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.

TACTICS?!? LAWL! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! LOL! LOL! LOL!
*wipes tear of mirth from eye*
...heh heh, no. Tactics...heh, who DOES that?

I think sadly I would have to agree with the above statement that in 40K the lack of tactics can be quite frustrating, bearing in mind it is supposed to be a game for example if you were to consider chess and then compare 40k it just seems to be about getting the first turn with a list that is bearded out with cheese.

Except that often you see more competitve/higher calibre players intentionally taking second turn, due to the tactical advantages in last-turn objective taking or denial....

In 40k there is certainly room for EXTREME tactics. Such as infiltrating or deepstriking your entire army to keep your opponent on his toes. (In chess I guess this would be akin to throwing up the chess board and bashing your opponent around the head with your chair)

If 40k requires no tactical ability, then you should totally go and win R3 'Ard Boyz for that awesome prize support.

No, Srsly.

That raffle tournament is probly the best idea for a tournament I've seen on here in a while.


That said Tactics are just well playing the game ?? I think the definition of tactics doesn't fit 40k that well, I think that saying 40k has a general strategy to it is true. You want to do things in a certain way to maximize benefit. If you want to say Tactics is a use of Strategy go ahead.


There is also what is called the ""meta"" game which I hate the term. Basically its just thinking in terms outside of normal game playing terms and assuming a strategy that benefits you the most with considering it.

Honestly if you want the game to be about "tactics (tabletop-play)," not "strategy (list-building/tweaking/what you want your army to do.) then the only way to do this would be to have players NOT bring their own armies.

Instead have GW create scenarios with pre-created armies (tweaked to be "balanced," as in... some close combat, some shooty, some fast... etc. both sides would run the EXACT same army.) Only in this case would you be able to really focus on 'tactics' and drop "strategy."

Kouzuki wrote:Honestly if you want the game to be about "tactics (tabletop-play)," not "strategy (list-building/tweaking/what you want your army to do.) then the only way to do this would be to have players NOT bring their own armies.

Instead have GW create scenarios with pre-created armies (tweaked to be "balanced," as in... some close combat, some shooty, some fast... etc. both sides would run the EXACT same army.) Only in this case would you be able to really focus on 'tactics' and drop "strategy."

I disagree. I think this approach would favor the whims of dice rolling. Tactics begins at the army building phase. If I don't bring an army that can accomplish the goals, then it is more likely to fail. The goals are in game objectives as well as defending yourself against other possible army types out there. If armies are the same, then going first will really be a big help to who wins. If the armies are different, then I can make an army which excels on going second or an army that excels at going first. I can make an army that tries to out assault or an army that tries to outshoot or an army that tries to do both. The variables increase, when armies are different, and tactics and strategy can change after each shooting phase or assault phase.

Army picking is strategy. You choose a strategy such as slow assault, mobile shooting or cheap horde. This dictates your choice of units and to some extent how you will play. It doesn't dictate your on-table choices about deployment, targetting and so on -- that's all tactics.

Well if my armylist building makes my army weak againt a certain weapon, then during the game I will try to eliminate that weapon from my enemy. Isn't that list building leading into tactics? I pecifically recall 3rd edition Eldar all StarCannon armies that might field one brightlance. I remember my chaos army would provide an armor 13 front and try to eliminate the 1-2 brightlances asap. Didn't my army picking lead directly into my tabletop tactic against this type of enemy?

My list building will help determine my deployment against certain enemies, it will help determine what I need to target in the enemy army to improve my chances to win and it will help determine how I can best accomplish a mission objective.

@Darth: You could do that, but then they're front and center, and my Wraithlords would simply wreck you. Plus, I got Dark Reapers with fast EMLs as Troops.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Darth: You could do that, but then they're front and center, and my Wraithlords would simply wreck you. Plus, I got Dark Reapers with fast EMLs as Troops.

HAHA! See! Tactics!

Granted, sometimes it can feel like your opponent is just throwing an almighty list of power at you, but that's not always all there is to it. (Of course I did hear a story about someone who always showed up to tournoments at his FLGS about 30 minutes late, that was a tactic, so he could A) get a By and come in on the next round, and B) so he could see what kind of stuff everyone else brought, because if you know what your oponent is doing, and then build a list to counter them right there, you can and will beat them. The store organizer eventually started telling him "Ok, I'll let you come in as a By, but you have to sit the first round out, over in that room."

That's an example of true tactics...although I'm pretty sure that's not possible in Warhammer games)

Well, he was talking about 3E Eldar armies loaded with all Starcannon and one BL, and that's what I fielded back in the day:



In all of my years fielding Eldar, I never once lost to Marines in a 1 on 1 match.

Now granted, I fielded one hell of a tuned, powerhouse army, but the point still stands.
____

Ed: linky example

unite all action wrote:I think sadly I would have to agree with the above statement that in 40K the lack of tactics can be quite frustrating, bearing in mind it is supposed to be a game for example if you were to consider chess and then compare 40k it just seems to be about getting the first turn with a list that is bearded out with cheese.

I believe the correct response to this is, 'Learn to play.'

Indeed, learning to play is the sensible thing to do . . . tonight I saw someone playing 3 Obliterators . . . in one squad . . . That is definitely not the way to play them. So I had a quick talk about Obliterator tactics and hopefully they will learn =]

3 Oblits is most certainly the way to play.

Of course, you're supposed to have six more Oblits.

I think the point is if you have three oblits, and aren't maxed out on heavy slots you should have them in seperate units so that you can split fire, and not lose more than one to a single set of shooting.

Wannabe Writer wrote:Are tactics really used at tournaments?

People make army lists, so, yes.



Ghidorah

unite all action wrote:40k it just seems to be about getting the first turn with a list that is bearded out with cheese.

Cheese is an imaginary construct created by people in order to 'explain away' their own shortcomings.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Cheese is an imaginary construct created by people in order to 'explain away' their own shortcomings.

That's Australian for L2P.

Or you could just use mathhammer to take all the fun out of the game.Seriously though when someone starts quoting statistics to me and I am dumb not to max this weapon or bring this squad I do wonder if tactics have taken a backseat.

Part of optimization is to trim out unneeded elements until all you're left with is a rock hard and fundamentally sound core army.

In an army with Vulkan, for example, there's really no reason to upgrade to Assault Cannon Razorbacks.

Math is an important aspect of a game with such a predictable spread of results, and good players understand and incorporate the "averages" into their list. In my experience, it's actually one of the primary elements that sets good players apart from newer/worse players; the understanding that Terminators do die to bolters and that Death or Glory with melta bombs really doesn't work very well.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

unite all action wrote:40k it just seems to be about getting the first turn with a list that is bearded out with cheese.

Cheese is an imaginary construct created by people in order to 'explain away' their own shortcomings.

The cheese is in your mind, maaan!


"You mean I didn't need the magical tape measure this whole time? It was all me?"

"That's right, son. You done good."

"And the magic tap dancing shoes?"

"Those were just so I could laugh at you."

Octavius Widowmaker wrote:Or you could just use mathhammer to take all the fun out of the game.Seriously though when someone starts quoting statistics to me and I am dumb not to max this weapon or bring this squad I do wonder if tactics have taken a backseat.

What a remarkably silly thing to say.

All Mathhammer can do for you is show you what is probably going to happen, not what will happen. Tactics are what happens on the ground, and no matter how tweaked and tuned your list is if you don't know what you're doing you're still going to get wasted. Mathhammer can be part of how you formulate your strategy, but it won't change what tactics you use during the game.

And, at the end of the day, not all units are created equal - some just suck. Some are also more effective in the current ruleset than others - meltaguns for instance are going through a renaissance right now and, yes, if you were playing an army that had access to them, you would be stupid not to bring them.

Running a great list isn't like running a macro on a computer. You can't just press 'go' and the rest takes care of itself. However a badly made list, just like a badly written macro, won't run properly at all.

So basically you're saying cheese is like cake . . . it's a lie . . . for all those Portal players out there =p

No. Its a constructed reality, like the Matrix.

Aaaah . . . now that's an analogy more people can relate to seeing as not that many people have played all of Portal

Wannabe Writer wrote:
Are tactics really used at tournaments?

Cooler under the table with ice and beer tends to work well for soft scores...

I hold a bunch of GT level best general, best overall, 2nd best overall etc.

At the big events you run into a lot of the same guys year after year on in the last round of the tournaments. There is a reason for that...

Winning the big event generally requires an awesome looking army, the ability to pull strong comp and sports scores with a hard army, playing flawlessly, and a little luck.

Playing flawlessly requires tactics. I usually win when I see opponents make tactical errors. You can often beat a list with the right tactics after seeing your opponent deploy.

I wrote this tactics article for 4th ed. It needs to be updated but the concepts are the ground work required to become a good general.

http://warmongers.ziggyqubert.com/tiki-index.php?page=Peter%20DeFlorio%27s%204th%20Edition%20Tactica&structure=Library&PHPSESSID=0032856d0a6db2f510dbb6064be30634

I totally agree that tactics are a vital part of tournament gaming today, for the same reason a lot of people have said, a list is only as good as the person using it.

If you write an uber list of death, you still need to know realistically how to use each individual part of that list to best counter whoever you come up against as and when, every army you see will require a different plan of attack.

Btw, who can tell I play Eldar (no army works each individual unit into a harmony quite like them)