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.

OK, this may look a bit strange in the "Introductions" forum, so maybe an explanation first, why I put it here.



So, here are my general theses, that I want to point out:

A) Yes, there is some font of "acknowledged wisdom". Some units and tactics will rarely show up in tournaments, and even rarer on the front places, for a number of different reasons:
-sometimes GW (or other game companies) just drop the ball, overprize a unit, drop the nerf hammer on something so hard, that it makes a unit unplayable, or just get tangled up in their own library of special rules, and publish a complete dud, that just never works, in no feasible scenario.
-sometimes the balance is off the other way. Some units and tactics are so OP, that they define the meta. Everyone that plays the faction competitively will include that gadget, and accordingly have less space in their list to include other stuff. More players will switch to that faction from other factions, just to be able to use the gadget, everyone that sticks with another faction needs to prepare to face that dertain gadget in a majority of games.

but there are also some less compelling reasons something is rarely seen in a tournament:
-tournament players will generally try to avoid building "high risk-high reward" plays right into their battle lists, unless they find a way to mitigate the risk. "Risk" includes the overall statistics of dice rolls, as they appear in the game rules, but also tactics, that will only work against a certain type of opponents, or tactics, that are hard to pull off, because they require a very specific positioning of a large number of models and a very strict sequence of activation, which makes them hard to pull off under the stress of a tournament, while reacting to a non-complying opponent's actions. The general term for that kind of high-risk tactic is "cheese" or "jank".
-tournament lists generally tend to be of a medium to larger size in terms of points available, according to rules set by the organizers. Some models/units/tricks work better in lists, that are below that size, as there are fewer options to counter them, or in lists above that size, as they take up a relatively smaller amount of available resources, thus mitigating their risk.
-in the end, the number of real top-of-the-line players is quite limited, and a lot of semi-competitive players will just try to mimick their tactics and builds. So, even the personal taste of a few individuals can shape the meta of a small group, like the fans of a particular boardgame.

B) If everything, that is allowed to be discussed in a tactical forum has to comply to that established wisdom, and every post, that dares to stray from orthodoxy is shot down with a snappy half-sentence remark, then there is no need for a tactical forum at all. Just post a link to the latest tournament-winning lists and be done with it! If you still keep losing with your web-decked lists, blame it on the dice or sell your minis in disgust!

The reason why such a thing as a tactical forum exists, is to discuss cheese and jank! If someone posts something, that appears un-orthodox to you, look at the context in which it was posted, before you drop your load of undigested wisdom from withering heights! Is the poster really not aware, that a different, option exists, to achieve their goal? Have they really just misunderstood some rules interactions, or misjudged the likely set-ups they will play against? Or might there be a valid reason, why they want to dicuss a different approach, than usual?

-Extremely small games tend to be stone-paper-scissors affairs, anyway, so being able to pull off one janky trick well might be worth it, even though it could be easily countered in a bigger, more balanced setting. Think about, what the actual counters would be, and if they are even likely to appear in a game of a given size, before you smack down the suggestion!

-"Competitive" choices will often be accompanied by a number of options, that are just slightly sub-par. Some units might be slightly more expensive than other units, but have a few minor advantages over the competition. Posts like "melee cultists are ba-a-ad", "just take xy instead, they are cheaper/better", "that model doesn't work", "fluffy, but not competitive" don't contribute to a discussion at all.
The decision between different options, that are very close to each other, comes down to deciding, whether those additional options, that you paid for, are likely to make a difference within a given scenario. If there is better synergy with what the army as a whole tries to do, the more expensive choice might be better, even so it would be less cost-efficient in a "general" sense. If other parts of the army more urgently need some buffs, the cheaper choice may be better, even if it performs considerably worse in most scenarios, compared to the usual choice. Same is true, if another part of the army is actually able to cover for the drawback.
The information, that that choice is "generally" worse is useless. What is needed is an insight, in which special cases the sub-par option would actually be better, how often or rarely these cases would realistically come up, or how many extra resources would be needed to make the sub-par choice actually better.

-If the army has unspent resources, anway, like only fielding 494 points in a 500 points game, nickle-and-dime-ing on every unit makes no sense at all. If it lacks interesting statagems, optimizing that detachment set-up to squeeze out another CP might be just throwing good resources after bad ones.

-If someone just tries to show the cheapest way to include a certain strategy in an army, answering with a flame post about how badly that one unit "generally" performs makes little sense, unless you provide a clearly better solution, to the problem, that is actually being discussed!

-Sometimes the main reason to include an unit into an army IS distraction. In that case taking the showy, high-risk option might actually make sense, even though it's unlikely to do any actual damage. That is not "uncompetitive", that's just a very specialized role, and may or may not be worth the invested ressources, depending on how much of their ressorces the opponent will have to invest into dealing with it. And "just ignoring it" is in reality often already an investment, if that means seizing a considerable area of the battlefield to you.

So, with that of my chest, let's try to return to some actually INTERESTING discussions in the tactical forums.

Very nice post, I very much agree with what you said.

Yeah, thanks. You are welcome to post a link to it, if that forum member grinds your gears.