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.

I really am not qualified enough to speak about MTG because i have only played a handful of time and personally didn't find it that appealing or interesting. kinda like Pokemon when i was in Elementary School.

@ Peregrine

"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)."

Yes this is a Tactics Forum where people discuss Tactics if your want to discuss List Building Lo' and Behold !!! there is a List Building Forum as well LOL

But i digress, it is easier to just throw up a List on the Tactica Forum and then say why you are taking it. Discribing what you envision your units doing. Whether its Melta Stormtroopers tank popping, or a Deathstar of Paladins wrecking face. I get that. But you are changing what we have all been discussing here. You have postulated that 40k has a very low threshold for Tactics and that after gaining a littler experience most if not all decisions are easy to see and counter. So all that is left to differentiate between two players is their Army Lists. And if one player has a "Power List" he will win if the Dice stay average. What i disagree with you is the way you brush off in Game tactics and decisions as no-brainers. I have said and will keep on saying that there is a fairly high degree of Tactical Decisions that could and should be made during a game no matter the List make-up. If you have a "Power List" and fail to make Accurate and or Tactically appropriate decisions you will lose. Especially if you are playing in a competative setting where the lists make-up is "small and predictable" then it comes down to IN GAME TACTICS and your ability to have an OPEN and FLEXIBLE MINDwhile playing said army.

You're ignoring the fact that the "List Building Forum" forum is for complete army lists. It doesn't deal with issues pertaining to individual units, how to build an army around them, or how to mitigate their influence in an opponent's army.

If I want to have a discussion on the merits of Chaos Bikers relative to Chaos Spawn, the appropriate place for that conversation is the tactics forum. Not the Army Lists forum. But ultimately, these conversations amount to "listbuilding." And they are just as much a tactical issue as anything that happens once the models hit the table.

 Lews Therin wrote:
Yes this is a Tactics Forum where people discuss Tactics if your want to discuss List Building Lo' and Behold !!! there is a List Building Forum as well LOL

Corollax beat me to it. The list building forum is where people post complete specific lists to get feedback, and usually get ignored. The tactics forum is for general principles about how to win the game, including how to build the best list.

What i disagree with you is the way you brush off in Game tactics and decisions as no-brainers.

And you keep ignoring the other set of decisions that I've mentioned several times: the ones that are too situational to discuss. Beyond the obvious decisions there are subtle choices to make, but those choices are usually specific to an exact situation and have little relevance to a broad audience. Nobody reading the thread is going to have experience with that exact situation to contribute, and the OP will never be in the exact situation again to benefit from the discussion. So even when these choices are occasionally more important than list-building ones there's still very little room for discussion. That time and effort would be far better spent on making a better list, especially since most of the people looking for advice here seem to be struggling with basic list-building concepts.

And in fact, there aren't many actual tactics I've picked up in the last few months. Sure, there's general strategies that everyone learns when they start playing. "Shoot the Choppy, Chop the Shooty." But these are broad generalizations that become subconscious over time. An experienced general will be executing these strategies on autopilot -- because if they're not capable of doing so, they're going to miss something more important.

Here's an example of something that I consider an exception to the rule. The CSM codex allows their HQ units to purchase mounts for their lords to ride on. Often, these lords will be escorted by a squad of Bikers. This keeps an enemy from just lobbing lascannons at their warlord, since they can just roll a 2+ to allocate the wound onto a cheap model with a cover save.

If an opponent chooses to mix these units, I can single out their cavalry units with focused fire. Barrage fire can snipe characters to some extent, but this works even I scatter off of my intended target. If I'm shooting S10 blasts, this is an excellent way to inflict instant death. And while the opponent can use LoS to allocate the wound elsewhere, it's easier to make the target roll a 1 with this than the more general tactic of barrage sniping.

Wow way to ignore anything that was being said before and jumping on the "Army Lists Forum" versus "Tactica Forum" and what they are used for. okay. Thank You for letting me know what the different forums are for.

And while i have never said anything about the "Tactica Forum" having mainly discussions relating to different List builds and what units are the best per-Codex. Because like the OP and others have said, it is very hard to discuss tactics without pictures or diagrams showing where the units were and what was going on. What we were discussing was that "Tactics" are of little to no value because everyone can grasp them and that Power List Building is paramount to success. And i objected stating that in game, on board decisions were every bit as important as a properly made list and that you can gain experience and ideas with every game. Hence comingup with strategies and tactics to use in game.

@ Corollax

Thats a great tactic! Great for IG palying with artillery !!

Lews Therin, question for you: you haven't played MTG, but have you played any other competitive games? Warmachine, chess, etc? Or does your entire competitive gaming experience consist of 40k?

I agree with with the OP. I have been wargaming for years and I have come to the conclusion that it is not about what you bring, its about how you use it. I myself LOVE all the tyranid fluff, The Parasite of Mortrex, Harpies, Ripper swarms, Lictors, in tournies or at local GW stores everyone just rips them a new one and says they are bad units. But I have used them wisely and they have pulled their fair share of points and even won games.

 HiveFleetKerrigan wrote:
I agree with with the OP. I have been wargaming for years and I have come to the conclusion that it is not about what you bring, its about how you use it. I myself LOVE all the tyranid fluff, The Parasite of Mortrex, Harpies, Ripper swarms, Lictors, in tournies or at local GW stores everyone just rips them a new one and says they are bad units. But I have used them wisely and they have pulled their fair share of points and even won games.

This is a common mistake, and one reason why understanding list building dominates the discussion. ANY unit can win games, if you play enough games. As long as you're taking actions and rolling dice you might happen to do well enough with a given unit to win a game, especially if your opponent is playing with equally weak units/rolling poorly/etc. So the question is not "can unit X win a game", it's "will using unit X allow me to win MORE games than using unit Y". Until people figure this out and stop talking about how good a unit is based on anecdotes of it occasionally winning a game the most important goal of strategy discussion is going to be getting the bad units out of lists.

@ Peregrine

OMFrakinG really ?!?!

Everything you have just said goes again your previous posts that "Power Lists" rule and that its the Units and if they are the Elite or Best Choices to bring?!?! and now you are saying "ANY unit can win games, if you play enough games." and "As long as you're taking actions and rolling dice you might happen to do well enough with a given unit to win a game" and also "So the question is not 'can unit X win a game', it's 'will using unit X allow me to win MORE games than using unit Y' " Yeah just to clue you in Peregrine those are called Tactics and also thats playing with experience. Learning to use whatever Army and Units you feel comfortable with and that you know inside and out. Whether they are "Power Units" from so-called "Power Lists" or underrated units from Armies that generally don't field well.

Look at the Sisters of Battle they have placed Great recently in Britain / Europe and the USA and they have a fairly simple List build. But these Gamers have been playing them and know their armies well enough to counter so-called "Power Lists". and all they have is a WD army Codex

@ Hive Fleet Kerrigan

Great!! This is exactly how i feel! If used tactically, underrated units and Armies can win. And it has nothing to do with "Power Lists" but about "On Board Tactics"

@ Peregrine (on previous Post)

Competitive games? yes Halo 2, Halo 3, Mortal Kombat and Black Ops 1 (Regional Championship wins in All and have placed Nationally in both Halo's) i also play StarCraft and StarCraft 2 competitively, Chess (Tho i am not any kind of Master, just enjoy the game), ADG's World in Flames (which might just be the most indepth WW2 board game ever made) and WarMachine, Flames of War and Warhammer Fantasy. I just have found 40k to be a Hobby that i can enjoy and embrace the most.

I don't really understand your question. Are you asking if i play games in a Tournement settings? or if i play competitive games? Because frankly any game you play versus an opponent is competitive. And yes i have played MTG i just didn't find it that entertaining or particularly challenging. I kinda moved away from card based games after 6th grade and Pokemon. But i kno many people find it fun and it is their game of choice. I just don't. I'm sorry if that makes me "less" of a competitor. I just don't find laying cards down is much of a game. I prefer Armies that i can see and move. But again i am not bashing MTG, i have many friends who play it and i understand it is a very popular game, just not my game of choice.

It's not about whether something can win, it's about whether it provides a statistical advantage over another unit that would predispose you to win more often.

Cheetahs run fast today because, in the past, the ancestors which ran faster were statistically more likely to pass on their genes to the subsequent generation. That's not to say that a slower cheetah might not have survived where a faster cheetah died -- but when you look at the overall trend, a faster cheetah was better adapted to pass on its genetic material.

We're discussing trends, here. Just because you can present an anecdote where a unit which was perceived as weak nevertheless achieved victory does not mean that the general trend is invalidated.

 Lews Therin wrote:
Everything you have just said goes again your previous posts that "Power Lists" rule and that its the Units and if they are the Elite or Best Choices to bring?!?! and now you are saying "ANY unit can win games, if you play enough games." and "As long as you're taking actions and rolling dice you might happen to do well enough with a given unit to win a game"

Sigh. Read again and try to understand the point of that post rather than taking random statements out of context. Any unit can win a game. That is not the same thing as being likely to win a game. For example, if you take lots of ratlings (a bad unit) and play a lot of games against an opponent who takes their own weak units eventually the ratlings will probably contribute something to winning. But that is NOT the same thing as the ratlings being a good choice.

I don't really understand your question. Are you asking if i play games in a Tournement settings? or if i play competitive games?

The point is that it's a lot easier to believe that 40k has a lot of strategic depth if 40k is the only game you've played and you haven't seen what a real game with strategic depth looks like. For example, coming from MTG I find the idea that 40k has lots of strategic depth absurd because MTG has way more complex and interesting decisions to make.

And yes i have played MTG i just didn't find it that entertaining or particularly challenging.

Clearly you never played it seriously, because they don't give away $40,000 cash prizes in tournaments for a game that isn't particularly challenging.

One interesting note is that fielding units that appear weak may in fact be helpful, as many of these units can be underestimated by the opponent, allowing them to perform better than other factors might indicate. Similarly, if a unit is not often fielded, people probably have less experience facing it and thus are less likely to react properly.

One of my friends called this "Thunderfire Cannon syndrome" in 5th edition, when Thunderfire Cannons were just as powerful damage-wise as they are now but much easier to kill-- because the Thunderfire Cannon had been widely panned as trivial to destroy (and it was, providing you hadn't used blockers to restrict enemy line of sight or taken cover for a defense of last resort), most players didn't take them and hence many people didn't have experience facing them, thought they were bad, and were in for a rude awakening.

 Kingsley wrote:
One interesting note is that fielding units that appear weak may in fact be helpful, as many of these units can be underestimated by the opponent, allowing them to perform better than other factors might indicate. Similarly, if a unit is not often fielded, people probably have less experience facing it and thus are less likely to react properly.

Of course this only works if you're playing against an inexperienced opponent who doesn't understand the game very well. If you're playing against someone who has studied the game carefully you're just taking a bad unit.

@ Corollax

I respect your opinion and while MathHammer and dice averages are something to think about when tweaking an army or building a list. This is Warhammer 40k, if you are running numbers and statistics play Poker or shoot Craps, heck play the Stock Market. Playing on the laws of averages is great and wonderful at your FLGS because you might play the same people over and over (So the averages will work) in a tourney you play 3+, 5+ different players with different Armies. So your averages are pretty much skewed since your not playing against the same thing over and over again. To gain acurate data to even formulate "Averages" you need to run them against the same simulation dozens of time.

All your saying is on average units that aren't "statistically" great will lose. But what about using those "underrated" units properly to win? also equating 40k to evolution is kinda Apples and Rocks. 40ks a game that changes like every 3-5 years, Evolution if you believe in it takes 100,000s if not millions of years. So the analogy is pretty much null and void. But you bring up the point that the game Meta changes over time, this is why its important to playtest and gather experience with your army so you know what your tactics and or general strategy will be when facing a "Power List" that is exploiting the Meta or current rule set. Again "On board tactics" and a flexible approach to the game is what is most important. Well...and having Fun

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
One interesting note is that fielding units that appear weak may in fact be helpful, as many of these units can be underestimated by the opponent, allowing them to perform better than other factors might indicate. Similarly, if a unit is not often fielded, people probably have less experience facing it and thus are less likely to react properly.

Of course this only works if you're playing against an inexperienced opponent who doesn't understand the game very well. If you're playing against someone who has studied the game carefully you're just taking a bad unit.

Even experienced players are going to be more effective at predicting what will happen with units they've faced before. Besides, even on the top tables at major tournaments, a lot of people are at a little less than their best by the time they hit their third or fourth 40k game of the day-- having potentially done the same the day before, not slept particularly well, traveled for hours to get to the venue, etc.

 Lews Therin wrote:
Playing on the laws of averages is great and wonderful at your FLGS because you might play the same people over and over (So the averages will work) in a tourney you play 3+, 5+ different players with different Armies. So your averages are pretty much skewed since your not playing against the same thing over and over again.

Nonsense. Half the armies in the game are MEQs, AV 11 vehicles are AV 11 vehicles, etc. You don't have to have the exact same opponent every game to figure out a meaningful average, especially if you're smart enough to break it up and look at averages in various common situations (for example, giving anti-tank numbers for each target AV).

To gain acurate data to even formulate "Averages" you need to run them against the same simulation dozens of time.

Or you just need to know how to do math. 40k is a game of dice, which means that calculating averages is just basic statistics.

But what about using those "underrated" units properly to win?

Why bother, when using good units properly will win more often?

also equating 40k to evolution is kinda Apples and Rocks.

You missed the point of the analogy entirely. It's not about change over time, it's about the fact that even weaker units/animals/whatever "win" occasionally if you repeat the trial enough times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kingsley wrote:
Even experienced players are going to be more effective at predicting what will happen with units they've faced before. Besides, even on the top tables at major tournaments, a lot of people are at a little less than their best by the time they hit their third or fourth 40k game of the day-- having potentially done the same the day before, not slept particularly well, traveled for hours to get to the venue, etc.

Sure, that's a potential factor, but it isn't one you can count on. I'd much rather just bring a list with better raw power that works even if my opponent knows how everything works.

@ Peregrine

I actually do take ratling snipers, and they usually (on average) do very well for me. Then again i like and enjoy using snipers, i take a vindicare when playing GKs as well. Sniper shots are very underrated. and honestly i don't know why. They are precision shots and can with enough shots pop Warlords fairly easily. I use them with great success against Tau, Orks, IG and Space Marines. And thats just games played this past weekend off the top of my head.

And any kind of "game" isn't really going to have strategic depth. There games. But i do think that 40k offers plenty of simulated strategic value for a Hobby. and i'm sorry that you disagree.

Yes MTG gives away grand prizes of $40,000. it also is fairly cheap to pick up and easy to play, so there is a huge consumer base. the Company can afford to have $40,000 dollar prizes. Clearly i have touched a nerve here, i am sorry Peregrine.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
One interesting note is that fielding units that appear weak may in fact be helpful, as many of these units can be underestimated by the opponent, allowing them to perform better than other factors might indicate. Similarly, if a unit is not often fielded, people probably have less experience facing it and thus are less likely to react properly.

Of course this only works if you're playing against an inexperienced opponent who doesn't understand the game very well. If you're playing against someone who has studied the game carefully you're just taking a bad unit.

I agree with Kingsley, I've seen very good IG players firing off banks of lascannon and autocannon weapons teams (9 bases worth) at a dakka pred, when the dakka pred was next to a lascannon razorback (only two tagets I had given them - I was after a valkarie on the otherside of the board!). Dakka pred was luck to survive but then the razor back took a shot at the valkarie (old rules before they could swoop around) and took it out. Dakka pred was bait to take the heat off the tank killer next to it. The lucky dakka pred then straffed the weapons team and took some of them out; but it was lucky.
This particular trick has worked several times for me, on my terms, against experienced players because everyone underestimates a single razor back. But then to pull it off you must be prepared to lose the pred and the razor back (after it has taken its shot - so there is luck in there) and you need to find the opportunity in the deployment phase. There is a lot to consider when trying to pull off a bait trick. Shooting ones are more difficult than combat ones. When yo get it wrong its just a shoot fest on both sides.

@ Peregrine

I would rather field a List that i am comfortable playing with and have fought against many, many situations so that i have a general game plan and i can then be flexible against any and every army i am paired against.

@ Jasper

Great Tactic and advice. honestly i too would have probably gone after the pred, thinking about my Leman Russ' that it could pop and totally overlook the Razor

 Lews Therin wrote:
I actually do take ratling snipers, and they usually (on average) do very well for me.

To be fair, Ratlings aren't as bad as they used to be. Monstrous creatures got a few significant buffs in 6th edition, and sniper rifles excel against high toughness targets. I still wouldn't take them, but they do have a place in a meta with many high toughness targets. Dark Eldar Venomspam is still going to make them look bad, though.

 Lews Therin wrote:
Sniper shots are very underrated. and honestly i don't know why.

Because precise shots only happen on a 6, and then you need a 4+ to wound at all and another 6 to get a rending wound that won't just bounce off armor. And then you potentially have cover/invulnerable saves, FNP, and/or LoS to reduce your chances of success even more. By the time you've brought enough snipers to get reliable results you could have just brought better guns and shot the entire target unit to death.

The Vindicare is the exception to the rule because it isn't a normal sniper weapon.

But i do think that 40k offers plenty of simulated strategic value for a Hobby. and i'm sorry that you disagree.

Why be sorry? I don't play 40k because of the deep strategy, so it costs me nothing to admit that it's a very shallow game once you get past list construction.

Yes MTG gives away grand prizes of $40,000. it also is fairly cheap to pick up and easy to play, so there is a huge consumer base. the Company can afford to have $40,000 dollar prizes. Clearly i have touched a nerve here, i am sorry Peregrine.

The point is that shallow non-competitive games don't usually have tournaments with huge cash prizes, dedicated competitive communities, etc. It might not be your favorite game, but it's absolutely absurd to say that it's "not particularly challenging" when there's a whole world of high-level competitive play you're completely ignoring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jasper wrote:
This particular trick has worked several times for me, on my terms, against experienced players because everyone underestimates a single razor back.

That makes no sense. I wouldn't even consider ignoring the Razorback unless I didn't have any tanks I needed to protect, it's a much bigger anti-tank threat than the Predator (which is weak, its sole redeeming factor is it's dirt cheap) and is much less durable. Your opponent made a newbie mistake, and that strategy isn't going to work against someone who has a better understanding of the game.

Again Peregrine you are just full of things that i can't disagree more about. Ratling while fluffy i have found great, clearly you don't roll 6's consistantly but you hav 2 chances to completely wreck face with sniper weapons, both in the "to hit" phase and the "to wound" phase. but i don't need to go into details of why i like them or why i enjoy using them in my army.

"Why be sorry? I don't play 40k because of the deep strategy, so it costs me nothing to admit that it's a very shallow game once you get past list construction." - This comment right here is why i feel sorry my feathered friend. This is a dismal view of any game. And now i can understand the context of your comments and views.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

MTG requires better risk management because of the increased friction (in this case, lack of information), but that doesn't disprove my original point. Once someone creates an original combo and plays it at a major event, it will hit the internet and become discussed ad nauseum. Players will begin constructing similiar decks and anticipating the possible combos in it. It's not brilliant and innovative once it becomes emulated.

I still think people are missing the point that has been made over and over again in this thread.

It's not that 40k requires NO tactical thinking. It's just that is doesn't require a LOT of tactical thinking. At the highest levels of play everyone know what units do what and how well. You won't be able to rely on taking kooky or rarely used units to surprise people. They already know what it does. Two equally skilled players will only be able to decide who wins a game of 40k by how optimized their lists are and how lucky they are.

I'll reiterate another point. There are hundreds of absolutely trivial tactical decisions that are all calculated automatically. Cover, range of weapons, how that landraider is turned slightly to the right...they're automatic. It's not terribly brilliant to say "I should put my unit in cover...so they have a cover save." And that's honestly about as tactical as it gets.

40k is a dice game. In dice games you try to skew the odds as best you can in your favor. That's all the tactics in 40k boil down to. What's the likelyhood that this action that I should clearly take will succeed? You create the best odds you can, and all those decisions are pretty obvious. Does that unit have cover? I use something to take the cover save away. Does that unit have an armor save? I use something that takes that armor save away. Really simple stuff. If A then B. All the minutiae of a particular scenario are either too trivial to discuss or the situation comes up so rarely that it won't ever come up in an average game of 40k.

These points have all been said before, and I haven't heard many compelling arguments to the contrary. As far as I can read, they are as follows:

1. "But this unit won me a game, and it totally wasn't optimized!" - It's a dice game. Play enough games with a crappy unit and eventually you'll get lucky.

2. "Using underrated units will catch people off-guard and cause them to make mistakes." - People who've played the game long enough know what a unit does. You may get lucky and pull the wool over someone's eyes once, at best. But if you continue playing the math will go more and more in favor of the optimized "Power" list.

So it's Luck and Listbuilding, with tactics as a trailing third. Doesn't mean you can't talk about tactics, just don't expect to go all Sun Tzu on someone with a power list and many years of experience. It won't work, especially in a game with as much transparency as Warhammer 40k.

 beerbeard wrote:
I think part of the problem is that many of us have certain tactics we love to use with certain units, so the variety of answers is not great. Also, when you ask a question about a unit, invariable the most common answer you get is, don't take it.

That said, I'm game. Based on my recent experience with Leman Russ tanks, I am thinking of running one of these:

Leman Russ Vanquisher
Lascannon
Multi-Melta Sponsons
Pask

It's a lot of points, and so I want it to be the most effective possible and last as long as possible. So, does anyone have any tactical suggestions?

Bb

To be honest I run something similar , key differences being plasma cannon sponsons and no Pask , that. Creates an extremely flexible tank for my common MEQ and TEQ meta , run them in pairs and they will do fairly well , I'm not an advocate of squadrening vehicles but I can see where it would work what I generally do with my full Mech army is put the Russ's I front of my Chimeras in order to act as a fire sink . What might be a good consideration is building you core army to operate in conjunction with your supporting units , in my case my core is 5 Vet Squads supported by 2 vanquishers, 2 Vendettas and a manticore - that for me has worked amazingly and prevents large scale issues in my MEQ meta , when you can crawl nex to cover , armor especially heavy armor of the Russ is prone to being glanced like a stolen cars paint , cover is just SS useful to mech guard as it is infantry guard

 gpfunk wrote:
I still think people are missing the point that has been made over and over again in this thread.

It's not that 40k requires NO tactical thinking. It's just that is doesn't require a LOT of tactical thinking. At the highest levels of play everyone know what units do what and how well. You won't be able to rely on taking kooky or rarely used units to surprise people. They already know what it does. Two equally skilled players will only be able to decide who wins a game of 40k by how optimized their lists are and how lucky they are.

I'll reiterate another point. There are hundreds of absolutely trivial tactical decisions that are all calculated automatically. Cover, range of weapons, how that landraider is turned slightly to the right...they're automatic. It's not terribly brilliant to say "I should put my unit in cover...so they have a cover save." And that's honestly about as tactical as it gets.

40k is a dice game. In dice games you try to skew the odds as best you can in your favor. That's all the tactics in 40k boil down to. What's the likelyhood that this action that I should clearly take will succeed? You create the best odds you can, and all those decisions are pretty obvious. Does that unit have cover? I use something to take the cover save away. Does that unit have an armor save? I use something that takes that armor save away. Really simple stuff. If A then B. All the minutiae of a particular scenario are either too trivial to discuss or the situation comes up so rarely that it won't ever come up in an average game of 40k.

These points have all been said before, and I haven't heard many compelling arguments to the contrary. As far as I can read, they are as follows:

1. "But this unit won me a game, and it totally wasn't optimized!" - It's a dice game. Play enough games with a crappy unit and eventually you'll get lucky.

2. "Using underrated units will catch people off-guard and cause them to make mistakes." - People who've played the game long enough know what a unit does. You may get lucky and pull the wool over someone's eyes once, at best. But if you continue playing the math will go more and more in favor of the optimized "Power" list.

So it's Luck and Listbuilding, with tactics as a trailing third. Doesn't mean you can't talk about tactics, just don't expect to go all Sun Tzu on someone with a power list and many years of experience. It won't work, especially in a game with as much transparency as Warhammer 40k.

+1 to everything said by gpfunk.

Just because my Fire Warriors some how manage to beat Fate Weaver and Flyrant in assault doesn't mean they are uber effective in close combat. It all comes down to luck and chance of success.

As for non-optimized units that catches opponents off guard, it's really a one trick pony. As the famous idiom goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

 gpfunk wrote:
I'll reiterate another point. There are hundreds of absolutely trivial tactical decisions that are all calculated automatically. Cover, range of weapons, how that landraider is turned slightly to the right...they're automatic. It's not terribly brilliant to say "I should put my unit in cover...so they have a cover save." And that's honestly about as tactical as it gets.

40k is a dice game. In dice games you try to skew the odds as best you can in your favor. That's all the tactics in 40k boil down to. What's the likelyhood that this action that I should clearly take will succeed? You create the best odds you can, and all those decisions are pretty obvious. Does that unit have cover? I use something to take the cover save away. Does that unit have an armor save? I use something that takes that armor save away. Really simple stuff. If A then B. All the minutiae of a particular scenario are either too trivial to discuss or the situation comes up so rarely that it won't ever come up in an average game of 40k.

I think perhaps there is a terminology issues here. What your saying sounds exactly like someone whose game will never get any better, which is doubtfully true.

Your 'tactics' should always be evolving and growing. If you are not learning anything new from every game played, your game is not getting any better. That might be fine if you don't want to get better at 40k. If you want to be the best player you can be, learning from each game is mandatory!

If you don't believe me, let me give you some real-world examples of 'tactics' that I have learned in the past few months.
HellDrakes
Don't leave your helldrakes rear armor where it can be shot when you can avoid it. If your vector striking a rhino, and there are targets that draw line to the rear arc of the helldrake -- its better to just go off the board and enter ongoing reserves after vector striking.
Vector strikes are money on ADLs. They are great ways to take them out.
If someone bring a black-mace DP, vector strike it with 2 helldrakes. Problem solved. Their only defense is to keep the DP 30" from your board edge


Rhinos to Block Assault
When facing a slow moving assault unit that can destroy a rhino (MANZ after their truuk was destroyed, TH/SS termies after LR) its an effective tactic to say 12" away and double tap them with plasma. Given the charge range, its doubtful they will be able to block all the access points and block you from exiting if they assault the rhino. The rhino means your models cannot be assaulted directly.
This does not work with fast moving assault units, like beasts. In those cases you want to get out early so your rhino is not completely surrounded and wrecked.


GUO placement
Since you get a 5+ cover save when shooting through units, I have been putting the GUO right behind my plague marines on foot. Shooting at the GUO gives a 3+ cover save! The tactic here is to take advantage of the 'shrouding'.
The strategy behind this is to cover a weakness of my PMs -- rapid moving dedicated assault units like DE beast packs. The placing of the GUO behind the PMs is a tactic.


Fateweaver
Fateweaver, when grimoired, has a 35/36 chance of saving. You can just park him on top of an objective and watch him annoy the hell of your opponent who can't kill him. This is highly effective when there are 2-3 objectives. You don't even need to swoop -- just sit on the objective and blast with 2 witchfires per turn.
Your opponent will probably assault him -- but that's fine. Fatey is still camping that objective and keeping it secure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SabrX wrote:
Just because my Fire Warriors some how manage to beat Fate Weaver and Flyrant in assault doesn't mean they are uber effective in close combat. It all comes down to luck and chance of success.

As for non-optimized units that catches opponents off guard, it's really a one trick pony. As the famous idiom goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Catching your opponent off guard is great against mid-tier opponents, but don't plan on this working against seasoned opponents (An exception being a new codex. You will get a few months of WTF as you clobber someone)

Using Fire Warriors to out-assault fatey is not a tactic, it was crazy luck. Using TL drones to force grounding checks before shooting with your fire warriors is.

good examples. Things that might seem obvious when you read them but are of course learned things that make you better when you actually observe them in real play. And some of these lessons are hard earned over time. Not everyone recognizes their own mistakes right away and talking about the fundamental things like this is good.

 Jancoran wrote:
good examples. Things that might seem obvious when you read them but are of course learned things that make you better when you actually observe them in real play. And some of these lessons are hard earned over time. Not everyone recognizes their own mistakes right away and talking about the fundamental things like this is good.

School of hard knocks is the best way to learn. When I make a critical mistake in a game, its something I don't forget.
I always bring my iphone with me to tourneys. I take pics of all my games (I try for 2 per turn) After each tourney I will review the pics and ponder what I did wrong, and what I could have done better.

And your right, hindsight is 20/20.
Now it makes perfect sense to never leave a helldrake where a psyfleman can draw a rear shot to it, but at the time I was thinking "Now if I vector strike the rhino I can burn the acolytes inside!".

In regards to the OP, that's the kind of stuff thats in small supply on this forum.

Yeah, say what some will, I find that the fundamental simple truths are the ones that cost games.

Like for example im discusing Creed on another thread. Someone made the point that much of his bubble is lost off theback board edge, and I thought to myself: "So...don't put him there when it matters?" Lol.

Some say Stingwings are terrible because they get killed too easily in the open. So i think to myself "so...use them on an obscured flank? Wait til theres wreckage and bounce them behind it on DS?"

A lot of people really miss out on playing opportunities and fun units and for what? A glittering generality thats only true when the General has a brain fart? Pointing out the worst possible scenario as some reason not to do something is defeatist thinking.

So I like simple truths. We should start a thread on it. Like this:

1. When the enemy is more powerful than you are, run. If you cannot run, angle so that the enemy attack will leave them vulnerable and your lives will not be wasted. If necessary and you have the firepower, forego shooting to maximize the enemies exposure to the next turns fire or just their distance away fro mthe rest of the force or objectives.

2. When the enemy can outshoot you, deploy only what is NOT vulnerable to that shooting. Let the clock mitigate the damage they can do to you. Let the clock lower the value of units they chose.

3. The game length is not infinite. the board is not infinite. Don't plan as if they were. Don't argue on forums as if they were,

4. Things will die. Pointing out how you might kill something is pointless. When and where it dies is usually more important. If it dies where it should and when it should, then you've lost nothing.

=)