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.

Wow this turned into a FW legality type debate. This will have to be added to the list of topics not to bring up if you want to stay on track.

I understand what you guys are saying and I guess I took an overstatement as the statement message. Do we agree that 40K>checkers? Therefore some tactical discussion can be valid?

Back to topic I agree that the real tactical discussion happens in the battle report section while here we basically say X or Y is better or X beats Y target. If you want real tactical discussion then the OP will have a heavy burden to put forth and carry the discussion as there are so many factors in any tactical decision worth discussing. Pictures would also help a great deal, perhaps linking a battle report or two in to ask opinions or share a tactic you thought was good?

 ansacs wrote:
Back to topic I agree that the real tactical discussion happens in the battle report section while here we basically say X or Y is better or X beats Y target. If you want real tactical discussion then the OP will have a heavy burden to put forth and carry the discussion as there are so many factors in any tactical decision worth discussing. Pictures would also help a great deal, perhaps linking a battle report or two in to ask opinions or share a tactic you thought was good?

Those seem like good suggestions. But why does the Tactics forum even exist if the good tactical discussion is in Battle Reports and the listbuilding is in Army Lists?

Cause some times we just wanna ask is unit X better than unit Y.

Humblesteve wrote:

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
I get where you are coming from, especially with the gunline guard example. I do find that my guard follow more of the situation you described.... guard can only do one thing really... shoot.

Where I do disagree with this situation is when i am playing my BA. We cant assault well anymore... we get outshot easily. What we do have on our side is mobility, which leads to more thinking outside the box.

I guess any codex that is considered out of date and not cometative anymore will require more intelligent use from the player.

I'm not calling you out lion, but this is exactly the kind of thinking that sells the tactics of 40k short. Gunlines are a great example of tactics in 40k. Every decision that you make is one with tactics. In a gunline, do you line up at the 12''? Your initial volley will likely include more guns, but you will be closer later. Maybe at the 6''? You are sacrificing firepower for survivability late game. Tanks in front of men or men in front of tanks? Men in front is bubble wrap, tanks in front is partial cover. Do you sit heavy left to draw assaulters away from your right? You will give the right the freedom to move up in safety if they don't commit resources to it. Should you spread infantry out wide so the assault elements don't sweep through you in seconds? It will make it harder to kill all of your resources, but you may limit your ability to respond to threats with firepower.

THAT WAS JUST DEPLOYMENT. Every decision you don't see, you don't make. Every decision you don't make, your opponent has made for you. When we fail to see the tactics of the scenario, we fail to see the solutions.

I have played death guard on foot for nearly a decade. Same army, and yes I'm that cheap. Initially I thought running across the field was great, leaving my heavies behind. Then I thought keeping them in the backfield every time was just as wise. Now I keep everything clustered close and moving forward slowly so it's hard to engage without engaging the entire army. I change my deployment and my tactics to each of my opponents.

One final point please. List making is tactics. Choosing what resources to allocate to a battle is the same as knowing where to place and move them. It is every bit as important, but not more so that the use of those resources.

I've been playing since 95. All these things you have assumed I don't do are pretty much second nature at this point. Don't make assumptions. I was only stating that a gun line type army such as guard, without the ability to attack in hand to hand are delegated to having fewer serious options available to them. As opposed to an army like space wolves who can do a variety of styles.

Making gross generalizations from 2 sentences assumes a lot. I never actually stated "when i play gun line guard I just blindfold myself, deploy my minis and stop thinking."

 Kingsley wrote:
But target priority is itself contingent on many other factors, such as what units have line of sight to what other targets, whether or not you have First Blood and your opponent's chance of claiming it in their next turn if you don't. You also have to commit to a lot of this in the Movement phase prior to seeing the results of any shooting.

Sure, there are decisions to make. The problem is that those decisions come in two types:

1) Extremely situational decisions with little or no broad relevance. For example, you might have to decide between shooting your lascannons at a Land Raider with passengers that will need to roll a 7+ to successfully charge you or a Land Raider that has a 5+ cover save but the passengers will only need to roll a 6+. Whatever you end up deciding in that game it's not going to be much of a subject for discussion because it's going to be very rare that the same situation will happen again (for anyone) and it's not really worth thinking about and discussing in advance.

2) Subtle details that are less important than optimizing your list properly. Yes, those factors influencing target priority exist, but the total effect of them is much less than the effect of whether or not you brought enough anti-AV 14 units in your list. In my experience this is true for most tactical questions: I rarely, if ever, see any kind of tactical decision (by either player) that stands out as a truly brilliant move, and most games are decided by questions like "how well did I roll to kill their AA unit" and "did I bring enough melta" while both players pretty much autopilot their list according to the game plan they came up with in list construction.

So, given that the question was "why list-building over tactics" and not "does 40k ever involve tactical decisions", the answer is that list-building takes priority because it's the dominant factor and has the most relevance to the wide range of people participating in the discussion.

I dunno. I usually have 3-4 good or at least interesting options for any given threat. When you get right down to it, even basic tactical decisions don't seem to be fully understood by the community (such as "going second is better in the abstract"), while there's tons of information out there about list building. The way I see it, listbuilding should stay in the Army Lists forum, while actual tactics are in the Tactics forum.

That's probably because people insist on trying to find a single universal answer to going first or second instead of looking for an answer for each type of list. But that's a good example of the kind of non-list-building thread that is a relevant discussion, and why those threads exist and have interesting debates. If you want to see more discussion of tactics then you need to look for that kind of basic question as a starting point, not specific situations for a single list/player/opponent combination.

I think Peregrine has summed up the issues here very well. Actual pushing plastic tactics are very hard to discuss apriori. There are too many no brainers like, "Don't let DC charge you".

 Kingsley wrote:
For instance, let's say there's a Land Raider coming at me. I have many options, some of which are "soft" and some of which are "hard."

But that's just math. If the Land Raider is a priority threat you attack it with anti-tank weapons in descending order of effectiveness until it dies. That's just basic target priority and understanding the odds of success for your various units, not a complex tactical decision. And it's a situation where you probably already know the answer, since part of list construction was "how do I deal with AV 14" and all you need to do is apply the anti-tank weapons you brought.

No, it’s definitely not just math. In terms of evaluating one weapon’s chances of success vs. another’s, sure that’s math. But that’s not the only factor going into the decision. You also need to consider what other targets each of those weapons can be engaging, and whether that’s a better use for them. And where each unit needs to move to engage those targets, and the risks and rewards of moving to those locations.

Whether a given shot is the better option to take is more complex than just “which has the best odds to kill”; sometimes one option may be worth risking a lower percentage of success, because the potential reward is higher. I might have the option to fire my assault cannon at the Land Raider or at a few scoring IG who happen to be in the open this turn. The IG guys are clearly easier to kill, and may be important (perhaps they are a scoring unit in an advanced position) but depending on how important stopping the Land Raider is to the overall tactical situation, it may be worth taking the lower-percentage shot.

Depending on the situation, the Land Raider may or may not actually need to be stopped. This is a qualitative assessment more than a mathematical one. Maybe you can safely ignore it, due to there being enough objectives on the table that you can afford to let your opponent’s nasty unit inside the LR take or contest one, while you instead focus on killing his backfield scoring units and taking those objectives away from him. Whether the LR is important to kill or disable in any given turn depends on its current position and the overall board state. A Tau player may find a Land Raider a very worthwhile target on turn 1 before it goes anywhere, when a kill will strand the contents in their own deployment zone. He may find that if it survives to turn 2 or 3, once it’s advanced well up the board, that the value of shooting it is less because the contents are already in threat range. Maybe he needs to just accept the damage it’s going to do, retreat and/or cofferdam the assault (using blocking units, like Piranhas or Kroot), and focus his own killing resources elsewhere.

Sometimes a higher-percentage play also has a higher cost. For example, if I allocate a squad with several meltaguns to kill a Land Raider, I can reasonably expect that unless I’ve also got overwhelming firepower available to apply to the contents, the squad that gets out will probably kill my meltagun team. Now, whether that’s a worthwhile investment or not depends on the overall table situation, the real importance of the Land Raider, and the opportunity cost of using the unit that way, when it could be doing something else.

The above is mostly just talking about target priority decisions, and how they change based on board state and game turn. Those aren’t hard and fast if-then propositions. Different players may legitimately make different decisions based on their evaluation of the situation, their immediate plans for units and overall plans for the remainder of the game. These plans may need to be adjusted mid-game to adapt to unexpected circumstances, like a given unit dying more quickly than expected due to lucky dice, or contrariwise a given unit living longer than expected against the odds. As fortunate and unfortunate events occur regularly, being able to adjust to them is critical. A closely-related consideration is movement to maximize your ability to take advantage of these situations. If I position my units well, I can give myself a wider/longer decision tree, allowing myself to allocate additional resources to a target if needed, or to re-allocate those resources to a lower-priority target if I get lucky and disable the first one more quickly than expected. Smart movement allows us to minimize the negative impact of bad luck, and to maximize the benefits of good luck. Smart movement allows an army to win more consistently, to operate more efficiently, to inflict more damage and sustain less damage in return.

Movement is really the most important part of the game, unless one player is playing a static gunline army AND the table has too little terrain. If the latter two circumstances are present, then it’s more about dice and list matchup. But as multiple folks have already noted, movement is hard to discuss online. It requires diagrams and/or photos. Even discussing small, discrete tactical uses of movement (like Ben Mohlie’s old article series on Bell of Lost Souls) takes a fairly large amount of text. Describing the overall situation on a table in a way which illustrates why moving a given unit to a given location (and in a given formation) is advantageous requires even more. Detailed battle reports are thus very helpful, because when well written they explain the reasoning behind maneuvers, and all the additional data (pictures, lists, mission, history of preceding turns) gives context to those maneuvers, illustrating the situation and showing why said maneuver is good or bad. That assessment requires knowledge of the terrain on that specific table, the opposing army list and the specific position and status of its units, the distances between given terrain pieces and units, the mission, the turn, and sometimes metagame factors like time remaining in the tournament round, or how many battle points each competitor has and whether one can afford to aim for a narrow win or draw, or whether you need to try for a big win to vault up the tournament standings.

 Mannahnin wrote:
No, it’s definitely not just math. In terms of evaluating one weapon’s chances of success vs. another’s, sure that’s math. But that’s not the only factor going into the decision. You also need to consider what other targets each of those weapons can be engaging, and whether that’s a better use for them. And where each unit needs to move to engage those targets, and the risks and rewards of moving to those locations.

Again, yes, all of those factors exist. My point is that:

1) Most of the supposed "choices" can immediately be discarded in favor of a very short list of viable options. Yes, there is still a decision to be made, but we aren't talking about deep strategy here, just a basic understanding of the game.

2) Most of the viable choices have already been made in list construction. For example, if you took deep striking melta stormtroopers to deal with Land Raiders then you've made your decision before the game even began and all you're doing in-game is executing your preset plan.

3) Most of the remaining choices have little impact on the game compared to list construction decisions. Let's look at the example I just gave: LR #1 is in the open and its passengers will need to roll a 7 for charge distance next turn, while LR #2 is in 5+ cover and its passengers will need to roll a 6. Now we have a choice between an easier target that is slightly less of a threat (less likely to charge successfully), and a target that is a bigger threat but harder to kill. Do you take the easier shot and the highest chance of getting some benefit, or do you throw everything into stopping the must-kill greater threat? Now let's say that you're going to shoot some lascannons at either target, and making the correct decision is a 10% increase in their effectiveness. The important question now is does this matter? Should we spend time debating the merits of each choice, or should we spend that time optimizing our list and removing wasted points so that we bring 20% more lascannons?


The end result is that yes, you have target priority decisions, and sometimes they're even non-trivial. But it's way better to bring an optimized list and make the obvious "good enough" target priority decisions that only newbies fail to make than to always make perfect target priority decisions with a poorly-optimized list. All your debate over target priority choices is completely trivial compared to the question of whether you've brought the right anti-Land Raider units in the first place.

I can't Agree More with what Mannahnin just posted, your List is all and good, and its important for there to be a cohesive idea and target strategy to your army, but once your on the table EVERYTHING is tactics, or just about. Movement, Deployment, Target Priority, even challenges and denying challenges is very important. And a lot of your older gamers that have been playing 20+ years all say well its second nature, i have the experience to look and assess the situation and know what to do. WELL thats tactical thinking!!! your just happen to have hundreds of games under your belt and know in certain situations what to do and when. Just like Chess Grand Masters. Many, Many Grand Masters have said that after playing their first 100-250 games they started seeing patterns and similar variations on the same games. And they knew what worked before so they did it again. EXPERIENCE is always a factor. always. And what your do when the boots hit the ground is what 40k is about. because if your don't have a flexible mind or gameplan, your going to lose.

Bringing a good list with appropriate tools to respond to various threats is certainly a prerequite to being able to compete well against various lists, at least when they're fielded by competent players.

But no, most of the choices in the game aren't made during list construction, nor are in-game decisions generally eclipsed by more important decisions made when lists are made. This is why we see mediocre and inexperienced players with netlists lose consistently to very good and experienced players with idiosyncratic lists*. This happens at every big tournament. It's a consistent and observable trend.

(*Lists that are often denigrated by random folks on the internet, like we've seen with armies fielded by folks like Ben Mohlie, Alex Fennell, Alan Hernandez, Reece Robbins, etc.)

Lews Therin wrote:
Just like Chess Grand Masters. Many, Many Grand Masters have said that after playing their first 100-250 games they started seeing patterns and similar variations on the same games. And they knew what worked before so they did it again.

The difference is that chess requires hundreds of games to earn that understanding and start to play at a higher level. 40k has a much lower threshold for being a "veteran", and only the newest players are going to struggle to see the obvious correct answers in most cases. The most experienced players might have a small advantage, but it's going to be offset by the randomness of the dice and differences in list strength.

That is not my experience. I play a lot of folks in tournaments who have good lists, and who roll just as well as I do.

 Mannahnin wrote:
This is why we see mediocre and inexperienced players with netlists lose consistently to very good and experienced players with idiosyncratic lists*. This happens at every big tournament. It's a consistent and observable trend.

Sure, if you have an inexperienced netlister playing in a competitive environment against the top players. However, most of the time you don't have that kind of skill difference, and when people are still struggling with things like understanding why Vendettas are mandatory and Sentinels are garbage it's more important to focus on fixing their fatal list problems than to worry about small details of tactics.

And of course the other half of this is that if you have two top players, one with an optimized netlist and one with the weaker* list, the one with the optimized netlist should win on average. And the player with the weaker list would probably benefit more from replacing their weak list with a better one than from trying to find better tactics to use.


*Since the whole premise of the argument is that the netlist has more raw power, otherwise the inexperienced player's mistake isn't netlisting, it's choosing the wrong netlist.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
No, it’s definitely not just math. In terms of evaluating one weapon’s chances of success vs. another’s, sure that’s math. But that’s not the only factor going into the decision. You also need to consider what other targets each of those weapons can be engaging, and whether that’s a better use for them. And where each unit needs to move to engage those targets, and the risks and rewards of moving to those locations.

Again, yes, all of those factors exist. My point is that:

1) Most of the supposed "choices" can immediately be discarded in favor of a very short list of viable options. Yes, there is still a decision to be made, but we aren't talking about deep strategy here, just a basic understanding of the game.

2) Most of the viable choices have already been made in list construction. For example, if you took deep striking melta stormtroopers to deal with Land Raiders then you've made your decision before the game even began and all you're doing in-game is executing your preset plan.

3) Most of the remaining choices have little impact on the game compared to list construction decisions. Let's look at the example I just gave: LR #1 is in the open and its passengers will need to roll a 7 for charge distance next turn, while LR #2 is in 5+ cover and its passengers will need to roll a 6. Now we have a choice between an easier target that is slightly less of a threat (less likely to charge successfully), and a target that is a bigger threat but harder to kill. Do you take the easier shot and the highest chance of getting some benefit, or do you throw everything into stopping the must-kill greater threat? Now let's say that you're going to shoot some lascannons at either target, and making the correct decision is a 10% increase in their effectiveness. The important question now is does this matter? Should we spend time debating the merits of each choice, or should we spend that time optimizing our list and removing wasted points so that we bring 20% more lascannons?


The end result is that yes, you have target priority decisions, and sometimes they're even non-trivial. But it's way better to bring an optimized list and make the obvious "good enough" target priority decisions that only newbies fail to make than to always make perfect target priority decisions with a poorly-optimized list. All your debate over target priority choices is completely trivial compared to the question of whether you've brought the right anti-Land Raider units in the first place.

@ Peregrine

Your right about the stormtroopers, but thats a tactic. But let me put this possiblity up to your stormtrooper scenario : What if he baited you into using your stormtroopers before and while they put 3 glances on his LR he had "armour plating" or whatever it is that gives "no extra roll to meltas" ??? and now your stormtroopers are dead, his LR or LRs keep rolling right up to your (most likely if your playing IG) ADL and spew out all that Terminator goodness against 5+ squishy guardsmen??? Your tactics failed, and his worked. He didn't even have to play the numbers game. You fell into his trap play and your threw your troops in too soon???

and i know i'm putting this up in a vacuum but while having and optimized TAC list is great, there are many armies out there and a lot of ways to get burned. Take a touney format for example. you play can play 3-5 possibly even 6+ armies with your same loadout. You can't possible tell me that you think there are Lists that can go undefeated like that without using really great tactics, and thinking on the fly.

Now Peregrine i have never played against you so i don't know your lists or how you play your armies but do you string together 3+ or 5+ perfect games? where the dice go exactly on their average and the numbers stay just how you predict? because if they do then you Sir should quit 40k and go to VEGAS because clearly you have tapped into something amazing!

I'm just saying that most of my games don't go at all how i plan and i have to do some seriously creative thinking just to pull out draws, victories or just close defeats because of the Dice and or my opponent not going or doing what i planned on.

There are definitely some easy list fixes for many bad lists, and one or two fairly no-brainer choices for most codices; Vendettas are amazing, of course. That said, most books have a good range of units which serve important functions at reasonable cost, and just because (for example) Wraiths are effective, doesn't mean every Necron list needs them.

The truth is that most netlists aren't really better than a strong list with varied tools and synergies come up with by a good player. Most netlists basically come down to copy pasting a few "best of" units from a given codex over and over; but those lists wind up being predictable and sometimes more inflexible than anticipated. They're demonstrations that mathematics is not the only basis for a good list, as it's not so easy to quantify other factors, like movement speed and various special rules.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The truth is that most netlists aren't really better than a strong list with varied tools and synergies come up with by a good player. Most netlists basically come down to copy pasting a few "best of" units from a given codex over and over; but those lists wind up being predictable and sometimes more inflexible than anticipated. They're demonstrations that mathematics is not the only basis for a good list, as it's not so easy to quantify other factors, like movement speed and various special rules.

I never said that pure math was the only way of building a list, just that building a list is the most important part of winning. You're not providing any counter-argument here, you're just talking about different approaches to list building.

Lews Therin wrote:
Your right about the stormtroopers, but thats a tactic. But let me put this possiblity up to your stormtrooper scenario : What if he baited you into using your stormtroopers before and while they put 3 glances on his LR he had "armour plating" or whatever it is that gives "no extra roll to meltas" ??? and now your stormtroopers are dead, his LR or LRs keep rolling right up to your (most likely if your playing IG) ADL and spew out all that Terminator goodness against 5+ squishy guardsmen??? Your tactics failed, and his worked. He didn't even have to play the numbers game. You fell into his trap play and your threw your troops in too soon???

What's your point? Ignoring the issue of being unable to choose when a deep striking unit arrives (and therefore no ability to hold it back for later), all that means is that your dice failed. It doesn't mean there was some kind of brilliant tactical decision by your opponent ("move my LR forward and hope it doesn't die before it delivers the passengers" isn't a very deep strategy), or a bad one by you, just that you took a 70/30 coin flip and it landed the wrong way.

Now Peregrine i have never played against you so i don't know your lists or how you play your armies but do you string together 3+ or 5+ perfect games? where the dice go exactly on their average and the numbers stay just how you predict? because if they do then you Sir should quit 40k and go to VEGAS because clearly you have tapped into something amazing!

That's missing the fact that the metagame exists. Let's say flyerspam lists are popular in your area, so you bring lots of AA to counter them. In a four-round tournament you might win two games against flyerspam where the odds are stacked in your favor, one first-round game against a newbie with a battleforce list, and one game where you get luckier than your opponent at a critical moment. No, it won't work every tournament, but someone has to go undefeated and it doesn't take much luck for an average player with a powerful list to be that person.

I'm just saying that most of my games don't go at all how i plan and i have to do some seriously creative thinking just to pull out draws, victories or just close defeats because of the Dice and or my opponent not going or doing what i planned on.

And in my experience that rarely happens. When I win it's usually because I had a better list or better dice luck, when I lose it's usually because my opponent had a better list (or at least one that is strong against mine) or better dice luck. The "tactics" involved tend to be pretty straightforward and obvious, with very few cases of doing something incredibly creative to change the outcome of the game.

@ Peregrine

Wow.... i just don't know how to reply to some of what you say. I guess we just have very different view of 40k. Do you enjoy or have fun playing a game where after the first turn you know the outcome of the match? why wast the next 2-3 hours then? just shake hands and put your army back in its case....

The meta where i play is hardly ever static, and even the Flyers lists that are around, evolve pretty consistantly. Now i understand that, thats prob not the norm everywhere. But i would say that most people don't bring an army to a tourney that they tailored to their meta game. You bring an army your comfortable with and that you know inside and out and that you can use to counter whatever you find sitting across the table from you on the fly.

Where i play Hordes, Flyers and Helldrakes, and just plain Marines are all represented. So whenever we play, you kinda have to be prepared to face just about anything. And you have to have the tactics and the wherewithal to think on the fly and to pull out a win.

And you mentioned a powerful list ?!?! who deems a list powerful? last time i checked who was winning Tourneys across the USA it was a very varied list of Armies. So you saying and average player with this "Power Army" could beat out everyone and win a tourney just because of his list? now i know you plugged in the words "on average" but is this what your saying? Because i would totally 100% disagree. but then again i would like to know what you would consider an "average" player? because i think that has relevance to his chances to win.

And my last comment on your post would be do you play with terrain, and how big of a board do you use?
I know that i am asking a semi person question here, but it seems as if your games are really flat and stagnant. Because the way you present yourself and your ideas your games hardly ever change. Its just "X and Y and oh no he brought Z so i guess its a foregone loss...." at lest this is how i am reading what you are posting. Try using terrain. or play Cities of Death? idk, it just seems as if the games have little to no randomness in them. Again i am sorry that this is semi personal, but i just am trying to see the point of view you are coming from.

 Lews Therin wrote:
Wow.... i just don't know how to reply to some of what you say. I guess we just have very different view of 40k. Do you enjoy or have fun playing a game where after the first turn you know the outcome of the match? why wast the next 2-3 hours then? just shake hands and put your army back in its case....

40k is fun because of the awesome models, the background fiction, etc. If I want a game of deep strategy I'm going to play something else.

The meta where i play is hardly ever static, and even the Flyers lists that are around, evolve pretty consistantly.

That was just one example. The point is that you'll win some games because you made the right metagame choice, and win some other games because you're playing against poorly-optimized lists (the "casual" players who show up at tournaments for "fun" without any plan to win it), so you don't need to luck your way through 5+ games to win a tournament.

last time i checked who was winning Tourneys across the USA it was a very varied list of Armies.

There's variation, yes. But that's not the same thing as a list with Sentinels and penal legions winning just as frequently as lists with Vendettas and blob platoons. The "varied" tournament winners are a small and predictable subset of the whole range of potential lists.

So you saying and average player with this "Power Army" could beat out everyone and win a tourney just because of his list? now i know you plugged in the words "on average" but is this what your saying?

That's exactly what I said: a player with a powerful list can win tournaments without being a tactical genius.

And by "on average" I'm talking about the dice. Obviously it's possible for weird things to happen when one player rolls much better than the other, so we look at a long series of (theoretical) matches and see who wins more frequently.

And my last comment on your post would be do you play with terrain, and how big of a board do you use?

Standard 6'x4' table, approximately the standard 25% of the table for terrain.

Its just "X and Y and oh no he brought Z so i guess its a foregone loss...."

More like "I brought X and he brought Y, Y is a good counter to X so I have to hope the dice give me an opportunity to regain an advantage". And even if there aren't any brilliant decisions made during the game we still don't know for sure which of us has the list advantage, so the outcome is still in doubt and the game is worth playing.

@ Peregrine

I wasn't talking deep strategy at all, i guess i'm talking about enjoyment and fun playing the game. If i want to play deep strategy i'll play ADG: World in Flames (6th Ed). And i would never say rely on Luck its a fickle Lady, but tactics is not the same as luck. and Playing with sound tactics isn't knowing what the percentages are in every situation. It has to do with, as a bunch of us have said before: Movement, Deployment, Target Priority, and Where and when and who to assault, plus many other facets of the game where timing and precision is important.

And if, as you say the Tourny winners have a "small and predictable" list of armies then why not make a "Power List" (your term LOL) to combat them, and become the undesputed master of the 40k metaverse? is it because no matter what the List is "powerful" or not the Tactics on the board are important to winning the games. The powerful list ideal that you are putting forth i think is pure folly, its how you use the Army when the Die says Turn 1. And historically and currently i am proven correct in that Nobody has completely dominated the Tourney scene. Ever. I will say this tho, There are a number of players who consistantly win or come in top finishes, and this is because of their tactics and the flexibility of their minds and how they use their Armies.

 Lews Therin wrote:
It has to do with, as a bunch of us have said before: Movement, Deployment, Target Priority, and Where and when and who to assault, plus many other facets of the game where timing and precision is important.

And, like I already said, those questions are usually pretty straightforward ones. Remember, the subject of this thread is "more tactics, less listbuilding", not "40k has no tactics at all". My point is not that 40k never involves any decisions at all, it's that once you've figured out the basic obvious things the biggest factor in winning (and best place to improve) is optimizing your list better and therefore discussion of 'tactics' inevitably focuses on improving your list.

And if, as you say the Tourny winners have a "small and predictable" list of armies then why not make a "Power List" (your term LOL) to combat them, and become the undesputed master of the 40k metaverse?

Because if I'm going to invest that much time and money (building/painting, travel, etc) I'd rather spend it on playing MTG where the prizes are better. 40k is the game I play because I like the models and setting, keeping up with the tournament metagame for tiny prizes just isn't worth it.

@ Peregrine

Um i am aware of the the OP my winged friend. The only person here who is saying there are little to no tactics in 40k is you...

And while i agree having a List the you like and compliments your play style is important, what i don't think oyu are quite grasping is that its how you use it that matters the most. The tactics you employ on the board. And i believe that the OP was asking why nobody bothers to write Tactics on the "Army Tactics" page. Instead we list, Lists and debate how they will play. i don't have a problem with the Lists or with discussing Tactics, it just seems that there was a faction of thought saying that on board tactics are not important and what is, is if your list is deemed "powerful" by by certain peoples idea of the current meta.
So you are correct we have definately drifted from the OP topic, but i think that the discussion on "Lists and on board tactics" is a valid question and opinion.

Your last Comment has stunned me Peregrine,

"Because if I'm going to invest that much time and money (building/painting, travel, etc) I'd rather spend it on playing MTG where the prizes are better. 40k is the game I play because I like the models and setting, keeping up with the tournament metagame for tiny prizes just isn't worth it"

Because the way you have presented yourself and your ideas on this post your speaking about "Powerful Lists" which would be played at Tournements as I would hazard a guess, because when your playing at your FLGS its more about fun and just trying new things and combos out. So a "Power List" wouldn't be fun to play against or a challenge to yourself. so its a lose-lose match-up. Your not being challenged and your opponent is discouraged and put out by your "Power Lsit." So with my gray matter and deductive reasoning cap on i figure that you would of course be talking about a Tourney setting where a "Power List" would grant you wins uncountable. But now you are saying that 40k tourney's are not worth it. which is fine and dandy, that is of course a valid opinion. But then i would ask if you just play for the Gak and giggles of it (your words "I like the models and setting" ), why are you posting about "Power Lists" and then shooting down other Poster's ideas when you just said you don't keep "up with the tournament metagame for tiny prizes" ???

As you can see its slightly confusing.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because if I'm going to invest that much time and money (building/painting, travel, etc) I'd rather spend it on playing MTG where the prizes are better. 40k is the game I play because I like the models and setting, keeping up with the tournament metagame for tiny prizes just isn't worth it.

Just out of curiosity, what are the prizes like for M:TG?

DrunkPhilisoph wrote:
Just have a look at a chess tactics description, and how extensive they are. There are very few "standard" situations that crop up in Warhammer, and they are all pretty self explanatory (counter-charging, hitting rear armor)..

Discovered Attack, Pinning, Double Attack, Fork, Skewer.
Those are the standard chess tactics. You can describe them in a few paragraphs. Strategy is a different matter, you could talk for countless books on strategy.

You do see tactics discussed on this forum, not just army lists. While it may not be as common you do see it. These are some threads on tactics I've started in the past.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/482623.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/483493.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/447870.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/447806.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/429366.page
Many other people have made posts on tactics. If you want to discuss more tactics, start a post on it. While they are not as popular (mine usually fall off pretty darn fast) they are good to add to the conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 schadenfreude wrote:
It's easier to discuss if something is worth it's points than to explain maneuvering and deployment. The later is more difficult to teach and/or explain.

And most people are just not very interested. Most 'tactic' posts I make fall off the front page in a day. Posts about how "Abbadon taking your lunch money" or "beat this unit" stay up for weeks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Honestly, how many new decisions are you making each game? Are you really coming up with new tactics every time based on a changing situation or are you just following a set of "IF X THEN DO Y" rules that you learned long ago and use every single game?

Actually, I do. So should you.

I take pics of all my tourney games, and after each game I ponder "What could I have done differently?".
- What if instead of focusing my helldrake on those paladins, could I have used it to go after the rhino the acolytes were in?
- Starting with that GUO on the board did not work out so well against the GK player. Maybe next time Ill deep strike it near his objective.
- I saw a lot of deep striking melta yesterday. Maybe I should figure out a way to prevent people from doing that to my land raiders if I'm bringing a triple land raider list.
- Going 'derka derka' with my black mace DP only gets it shot down and hands my opponent a KP. Maybe I should move it up the sides?
Going over what you did wrong in each game makes you analyze your mistakes and not make them again. Perhaps you never make any mistakes. I know I do, and I'm always learning and improving my 'tactics' (and strategy)

 Lews Therin wrote:

Um i am aware of the the OP my winged friend. The only person here who is saying there are little to no tactics in 40k is you...

That's actually incorrect on multiple accounts - Peregrine is not saying 40k has no tactics, only that those tactics are very simple, and he is by far the only person from advocating this position, actually *read* the damn thread and that's tragically obvious. If the sentence preceding this one isn't immediately obvious to you you either haven't read the thread or aren't clever enough to add anything to the conversation, period.

Moving on, it's really easy to take something that is legitimately simple to smart people, and make it sound overcomplicated and hard (or "Tactical" in the case of this thread) Ex. -

I want to walk to the store and grab a soda, and Peregrine says that's actually pretty easy, but it's totally not! I have to consider tons of legitimately tactically difficult factors every time! Are my pants on? Are my shoes tied? Are they resurfacing the street? What if I can make it a few seconds quicker with different shoes on? What if those faster shoes are harder to lace up and wind up losing me time anyway? How cold is it outside? What if my raging agoraphobia kicks in halfway across the street? What time is it? Are the streets busy? Do I have exact change? Should I wipe the cheetos dust off this shirt before I go? Do I have a car? Does it have gas? Should I take my car instead? Do I actually live within walking distance of a store that sells soda? Is it the kind of soda I want?

This is all that most of the people in here are doing. Shooting a land raider is not the agonizing warfare-textbook spawning crisis of the century. Nobody here has presented an actual example of legitimately brilliant or skilled tactics; it's just been alot of "Well I COULD charge those fire warriors, but what about overwatch? Do I have enough swords? Are they on an objective? Will it take me away from an objective? Will I kill them? Should I shoot them instead?" kind of obfuscation that's pretending it's real complicated tactics but it's not remotely close, it's just things a decent player factors out in half a second before picking the correct unit to charge with. Find someone who claims to be an expert in a given field that actually doesn't know very much about it, and ask them to explain a difficult concept from said field to you, and you'll get an answer just like the stuff you're seeing in this thread - alot of what if? that doesn't actually matter and no real concrete examples or concise explanations.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

 Lews Therin wrote:

Um i am aware of the the OP my winged friend. The only person here who is saying there are little to no tactics in 40k is you...

That's actually incorrect on multiple accounts - Peregrine is not saying 40k has no tactics, only that those tactics are very simple, and he is by far the only person from advocating this position, actually *read* the damn thread and that's tragically obvious. If the sentence preceding this one isn't immediately obvious to you you either haven't read the thread or aren't clever enough to add anything to the conversation, period.

Moving on, it's really easy to take something that is legitimately simple to smart people, and make it sound overcomplicated and hard (or "Tactical" in the case of this thread) Ex. -

I want to walk to the store and grab a soda, and Peregrine says that's actually pretty easy, but it's totally not! I have to consider tons of legitimately tactically difficult factors every time! Are my pants on? Are my shoes tied? Are they resurfacing the street? What if I can make it a few seconds quicker with different shoes on? What if those faster shoes are harder to lace up and wind up losing me time anyway? How cold is it outside? What if my raging agoraphobia kicks in halfway across the street? What time is it? Are the streets busy? Do I have exact change? Should I wipe the cheetos dust off this shirt before I go? Do I have a car? Does it have gas? Should I take my car instead? Do I actually live within walking distance of a store that sells soda? Is it the kind of soda I want?

This is all that most of the people in here are doing. Shooting a land raider is not the agonizing warfare-textbook spawning crisis of the century. Nobody here has presented an actual example of legitimately brilliant or skilled tactics; it's just been alot of "Well I COULD charge those fire warriors, but what about overwatch? Do I have enough swords? Are they on an objective? Will it take me away from an objective? Will I kill them? Should I shoot them instead?" kind of obfuscation that's pretending it's real complicated tactics but it's not remotely close, it's just things a decent player factors out in half a second before picking the correct unit to charge with. Find someone who claims to be an expert in a given field that actually doesn't know very much about it, and ask them to explain a difficult concept from said field to you, and you'll get an answer just like the stuff you're seeing in this thread - alot of what if? that doesn't actually matter and no real concrete examples or concise explanations.

That's because tactics are never brilliant or innovative past the original use. For example, the ambush has not changed much from the days of bows and arrows to the IED. Tactics, even in the real world, are first and foremost about risk management. Where do you accept risk in a given situation and where do you not? Part of this is done in 40K during list building (i.e. I except to see alot of flyers, so I better include a storm talon to go with the ADL) and part of it is done with in game decisions (i.e. its turn 4, do I push my landraider onto the objective now and inside the threat range of his multimelta attack bikes (the risk being that I don't kill them and they can get 2d6 penetration shots on the LR) or do I wait a turn and see how my shooting goes, knowing he could move those bikes forward to block my route to the objective and force me to tankshock into them on turn five if I don't kill them this turn?). You will also find that tactics are harder to discuss because the application of tactics is more art than science. The underlying question of 40K tactics is: "Given the variables of terrain, deployment type, primary and secondary objectives, and my opponent's army list, how do I best set myself up for a win?" The underlying assumption is that as the game progresses, the randomness of the dice rolls will change the situation as both your and your opponents army suffer various degrees of damage. The stronger players can adjust their plan to the new situation and continue to play for the win. The weaker players generally continue to fight their base plan, even if it isn't viable anymore.

MikeMcSomething wrote:
[
That's actually incorrect on multiple accounts - Peregrine is not saying 40k has no tactics, only that those tactics are very simple, and he is by far the only person from advocating this position, actually *read* the damn thread and that's tragically obvious. If the sentence preceding this one isn't immediately obvious to you you either haven't read the thread or aren't clever enough to add anything to the conversation, period.

Moving on, it's really easy to take something that is legitimately simple to smart people, and make it sound overcomplicated and hard (or "Tactical" in the case of this thread) Ex. -

I want to walk to the store and grab a soda, and Peregrine says that's actually pretty easy, but it's totally not! I have to consider tons of legitimately tactically difficult factors every time! Are my pants on? Are my shoes tied? Are they resurfacing the street? What if I can make it a few seconds quicker with different shoes on? What if those faster shoes are harder to lace up and wind up losing me time anyway? How cold is it outside? What if my raging agoraphobia kicks in halfway across the street? What time is it? Are the streets busy? Do I have exact change? Should I wipe the cheetos dust off this shirt before I go? Do I have a car? Does it have gas? Should I take my car instead? Do I actually live within walking distance of a store that sells soda? Is it the kind of soda I want?

This is all that most of the people in here are doing. Shooting a land raider is not the agonizing warfare-textbook spawning crisis of the century. Nobody here has presented an actual example of legitimately brilliant or skilled tactics; it's just been alot of "Well I COULD charge those fire warriors, but what about overwatch? Do I have enough swords? Are they on an objective? Will it take me away from an objective? Will I kill them? Should I shoot them instead?" kind of obfuscation that's pretending it's real complicated tactics but it's not remotely close, it's just things a decent player factors out in half a second before picking the correct unit to charge with. Find someone who claims to be an expert in a given field that actually doesn't know very much about it, and ask them to explain a difficult concept from said field to you, and you'll get an answer just like the stuff you're seeing in this thread - alot of what if? that doesn't actually matter and no real concrete examples or concise explanations.

I think it's obvious that list building is a key part of the 40k experience. If you didn't bring the right tools, you're not going to get the job done. The stormtroopers with melta guns are there to shoot tanks.

Just as it is annoying when people ask "I have an ork battleforce, how do I effectively fight Cron Air?", it is equally annoying when every question is answered with "Just get saber platforms, vendettas and vultures". Both of these are pointless.

I think the original post was suggesting that perhaps we can actually illustrate a situation we encountered during a game and then have a discussion about what would have been the best course of action. Often times after you make a mistake during the game you will know it immediately, but it's not always clear if the course of action you chose was the best one.

Infinite terrain creates infinite possibilities for play. Tactics are required both to MITIGATE terrains effect on you AND to maximize its effect on the enemy. Angles matter.

Tactical generals plan a couple moves ahead, knowing if they move a certain way, even if its closer to an enemy, if it puts more terrain between you, you're actually LENGTHENING the time the enemy may take to get to you. Just ONE extra round of fire into an enemy thats been lured by the promise of the death of your Fire Warriors may be the fatal momnt for the enemy.

This calculated risk is an example of tactics. A normal person who hears the question: "should you get closer to enemies that charge" would likely never say yes. The tactician says "yes...when X is true and you want to feint someone into a bad situation; and are wiling to pay the cost if the enemy gets a little lucky". RISK analysis is tactics and good Generals are really good at it.

Another thing that is tactical about 40K is deployment. Here again, you're doing two things: mitigating terrrains effects on you and inflicting it on the enemy to the extent possible. The use of reserves is a balancing act between the need to kill, the timing within the game and again risk analysis: Can I afford the absence of these units, and if so, how long. Plus if it happens thatr they come out on turn 4, do I still win?

Anyways, just some thoughts. I think tactics, but more importantly strategy, matter. It shows in every game against a noob. That noob may know my codex up one side and down the other, but can he anticipate ME?

Nothing as fun as baiting some DC or or expensive CC unit into a charge that will leave them in a shooting gallery.

Jancoran , PanzerLeader and Labmouse42 are both 100% right, overall army strategy and "on Board Tactics" are extremely important and while they will most likely change from game to game, those tactics you Learn will help you win more games and become more flexible with your army and with obscure units that your opponent isn't use to playing against.

@ mikey mc-whatever

Did you add anything even romotely constructive with your post? or just prove that you can successfully buy soda? What our winged friend Falco Peregrinus is saying is that List Building is the most important part of the game. And that if your have built a "power List" then you should, if the dice stay "Average," win.

So while i respectfully disagree with Peregrine, I believe that on board tactics with your army is very important and integral part of the game, he and I can at least dialogue about our views. You Sir come off antagonistic and rude, plus offering no view of your own. Your Post saying, "you'll get an answer just like the stuff you're seeing in this thread - alot of what if? that doesn't actually matter and no real concrete examples or concise explanations." is very incorrect, a couple of people have posted links to tactical sites and threads, perhaps it is you who hasn't "*read* the damn thread" again quoting your very eloquent post. So i want to say sorry for being a little personal in my reply but your brutish remarks have piqued my intrest and i felt compelled to answer in kind.

MadmanMSU wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what are the prizes like for M:TG?

Anywhere from $50-100 in cards for a weekly FLGS tournament to $40,000 cash for first place at a pro tour event.

PanzerLeader wrote:
That's because tactics are never brilliant or innovative past the original use.

Of course they are. MTG, especially limited formats, has MUCH greater depth of strategy/tactics than 40k. You actually have to anticipate your opponent's plans (and, unlike in 40k, do so without complete information about what they can do), bluff/counter-bluff, improvise solutions with limited resources, etc. Even if you're re-using elements of things you've done before interesting choices happen much more frequently, and a lot more games are decided by out-playing the other person rather than just bringing a better deck and/or getting better luck.

 Lews Therin wrote:
And while i agree having a List the you like and compliments your play style is important, what i don't think oyu are quite grasping is that its how you use it that matters the most.

You're missing the point here. How you use your list is important. However, those decisions are usually either incredibly obvious and not interesting enough to talk about or so specific to one situation that nobody else finds them relevant. Once you reach a (fairly low) skill threshold the most important thing you can do to win more frequently is to improve your list.

But then i would ask if you just play for the Gak and giggles of it (your words "I like the models and setting" ), why are you posting about "Power Lists" and then shooting down other Poster's ideas when you just said you don't keep "up with the tournament metagame for tiny prizes" ???

Because this is the tactics forum where the goal is to figure out the best way to win the game. If I want to discuss whether I'd prefer to paint a Medusa or Thunderbolt next I'll go to the painting forum (or just decide based on my own opinion at the time).

 Lews Therin wrote:
Did you add anything even romotely constructive with your post? or just prove that you can successfully buy soda?

You're missing the point of the analogy. The soda purchase has tons of trivial "decisions" that aren't worth talking about, just like an average 40k game has tons of trivial "decisions" that aren't worth talking about. What certain people in this thread have done is elevate these trivial "decisions" to the level of actual tactical choices that are worth discussing in detail.

What our winged friend Falco Peregrinus is saying is that List Building is the most important part of the game. And that if your have built a "power List" then you should, if the dice stay "Average," win.

No, that is NOT what I said. I said that given roughly equal skill it should work that way, I'm not saying that a clueless newbie with a netlist will beat a veteran with a weaker list. The point I'm making, however, is that the threshold of getting roughly equal skill is not a very high one.