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.

Kilkrazy:

It doesn't matter whether something can be argued, only if it can be argued rightly and to a conclusion.

Well it's my bedtime so I'm not going to argue it tonight.

Besides, there is room in the world for all kinds of rules. If they were all the same it would be boring.

Flanking in 40k can be done, and does have a use.

Remember how cover works now. If your unit if hidden behind a wall, if my firepower comes from the side of your unit, you don't get a cover save. I have just flanked you. Similarly, you no longer receive the Cover Bonus should I assault.

40k uses very different tactical choices to say, Fantasy. As I illustrated earlier in the thread,in Fantasy, nothing can be considered a non-threat. Everything has at least a chance of taking down anything, as long as you have the wit and wile to exploit the situation, or even better, engineer it.

But 40k...the majority of your tactics are down to the list writing. Being predominantly a game of objectives, you need to consider a) how you are going to hold them, b) how you are going to defend them and c) how you are going to take them. Thats 3 jobs no single unit can be relied upon to achieve on it's own. So what to do? Well, I would tend to organise my force into batallions of a sort, with each one being designed to take, hold and defend an objective. With Marines, Terminator Squads, whether shooty or HTH can both take and defend an objective. I might drop in a Predator armed with Lascannons to deter the Terminators natural predators, and probably have a unit of Scouts and a unit of Tactical Marines in support. The Scouts can not only aid in holding the objective (being Troops choices) but if given comlimentary weapons (Sniper rifles in this case I should imagine, with the intent there being to slow down enemy advances with opportune pinnings). The Tactical Marines, suitably equipped, can hold the objective as well as offering support to any other element of the Batallion. The Terminators really are there to flush out enemy units (any weapons can be used to achieve this) and then form a large deterrent to anyone thinking of attempting to reclaim it. Get two such Batallions into a single list, and you are in a strong position from the get go. Any remaining points would be spent on complimentary units to cover the last base of contesting enemy held Objectives should things go tits up. Bikes and Assault Marines are good here for various reasons. Armed with flamers, they can be used to drive enemies off objectives should the Terminators either be held up or even destroyed. I guess another way of putting the remaining points spent is as multiple redundancy contingency plans.

Am I not using tactics even at this stage? Looking for synergy and weaving it into my list is tactical *forethought*. Then, on the field of battle, the theory of the tactics is put into practice. Further tactics then come in from spotting potential threats to my plan, and eliminating them before they interfere too much, as well as attempting to spot my opponents strategy, and mucking it up for him where I can.

So, no Tactics in 40k huh?

Polonius wrote:Well, I know you asked us not to, but I think most players really do both. I mean, you sort of set of a false dichotomy between simple lists and riding a broken unit like a rented mule. If you look at some of the nastiest lists floating around, you'll see they are quite simple: find what's good, take as much of it as you can.

But that's still riding a power list in most cases.

As I interpret the call for "tactics", it would be to take a Fluff-bunny list. Using the most common SM list, that means to start with something like a demi-Company:

HQ = 1 Captain
Troops = 4+ full Tac squads w/ varied weapons & full (mostly-Rhino) Transport
Fast = 1 full Assault squad
Heavy = 1 full Devastator squad w/ Rhino/Razorback

Then, as points allow, add things like a Landspeeder, a Predator, etc. eschewing the highly-specialized units, much less en masse.

This is an approach that demands tactical play from a more-flexible force, rather than simply overwhelming the opponent with power list packed with Ordnance / assault / Deep Strikers / tricks.

That same rough layout with orks will give you a much more powerful layout though.

Perhaps, but the difference being that the above SM list is codified in Fluff as "standard" since 2E.

Power Lists incompetently used will still result in a loss.

HI all.
I think we can say that that 40k army composition has much greater influence on the game outcome than in other games.

Opposing players of equal ability , one with a competative list, and one with a fluffy but very poor cost effective slections.

We know who is more likely to win dont we....

If within a few weeks of a new codex release there is an annalasis of all units rating competative to poor, this surley shows how heavily influenced the game of 40k is by force composition?
And the players abiliy to determine the strongest and weakest choices .

TTFN
Lanrak.

Morale is a joke in 40k. Fearless is handed out like candy or there are units that allow for rerolls on leadership or simply high leadership troops.

40k is not really tactical because you can have a situation where all the tactics in the game mean nothing against the wrong matchup. (stealer shock vs mech skimmers, or tri-monolith)

That still happens in Fantasy though, even if it is to a lesser degree. For example, a Magic Heavy army going up against a Combat Heavy Army with lots of Magic Resistance is really going to struggle. The process of writing your list is a matter of willing sacrifices. You can't have your cake and eat it, or to quote Adeptus Titanicus 'The Arming of a Titan, by necessity, must always be a compromise'

Every army has it's Trumping opponent. nothing has all the bases covered. And that is when the wit and skill of the gamer comes into full force. Take the game I had last night. I was using Savage Orcs, he was using Dark Elves. Make no bones about it, I came very close to having my arse kicked. By the end of the 3rd turn, I was down to 3 Shamans, 10 Big'uns and 15 Boyz. I'd barely touched his force. And yet, end of turn 6, with a meagre 2 Boyz and a Shaman left, I had wiped him out utterly, bagging me an automatic Massacre. Despite being a low armour horde force, I turned out to be something he could not deal with, and all because I didn't have to take Panic tests. This allowed me to close the range against his predominantly shooting force, and give them what for in combat (seriously. Big'uns, reduced as they were to 9 models, won their combat against 25 Dark Elf Spears by a not inconsiderable 5 points.)

Stealer Shock works exceedinly well against some armies, and as you pointed out, tends to suffer against others, notably when they can be outpaced by a decent amount of Guns. Is this a flaw in the tactics? I'd say not at all. To take a heavily geared/themed list is a risk. The risk is of course, running into something you just can't handle.

Tri-Monoliths, for example, wouldn't do terribly well against Broadside Heavy Tau, would they? They risk going down far too quickly, and their inclusion has meant the exclusion of various other extremely useful units (Tomb Spyders to help keep things on their feet, and Heavy Destroyers, a reliable if expensive anti-armour unit). Not to mention the sheer amount of points sunk into them.

thehod wrote:Morale is a joke in 40k. Fearless is handed out like candy or there are units that allow for rerolls on leadership or simply high leadership troops.

40k is not really tactical because you can have a situation where all the tactics in the game mean nothing against the wrong matchup. (stealer shock vs mech skimmers, or tri-monolith)

Just remember that in close combat fearless is not a joke anymore. For every wound (more) you have to make a armor save.

40k is all about tactics. It starts with your army setup and how you play with it. If your in a wrong matchup, that means your army isnt flexible/all-round. If you choose an army with this "flaw" you can still think about tactics. You can ask yourself:

how can I get a draw/win with my stealershock against 3 monolith's? Maybe I will but everything in reserve and when the arrive the run like hell towards the loot counters!! once the are there I will go into hiding and maybe get a draw!

shogun is right, but something I can add is that the effectiveness of Fearless in close combat is now proportionate to the combat abilities of the models. A Fearless Deathwing Terminator is going to get more out of his Fearless than a Lesser Daemon!

40k is a tactical game but some people try to circumvent this with power lists. As has been stated the better players use both tactics and strong lists to win on a consistent basis. Someone who simply relies on their list will lose against a better player with a weaker list. To say there no tactics because of the rock paper scissors argument does not take into account balanced army lists.

G

This issue isn't as simple as the original post implies. It's more of a three headed animal than simply list or tactics (experience). I see it kind of like this:

Better tactics usually trump bad or worse tactics. Better tactics usually comes with experience with the list being played and experience against the players you play against. When entering a new gaming group, the group or new player may dominate initially, but eventually they will adjust with to each other and tendencies will show themselves. Once the tendencies are known, tactics can be developed and used. Eventually whoever is better at making in game adjustments (tactics) will be the winner assuming all else is equal.

Using a power list will result in more victories than using a rounded/fluffy list. The list that has the least amount of fat and gets the most bang for the points is obviously going to do better than one that takes trash units that are overpriced. Most power lists use maximize the broken rules/units while minimizing not as powerful units.

The third aspect that has been mentioned, but not really focused on is the bad match up wins. Certain army builds can be a win purely based on who they are playing. If I set my army up for playing against a horde army (flamers, templates), I'm going to worse against MEQs than if I set up for them (plasma, las). Some people set up their army for every match, including casuals in the LGS. Others use a preset list regardless of opponent. I've lost tournaments because of this where I have to go up against a guy who is purely set up for one type of army and it just happens to be mine.

You can be the best tactician in the world, but if your playing a fluffy list that is a bad match up, chances are your going to get beat. There are exceptions to this of course because some people are so bad that even with all the advantages they can still loose. I know I've won games because of the match up and power list issues (4th Ed Khorne vs 3rd BT). I've also lost matches because of power list and match up issues.

One other thing that plays heavily, though not as much since 5th, assuming I'm informed correctly, is who goes first. Going first used/is possibly the most important aspect of the game depending on the army builds.

40k is more list driven than tactics.

A good player can do well with a balanced list but if you take a bad list straight from a battle force, it may take all the tactics to get a draw.

thehod wrote:40k is more list driven than tactics.

A good player can do well with a balanced list but if you take a bad list straight from a battle force, it may take all the tactics to get a draw.

Well of course its all about your list/unit selection... thats the start of your tactical battle plan to begin with. We are not playing chess are we.

Lists of course are very important but even the best do not self play. Of course there are those over the top lists that seem to self play... they can still be beat even if they are balanced as well. You must also take into consideration terrain, any mission rules and also take advantage of your opponent's weaknesses/mistakes.

For example I beat hard as nails daemon bomb army back in 4th edition (old Chaos codex) with shooty SM by using the following tactics:

Setup all units in cover and behind difficult terrain so that I could hit first in close combat and hope some of the daemons did not reach assault the same turn they came in from reserve.

Place my army spread out with each unit more than six inches apart so the opponent could not consolidate into another after massacring another unit in close combat.

These two sets of tactics worked very well and I was able to use my shooting much better than my opponent was able to use his assaulting. It was a close game and the tactics made the difference in my favor.

G

G

Hi Green Blow Fly.

What you listed above is NOT tactics , but strategy.
Anything to do with force composition or deployment is STRATEGY.

Tactic are in game choices.(Eg what unit you use to attack what enemy , and if they stand off and shoot or close assault, etc.)

40k has strategic depth.But is tacticaly shallow.(Comparativley)

40k is a fun dice rolling game for ages 12 and up!
(A tacticaly rich wargame suitable for ballanced competative play is definatley is NOT!!)

Happy gaming .
TTFN Lanrak.

Of course, the strategic choices often determine the tactical choices to follow as the game unfolds...

thehod wrote:40k is more list driven than tactics.

A good player can do well with a balanced list but if you take a bad list straight from a battle force, it may take all the tactics to get a draw.

But define a good list.

Is it entirely comprised of nominally 'top tier' units? Is it a list desinged around a specific theme in the background? Or is it one charged entirely towards one aspect of warfare? Does it depend on your opponent? Or perhaps on the mission?

You simply cannot define a bad list, especially since Victory Points have now been removed from the equation.

In the context of this thread a good list is a list structured around units that have significant impact in the game.

Units like Lash Princes, Hammerheads, and hordes of Shoota and Rokkit Boyz.

As opposed to a list structured around units that are fluffy and fun and lack in-game impact.

A unit being "good" does not mean it can't be fluffy at the same time.

No, true. I was just giving as many examples I could have of list design theories.

But for example, Lash of Submission is only good *if* you have other units capable of capitalising on enemy units being drawn out of position. So, on it's own, it's merely useful, but with a bit of forethought, it becomes deadly (for example, drawing out the enemies harder units to be tied up fighting Spawn, leaving your own hard units to pick on the softer targets. After all, nobody likes a fair fight!)

strategy versus tactics... You could be right but I believe they are commonly bundled together... how you go about unravelling the two is where it gets very interesting in my opinion.

G

Lanrak wrote: What you listed above is NOT tactics , but strategy.
Anything to do with force composition or deployment is STRATEGY.

You pick a strategy when you make an army and deploy it. But after that its all about tactics isnt it? You dont now the outcome of the dice's and after every round you need to make tactical decissions. how can you say that 40k isnt tactical?

With my chaos army I played against a 190 models horde ork army. He had only one strategy.... RUN-CHARGE-KILL.
My strategy: I got a Lash army with vindicator template and 2 obliterators, plague marines, thousand sons, deepstriking combiplasma terminators and (greater) deamon(s). Iam tough and I lash units within vindicator range,thousand sons bolters and plaguemarines/terminators plasmaguns. Got cheap counterattack with deamons and a greater deamon.

Strategy/tactics: at the left flank the have to move over the mountains wich makes them slow. I will be waiting there with my plaguemarines to take the first charge. At that time my deamons will join the fight. At the right flank I will shoot with my vindicator at the closest unit and my two Lashers wil either Lash them to the back or closer to each other so I will get maximum template kills. My thousand sons stay in the middel and shoot as much with there bolters and try to stay out of CC.

I won because I had 6 killpoints and he had only 3.

I won because of great tactics, nothing else....

yeah... Basically Lanrat needs to buy a new dictionary... hurrr hurrr!

G

Hi guys.
I didnt say 40k didnt require any thought did I?

I simply pointed out that ACTUAL tactical choices in the game of 40k are some what limited.

A good knowlwedge of all the rules,USR and special rules and how to (ab)use them should NOT be confused with tactics.
And the strategic choices of what list you take and how you deploy, should NOT be confused with tactics.

Compared to other games I play 40k is very limited in ACTUAL tactics.
I enjoy playing 40k ,
But in responce to the OP , I wanted to say that lists (and deployment) have greater influence on the game outcome, than any of the limited tactical choices in a game of 40k.

As lists and deployment are strategic conciderations. I assumed that the OP wanted to do a direct comparison of effectivness of strategy vs tactics in the 40k game.

If he said 'can power lists be countered by good strategy, and in depth rules knowledge.'
Then I would say, YES!

But that was NOT asked was it?

Happy gaming ,
Lanrak.

actually there is a vast plethora of tactics in 40k. The master will appear when the student is ready... as they say young grasshopper.

G

With Strategy and Tactics, I make the following distinction.

My Strategy is how I intend to win. For example, in Fantasy against Undead, chin his General as quick as possible, whilst also trying to reduce his magical capabilities.

The Tactics are how I go about implementing my strategy, and are much more fluid.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:With Strategy and Tactics, I make the following distinction.

My Strategy is how I intend to win. For example, in Fantasy against Undead, chin his General as quick as possible, whilst also trying to reduce his magical capabilities.

The Tactics are how I go about implementing my strategy, and are much more fluid.

In my mind, the distinction is fairly simple. Strategy is the plan I formulate before I arrive at the table. It's the broad strokes of how I build and intend my list to function. Tactics are the choices I make to adjust that generic plan to the battlefield that changes each turn in reaction to (or anticipation of) my opponent's actions.

Some deployment choices are strategic. "I'll deploy my troop squads in Rhinos, and use my Rhinos to screen my heavier firepower." Other deployment choices are tactical. "If I deploy behind this cover, I'll be shielded from first-turn attacks without significantly hampering my first-turn movement" or "He dropped his heavy tanks on this side of the board, I need to deploy my anti-armor firepower and a unit to protect my anti-armor on this flank."

Pretty much the same thing. As I said, Tactics are mutable, and can be proactive as well as reactive. Strategies are not!