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.

I agree with the couple commets above.

A lot of 8th can be played with out ever looking at the table.

It has a lot in common with a colletible card game.

'I tap my guard to bubble wrap the knight.'

Epic is probably the most tactical game GW have produced. The alternating activations, suppression mechanics and objectives based mainly around holding and taking ground rather than killing things tend to lead to games where decisions matter a lot. It has a good system for assaults, with supporting fire and positioning being important. The alternating activations system also means spamming the most powerful stuff (which is difficult anyway due to army construction) leaves you strategically vulnerable because your opponent can wait until you expose your key units before jumping on them, or render a deathstar relatively useless with an alpha strike that puts a bunch of blast markers on it. I think the AT/AP shooting system from Epic is something current 40k might want to look at adapting in order to balance the power of certain weapons that are good at killing everything.

The original Necromunda could be pretty tactical too in the beginning, before gangs had started to level up, but it tended to have the problem that the dice could be quite swingy. With hit rolls often being 5+ or 6+ a few good rolls could alter the game hugely. But it rewarded thinking ahead and use of cover very well and because every gang was pretty much the same so in order to come out on top you needed to out-think or out-play your opponent. Once gangs started gaining advances that stopped being the case.

ive only played 7th and 8th, so had to vote for one of them. Poll doesnt work really.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
There's something missed, I think with the "tactics don't matter" people.

The fact is, both matter. You need both to win.

You can say "Oh, I can't win with my terrible list over that good list" and that therefore tactics don't matter, but the inverse is also true, since being bad at the tactics of the game can cause you to lose even with the best net list. We all know at least one of those people who never wins, period.

A good list alone won't carry you to victory, and good tactics won't either.

However, imbalance with units causes the list building to have greater impact.