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 keep hearing from many people that WH40k doesn't require any strategy, and that it's more about what armies are fighting, and what units you choose. More specifically, i hear that strategic manuevors like flanking your enemy are useless because your army just plays to a very specific stregnth. It seems to me that Warhammer fantasy requires more strategy because instead of an army playing to one specific stregnth like 40k; you have archers, infantry, pikemen, etc trying to use tactics to gain an upperhand on your opponent.

I haven't played much of either so i'm not trying one is better than the other, but i would someone with some experience in 40k(or both 40k and fantasy) to explain how 40k works as a game. For example how strategy is required or simply how you are supposed to beat your opponent.

You still need strategy if you want to win, even with army's as powerful as Orks and Grey Knights.
You can't just shoot at random and run on open ground, you must choose where to attack, who to attack and most importantly when to attack.
If you just rush the game without any kind of tactics you will be defeated almost every game.

Well, remember that strategy refers to long term planning, while tactics refers to battle-field level decisions. In 40K terms, you make strategic choices when building your list, and tactical choices when the dice start rolling.

To get to the topic at hand though, yes 40K requires tactics, at least as much so as WHFB. For example, my last game was my Paladin-wing (no Draigo) versus an army of Wraithguard and Wraithlords.

My opponent started backtracking right from the first turn, and blatting away at my Paladins with star cannons and bright lances.

I chased him.

By the time a caught him, my units were severely depleted and were cut down in a hail of wraithguard gunfire.

The choices that affected this game were tactical. My opponent chose to backtrack, I chose to follow him, when I should have stayed in the 13" - 24" range and pummeled his Wraithlords with psycannon rounds.

40K doesn't offer much in the way of abstract rewards for clever play, but the rewards are there nonetheless. If your opponent is hiding behind a forest and lobbing shells at you indirectly, you will be rewarded by flanking around that forest and being able to destroy him, for example.

40K is certainly analogous to WHFB in unit speciality. Some units are great at shooting, and suck in CC, while other units cannot shoot at all but are awesome in CC.

Kaldor wrote:Well, remember that strategy refers to long term planning, while tactics refers to battle-field level decisions. In 40K terms, you make strategic choices when building your list, and tactical choices when the dice start rolling.

To get to the topic at hand though, yes 40K requires tactics, at least as much so as WHFB. For example, my last game was my Paladin-wing (no Draigo) versus an army of Wraithguard and Wraithlords.

My opponent started backtracking right from the first turn, and blatting away at my Paladins with star cannons and bright lances.

I chased him.

By the time a caught him, my units were severely depleted and were cut down in a hail of wraithguard gunfire.

The choices that affected this game were tactical. My opponent chose to backtrack, I chose to follow him, when I should have stayed in the 13" - 24" range and pummeled his Wraithlords with psycannon rounds.

40K doesn't offer much in the way of abstract rewards for clever play, but the rewards are there nonetheless. If your opponent is hiding behind a forest and lobbing shells at you indirectly, you will be rewarded by flanking around that forest and being able to destroy him, for example.

40K is certainly analogous to WHFB in unit speciality. Some units are great at shooting, and suck in CC, while other units cannot shoot at all but are awesome in CC.

This is good. but if your playing agenst a competitive Mech Guard or gunline or any other comptitive builds out there, the tatics are the same when fighting them.

kinratha wrote: This is good. but if your playing agenst a competitive Mech Guard or gunline or any other comptitive builds out there, the tatics are the same when fighting them.

I'm not sure I get what you mean. Do you mean the tactics you use will be the same when playing any competitive build? Because thats not exactly true. Well, it's not true at all, lol.

Several years ago, back when Necrons were at the height of their power in their old codex, one of the best tournament players in Australia won several tournaments with his Necrons list. I remember another player taking an army that was a virtual clone of this tournament-winning force, but did nowhere near as well.

More recently, I played a game against another Chaos army that was almost the same as mine. Our dice were both more or less average, yet I wiped him out with a substantial portion of my force remaining,

I know anecdotal evidence can't be called proof, but they're good examples of what everyone has said so far.

Outflanking, Reserving, refused flanks and other tactical manoeuvres all have a demonstrable effect on the game.

Manoeuvring so that my friends Ork units get in the way of each other, keeping my units in cover from my other friends Imperial Guard, spreading out my Tyranids so that my third friends Blood Angels cannot run rings around me or simply choosing to cripple manoeuvrability by shooting transports instead of slow units are all examples of proper battlefield tactics (what I am sure you meant by "strategy").

I have always found that since turning in Fantasy happens at the cost of movement it, due to the difficulty of changing direction, was the less tactical game.
I see it as lining up you armies in front of each other and run forward with only your initial deployment determining anything.
Of course I am well aware that that very simplified view of Fantasy stems from my lack of knowledge about the game having never played it.
So my opinion on Fantasy has actually got zero value.

I would say YES 40k does have elements of it.... But overall out of the main stream games people play 40k is on the lower end of good commander needed games.

Now my belief is not that the game itself is broken in a tactics/strategy setting.. but rather the actual MISSIONS played tend to be void of tactics in general...

3rd edition printed with about 25 missions to play and 4th edition had about 15 or so..... Basically 5E has two... KP and Objectives and both are broken.

Forcing players to split force into 2 groups for deploymeny on opposite sides of the table etc... add a hell of alot of flavour to any game.... Brake out missions where you have to get off the board asap are cool too.... it bring and element to the game that has been lost in 5th........

40k requires some strategy, with different armies requiring different amounts of it.

Example: Tau need a strategy much more than guard, even though both are shooting armies.

Warhammer fantasy requires more strategy than 40k.

As Kaldor said, strategy consists of things like list building, and maybe deploying. Tactics are what you will be employing when moving units around the table and prioritizing targets.

I've found that 40k is indeed much simpler in terms of applying any semblance of tactics than a number of other games out there. In higher point games (2000+) the board becomes so cluttered with units that maneouvring doesn't really happen. The amount of turns also limits your actions, and the general size of the board and overall speed/range of most units limits your decisions and ability to react.

Don't get me wrong, its a fun game, and its popularity ensures I'll find games. Compared to some historical and space combat games I've played, 40k just feels limited in scope in terms of simulating a skirmish/engagement. I'm sure Epic is better suited for people who really want to excercise that part of their brain.

It seems to me that it matters more about what units you choose than how you play them.

40K absolutely demands tactics. This is what somewhat irks me when people say that there are only x number of competitive builds for a given army. This is not really true, what people mean is that if the army is to handle easily only certain builds are forgiving enough to allow this. Spam armies are not always that effective as they generally offer limited tactical flexibility.

Almost any build can be used effectively as long as there is thought and consideration for the opponent, terrain, etc. Some builds work better against certain opponents rather than others. For example I use striking scorpions against more numerous and weaker opponents and banshees against more powerful individual troops.

The idea that the same tactics are employed in any given battle seems extremely odd given that terrain has a huge effect. For example Eldar rangers are probably most effective high in a buidling where they have cover and can also get a good field of fire. I find my nids most effective when approaching across broken terrain. With certain units it is about using terrain, with some you need to avoid it.

Initial deployment is crucial and absolutely effects the outcome of battles. It is all about looking at how certain units will traverse the terrain, where they might get into killing zones, where they can hole up and defend, etc. One set up does not win all battles against all foes.

Set-up type is also crucial, is it dawn of war or spearhead, etc?

I fought my friends CSM with my Eldar twice this week and I learned between. The first time I got some of my cc units exposed to the wrong fire and they got minced. Second time I positioned certain units differently and sought to engage his units in a different sequence with different weapons and troop types.

In summary I think 40K is a highly tactical game and rewards players who consider the combinations of troop types, terrain, opponent, etc. Having a plan with options to change tack will bring greater success than "I'm playing GK so therefore I just lump forward" type 'tactics'. Personally I always consider my opponent's troop types and their likely actions (e.g. raptors and Khorne berzerkers will charge forward to get in close). I plan for which units I need to tackle in which order and where in the field with what of my own units. I always try to make sure that I have complimentary units, so cc units to cover shooting units, heavier weapons to cover the approaches to defensive postions, etc, etc. This varies every single battle .

I often experiment with ideas such a double-envelopments and rolling up one flank. For example I used my nids to hinge onto a Tau line with heavier units on the left flank pivoting to bring the quicker light units on the right onto his line and then roll it up right to left. I have tried all sorts of tactics, such a circling the wagons with my Eldar to mutually support the units against enemies, getting my nids to sag back in the centre and draw the enemy onto my heavier units, etc, etc. I love the tactical aspects!

I agree with you Isengard. I just don't see it implemented the way you have described it. Its really more of what lists works better and how well you roll. its really unfortunate but that is the way it is, from the codex to the way most people play. I truely wish people would play it more tactically, but its just not happening for the most part.

I do also think Fantasy is more tactical and strategic at the same time. You really have to plan your moves 2-3 turns ahead. If you want to do the charging it is important that you set yourself up to do so. 40k is a little forgiving with that.

40k pretty much boils down to kill the shooty guys and shoot the killy guys.

But that isn't always as simple as it sounds. Stuff like dreadnaughts might be shooty, but can also be quite killy.

40k is a lot more fluid and forgiving in maneuver than fantasy, you don't have to think so far ahead because the battlefield can change quickly. Where fantasy a turn 1 mistake can mean a unit never makes it to the enemy.

40k would be like fighting two fantasy armies against each other with nothing but skirmishers. It is much easier to move around and get where you want to go, especially with vehicles which greatly increase movement speed, and also reduce the unit foot print.

Isengard put it pretty good, there are many circumstances that you have to adjust how you play. If you dont adapt you lose generally unless your playing someone who dosent use tactics either

It depends some race you actually have (as we used to say in world of warcraft) learn your class, others like Grey Knights take no skill, you can go in and monkey around and come out with a win. With me playing Tyranids, you don't know how many times I got my teeth kicked in before I got my first victory.

broodstar wrote:It depends some race you actually have (as we used to say in world of warcraft) learn your class, others like Grey Knights take no skill, you can go in and monkey around and come out with a win. With me playing Tyranids, you don't know how many times I got my teeth kicked in before I got my first victory.

This is soooooooo totally not true about GKs. If you want to talk like that please go join the the "Grey Knights are the most overpowered book GW has put out in a decade" thread. I will say that certain army builds are easier to play and require less skill but no list requires no skill. Currently I am experimenting with an all foot GK list that if I make mistakes I get PUNISHED but if played right is a rewarding experience.

I'm sorry you feel that GKs are a win button codex but its just not true.

*Rant off*

To the OP, I find that at smaller point games (1000 or less) the game becomes more tactical as you have to get more out of every unit.. Strategy comes generally in the list building phase but it is always good to strategize and plan when your opponent is going.

Tyranids need flying bugs huh.

Certain armies have advantages over others. However, that does not mean the win is determined by the match up. I can't speak for much of the other armies. I have played IG for a while now. I can win or lose just by my deployment and how I place my forces depending on what army I face. You never know, and, you have to just be able to adapt and change as you go along. Know your strengths, your weaknesses, and hope the dice roll like you want.

King Crow wrote:It seems to me that it matters more about what units you choose than how you play them.

Then it seems like you asked a question you already assumed an answer to. Why post?

It's yet another thread where people mix up 'strategic' and 'tactical'.

Strategic: Big picture. What is done before/after a battle, the movement of armies and resources.

Tactical: Ground level movement/actions. What is done during the battle itself.

So, 40k is, in actuality, a very strategic game. Most of a player's time will be spent thinking of a list, what units/characters/vehicles he needs. Strategy also covers pre-game planning, like knowing how to use your transports or psychic powers. Deployment is also a 'strategic' action, as is planning what units will be infiltrating or flanking in from the sides.

40k is not a tactical game. There's no overwatch, cross-fire, outflanking (by which I mean, firing/assaulting into the enemy's back). Most of the game boils down to putting as much strength into your enemy's weakest point, without allowing him to do the same. And even that is 'strategy'. And by this same thought, Fantasy is actually a more tactical game, since flanking units can help break them.

Idk the game can be frustrating at times an I think Fantasy is more strategy and tactics then 40k.

Strategy: a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result.

"A plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems...": Building my army list to react to any threat and deal with it with minimal losses.
i.e. Deep striking Storm Troopers equipped with melta weapons to disable my opponents more dangerous vehicles.

"...for obtaining a specific goal or result.": To hold an objective or objectives, or damage my enemy in such a way that he/she cannot continue to contest my overall command of the game board.

To answer your question in the most direct manner, yes.

People that say that 40k requires no strategy haven't played the game or are trying to troll you. Simple as that.

Warhammer 40k's strategy is all about minimizing the chance of failure.

Be that from dice flops all the way to casualties. Choosing where to place your troopers, and anticipating your opponent.

As for actual combat strategy...... very little.

Blobpie wrote:Warhammer 40k's strategy is all about minimizing the chance of failure.

Be that from dice flops all the way to casualties. Choosing where to place your troopers, and anticipating your opponent.

As for actual combat strategy...... very little.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or just don't realize that you contradicted yourself.

I agree with infinite array. 40k's tactics are very shallow. It's all about moving units into range and shooting/assaulting them at the right targets.

I also agree that 40k is a very strategic game. You've got to think about pretty abstract ideas to do well in 40k. Ideas like force concentration, field position, and how to complete your mission objectives while denying the same to your opponent. I don't know how it is in the world of fantasy, but people who don't put together a good list, and do nothing more than just sit and shoot or charge blindly forward are likely to get outdone by a smarter commander. Not because charging or holding your ground requires much tactical prowess, but knowing when and with whom to win the game is what makes the difference, and that's more in the realm of strategy.

I've won games of 40k before despite bad luck, facilitated by my opponents' poor moves. The mistakes they made, however, were not tactical, like where exactly they positioned their units in relation to my ability to charge them, but were strategic, like focusing too heavily on the casualties they were taking and abandoning the mission to preserve their forces, or by being too eager to attack and getting caught out in the open against materializing local superiority.

Once again, I've never played fantasy, so I can't compare the two, but from the very little I know, it seems that WHFB is a game dedicated to the minutiae, while 40k runs roughshod over those concepts so that it can have a more upper-level, abstract gaming experience.

It definitely has a set of tactics that it favours. But the level of interactivity means that it is fairly shallow in play. It is still possible to outplay your opponent of course but the tools the game gives you to meaningfully interact with its mechanics are few and far between. Good maneuvering can have an effect but its possible list of uses are relatively small and mostly have to do with avoiding or getting in to assault. There are few options in the shooting phase and it is largely a binary "do I fire or not" decision with no way of augmenting it to make it more effective or make it less effective for greater effect at some other phase in the game. Again, the tactical choices are mostly a question of simple target priority which it shares with every game. Assault is probably the worst because one the unit touch and it is kicked off interactivity is largely at an end outside of, again, target priority against characters and squads.

So in the end a lot of the games best practices come from good list creation and the ability to not make a lot of tactical mistakes when piloting the list (to use a Magic the Gathering term). If you play a well made list, maneuver in such a way as to avoid combat with your support units and get in to combat with your assault units and you prioritize targets well then you will do well. Depending on the faction in play these will apply differently (i.e. Tau don't have any units that want to be in assault so always maneuver to avoid it and kite your enemy).

So it has tactics, but they are relatively simple ones and a greater degree of your tactical flexibility comes from making good lists. It is relatively easy to master the skills to pilot a list, but making good ones is definitely a harder to acquire skill in general terms.

pdawg517 wrote:

broodstar wrote:It depends some race you actually have (as we used to say in world of warcraft) learn your class, others like Grey Knights take no skill, you can go in and monkey around and come out with a win. With me playing Tyranids, you don't know how many times I got my teeth kicked in before I got my first victory.

This is soooooooo totally not true about GKs. If you want to talk like that please go join the the "Grey Knights are the most overpowered book GW has put out in a decade" thread. I will say that certain army builds are easier to play and require less skill but no list requires no skill. Currently I am experimenting with an all foot GK list that if I make mistakes I get PUNISHED but if played right is a rewarding experience.

I'm sorry you feel that GKs are a win button codex but its just not true.

*Rant off*

To the OP, I find that at smaller point games (1000 or less) the game becomes more tactical as you have to get more out of every unit.. Strategy comes generally in the list building phase but it is always good to strategize and plan when your opponent is going.

Gk are not an auto win but they do come with training wheels. That is because almost all of the gk units can but out both elite cc ability and elite shooting ability. Think of the fire power palidans bring, or the cc skills purifiers have? Do you lose the game if your purifiers get caught in cc or paladins spend 5 turns shooting? Other codexs are not nearly as forgiving. For a gk Player to be successful they just have to be competent enough to get their army into their 24" kill zone without having lost to much. 24" is pretty big on a board 48" wide and most players can manage.

To stay on point this is why there is actually lots of strategy and tactics in 40k. Most of the books have units that primarily can only perform 1 specific task. Thus you have to have good strategy to list build to included everything you need to get what you need to get done. In turn the game requires strong tactics tout your units into position to do the task they are capable of. It doesn't matter that th/ss termis are murder in cc if you can't position/maneuver them into a decisive cc. It's doesn't matter if you can blow an enemy of the board with ranged shooting if you let them get close ect.

To stay on point I actually

King Crow wrote:I keep hearing from many people that WH40k doesn't require any strategy, and that it's more about what armies are fighting, and what units you choose. More specifically, i hear that strategic manuevors like flanking your enemy are useless because your army just plays to a very specific stregnth.

Flanking is not a strategy it's a tactic and if you think it's useless you don't know what melta is.

King Crow wrote:It seems to me that Warhammer fantasy requires more strategy because instead of an army playing to one specific stregnth like 40k; you have archers, infantry, pikemen, etc trying to use tactics to gain an upperhand on your opponent.

Mages, wizards hiding in crowd, trying to make their uber magic while trying to dispel other's uber magic is pure luck and I consider it neither a strategy nor a tactic.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:I agree with you Isengard. I just don't see it implemented the way you have described it. Its really more of what lists works better and how well you roll. its really unfortunate but that is the way it is, from the codex to the way most people play. I truely wish people would play it more tactically, but its just not happening for the most part.

Well, if you see a dearth of tactics in your local meta-game, then step it up a notch. You'll see some drastic improvements to your win-loss ratio!

40k is not a tactical game. There's no overwatch, cross-fire, outflanking (by which I mean, firing/assaulting into the enemy's back). Most of the game boils down to putting as much strength into your enemy's weakest point, without allowing him to do the same. And even that is 'strategy'. And by this same thought, Fantasy is actually a more tactical game, since flanking units can help break them.

What you mean is that there are no artificial rewards for tactical play. Tactical maneuvers are still rewarding, because they let you achieve your goals. You don't need an artificial outflanking bonus, nor one for crossfire or overwatch. You just work within the limits of the game.