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 have a personal bugbear, which is the popular habit in the Tactics forum of picking the best units in a codex, using them to fill out an army list, and ignoring what actually happens on the game board during a game. I know it's easier to discuss list-building on forums, since tactics require a discussion of spatial relations between units, terrain, and time, but I've noticed that tactics are virtually ignored. I mean, we have an Army List forum for listhammer players, so what's the deal with the absence of enthusiasm for discussing tactics? Still, with tools like Paint and stuff like OpenOffice Draw, it seems like it would be easy to show spatial relations on board. So why don't players show more enthusiasm for discussing tactics in the Tactics forum?

I agree with your point.

In my view it is partly because a lot of tactics in 40K relies on picking and using the special rules in various codexes. This means the tactics are closely tied to army and unit choice rather than tabletop deployment.

Of course we see more explanation of tactics in the Battle Reports forum, for obvious reasons.

Cause that's complicated. Take more Long Fangs is not complicated...

I agree with you though. I think that more actual tactics and less list-building would make for more interesting discussion.

Possibly one reason is people not wanting to share their tricks? It's hard to post a battle report without showing your list, it's much easier to post a list without explaining how you did something?

Because it is hard to discuss on field tactics without the discussion turning into, "what if?" "well what if this?" "well what if this?" you know what I mean?

IMPO to get a full understanding of tactics on dakka you need to look both at the tactics forum which is a lot of list building for sure but then you gotta look at the battle reports, that is were you can have a discussion on what you would have done here or there as there are pics showing exactly what is /was there instead of making up whats there and making talking tactics for your made up situation.

Probably because the only way to show said spacial relationships, etc. is with a battle report. There already is a forum for that.

Otherwise, you're talking about making moves in a vacuum, which isn't really helpful. Individual tactics in 40k are actually pretty straightforward, such as "I have lascannons, so I'll shoot at a tank" and "I've got a tank, and he's rushing it with meltaguns, so I should pull my tank back".

The real part about tactics is how the individual choices connect to other individual choices, and how they weave into the strategic fabric of a battle plan. The only way to show a game with all of the variables and options presented is in a battle report.

Now, why there isn't more discussion about tactics in the battle reports forum probably comes from the fact that most people write battle reports where you have no idea what actually happened, or what the player could have done differently based on other options available.

You've actually got to put a lot of work into getting real tactical advice in an internet setting, and most people just don't want to put in the effort.

Nurglitch:

Theoryhammering (or discussing theoretical tactics) ultimately leads nowhere. Which is why folks tend to avoid it. Or should avoid it.

The only real tactical discussion is *still* theoryhammering; which is "This is what happened during XX game....what could I have done differently?" That can provoke thought, but still has limited utility.

DoP, you're an ex-army officer. Surely you studied tactics in the classroom.

Do you mean that tactics can only be studied from historical examples?

Kilkrazy:

I don't think of using combinations of special rules as tactics. If you're picking a bunch of units for some synergy that their special rules have, then it seems to me you're just list-building.

I'd regard a tactic as being something like bubble-wrapping vehicles with infantry, or using a conga-line to minimize casualties from blast and template weapons, or locking a unit in Combat with a Dreadnought so that a squad of Tactical Marines can withdraw without worry of a Sweeping Advance. The latter seems like list-building, but requires positioning to pull off successfully. But I've noticed that these popular names for basic tactics are just that, basic, stuff that's apparent to anyone that's familiar with how the basic game works, and not just list-specific combinations of rules.

The only real tactical discussion is *still* theoryhammering; which is "This is what happened during XX game....what could I have done differently?"

Which can be summed up with: experience and creativity.
You are neither experienced nor creative in theory. It is a practical skill.

The problem is, you have to think about so many things in a single 1 vs 1 unit-situation, that describing this would last too long.

Also terrain, opposing army, mission, your own army and time must be taken into consideration thoroughly.

Also tactical advice need a given situation like a chess task. The clearer the better. Otherwise you hav nothing to rely upon giving any advice.

General listbuilding advice is also quite long, but it is much less complicated.

EDIT:

Do you mean that tactics can only be studied from historical examples?

Most people will laugh at me for this, but: I do exactly this.

Kilkrazy wrote:DoP, you're an ex-army officer. Surely you studied tactics in the classroom.

Do you mean that tactics can only be studied from historical examples?

Military History was actually a course at West Point. One of my favorites. Nowhere in there was there any theoryhammering. "What if Napolean had..." or "Why didn't the Colonial Militia think about...." or "What if XYZ." That's not military history, that's military theorizing.

Now, with a mission in front of you, and a sand-table or a map outlying your area, you can certainly discuss potential tactical objectives or courses of action to achieve them - but they aren't predicated on any assumptions of enemy movement or action - Murphy's Law is important here! You plan the best you can, and train for deviations from the plan.

You can't do the same in 40k - those particular parallels don't work. In 40k there's only "now."

I think its cause there actually isn't alot of tactics that can go into 40k.. Its more a game of rock paper scissors and every army has better and worse and more and less of each rock paper and scissors.

People being so competitive and how GW does things...They sell models first then come rules.. Which leads to "just take more long fangs" Are there other things that can do the same thing in the SW well yes..But why? They do it best..Or they are the best "rock" so why bother with anything else.

I think if the game lasted longer turn wise..Or the boards were bigger or the size and range of things smaller..actuall on the board tactics would mean alot more but as the game stands now. The actual number of "tactics" you can actually employ in 40k are few and far between and most if not all or quick and easy to learn.

Plus any actual talk of tactics get shot down to fast to even mess with. For the reason above.

"Hey guys I have this neat idea that you could do yadda yadda yadda..But since it takes more thought and isnt totally as relaible as long fangs...people will just tell you its a bad idea and to just take long fangs.

Amazing and solely applicable to Space Wolves.

Try again?

Being drunk off my ass and seeing double right now, I'll read this again tomorrow at work and see if anything makes more sense.

No that was just more the example I was useing since it was used up above as well.

The same could be said for countless other units in almost any codex.