to be something other than the actual goals of the game, then brag about how awesome you are with weak choices when you lose.

Or, maybe, you play and collect Orks, and you'd like your possible tactical arsenal to include

Foot infantry hordes, dedicated transports, light vehicle squadrons, bikes, jump infantry, Infiltrators, psykers, walkers, jet bikes, artillery, heavy weapon infantry, template infantry, expendable swarm troops, heavily armored infantry, glass cannon elite infantry, and fliers...

Instead of a quarter of that. You lose with your unit choices, you lose, and that's the fault of your actions on the table and your list not bring able to handle what you came up against.

You lose with a tournament list , you lose because your list couldn't handle what you came up against. You took your action, your list did what it did, but it didn't work against your opponent's list. Sad day.

I've found that by not taking the most recent "leet uber list" off of the internet and using units that I feel fit my mood at the time, I have to rely more on in game decisions or tactics. I also win often. This means that if I DO decide to take an uber army to a tourney, I'm a step ahead of the other uber arm tourney players because while they rely solely on the pre game list building, I have been working on the tactics that can tip the balance when the lists are equal.
Of course, even in a tourney when $ is on the line, I still dont take the uber lists. Even in the tourneys, I usually make a decent showing at about 4th or 3rd and have come in 2nd and 1st a few times due to pure tactics over the uber lists plus more than a few sportsmanship awards. This is why I like it when painting and basing and backstory ect add to your tourney score. It takes away from the WAAC tourney list atmosphere and gives us normal joes a shot.
But this takes us back to there being to me, different classifications between a tourney player and a competitive. A tourney player is only worried about the almighty win while competitive player likes a challenge. player. Michael Jordan could play in the NBA and have a challenge every game or he can play 3rd graders and only go for the win every game. He enjoys the challenge or competition.

the_scotsman wrote:

macexor wrote:
I don't want to be rude but, if you think that all (most) tournament players don't use any creative tactics and just go for the most OP units, could you give us an example of a tactic that you use but tournament players don't?

-anything involving the creative use of any "non tournament viable" unit.

A few examples of units I've used you'll never see on a tournament list:

-Rough Riders
-Kommandos
-Primaris psychers
-Deathmarks
-Tomb Blades
-Anrakyr the Traveler

These units, and the tactics available to them, are not used by competitive players, because they're not the single best unit for their slot; or they aren't the most consistent for their role.

Am I saying I'm better at 40k than them? No, obviously not, I've never won NOVA, or even competed. 40k is a great game to me but I don't have the free time to make it srs bsns

Didn't you already make the argument that list building != tactics?

You should read some of DashOfPepper's old battlereports and tactics threads. He goes into a great deal of depth regarding tactics. Some of his most entertaining Batreps were written while he was playing Necrons in early 5th edition (which were widely regarded to suck).

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/366520.page

Wellll, if Ailairos is quite done trying to rewrite dictionary definitions to suit his really thin point of view that is really just manufactured to support his own play style choices, perhaps we can look back at this for a second...

the_scotsman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Is this really what people think competitive 40k is? Is that really a competition or has the game at that point just come down to strategic planning and no small amount of luck that your opponent didn't take the type of army that can always beat yours? And, for anyone that really enjoys that level of play, can I respectfully ask, why do you find it fun? Is it building the lists, searching the rules for that key thing that will beat anything, is it some kind of predictive mind game where you guess what your opponent will bring?

It's because no matter how good you play on the table, your decisions before you hit the table really REALLY matter. Consider the following two lists:

Spoiler:

+ HQ +

* Old One Eye

+ Elites +

* Pyrovore Brood
* 3x Pyrovore

* Pyrovore Brood
* 3x Pyrovore

* Pyrovore Brood
* 3x Pyrovore

+ Troops +

* Ripper Swarm Brood
* 4x Ripper Swarm
4x Deep Strike (*)

* Ripper Swarm Brood
* 3x Ripper Swarm
3x Deep Strike (*)

+ Fast Attack +

* Ravener Brood
* Ravener x6
2x Scything Talons, Spinefists
* The Red Terror
(Deep Strike, Instinctive Behaviour - Feed, Swallow Whole, Very Bulky)
Prehensile Pincer, 2x Scything Talons

* Ravener Brood
* Ravener x6
2x Scything Talons, Spinefists

+ Heavy Support +

* Biovore Brood
* 2x Biovore

Spoiler:

+ HQ +

* Hive Tyrant
Electroshock grubs, 2x Twin-Linked Devourer with Brainleech Worms, Wings


* Hive Tyrant
Electroshock grubs, 2x Twin-Linked Devourer with Brainleech Worms, Wings

+ Elites +

* Venomthrope

* Zoanthrope

+ Troops +

* Ripper Swarm Brood
* 3x Ripper Swarm
3x Deep Strike (*)

* Ripper Swarm Brood
* 3x Ripper Swarm
3x Deep Strike (*)

+ Fast Attack +

* Harpy

+ Heavy Support +

* Dakkafex
* Dakkafex
* Dakkafex

Both are 1250 point lists (the first one is 1248) but the latter will perform better in every single game.

Absolutely! Why?

Because A) the first list is intentionally made up of the worst units in the codex. Nobody looking to create an all comers Nids list with half a brain is going to do that. B) the second list bets on your opponent not bringing enough high strength/anti air to deal with the MC spam. It is possible to play a competitive game with list 2, but only if your opponent happens to have built a certain way. If they haven't, you win by default-a tactically flexible list will lose on average to that list. Which is what makes it such a great tourney list, where win percentage is all that matters. But with lists like that, wouldn't it save time to bring several lists to the game, reveal and compare them, and only play a game when there's a disagreement between players as to who would win ?

Actually, that second list is one of the more balanced TAC ways you can possibly build Nids at 1250... Maybe without the Harpy , but put a Mawloc/Biovire squad there and you're golden...either way, iAA and anti Mzc are the weaknesses to the Nids dex... There is no viable way to run the swarm, and even swarmy models actively hurt the amount of utility you have and offensive options that you have... This is a flaw of the dex. Th main mistake I see in this post is that you guys include Biovores in the worst unit list, when they are at the very least top 5 model in the dex lol...regardless, you are quite missing the point. If it was one of those lists that spams 4 Flyrants, you may have a point that it's counter able and takes all strategy out of the game. However a balanced TAC list with a couple of Flyrants, some utility MCs like Mawloc and Exocrine, a Biovores squad for ruin /cover ignoring infantry GEQ coverage, some Venom/Zoanthropes to support your army and some Carnifexes for a bubble of anti-tank board control and heavy close ranged Dakka, is an extremely balanced build, does the best job possible of not forcing a Scissors paper rock match up, and also happens to be our most competitive build. However it takes as much tactics as any other list would, requiring smart target priority, good use of your utility picks and positioning is critical. It can compete with any list in the game that the dex is CAPABLE of competition wi and doesn't have obvious holes like a cheesy Flyrant spam build does. This is the difference between cheese and actual competitive play, one is easily countered if your opponent knows it's coming, one is just a well built list. If you are going to argue this, I feel like It is an unwillingness to admit reason, and that you've simply decided before making this thread the way things are and no amount of reasoning will change your mind on this. If you dislike the sometimes monotonous builds that make up competitive play it's understandable, however nerfing yourself at the list making stage in hopes that it will create a more balanced match up is far more likely to achieve the opposite.

the_scotsman wrote:
And yet...I don't care. Because, as you said, the fact that I've beaten the top tier tourney lists means that, within the group of thirty five odd people at my local group, I'm pretty decent at playing the game. With that known, I have decided that it's more fun to have a 50% chance of winning, with all the possible strategic options in the codex at least somewhat available and the highest variety of tactical options, than it is to have a 100% chance of winning because my list is Naked overlord-Warriors-Warriors-Transcendant Ctan in a 1000 point game, and I get to make one decision a turn.

If I enter a local tournament with a 20$ prize with that list, do you think is be justified in going "lol OUTPLAYED" at the end when I win?

Considering listbuilding is part of the game, yes.
If you ignore listbuilding (which is what you're doing) then no, it doesn't matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Your reference to the act of competing doesn't include the word "win" anywhere.

Because competition is a much broader term than a mere binary state of outcome.

Really? What definition are you using?

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, the key word is striving. I strive to win - I don't always. If I did, it wouldn't be a competition. "Gunline yahtzee" is still competition - because while there isn't much tactical play, there is some.

And purposely trying to have less is against the point of competing. "Competitive" lists mean the opposite of what a lot of people use the word as. Which was the OP's point.

No, it's not against the point. It's part of the point because listbuilding is part of playing the game. Building a good list is part of playing the game well.

rigeld2 wrote:In addition, I'd love to know what lists you feel fall under "Gunline yahtzee" as you're accusing - because mobility is king in 7th edition 40k... and gunlines don't have it.

There is plenty of history on this, and 7th ed did little to change it. You still win games more easily by shooting hardest, fastest. You still reduce your opponent's ability to achieve objectives by killing things quickly. Your chances of winning still increase drastically the closer you come to tabling your opponent.

This is basic stuff, here. You shouldn't need the entire rulebook deconstructed for you to see the utility of killing power in a wargame. Tiny changes to missions don't change that basic dynamic, and having a single unit or two wiggle around slightly in the movement phase doesn't change the basic nature of gunlines.

Tiny changes? Do you understand the difference between Maelstrom and the old missions? That's... it's a major difference.

rigeld2 wrote:There's no goal mentioned.

Yes there is:

You know, actually doing stuff. Using tactics, testing out your skill, looking for a challenge, etc.

Just because the goal doesn't include winning as easily as possible doesn't mean there isn't a goal.