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.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
Actually it is quite a fair assessment. It all depends on attitude. A lot of players will fall into the problem you describe. That is their downfall and not really the problem of the higher level player. Yet, I have seen players who are many levels behind and have said "I feel like I have learned so much from this game". It's not the job of a higher level player to change the attitude of others. However, they should be willing to provide insight if asked. That my friend is the difference and is quite a fair approach.

I think a lot of high level players go easy on lower level people . You wouldnt believe the number of times I havent argued rules because i know I am going to win. "My chaos land raider has power of the machine spirit" "I accidently forgot to shoot half my guard army last shooting phase, and I know its the middle of yours, but can I do it anyways". Only once has this ever cost me a game. And that was on table 2 of the adepticon championship in 08. Which if I had won I would have likely placed third.

However I think a lot of players need a mentor too. Players sitting down for 20 minutes after a battle discussing tactics can make a huge difference. We have a decent mix of players at my LGS. Me and Gornall have placed top 3 in the last events we attended, though they were all local 20 person ones. But some of the newer guys and lower tier players are trying to get into playing in events. Example, one guy runs a lash prince. He frequently uses it to lash guys into combat with his 8 man zerker unit. We play, I set up right, and the lash doesnt get my tac squad far enough forward for a charge. So next turn my 5 man TH/SS unit wrecks his zerkers in a counter charge, and the tac squad unloads and drops the prince.

He now uses the lash as a utility device, to take people off objectives, to move guys out of line of sight so they cant shoot. A lot of beginners take a unit and go 'what can i kill with this'. They need to be shown the multiple options. I have a 600 point seer council in my eldar, it stayed in the tank til turn 5, just threatening the enemy and forcing his moves in a game I played today.

Also, you are from toledo. Im from dayton, so i guess that means we are rivals . Did you by chance attend an ardboyz style event that was ran in detroit two years ago? It was independently ran.

Eidolon wrote:Also, you are from toledo. Im from dayton, so i guess that means we are rivals . Did you by chance attend an ardboyz style event that was ran in detroit two years ago? It was independently ran.

Nope - one of the other partners in crime attended that event. I'm assuming you hang out with Kevin. Good fellow he is and another vet that I will periodically talk to about events.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Eidolon wrote:Also, you are from toledo. Im from dayton, so i guess that means we are rivals . Did you by chance attend an ardboyz style event that was ran in detroit two years ago? It was independently ran.

Nope - one of the other partners in crime attended that event. I'm assuming you hang out with Kevin. Good fellow he is and another vet that I will periodically talk to about events.

Yeah I hang out with kevin on a fairly regular basis.

Mannahnin wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:I definitely agree that tactical discussion is distinctly lacking.

I think this is endemic to the entire web, since real tactical discussion tends to be time-consuming and detailed. That's not to say it hasn't been done before, though. Panzerleader's has a couple of good threads recently. I wrote an article on Refused Flank deployment a while back.

The Refused Flank

I suggested a couple of possible types of threads earlier:

I appreciate your input, I'd like to engage in a discussion regarding the following battle report :
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/263891.page

Questions: If you were playing Guard what would your deployment have been.

Cool report, thanks for taking up the gauntlet!

I had a brief look at it yesterday, and my initial reaction was the same as yours- it looked like the IG player put too much in Reserve. I'll try to get time to do a proper analysis and suggested alternate deployment this evening.

I hope Timmeh and anyone else interested will also weigh in.

In 40k, there are things that you can control, and things you can not.

What it boils down to is: The only thing you can control is your own army list. This is why most of the "tactical" emphasis is placed on list construction. Through math-hammering, it can be determined which units provide the best performance for their points values. While I do not subscribe to the theory that winning armies should be built ONLY from these efficient units - it does provide a reasonable barrometer of unit performances when building a list.

Every other portion of the game is really out of your control - your opponent's list, the terrain setup, the starting die roll for deployment...

From this point on, all the player can rely on is their own experience. No amount prepatory reading of "tactical discussions" will be able to propel an inexperienced general to victory. LUCK might gift them with a favourable matchup and/or great die rolls, but that would be LUCK propelling them to victory and not anything attributable to any prepatory tactical book learning.

Theory certainly won't hurt, as it MAY help them identify certain broad strategies on the battlefield - it MAY EVEN provide the with the requisite counter(s) - HOWEVER, without actual experience all this book knowledge will amount to naught with a few bad bumps of the dice.

In my opinion, Darth had it right:

Step 1: make a list
Step 2: play a game with the list
Step 3: Reflect on your game and see what beat you
Step 4: Add unit(s) to counter what you lost to or change in game strategy.

Repeat at step 1
You will need to go through this 4 step process about 10-15 times against different lists.

The above is the way that you itteratively increase experience and upgrade your list... however, when it comes to GENERALSHIP... (i.e. controlling your army on the battlefield)... none of the necessary traits can be learned through books.

Inteligent generals are good at coming up with a plan and then executing (and/or modifying) it during the battle. (This includes: objective / target prioritization, battlefield timing, delayed actions etc.)

Wise generals are able to learn from both their mistakes AND the mistakes of others - This is called strength of experience.

Perceptive generals are those who are able to discern the plans and attitudes of their opponents.

IMHO, A successful general is one who combines all the above traits.

I disagree that your list is the only thing you can control or talk about.

I think it is certainly possible for players to discuss and learn actual tactics. Experience and practice are key, but many things CAN be taught.

Fire priority
Focusing on objectives
HOW you use a particular unit or entire army build
Using terrain to your advantage
Responding to particular enemy units (neutralizing or destroying)
Etc.

...are all things which CAN and SHOULD be talked about. The trouble is that they tend to take more time, work, and words to describe. Which means people are less inclined to actually do the work.

Years ago (in 3rd edition) I had a particular Eldar army list I did very well with, and used to post about on Dakka a great deal. A player in Norway emailed me, as he was starting Eldar, and wanted to know how I used them. I gave him both the list and general descriptions of HOW I deployed and maneuvered it. He wrote back months later thanking me for the list and advice, and advising that he had racked up an impressive win ratem including tournament wins. This is obviously anecdotal, but is proof of concept. I just dug through my old emails, and I actually still have the one I sent him. It’s not super in-depth, and it IS super-outdated now, though.

Mannahnin wrote:I disagree. I think it is certainly possible for players to discuss actual tactics.

Fire priority
Focusing on objectives,
HOW you use an army
Using terrain to your advantage
Responding to particular enemy units (neutralizing or destroying)
Etc.

Are all things which CAN and SHOULD be talked about. The trouble is that they tend to take more time, work, and words to describe. Which means people are less inclined to actually do the work.

I am all for more education, however, in my mind book knowledge is no substitute for experience. Learning about something by reading about past scenarios (fixed environment) is not the same as understanding how it works in practice (dynamic environment).

Also, IMHO certain crucial aspects of generalship, such as how to respond to enemy units and objective prioritization is dependent on mindset. A lot of players will loose sight of the objectives, especially if they are obliterating their opponent's army - they will KNOW that they SHOULD keep track of the objectives on the edge of the carnage, but their mindset is geared too strongly in the now. How we react to battlefield situations is not a learned skill, but an adjustment in behaviour.

Personally I would like to see more detailed talk in the tactica board. I still haven't played too much but seeing some strategy and how people play their army is fascinating as well as educational. It is true that learned concepts is not a substitute for experience in almost any endeavor, but theory can be taught. You can discuss strategy tactics in a theoretical setting and there is nothing wrong with it. If such things were worthless Vom Krieg and the Art of War would be worthless and every officer the army sends to West Point is a massive waste of money.

I think if you keep certain principles simple, they can be kept in mind by a newer player. Once they gain more experience they'll internalize them.

My email to the Norwegian player ended with three cardinal rules.

Rules to live by:
1. Always remember the mission. You can afford to sustain horrendous casualties if you have more quadrant-holding units in place at the end of the game in Cleanse. But you can't afford to throw units away in Recon.

2. Shoot the assaulty stuff, assault the shooty stuff. In general, if your opponent has a shooty unit, assault it as soon as possible. If he has a unit of assault specialists, shoot and/or avoid them.

3. Never give up. I've had my two 185pt Falcons killed on turn one, and still come back to win by 87pts at the end of the game. There's always a chance. If your opponent gets lucky, he's more likely to get sloppy.

There are some things (tempo, general "game sense," prediction) that cannot be taught, or at least require significant experience to learn. Fortunately, these things are not incredibly relevant to 40k, a game where you generally have adequate time to make your decisions and aren't forced to develop accurate instincts. In general, I think that most of the components of 40k skill can probably be taught, and indeed should be.

The tournament environment, in which you have limited time to play your game and are "forced" to spend part of it getting to know your opponent (and likely discussing rules interpretations & conventions you play differently), makes those elements come more to the fore.

Because you do need to play quickly to best ensure getting an entire game in.

You may also face an incredibly slow opponent. I played a guy at ard boyz who brought 6 tanks and 240 guardsmen. It took him no less then 30 minutes to do each turn. This means that if I want to game to go faster I must play faster. However with only 3 turns in during those 2 and a half hours I barely pulled a massacre.

Yeah, this is definitely something to be aware of too. After a friend of mine got slow-played out of qualifying in the regional round, I started timing turns during the final, so I would have numbers if I had to complain to a judge. Thankfully all my opponents in the final played at a reasonable pace.

Mannahnin wrote:The tournament environment, in which you have limited time to play your game and are "forced" to spend part of it getting to know your opponent (and likely discussing rules interpretations & conventions you play differently), makes those elements come more to the fore.

Because you do need to play quickly to best ensure getting an entire game in.

I'm used to computer real-time strategy games where you have seconds to make decisions and must deal with several issues at once; even a quick five or ten-minute turn affords much more time for contemplation than such a game. Comparatively speaking, 40k requires much less "instinctive" behaviors than real-time games.

Fetterkey wrote:I'm used to computer real-time strategy games where you have seconds to make decisions and must deal with several issues at once; even a quick five or ten-minute turn affords much more time for contemplation than such a game. Comparatively speaking, 40k requires much less "instinctive" behaviors than real-time games.

I would think that in terms of planning 40k is more akin to a game of chess. "Instinct" is less reactive and more predictive.

The reason "odd" list keep winning tournies is because people arent prepared for them. Most peoples list now have max melta because mech is getting so good but what happens if I bring a hoard or a tri-prism list and just make sure you are never in range. Ist because they are prepare for one type of list and are caught completely off guard by any other type of list.

Addicted to Bleach wrote:The reason "odd" list keep winning tournies is because people arent prepared for them. Most peoples list now have max melta because mech is getting so good but what happens if I bring a hoard or a tri-prism list and just make sure you are never in range. Ist because they are prepare for one type of list and are caught completely off guard by any other type of list.

Not really true. A top-level player isn't going to be "caught off guard" be a wacky list.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:

Addicted to Bleach wrote:The reason "odd" list keep winning tournies is because people arent prepared for them. Most peoples list now have max melta because mech is getting so good but what happens if I bring a hoard or a tri-prism list and just make sure you are never in range. Ist because they are prepare for one type of list and are caught completely off guard by any other type of list.

Not really true. A top-level player isn't going to be "caught off guard" be a wacky list.

They also probably aren't going to bring such a hyperfocused list. While I agree that lists should be focused, they can't afford to be hyperfocused. If you bring only meltas and multi meltas....what the hell are you supposed to do when you eventually break open the transport? Your meltagun will kill ONE GUY, while the other nine guys blast you with whatever they have, or worse, charge you.

This is also probably why the 'hyperoptimized' lists aren't seen at tournaments (or if they are they don't win). people optimize, but they understand an army can not afford to do only one thing, or if it does that one thing, it needs backup so it can do that 'one thing' better.

starbomber109 wrote:

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:

Addicted to Bleach wrote:The reason "odd" list keep winning tournies is because people arent prepared for them. Most peoples list now have max melta because mech is getting so good but what happens if I bring a hoard or a tri-prism list and just make sure you are never in range. Ist because they are prepare for one type of list and are caught completely off guard by any other type of list.

Not really true. A top-level player isn't going to be "caught off guard" be a wacky list.

They also probably aren't going to bring such a hyperfocused list. While I agree that lists should be focused, they can't afford to be hyperfocused. If you bring only meltas and multi meltas....what the hell are you supposed to do when you eventually break open the transport? Your meltagun will kill ONE GUY, while the other nine guys blast you with whatever they have, or worse, charge you.

This is also probably why the 'hyperoptimized' lists aren't seen at tournaments (or if they are they don't win). people optimize, but they understand an army can not afford to do only one thing, or if it does that one thing, it needs backup so it can do that 'one thing' better.

Agreed, I didn't post that because I thought the "Melta Myth" thread had covered that extensively.