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.

Hi Dakka,

Given my vast (3 months!) experience with 40k I can safely say that Dakka has been instrumental in helping me learn all sorts of stuff! Thanks!

In many of the threads I've seen in the army lists and tactics forums, comments are made on the viability of units in particular lists and there is sometimes discussion on how to use units effectively. Being a Necron player many comments focus on points efficient units, like wraiths, anni barges, CCB etc. I fully agree that these units introduce a degree of tolerance for tactical error into lists. But some of these lists seem to be designed primarily to create the strongest list, which isn't imho the best strategy for winning a given game. Having strong units doesn't mean you are going to play them well, but it does mean that if you make a mistake you have a better chance of surviving it!

So:

a) When you design a list - are you designing the strongest list you can or are you designing a list which enables you to win more games? To give more context, I'm wondering whether you would you change your army list if annihilation WASN'T a mission? What if all games were objectives?

b) When you are playing a game, are you always focussed on the mission for the full 5 turns? or are you mainly trying to kill the opponent units up to T4 and thinking about objectives to T5?

c) Is the best plan to try and table the opponent - irrespective of the mission? (btw, this is definitely the most FUN option imho)

For me, when I put together lists, I'm happy to incorporate distraction units because it seems that a strategy of throwing the opponent focus off the primary mission focus works quite well (obviously less so now I've put this up on Dakka! ) This flows to incorporating units which appear to be newbie (and I am one) mistakes/inefficient - to get the opponent overconfident AND to get their focus off the primary mission. But each of the distraction units has a clear purpose, and I have a clear idea of what the timing is for using each one and what I'm going to do with it to win. This means a lot of my lists are set up for objectives missions, not annihilation.

Thoughts and comments please!

For a new player, you certainly have quite a bit of insight on the game already.

To answer your questions:

A and B. It really depends on how competitive you are when it comes to your mentality while playing and list building. If you're playing in a tournament, you want to have the most reliable list in order to reduce the amount of variables that are not tied into dice rolling.

C. It depends on the matchup and the mission. Say that you're against Draigowing and the mission is KP, more than likely you have way more KP than the Draigowing list does, so the most logical option would be to table him. How to do that depends on your list, how good the Draigowing player is, the terrain setup, and how good you are.

Personally, I focus on the ability to complete the mission above all other goals. I make my lists in order to have the best chance to do that regardless of the mission type, or the type of opponent I face. It's a little difficult, but if you can master the balance, it will really pay off.

For me, the strongest list I can design, is one that allows me to win the most games.

I tend to play very aggressive with my armies, and I tend to enjoy, very fast, hard hitting units. My game plan is usually to neutralize the biggest threats the enemy has first, and focus on the actual mission, as the game goes on. The less the enemy army has the easier it is going to be for me win the game.

Now, I do keep a look out for some things depending on the mission. Fast skimmers that can contest/claim objectives as the game goes on and what not.

So, I guess you can say I go for the enemies throat early on, and as the game progresses I evaluate what I need to, to continue hampering my opponent from claiming the mission, as well as what I need do to claim it for myself.

As far as a good list goes, a lot of that is in the eyes of the beholder. A good list is one that the general knows well, that he can use in concert together, to simultaneously destroy the enemy army, as well have the ability to win the mission. A lot of times this coincides with some units in the appropriate codex, being multifunctional, as well being points-efficient for what they do. Now, this may be just hard math, or it can be more abstract in the method of the Generals use.

AresX8 wrote:
A and B. It really depends on how competitive you are when it comes to your mentality while playing and list building. If you're playing in a tournament, you want to have the most reliable list in order to reduce the amount of variables that are not tied into dice rolling.

When you say reliable, what does that mean for you? Is it that the units in the list have the most strength you can get for the points, or is it a case of flexibility of the overall list?

Jimsolo wrote:Personally, I focus on the ability to complete the mission above all other goals. I make my lists in order to have the best chance to do that regardless of the mission type, or the type of opponent I face. It's a little difficult, but if you can master the balance, it will really pay off.

Given that the bulk of games are likely to be objectives in some form, would you say that your list is better set up for objective games rather than annihilation? I tend to find that when I think about objectives when I design a list, I end up with more scoring units - I'll actively put extra scoring units in (they'll tend to be smaller to give me more redundancy). As a result, they are generally worse annihilation lists.

Sasori wrote:For me, the strongest list I can design, is one that allows me to win the most games.

I tend to play very aggressive with my armies, and I tend to enjoy, very fast, hard hitting units. My game plan is usually to neutralize the biggest threats the enemy has first, and focus on the actual mission, as the game goes on. The less the enemy army has the easier it is going to be for me win the game.

Now, I do keep a look out for some things depending on the mission. Fast skimmers that can contest/claim objectives as the game goes on and what not.

So, I guess you can say I go for the enemies throat early on, and as the game progresses I evaluate what I need to, to continue hampering my opponent from claiming the mission, as well as what I need do to claim it for myself.

Sounds like the way I like to play too! For me, using this strategy gets me one step closer to trying to table the opponent. It's almost like I start at the beginning trying to kill all the units and switch to securing objectives later. With hindsight, this often leads to me taking on units I don't need to if I was purely focussing on securing objectives in an objective mission. I think the reason I do it is that I have more fun trying to smash their heavy units than to stooge around waiting for T5 for late game contests . The other reason is that I probably don't have the patience to enjoy the stooge around strategy.

I used to try to table my opponent every game regardless of game type. Now, I focus on the objectives. I win more games now.

My friend plays Eldar and even in 2k point games he only takes two troop choices and loads on Fire Dragons, Fire Prisms, and Night Spinners along with Eldrad, a two spell Farseer, and other things. He's been playing for two years and he's never lost, even playing randoms at our FLGS. He stopped playing his army for now as does BA because he says winning is so easy. His mentality is why have troops when you can destroy your enemies entire army or hold one objective and contest with Fast Skimmers?

I might add he's never looked up tactics online.

So while advice is important, it's also even more important to know what suits you the best, because no matter how good Obliterators are I always seem to use Predators more effectively.

Interesting. I've added a poll - just to see how many people look to table the opponent.

Typically I just focus in the mission after sufficiently damagin the opponents ability to clear me off objective. So I said maybe. Although my army is built for resiliency and flexibility not max firepower.

I've recently started attempting to table my opponent every game regardless of the mission. I haven't lost yet. I'll probably lose when I face CSM.

Playing Tau my best option is to cripple the enemy with shooting first and if I haven't been tabled I can go on about the business of trying to win around turn 4.

I focus on the mission objectives completely. If the mission is objective based, I start planning on how I'm going to take them from the moment the mission is rolled: Starting with objective placement all the way through to the end of the game.

I plan out out where I want my units to be on turn 5 before I deploy them and I stick to that plan as close as possible throughout the game. No plan survives contact with the enemy, but the objectives never change, so know where you're going, and how you're going to get there.

In annihilation, I just decide which targets are the biggest threat to my forces and focus on those as much as possible in the early game. I must admit that it's my least favorite scenario, the other two make it a lot easier to anticipate and dictate your opponent's movements through objective placement.

I retain focus on the mission,but then something goes awry / my dice begin to hate me and i am the one tabled.

Lordhat wrote:I focus on the mission objectives completely. If the mission is objective based, I start planning on how I'm going to take them from the moment the mission is rolled: Starting with objective placement all the way through to the end of the game.

I plan out out where I want my units to be on turn 5 before I deploy them and I stick to that plan as close as possible throughout the game. No plan survives contact with the enemy, but the objectives never change, so know where you're going, and how you're going to get there.

Would you say that your lists are optimised for objective missions then? Do your game plans generally involve reducing the enemy strength in T3/4 or is it more a case of hitting mobility?

Depends on tournament format. In Win/Loss formats you should focus solely on missions. The NOVA is a pretty great example. But in Battle Points formats you will most likely be going for bigger wins and massacres, in order to place higher. I personally prefer w/l because it discourages people from bringing lists solely built around tabling and puts a bigger onus on building balanced lists.

LValx wrote:Depends on tournament format. In Win/Loss formats you should focus solely on missions. The NOVA is a pretty great example. But in Battle Points formats you will most likely be going for bigger wins and massacres, in order to place higher. I personally prefer w/l because it discourages people from bringing lists solely built around tabling and puts a bigger onus on building balanced lists.

I'm not familiar with the win/loss format. Surely though, tabling the opponent counts as a win?

I only win when I table (or nearly table) my opponent, regardless of how my armies structured.

So now I skip plan A and B and go straight to plan C

The only time you're going to table your opponent is when they're much worse than you (whether bringing a worse list, or were really off their game that day, or are just otherwise objectively worse), or when you are on an incredible luck streak vis. a vis. your opponents. Armies are set up to be roughly equal to each other, which means tabling should be a very rare occurrence, no matter how hard you try for it.

I've tabled a couple of people before, but I only started going specifically for the table once there was a 0% chance that my opponent would be able to mount a serious comeback from a game that I'd already basically won.

Whenever I go into a game, it's 100% the missions, because the missions are what give you victories. Only bother with a table once you've already completed the mission, and your opponent gives you a reasonable opportunity to try for the total wipe.

Ailaros wrote:The only time you're going to table your opponent is when they're much worse than you (whether bringing a worse list, or were really off their game that day, or are just otherwise objectively worse), or when you are on an incredible luck streak vis. a vis. your opponents. Armies are set up to be roughly equal to each other, which means tabling should be a very rare occurrence, no matter how hard you try for it.

I've tabled a couple of people before, but I only started going specifically for the table once there was a 0% chance that my opponent would be able to mount a serious comeback from a game that I'd already basically won.

Whenever I go into a game, it's 100% the missions, because the missions are what give you victories. Only bother with a table once you've already completed the mission, and your opponent gives you a reasonable opportunity to try for the total wipe.

Good points. Interesting that most of the poll responses are falling into the "Try to Table but turn to mission" - I'm wondering whether the mid game battle to reduce the opponents strong units is a key part of any objectives based strategy. I think it is all coming down to lists - tabling lists would theoretically have less scoring units (and presumably more "strong" units) which could still work because the minimal scoring units don't attract attention.

Course, if you are playing with minimal scoring units against a player that is 100% focussed on the mission, first thing they will do is go for the scoring units!

Due to the nature of the ork army, you really don't have much choice during up to turn 3. You basically move up as fast as possible and take down or tarpit all the stuff really dangerous to you. Once I hit enemy lines I can start thinking about how to win or , more accurately, prevent my opponent from winning. In capture and control, if I have a lot of boyz left I will try to kill as many enemy troops as possible, and/or keep them from their objectives. If I don't I simply start killing everything from strong to weak, hopefully killing everyone before time is up. Works better than you'd think. In seize ground I usually have to grind my way to the enemy's objective anyways, so tabling and holding two objectives is usually the same up till turn 5. I have won quite a few games by nobz clearing out and holding the enemy's objective last round though. Some armies need special treatment though, especially skimmer armies. The game pretty much becomes "kill as many skimmers as possible" against meched (dark) eldar.

In Annihilation, tabling and kill points is the same. Take away the opponent's ability to kill my stuff efficiently and don't suicide your units, end of story.

In most, if not all GW games I've played, tabling your opponent means the mission is completed successfully anyway, so when we played I'd just smash them into the ground.

The objectives are first and foremost in my mind right from deployment. You're not going to table people that often with Thousand Sons. But you do have a good chance to prevent them from winning.

Personally i like to have a unit to do every job so for example my ork biker boyz list i have 3 units of warbikers noow these guys are excellent for taking down infantry light transports and late game objective claiming as they can be taken as troops because of Wazdakka. I have nob bikers for those tough units like terminators incubi etc and tankbustas for landraiders the amount of times ive been undone by landraiders is unreal plus in a BW they can keep up with the main force and deffkoptas for heavy wepons harrasment. The units i use are good overall but excellent at a specific part of the game


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To answer your question the mission is all that matters

I play Necrons so i usually aim to table my opponent as i lack the speed of many of the armys at my FLGS (I'm looking at you DE)

With Dark Eldar I always go for the kill. Thanks to their ultra fast transports I always have the ability to zoom over to hold/contest objectives at the last moment if needs be, still giving me 4-5 full turns to lay into my opponent.

With slower armies (read Chaos) I'll progress towards objectives from the begining though, but not normally going so fast as to prevent the big guns from being able to fire.

It depends upon my army really.

If I'm playing IG, I'll play the mission, not the table.
If I'm playing GK, then I'll play it by ear, but generally play the mission.

On the other hand, if I'm playing Nids, I'm going to go hard for the table. At about turn 4, I make the hard judgement call on whether or not it's feasible to take the table at that point, and I adjust plans accordingly.

Always focused on the mission, although it can be fairly effective if you can get your opponent thinking you are going for the table with aggressive play, but leaving the important units in position to pick up the win from objectives.

I've only ever tabled an opponent incidentally. In a friendly game, it feels a bit too cut-throat. In a competitive game, there's just not enough time. I usually only need 3-4 turns to disable the enemy offense and get on objectives. The last few turns I can use to secure my position, make last-minute contest moves, etc. But usually the game has already been "won" at that point. If I were relying on tabling for a victory, I think I would need every available turn. If time gets called, if one stubborn unit refuses to die, then it might not matter how much of the opponent's army you've smashed. Against a less-than-honorable opponent, you're practically begging to get slow-played into a draw or loss.

My Daemons don't even acknowledge objectives exist but my Grey Knights are all about the mission. Depends on the army for me, I try to inject some character into each list not only with it's composition but the way I play it. I never push a victory or struggle against horrible defeat if it will lessen my opponents enjoyment of the game, but I will surely track down that last straggler running for his life with my bloodletters if my opponent is having fun.