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.

 JGrand wrote:

Sure, there are limits in what you can do within the confines of the game. However, knowing what exactly to do isn't always so clear cut. It is easy to figure out whether or not I should charge unit X into unit Y based on dice odds. However, what does unit X do when it's done with that combat? Where does it need to be the next turn, or three turns from now? There is a larger scope than just unit v. unit variables. Lots of players either fail to keep the big picture in mind or can't learn to do so.

That all becomes part of the calculation though. It's not only in a unit v unit vacuum that knowing the odds is useful. You just add in the odds of that unit either tying combat and staying locked or winning it outright through sweeping advance or sheer wound amount. See Red's post above as to thinking turns ahead. I think he made a very good point. The larger scope is really a large odds of success calculation, but at that point the calculation is "What are my odds of winning the game?" I think the highest level of play has people that do this calculation every turn and after every action. But the tactics would still remain relatively simple to achieve that goal, I think.

Yes, you can talk about something you have never seen or experienced. However, your opinion will often be less correct than someone who actually has experienced these things. I can sit back and criticize NFL quarterbacks for bad plays, because I understand the NFL in theory. At the same time, I've never played football besides simple pickup games. So, there are nuances that perhaps I don't see or realize. I may throw my hands up after an interception and ask why a qb didn't see a safety breaking on a pass. I can understand that the qb should have looked off his target or pump faked. But until I've actually been there, I don't know exactly how hard that can be. My analogy is similar to long tourneys and GTs. There are streams and bat reps of tourney games, and great players make mistakes in those games. While they understand "in theory" what to do, it is far different to actually play and have to make split second decisions under time constraints.

Fair and well illustrated point. For some reason the way you phrased it this time around really clicked. Most particularly the part about nuances. General theory is, more often than not, proven correct. Examples of this would be shoot the choppy units and chop the shooty units or bubble wrap your vulnerable backfield support units to avoid deep striking and fast moving units. But I think the problem there is with all these subtle nuances, how would it be best to discuss them on here? Wouldn't those subtleties be so hard to explain to newer players or so rare in terms of the situation that they'd be less than useful to the grand majority? It's been said before but I think this is another reason why list building advice is more often given than tactical advice. It's easier to say that you should have more of unit X and explain it well than it is to say unit X should have done this when the third moon is high and the wind is blowing easterly.

Luck is important. If I roll all 1's and my opponent rolls all 6's, I will probably lose no matter what. That doesn't happen though. People love to blame luck when it goes against them and discount it when it helps them. In my experience, most games tend to even out. That isn't to say that every roll is statistically average, but that good luck early is often countered by below average luck later.

I think that's generally true as well, luck evening out in terms of who rolls 6's when. But part of what luck is is WHEN those high rolls occur. If I have had decent luck all game and all I have to do is kill a single terminator model in the middle of the table without cover, that's when I really want things to go statistical or in my favor. It's bad luck if all twenty of those plasma shots I put towards that one model either miss or get pinged off the invulnerable. That's what I see in many tournament reports. I see everything going to plan, where someone has put the best odds they can on a situation, and then the dice dump on them, either losing them a major victory or losing them any victory.

It rare for luck to go completely one sided as you said, but luck has a more proportional effect on certain specific circumstances. I don't take any count on people who complain about their dice all game, but I do take note when their luck had been going well and all of a sudden a terminator absorbed twenty plasma shots and lived.

I'm saying that if you find yourself thinking that 40k is a shallow game, I would probably play in bigger pools of people before decisively making that claim. And yes, forums are full of theory. Theoryhammer is fun and fine, but it doesn't make one an expert. There is a ton of bad theory on here. Sometimes, I find it near impossible to reply to people because their theory is so abstracted from reality. Most players still think transports are awesome and mandatory and that Nids are trash to name some examples. Theory is not as substitute for experience.

Again, how do you know? Have you played with some of the better players, or is this just more theory? I can tell you that there is a definite jump in skill level.

I still go back to my point--find a bigger pool. I learn far more in the games I lose than the ones I win. You do stagnate if you play people who aren't challenging you. I'd suggest going to big events and seeing if you still feel the same.

I took a moment to read your blog and you seem like a very seasoned player yourself, so I honestly think i'll take you up on your advice. I'll scrape some money together and take some time off work to play in tournament and see what it's all about. I've always wanted to try it out just because it seemed like tournaments were a fun social gathering as well as a place to compete. Maybe i'll find that you're correct, that certain nuances of play that are useful every game and i'd been missing them. And maybe i'll find that statistics, a power list, and an application of the simpler strategies will carry the day. Either way it'll be an experience.

That all becomes part of the calculation though. It's not only in a unit v unit vacuum that knowing the odds is useful. You just add in the odds of that unit either tying combat and staying locked or winning it outright through sweeping advance or sheer wound amount. See Red's post above as to thinking turns ahead. I think he made a very good point. The larger scope is really a large odds of success calculation, but at that point the calculation is "What are my odds of winning the game?" I think the highest level of play has people that do this calculation every turn and after every action. But the tactics would still remain relatively simple to achieve that goal, I think.

You are correct in identifying overall meta tactics of the game. For instance, I know how my army functions and what I want to do with it. Generally, if I play enough games, I know what my opponent can do and wants to do. However, that doesn't mean that games always go the same way. People make good and bad choices. People make expected and unexpected ones. The key is how you respond in a limited amount of time.

Fair and well illustrated point. For some reason the way you phrased it this time around really clicked. Most particularly the part about nuances. General theory is, more often than not, proven correct. Examples of this would be shoot the choppy units and chop the shooty units or bubble wrap your vulnerable backfield support units to avoid deep striking and fast moving units. But I think the problem there is with all these subtle nuances, how would it be best to discuss them on here? Wouldn't those subtleties be so hard to explain to newer players or so rare in terms of the situation that they'd be less than useful to the grand majority? It's been said before but I think this is another reason why list building advice is more often given than tactical advice. It's easier to say that you should have more of unit X and explain it well than it is to say unit X should have done this when the third moon is high and the wind is blowing easterly.

Again, I'd agree with you here. General theory is accepted lots of the time because it has been shown in many instances. As for the nuances, you bring up a great point. It is really, really had to explain, identify, and even always show these subtle gamey things. And they are less useful to the general populace because, as you stated, becoming a "good" player really doesn't involve all of this.

I suppose that is why tactics discussions are often about lists and general stuff. It is far easier to correct and explain bad lists and general tactics. It is also exponentially more helpful. The subtle stuff is really best learned through actual games or battle reports IMO.

I think that's generally true as well, luck evening out in terms of who rolls 6's when. But part of what luck is is WHEN those high rolls occur. If I have had decent luck all game and all I have to do is kill a single terminator model in the middle of the table without cover, that's when I really want things to go statistical or in my favor. It's bad luck if all twenty of those plasma shots I put towards that one model either miss or get pinged off the invulnerable. That's what I see in many tournament reports. I see everything going to plan, where someone has put the best odds they can on a situation, and then the dice dump on them, either losing them a major victory or losing them any victory.

It rare for luck to go completely one sided as you said, but luck has a more proportional effect on certain specific circumstances. I don't take any count on people who complain about their dice all game, but I do take note when their luck had been going well and all of a sudden a terminator absorbed twenty plasma shots and lived.

Sure, there are big and small instances of luck going one way or the other. Sometimes, these instances make or break games. I suppose that is why luck is a big factor. At the same time, you just have to do your best to not end up in those situations. I had a game at an event in which I needed to kill 1 model to force a tie on objectives (I would win on tiebreakers). I pumped the "statistically correct" amount of shots into the model, but it didn't die. In hindsight, I should have shifted another unit back to shoot the model as well (and I could have). I didn't though. I made a bad choice end game and it cost me. Would the other units shooting have won me the game? Maybe, maybe not. Would it have given me a greater chance? Absolutely.

You are correct in identifying luck, but lots of games have luck involved. There are top tier poker players who consistently do well despite it being a very luck based game. Warhammer can be the same way.

I took a moment to read your blog and you seem like a very seasoned player yourself, so I honestly think i'll take you up on your advice. I'll scrape some money together and take some time off work to play in tournament and see what it's all about. I've always wanted to try it out just because it seemed like tournaments were a fun social gathering as well as a place to compete. Maybe i'll find that you're correct, that certain nuances of play that are useful every game and i'd been missing them. And maybe i'll find that statistics, a power list, and an application of the simpler strategies will carry the day. Either way it'll be an experience.

I don't claim to be the be all to end all of 40k. I haven't won a GT, but I do well enough at local events and have played with plenty of good players. When I first got back into 40k in 5th edition, I played with a group of 4 guys. While some are good players, there was a skill level that I maxed out at because I played with these players almost exclusively. When I moved, I played some different people, including some players who do well at big events. I can tell you that while the things I picked up on didn't fundamentally change my game, there were small things that I didn't think about (and never saw on forums).

I'd imagine that you have a good feel for 40k. Maybe you happen to be incredible at it, I don't know. At the same time, the best way to find out is by playing others. I used to be really awesome at Halo 2, and destroyed people on my campus network and even small local events. I got a chance to play Halo 2 with some kids training for MLG, and was completely worked. I'm not saying that you are a big fish in a small pond--you might not be. However, it is hard to know unless you jump into the bigger pond. It may change your opinion, it may not.

 gpfunk wrote:
Point taken on the insults. I withdraw my early statement with my apologies. It's certainly possible that you can stagnate playing the same people over and over. But when those people are equally or more skilled than you (which is what I expect I would find at a GT) and have a very good grasp of the game...how much tactical flexibility do you have? How often can you pull the wool over someone's eyes?

Thanks for the apology. Polite discussions are always more productive than flame wars.

There is a lot of tactical fexability when your playing armies that your not playing every day. There are over 700 units in the game (I recently counted, don't ask). This means knowing how all 700 units interact with yours can be extremely difficult. Its very possible that someone has not played a unit type and is not aware of its full implications. Last year at BFS, I 'ran' a swooping FMC. My opponent, who is a brilliant 40k mind, completely forgot that you could 'run' a swoping FMC 2d6 inches. This let the FMC contest and objective he was trying to secure.

 gpfunk wrote:
I will also point out that at least one tournament player, Sabr-x, has agreed with my points before. Just dig through the post and you can find it. You can knock my credentials, but you certainly can't knock his.

There are experts who agree in both categories. Sadly that makes using expert X not a strong point in arguements. A better question would be 'What percentage experts view the ceiling of skills on tactics to be easily accessable?' Take a look at global warming. 2% of the experts may think global warming is not man-man, but when 98% of the experts assist that it is man-made, then the odds are we are responsible for global warming.... In the same way, we can't pick one expert out, right?
So far I've counted three people on this thread that play in competitive tourneys who think that the ceiling is not easily accessible. LValx, Mannahnin, and myself.

 gpfunk wrote:
since the skill ceiling is so accessible

Again, we disagree on this assessment. If the games were decided by luck and list-building, why has Tony Kopach won the last 3 NOVA events in a row?
I am, for example, attending NOVA this year. I will be bringing an optimized list, reviewed by server tourney winners. Others will be doing the same. The reason is simple, if your paying hundreds of dollars in hotel and airfair, your going to bring the best you can! If games are decided by luck and list-building, then we can knock off list-building as a factor, as the vast majority of people will have optimized lists. This means, according to your criteria, that its just luck.

If that's the case, then that means that Tony would have a 0.78% of winning 7 games in a row and win NOVA. What are the odds that Tony managed to win 3 NOVAs in a row? 0.004768372% (about one in 21,000). Either Tony Kopach is remarkably lucky man, or tactics plays more of a role than your giving credit for.

 labmouse42 wrote:

There is a lot of tactical fexability when your playing armies that your not playing every day. There are over 700 units in the game (I recently counted, don't ask). This means knowing how all 700 units interact with yours can be extremely difficult. Its very possible that someone has not played a unit type and is not aware of its full implications. Last year at BFS, I 'ran' a swooping FMC. My opponent, who is a brilliant 40k mind, completely forgot that you could 'run' a swoping FMC 2d6 inches. This let the FMC contest and objective he was trying to secure.

I guess the big thing here is most players who aren't 100% sure about a unit will ask, and you're required to divulge the information. Bet if you tried that again that opponent would remember that and take measures to counter it. This is an example of "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

There are experts who agree in both categories. Sadly that makes using expert X not a strong point in arguements. A better question would be 'What percentage experts view the ceiling of skills on tactics to be easily accessable?' Take a look at global warming. 2% of the experts may think global warming is not man-man, but when 98% of the experts assist that it is man-made, then the odds are we are responsible for global warming.... In the same way, we can't pick one expert out, right?
So far I've counted three people on this thread that play in competitive tourneys who think that the ceiling is not easily accessible. LValx, Mannahnin, and myself.

Definitely not trying to say one expert is better than another. My points were coming into question based on my credentials. I offered up someone who had far better credentials than me as backing my idea, validating it to some extent. I was making sure people weren't brushing off the argument because I myself haven't attended any GTs.

Again, we disagree on this assessment. If the games were decided by luck and list-building, why has Tony Kopach won the last 3 NOVA events in a row?
I am, for example, attending NOVA this year. I will be bringing an optimized list, reviewed by server tourney winners. Others will be doing the same. The reason is simple, if your paying hundreds of dollars in hotel and airfair, your going to bring the best you can! If games are decided by luck and list-building, then we can knock off list-building as a factor, as the vast majority of people will have optimized lists. This means, according to your criteria, that its just luck.

If that's the case, then that means that Tony would have a 0.78% of winning 7 games in a row and win NOVA. What are the odds that Tony managed to win 3 NOVAs in a row? 0.004768372% (about one in 21,000). Either Tony Kopach is remarkably lucky man, or tactics plays more of a role than your giving credit for.

In this circumstance, bringing an optimized list is the only way to break even against the other players at the event. The only way to level the playing field odds. List building is still an enormous factor, but only insofar as it gives you a fighting chance. Then, this is when 'skill' comes in. But it only comes after the list building is as solid as it can be. Since it takes precedence, I rank it higher in terms of importance. You can't begin to think about your tactics until you have a solid bunch of units to back it up.

I don't know Tony K. and I didn't watch any of his games. He could've gotten lucky in a great many ways that would help him secure a victory. Table terrain, types of opponents, types of armies...they could've gone his way to help him secure a victory. I'd simply ask this question: Does Tony K build gimp lists?

Does he take Flash Git spam? How about an ork army made up entirely of grot mobs with a few Killa Kans as his only Anti Tank? I can only assume that he takes strong lists with strong units that he knows how to use. While they may not be 100% optimized they probably give him enough of a foundation so that he can 'outskill' players that have less experience than him. I'd say his list was a very large part of him winning, probably more than 1/3, closer to 1/2.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JGrand wrote:


Sure, there are big and small instances of luck going one way or the other. Sometimes, these instances make or break games. I suppose that is why luck is a big factor. At the same time, you just have to do your best to not end up in those situations. I had a game at an event in which I needed to kill 1 model to force a tie on objectives (I would win on tiebreakers). I pumped the "statistically correct" amount of shots into the model, but it didn't die. In hindsight, I should have shifted another unit back to shoot the model as well (and I could have). I didn't though. I made a bad choice end game and it cost me. Would the other units shooting have won me the game? Maybe, maybe not. Would it have given me a greater chance? Absolutely.

You are correct in identifying luck, but lots of games have luck involved. There are top tier poker players who consistently do well despite it being a very luck based game. Warhammer can be the same way.

You didn't make a mistake though. You played the odds to the best of your abilities. In that instance, your luck failed you. If you set up the situation in such a way that the model should have died, then you didn't make a mistake. In hindsight you consider it a mistake that you didn't put in more than the statistical amount, but you had a more than reasonable chance and assumption that your actions would breed success. In fact, in hindsight pretty much anything could be considered a mistake. I pumped 20 plasma shots into a terminator and it lived...if only I had brought one more plasma gun, if only I had one more unit there, etc. Given all the other conditions on the battlefield it's possible that you couldn't bring any other weapons to bear because it would have jeopardized other actions on the board, and thus your chance of success. Then again, we're arguing a vague battlefield where we don't know the exact conditions. Long and short of it is that if you play things to the statistics and they don't average out for you, it's crap luck. Then it'd be a sort of skill to shuffle around units to try and rectify this straying from statistics.

I don't claim to be the be all to end all of 40k. I haven't won a GT, but I do well enough at local events and have played with plenty of good players. When I first got back into 40k in 5th edition, I played with a group of 4 guys. While some are good players, there was a skill level that I maxed out at because I played with these players almost exclusively. When I moved, I played some different people, including some players who do well at big events. I can tell you that while the things I picked up on didn't fundamentally change my game, there were small things that I didn't think about (and never saw on forums).

I'd imagine that you have a good feel for 40k. Maybe you happen to be incredible at it, I don't know. At the same time, the best way to find out is by playing others. I used to be really awesome at Halo 2, and destroyed people on my campus network and even small local events. I got a chance to play Halo 2 with some kids training for MLG, and was completely worked. I'm not saying that you are a big fish in a small pond--you might not be. However, it is hard to know unless you jump into the bigger pond. It may change your opinion, it may not.

This I agree with. Hence why I said I would probably be doing so. Or at least moving around and trying to find more local games outside my own area.

 gpfunk wrote:
I guess the big thing here is most players who aren't 100% sure about a unit will ask, and you're required to divulge the information. Bet if you tried that again that opponent would remember that and take measures to counter it. This is an example of "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

My point was sometimes people forget to even ask. In that game Mannahnin did not ask "Can that FMC run?" because he forgot they could! As I mentioned, Mannahnin has one of the best 40k minds I've encountered. If you could have a Ph.D in 40k knowledge, he would be a doctor! If he can forget something like that, anyone can. We are human.

 gpfunk wrote:
Definitely not trying to say one expert is better than another. My points were coming into question based on my credentials. I offered up someone who had far better credentials than me as backing my idea, validating it to some extent. I was making sure people weren't brushing off the argument because I myself haven't attended any GTs.

That's a very reasonable point. Not attending GTs does not disqualify your thoughts and opinion. I do strongly suggest attending some for a multitude of reasons. To give a little backstory - I was the "big fish" at my old FLGS, and had stagnated in my skills. Since moving to New England, my 40k skills have increased considerably due to the quality and number of players I've encountered.

 gpfunk wrote:
Then, this is when 'skill' comes in. But it only comes after the list building is as solid as it can be. Since it takes precedence, I rank it higher in terms of importance.

Were in agreement on this. List building is a critical part of the game. Tony brings excellent lists. The point is others do as well, so the quality of list is nearly a non-issue.
You just said the word "skill". Do you remember when I said I suspect were having a definition issue? I expect that when I'm speaking of 'tactics', I'm thinking of something you are thinking of as 'skill'.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 gpfunk wrote:
I will also point out that at least one tournament player, Sabr-x, has agreed with my points before. Just dig through the post and you can find it. You can knock my credentials, but you certainly can't knock his.

There are experts who agree in both categories. Sadly that makes using expert X not a strong point in arguements. A better question would be 'What percentage experts view the ceiling of skills on tactics to be easily accessable?' Take a look at global warming. 2% of the experts may think global warming is not man-man, but when 98% of the experts assist that it is man-made, then the odds are we are responsible for global warming.... In the same way, we can't pick one expert out, right?
So far I've counted three people on this thread that play in competitive tourneys who think that the ceiling is not easily accessible. LValx, Mannahnin, and myself.

I don't think the skill ceiling is all that high. Whether it's "easily accessible" - well, that I don't know. I know that there are people who have played the game for less than a year with tournament wins against old veterans. It's hard to quantify what's required for someone else to learn something that you already know. I can run most stats in my head. Knowing that it's going to take three turns to get your guys from point A to point B isn't hard, but keeping your mind on the idea that they need to be at point B by turn 5 might be for some.

I also think that there are some skills that some people choose not to master. That doesn't mean it's hard to master them if someone chooses to. I've never put any time into learning how to stall effectively. I've never spent any time practicing how to roll dice. Back when it mattered, I never dedicated any time to learning how to estimate distances really well. It could be argued that any of the above could have increased my winning percentage. It could also be argued that some of those skills constitute cheating. Does that mean that they're not used?

If the games were decided by luck and list-building, why has Tony Kopach won the last 3 NOVA events in a row?

Not to restart a large debate over this, but if I recall correctly, weren't there some concerns raised about some of his wins?

I've played many of the "top players", and without naming names, I've seen some of the ones who place highly do questionable things in games. I've watched as important die rolls were made 'rolling off the side of the hand'. I've seen difficult terrain rolls 'forgotten', and measurements made from the wrong places. Sometimes, I've caught it at the time. Other times, my opponent has played an army I wasn't overly familiar with and only realized it after looking it up. I've seen "top players" stall for time, walking away from the table to take a phone call even. I've seen "top players" chipmunk other's sportsmanship scores. I've seen all manner of shady tricks from "top players". Heck, I remember one tournament where my opponent talked me out of my last turn by insisting that I went first. At some point, it's just easier not to argue anymore.

I've also played top players who did none of these things and were as straight-up and honest as can be.

I believe that there's a skill to playing this game, and there's a skill to making the right decisions during the game. But it's a game with dice and often-times poorly written rules. I believe there's also a skill to being willing to argue just a little longer than your opponent, to being able to call for cover saves incorrectly, and, unfortunately, to being able to get the 5 or 6 when needed.

When a tournament consists of two solid days of gaming, and essentially seven or eight elimination games (right, one loss and you're out of the running at Nova?), I don't see play skill alone explaining how one player essentially runs off 21 wins in a row. And when each of the videoed finals shows some manner of 'questionable' behaviour, it begs the question, what happened in the other 18 games? Think about that. 18 straight wins, in competitive games. The dice never went cold? His opponent's dice never went hot? Not once?

If games are decided by luck and list-building, then we can knock off list-building as a factor, as the vast majority of people will have optimized lists. This means, according to your criteria, that its just luck.

There are two flaws in your argument here. First, you're assuming that everyone's optimized lists are equal. Not really trying to pick on Tony too much, but you're holding him up as an example, so try and follow me here. Nova's an event that draws players from across the country. Tony's local. Tony's friends with the TO. Is it possible that Tony has a better understanding of what sort of terrain to expect? I can optimize a list for a tournament where I expect minimal terrain (ling-range shooting heavy), and I can optimize a list for a tournament where I expect city-fight-esque terrain density (short range shooting and/or assault), and these two lists will look completely different. If you assume that Tony has the most optimized list at the tournament, and others have less optimized lists, it throws off the math below.

I think the second logical error is believing that play skill has zero impact. At any event that's GT sized, you're going to have poor players as well as top players. The first few rounds should see player skill be a factor. But as you progress into the field, and poorer players move into the losers bracket, play skill is going to even out and be less of a factor, and that's where I think you start to see the play-skill cap come into effect.

In all of the games that I've played against "top players", I don't think that play skill has been the deciding factor in any of them. I've lost (and won) games on luck. I've lost and won games due to Rock-paper-scissors list issues. I've lost games due to, shall we call it, gamesmanship. But I don't think there's been a game that I've lost or won against a "top player" that's been decided by in game decisions.

That's not saying play skill is definitively not a factor. I've won plenty of games that I should have lost on paper by outplaying my opponent. But none of those against someone I'd consider a "top player".

I wasn't at Nova, and I want to be clear, I'm not accusing Tony of cheating. I am stating a fact when I say that some of his taped games drew some controversies, (and I'm sure that I could dig up appropriate citation links if I bothered) but I have no stance on any of it personally. Clearly he's a good player because he has won 21 games in a row at Nova. I just find that to be somewhat improbable. Not based on such extreme probabilities as you posited, but based on the fact that many of those games had to be against other people who had made it past day one, obviously having both decent lists and play skill. Even sixteen or nine wins in a row under those conditions, in a game where luck is a factor, strikes me as odd.

Strategy and tactics aren't the same which I was mentioning in my last post and i think that strategy in particular is the part that REALLY doesn't get the attention It deserves.

Do you think it safe to say that there are really THREE things to look at here? List,m strategy and Tactics?

 labmouse42 wrote:

Then, this is when 'skill' comes in. But it only comes after the list building is as solid as it can be. Since it takes precedence, I rank it higher in terms of importance.Were in agreement on this. List building is a critical part of the game. Tony brings excellent lists. The point is others do as well, so the quality of list is nearly a non-issue.
You just said the word "skill". Do you remember when I said I suspect were having a definition issue? I expect that when I'm speaking of 'tactics', I'm thinking of something you are thinking of as 'skill'.

Sorry, I must've missed that amongst the point and counter point what with all the quoting. Tactics are specific maneuvers used to gain an advantage in game. Skill is a generic term for ability to play 40k. Using tactics is a skill. Being skillful doesn't necessarily mean being tactical. Someone could probably be very skillful at the game by making sure to always premeasure distance to the nth degree and overall being very meticulous with movement. Being tactical would involve using specific maneuvers like the ones you mentioned earlier...not showing rear armor, using vehicles to block assault, etc.

Are we on the same page? I think that there is a small pool of specific maneuvers (tactics) that can be used in game to garner you any sort of useful advantage. All other new/unique maneuvers either give you only a minuscule advantage not worth mentioning or give you no practical advantage at all. As a result, I believe the skill ceiling is low in terms of using tactics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:
Strategy and tactics aren't the same which I was mentioning in my last post and i think that strategy in particular is the part that REALLY doesn't get the attention It deserves.

Do you think it safe to say that there are really THREE things to look at here? List,m strategy and Tactics?

I think strategy really comes in during list building. If your overall strategy is to overwhelm your opponent with threats, then you will pump your list full of fast moving vehicles and units. If it is to hunker down and defend your home objectives whilst punishing the opposition, then you will have a list with many static, shooty units.

The other time strategy comes in is during deployment. You'll only ever have a limited, maximum amount of inches that any unit can move and consequently that means that where you put your models at the start of the game will have a large effect on how the game turns out. I think it's far easier to discuss deployment and the strategies involved their than an individual tactic that may only be useful once in a blue moon.

 Redbeard wrote:
I don't think the skill ceiling is all that high. Whether it's "easily accessible" - well, that I don't know. I know that there are people who have played the game for less than a year with tournament wins against old veterans

Natural talent plays a lot into it. I've met quite a few 'tourney vets' who did not have that much skill. Just like in any activity, there are some people who have more of a natural knack for it. Despite what you were told as a kid, your probably not going to be able to pick up a golf club and play better than Tiger Woods.

 Redbeard wrote:
weren't there some concerns raised about some of his wins?
I've seen some of the ones who place highly do questionable things in games.
I believe there's also a skill to being ... able to get the 5 or 6 when needed
Think about that. 18 straight wins, in competitive games. The dice never went cold? ... Not once?
Tony's friends with the TO. Is it possible that Tony has a better understanding of what sort of terrain to expect?
I'm not accusing Tony of cheating .. but .. in a game where luck is a factor, strikes me as odd.

Redbeard, this looks like a Jon Stewart skit. "I'm not saying the guys a cheater, but things just look suspicious!" I'm really not sure what to make of it.

 Redbeard wrote:
I think the second logical error is believing that play skill has zero impact.

That's my entire point though -- it does have impact! I removed player skill from the equasion to illustrate that the logic that all "top players" have the same skill level is invalid. This is what would happen if the "skill ceiling was not high".
Unless I misread your counter-point, you said "No, the skill level is the same, its just the guys who win all the time are cheaters".

My problem is with this statement. "I don't think the skill ceiling is all that high" That definition implies that 90% of the people who play this game will hit the "top of their game" within a few weeks of playing. In my experience, this simply is not true. In that, we can agree to disagree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gpfunk wrote:
Sorry, I must've missed that amongst the point and counter point what with all the quoting. Tactics are specific maneuvers used to gain an advantage in game. Skill is a generic term for ability to play 40k. Using tactics is a skill. Being skillful doesn't necessarily mean being tactical. Someone could probably be very skillful at the game by making sure to always premeasure distance to the nth degree and overall being very meticulous with movement. Being tactical would involve using specific maneuvers like the ones you mentioned earlier...not showing rear armor, using vehicles to block assault, etc.

That sounds good.

There is a limit of combinations that can be used between units. With ~700 units in the game, that's a huge amount of possible combinations. However, in reality your going to see a small percentage of this in actual play. That's probably where your saying the 'tactics pool is low'. In that sense you are accurate. If your playing the same base 4 armies and using the same army then your going to learn all the tactics.
However, what happens when you pick up a new army, like the daemon codex? Do you deep strike 100 daemonettes near someone using icons to not scatter? Do you bring 5 FMCs and go 'derrka derrka' at someone? Do you use the grimoire to buff fateweaver? How about using it on a squad of 20 possessed CSM of Tzeentch giving them a 2++ save?
A whole new set of tactics open up when a new codex is released. Even if your not playing that codex, a new set of counter tactics must be used. How do you stop dual-triple helldrake? You now need to start using different tactics to survive this -- keeping out of LOS, etc.
Heck, even base ideas like 'assault the shooty units' has problems when you combine units. Do you really want to assault that block of 20 CSM if Abbadon is sitting at the front of it? Heck no! He will go 'fruit ninja' on whatever he touches.
So my point is this -- while there are limits to combinations of how units will interact, the flux in the game makes this list of interacting units always changing.

The problem again I think were finding is definition of 'tactics'. If using that grimore on a squad of possessed CSM a tactic or a 'list-building skill'? It's a tactic used in a game, but its concieved in the list-building section.

 labmouse42 wrote:

There is a limit of combinations that can be used between units. With ~700 units in the game, that's a huge amount of possible combinations. However, in reality your going to see a small percentage of this in actual play. That's probably where your saying the 'tactics pool is low'. In that sense you are accurate. If your playing the same base 4 armies and using the same army then your going to learn all the tactics.
However, what happens when you pick up a new army, like the daemon codex? Do you deep strike 100 daemonettes near someone using icons to not scatter? Do you bring 5 FMCs and go 'derrka derrka' at someone? Do you use the grimoire to buff fateweaver? How about using it on a squad of 20 possessed CSM of Tzeentch giving them a 2++ save?
A whole new set of tactics open up when a new codex is released. Even if your not playing that codex, a new set of counter tactics must be used. How do you stop dual-triple helldrake? You now need to start using different tactics to survive this -- keeping out of LOS, etc.
Heck, even base ideas like 'assault the shooty units' has problems when you combine units. Do you really want to assault that block of 20 CSM if Abbadon is sitting at the front of it? Heck no! He will go 'fruit ninja' on whatever he touches.
So my point is this -- while there are limits to combinations of how units will interact, the flux in the game makes this list of interacting units always changing.

The problem again I think were finding is definition of 'tactics'. If using that grimore on a squad of possessed CSM a tactic or a 'list-building skill'? It's a tactic used in a game, but its concieved in the list-building section.

I guess what I am getting from this statement is that new tactics generally follow new codexes, which inevitably have more(read:new) units. Most of the tactics you're coming up with are based on unit selection, which would mean that list-building is the key skill involved. There are some unit combinations that can be dismissed offhand as ineffective for the points, more trouble than they are worth, or lacking in synergy with any other units. The cap on number of tactics is dependent on number of units and unit combinations, the number of unit combinations in an army is dependent on list-building.

New codexes do raise the skill cap on 40k by adding new rules specific to the army, but even then it won't take too entirely long for people to get the long and short of it. To see what is effective and ineffective. They raise the skill cap, but not by a whole heck of a lot.

On the point of general tactics becoming less effective when more units are involved; it only mildly complicates the problem. You want to assault the CSM with a choppy unit, but Abbadon is in front of them to avoid this. His choppy is better than your choppy, so you divert more of your shooty into Abbadon until he's dead. Or you take another general tactic and avoid him. All unit combinations do is add small branches to an already limited decision tree.

On your final point: Yeah, it's a bit confusing. Sort of a "Chicken or the Egg" debate. Listbuilding is invariably first in order, but tactics could have been developed in previous games. But in those previous games you had to build a list first, right? But that list was based off tactics used in another game. But you had a list before that as well and wouldn't have found that combination without the list you built...etc. I still think list-building would be more important than the specific tactic. If you don't have strong support units to help your squad of possessed with the 3+ invulnerable then it won't matter how clever the tactic is. You'll fail based on the merits of your list.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
weren't there some concerns raised about some of his wins?
I've seen some of the ones who place highly do questionable things in games.
I believe there's also a skill to being ... able to get the 5 or 6 when needed
Think about that. 18 straight wins, in competitive games. The dice never went cold? ... Not once?
Tony's friends with the TO. Is it possible that Tony has a better understanding of what sort of terrain to expect?
I'm not accusing Tony of cheating .. but .. in a game where luck is a factor, strikes me as odd.

Redbeard, this looks like a Jon Stewart skit. "I'm not saying the guys a cheater, but things just look suspicious!" I'm really not sure what to make of it.

I think you know exactly what to make of it. I wasn't there, I didn't watch any of the games, and therefore, I am not willing to definitively state that I believe he did something wrong. Circumstantial evidence still isn't enough to land people in jail, right. Is it cheating to talk to a TO before an event and know what sort of terrain to design your army for? Or even to help build said terrain as part of supporting the event? I don't think so, but it's an advantage that not everyone had.

His first year, his list was over points. Did those three points make a real difference? I don't know. At the very least it means he didn't have to make a difficult decision about what to cut.
http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2010/08/19/meat-for-meta-the-antidrama-of-novaopens-postmortem-cheating/

Second year, apparently there are accusations that he misused a fairly powerful piece. Did it happen? I don't know.
http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2011/08/28/tournament-circuit-novaopen-drama-tracker/

Third year, questionable interactions between that same piece and Flyers, and claims that he not only knew the terrain, but the missions beforehand too.
http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/09/08/tits-for-tournaments-novaopen-the-tammeny-hall-of-40k/


I didn't bring Tony's name into this discussion. You held him up as an example of how play skill really matters. I'm saying he's not a credible example of this based on the controversies surrounding those wins. There are at least a dozen other players you could have named who don't have this sort of reputation. I don't know whether he cheated. I do know that his wins have drawn more controversy than anyone else's.

 Redbeard wrote:
I think the second logical error is believing that play skill has zero impact.

That's my entire point though -- it does have impact! I removed player skill from the equasion to illustrate that the logic that all "top players" have the same skill level is invalid. This is what would happen if the "skill ceiling was not high".
Unless I misread your counter-point, you said "No, the skill level is the same, its just the guys who win all the time are cheaters".

If that was the case, why are people (like the ones I listed above) about to attend events with lists that would describe as 'meh' online -- yet win with them? I posted OrdoSean's DE/Eldar list on this forum -- and multiple people scoffed at it. OrdoSean took that list and won Templecon with it.

This isn't actually a compelling argument. The fact that people scoffed at a list doesn't mean that it was a case of a skilled player winning with a weak list, it's also possible that the scoffers were simply wrong and the list was actually a powerful one. It would hardly be the first time that people have dismissed something and then found out later that it's much better than they thought.

It doesn't seem the posted list was actually analyzed to determine if it was, in fact, an "underpowered" list, so discounting the argument that it was and that it is an example of skill on the field of battle may be premature.

And also, I should point out that high-level competitive play and the tactics forum (the OP that started it) are far from the same thing. Skill and tactics may be more important at a very high level, but generally this forum isn't dealing with expert players looking to fine-tune their tactics. The majority of posts are either newbies fumbling around with terrible lists or experienced players looking to start something new, and in both of those cases list optimization is going to produce greater rewards for a given amount of effort than trying to improve skill/tactics.

This argument seems to run along these lines:

Given that the level of skill presented by forum posts in the Tactics section is low, if someone is to be assisted in improving their odds of winning, then it is of greater advantage for them to hear advice on list-building rather than providing nuanced tactical understanding.

The argument itself has its merit.

My problem with it is that it seems, given the context in which this post was stated, that this discounts the value of engaging in those discussions of nuanced tactical decision. There are issues with that argument.

1) Individuals benefit from discussions of nuanced tactical decisions AND from discussions list-building. One may produce a greater result than the other, but that does not mean that one should be ignored for the other.

2) It may be the case that the majority of people on the Tactics forums are inexperienced, but there are individuals that are highly experienced and those people do benefit from nuanced discussion.

Therefore, nuanced discussions of tactical behaviour should still take place and should not be ignored on the basis that list-building discussions produce a greater benefit the majority of the time.

list building tactics should be mentioned, i routinely run a str 5/6 heavy shooting tau/eldar army because of the excellent milage i get from points spent and the overall ability to hurt almost anything in game, save lots of poitns by not taking the higher strength weapons and still get lots of utility cuz str 5 and 6 are for the most part able to kill stuff as long as you can roll, this oculd be a perfect example of you must have synergy in both or else your just flying blind without the knowledge of the other armies in general not specified list i could not even think to build an army that would do anything in any game, whereas my in game tactica lends to my list building

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/517437.page

This guy can't 'play harder' or somehow be brilliant to win, and once his eldar friend builds a better list it's just going to compound the problem. The eldar can almost randomly pick a target every turn with every gun and his list will win unless the DE kills his troops and the objectives go his way, which means the Eldar player's infinite myriad of tactical choices break down to 'shoot whatever DE unit with whatever Eldar unit is in range and play keep away with 20 troops for 4 turns' and his friend's tactics are "Try to kill two serpents playing keepaway while I get shredded to pieces" You can make it sound complicated by asking a thousand "What if X? What if Y? Where is Z? Am I in range of Q?" and it will sound like elevated tactics but every turn will boil down to the eldar player moving a serpent behind something/remaining behind something and rolling to shoot the woefully inadequate amount of dark eldar stuff that's capable of hurting it. The DE's infinite myriad of tactics boils down to trying to point stuff at two wave serpents and rolling to shoot.

This is a great example of why the infinite matrix of misdirection and intrigue and skilled awesome tactical mastery takes a back seat to actually knowing what you're supposed to put on the table. Because it's infinitely more important.

And I am having a hard time believing these people are able to keep a straight face when they tell us opponents are legitimately confused or 'thrown off their game' or whatever when a unit they don't see much is put on the table. If they aren't asking to see the list entry they're bad, if they're seeing the list entry and still failing they're dumb. You deserve to beat them.

"This infantry unit is like my infantry other units in terms of durability, but it's gun hits 15% harder and it costs 45% more points" -WHOA BETTER SHOOT ALL MY AT WEAPONS AT IT?!?! THE WOOL HAS BEEN PULLED OVER MY EYES BY LEGITIMATE TACTICS!

From my humble experience, I've had to fight against optimised lists so far and my fluff-focused Deathguard had only a single win yet over 4 games.

Mostly, it seems I just can't get enough heavy firepower to take down all those tanks and Land raiders sent against me for lack of S9/S10 far-ranging weapons in my list, so I have to keep trying to optimise my list for a chance to win.

With little success with daemon allies so far, I'm considering building up a 2ndary detachment of Imperial Guard just to get enough Leman Russ tanks and the Master of Ordnance's S10 template to crush the enemy and see him driven before me. So unfortunately, army list building seems to matter far more than anything else from my personal experience, aside for knowing by heart your enemy's armybook.

Therefore, tactics is something hard to discuss IMHO since you have to actually know the specific context you're playing in to discuss it - your opponent's forces and battleground disposition.

Wow, you leave for Easter Holiday and you come back to all this awesomeness LOL

can't lie, LOVE this discussion!

 silence indigo wrote:
From my humble experience, I've had to fight against optimised lists so far and my fluff-focused Deathguard had only a single win yet over 4 games.

{anecdotal experience here}

Therefore, tactics is something hard to discuss IMHO since you have to actually know the specific context you're playing in to discuss it - your opponent's forces and battleground disposition.

Those who dont "beleive" in tactics aren't going to listen to anything a tactically minded person has to say. So they aren't the audience you want and it will be hard to talk to them.

Those who "get" that terrain, enemy build, your strategy and theirs create a need to be quick on your feet and "see the game from 50,000 feet" can talk about tactics just fine.

In other words, you can have a discussion with willing people.

List-building:

You build your list with already a strategy in mind (at least for most people who know what they are doing). Some examples include:

IG gunline - this type of build is just to shoot your enemy to death. At least that is the general strategy.

Maximum Threat Overload armies - this type of army plays very aggressively and rushes the opponent with a lot of fast and dangerous threats.

Dark Eldar venom-spam - this type of build is basically a shooty build that can move out of harm's way very easily. You basically stay at a distance and keep shooting your opponents, only going for the objectives near the end.

Balanced grey knights - this build is basically a reactive "water warrior" army, with good shooting and good assault. The strategy is to react to your opponent, playing as a gunline against assault lists and as a rush army against the more shooty ones.

Deathstar armies - basically the strategy is to shove your deathstar down your opponents throat and see him gurgle and choke on his own vomit.

Assault armies - rush the enemy and play aggressively.

Space Marine Take-All-Comer's list - basically, another reactive army like the knights.


So when you build your list, you are already building a strategy in terms of how you want to play.


Tactics:

These are in-game decisions that you have to make based on who you are fighting, the type of army they are bringing, mission objective, terrain, etc. You have 1 main strategy in your mind already. However, how you execute is actually your tactics. Which target should you prioritize first, how will you get to and hold your objectives, what do you need to do against an opponent with a list more suited to fight your "type" of army, should you assault at all if you have the opportunity, should you sacrifice your unit for the greater good, etc.

To a degree, your overall strategy and your list will dictate your tactics. However, you will always have to adjust your tactics "on the fly" depending on the situation in the battlefield. Basically, list-building and overall strategy is what you want to do. In-game tactics is how you get there.


---------------------------------------------


With regards to List building and Tactics, check out my "interactive" battle report against Tomb King. We are both running optimized lists and we are both good generals and winners of a GT before (Indy Open GT for Tomb King, Golden Throne GT for myself). Perhaps what may differentiate our "list-building" are our tactics? Check it out (currently in progress):


1750 Jy2's Hive Fleet Pandora vs Tomb King's The Ugly Misfits - An Interactive Battle

It's probably just me, but I think it hard to separate tactics from one's army building.

To quote another anectodical experience :

Defensively, I use my Plague Marines to get to objectives quickly take cover under ruins, place the Rhino in a convenient space to block sight from the enemy's far guns (unless it's already destroyed) and prevent the enemy's infantry from getting near, usually with success.

Offensively, I use my offensive Obliterators (they curse a lot) to appear behind the enemy's line and wreck his tanks and heavily armoured infantry (AP2).

Occasionnaly I use the same Plague Marines or Nurgle bikers with a powerfist lord to zoom quickly to the enemy's tanks and bash them up before he kills my Plague Marines from afar.

The rest of my army's purpose seems to be to get killed and award my enemy Kill Points, according to my results so far.

So I may be myopic, but my army buidling is always made with tactical deployment and battleground targets in mind: the PM for defence and the Obliterators for offence. So I really can't separate listbuilding from tactics in light of my humble novice experience...

If I can add my grain of salt to the discussion :

One problem I see here, is that for most people, tactics are instinctive. Best exemple is cover: everyone knows you survive better prone behind a wall than with your head in the barrel of a plasma cannon.

One thing that I rarely see discussed here is deployment / movement. So let me tell you about my experience : I mainly play CSM, and mainly against daemons. It took me 3 games (and 3 losses) to understand that I should deploy my guys as a pack, and not as 2 separate forces. Now, I deploy everything bar the fast units (bikers, spawns) in a single pack to avoid being overwhelmed on a side of the table.

This is tactics (maybe even strategy). It may come natural for some of you, some of the seasonned generals might even call that "low ceiling tactics" ( @gpfunk), but for some of us (namely me), it must be learned the hard way.

If the tactical skill of every player is the same (and it is in competitive high end games), then yeah, the game is about list buildings and throwing dice. But we are not all born tacticians.

My 2 cents !

Thanks, Seb; My Deathguard is facing daemons this weekend, I'll try that tactic.

good call. The Daemons dont like massed fire, especially now!

After trying that tactic this weekend against my opponent's daemons, it appeared in fact quite true that daemons die easily to flamers, and I also noted that units of 5 chaos spawn with the mark of Nurgle (T6) are nearly unkillable even against Bloodcrushers. The best thing is getting those chaos spawn shot at by Tzeentch daemons is seeing your Feel No Pain go from none to 4+. Had the game continued for a bit longer, they might have gotten to the point of having a 2+ FnP, and 2 of them managed to tarpit in hand to hand against for several turns against a daemon walker (up until the end of the game).

In addition, his army was much more damaged than mine by his very own Storm of Chaos rules, "Khorne's wrath" actually killing a Khorne Fleshound and a Bloodletter (and nothing else).

Just don't forget that daemons have tank walkers too: I had to faced two of them and wasn't quite prepared enough...

Another thing I learned: units of 20 daemonettes on the charge will eventually destroy your vehicles, your Nurgle bikers and your obliterators, so try going for heights and beware of those very, very fast daemonic streewalkers!

w/o battle reports, which most people (myself included) are bad at doing, its next to impossible to discuss tactic as saying "Use this unit this way" works only if the other side of the table supports it.

Ive had games where i had to hoof it with lootas and shoot while i moved. The game was too city-borne to allow me to sit in one spot with them, they had like 3 spots they could shoot at if they didnt shuffle around.
w/o the opponents list and the terrain setup, tactics cannot be discussed accurately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
w/o battle reports, which most people (myself included) are bad at doing, its next to impossible to discuss tactic as saying "Use this unit this way" works only if the other side of the table supports it.

Ive had games where i had to hoof it with lootas and shoot while i moved. The game was too city-borne to allow me to sit in one spot with them, they had like 3 spots they could shoot at if they didnt shuffle around.
w/o the opponents list and the terrain setup, tactics cannot be discussed accurately.

 silence indigo wrote:
After trying that tactic this weekend against my opponent's daemons, it appeared in fact quite true that daemons die easily to flamers, and I also noted that units of 5 chaos spawn with the mark of Nurgle (T6) are nearly unkillable even against Bloodcrushers. The best thing is getting those chaos spawn shot at by Tzeentch daemons is seeing your Feel No Pain go from none to 4+. Had the game continued for a bit longer, they might have gotten to the point of having a 2+ FnP, and 2 of them managed to tarpit in hand to hand against for several turns against a daemon walker (up until the end of the game).

In addition, his army was much more damaged than mine by his very own Storm of Chaos rules, "Khorne's wrath" actually killing a Khorne Fleshound and a Bloodletter (and nothing else).

Just don't forget that daemons have tank walkers too: I had to faced two of them and wasn't quite prepared enough...

Another thing I learned: units of 20 daemonettes on the charge will eventually destroy your vehicles, your Nurgle bikers and your obliterators, so try going for heights and beware of those very, very fast daemonic streewalkers!

Were those losses from the blast scattering? Just want to make sure your opponent wasn't rolling Khorne's Wrath for his Khorne units (if he was, he was doing it wrong).

I think tactics discussions hold an enormous amount of value in 40k. Mostly for new players, though. Tacticas on bubblewrapping, properly spreading out, denying the flank, and mutual support really helped me develop as a player. So, too, did articles on real world military concepts such as defence in depth and force concentration. While rehashing concepts like these would not be of great help to me, personally, there are always new players coming into the game who have never heard of these things, and encouraging a continual discussion about these ideas helps to ensure that new players can catch up with the rest of us.

The list forum is great for new players, helping them to see what constitutes a great list, but often times the list forum skips over why it is that those lists are great and why they take the units that they do. I have several very intelligent friends who refuse to believe that Necron Wraithwing can be a competitive list (we don't have any serious competitive Necron players in our area), and one friend who refuses to believe that Termie Spam Grey Knights is anything less than an auto lose against non-fluffy armies ("Any competent player will Instant Death them off the table!") despite actually seeing Termie spam used to great effect on a number of occasions. The great flexibility of the Wraithwing list is not necessarily apparent when all you do is look at the list, nor is the great resilience of the Termie army due to its homogenized and extremely efficient defensive profile. Consider the minor back and forth about Pink Horrors and Plaguebearers that's happening right now. A lot of players are taking Plaguebearers as their go-to objective campers right now when, nine times out of ten, Pink Horrors are significantly more resilient, and the few times that Plaguebearers do edge out Pink Horrors--when they are being targeted by a weapon that ignores cover/locked in close combat--the plaguebearers still only benefit from a point higher toughness while having a worse save. When a player compares Plaguebearers and Pink Horrors in a vacuum the Plaguebearers seem to be far better suited to camping objectives while the Pink Horrors look like a niche unit at best, but when someone points out that the Horrors can gain access to the same cover save that the Plaguebearers have natively by taking advantage of GtG in ruins and Aegis Defense lines, and that those saves will, in fact, end up being much better due to the Tzeentch ability to re-roll saving throws of one, the Horrors turn out to be the go-to objective campers for the Daemons codex and Plaguebearers turn out to be the niche unit. These are tactical considerations that make a list work and, without them, there's a very good chance that players will either dismiss good lists and good unit choices out of hand or fail to utilize them appropriately. The tactics forum, I feel, can serve very well to explain tactics of this sort, which enhances the worth of the list forum.

Agree with OP, as someone stated before there are a lot of tournament players on Dakka they probably just don't want to share their tactics so no one can use it against them at tournaments.

For me, building the list is the only tactical part of the game that can really be discussed on a forum. The list building is were you think about every possible army list you could face and think of a way to beat it with your army. The tactics when you go out and actually play are spur of the moment and require the player to think on their feet. Every situation in 40k is different, with board layouts and unlucky dice rolls requiring you to change your tactics. So if you think there's too much list building discussed, then I don't know what to tell you, cause the army lists and the statistics are the only pieces of hard data that players can use to prepare for the next game.

Anecdote coming.

Yesterday, my friend Nate scheduled a game with a guy. He got shelled. He's a newer player but with a fair number of games under his belt, hasn't really gotten his list perfected to his style of play QUITE yet. The Tyranids simply ate him alive. We are talking a basic list too. StormRaven, 5 Termies, Mephiston, 3 Assault troops, a Pod, a Furioso. Pretty standard stuff really for 1850. Nothing out of the ordinary. Played against PsykerZilla Tyranids.

I was suppoed to play Nate's same opponent next but I open my bag and realize I brought Flames of War on accident. OOPS. So Nate was kind enough to let me borrow his BA's, jut so the guy can get his tourney practice games in. Keep in mind, I dont PLAY Space Marines!

I wiped the Tyranid off the table.

What was the difference? Threads like this. I played an army I dont really "know" per se, for the first time ever and trucked the opponent who had just trucked it. That can't happen without tactics and witrhout the sound advice some do give in places LIKE this.

Of course we know that my friend, being newer but with a pretty fair number of games under his belt, had maybe a 50/50 shot against a tourney player. But it illustrates the difference in SKILL between players even of supposedly eqaul tourney motivation. Threads on tactics matter. It's why I can't wait to start blogging on the Tau. Such a tactics rich army, always has been. Fun to talk about.

What the heck, I'm bored at work, I'll throw in:

I play at a lot of GT's on a yearly basis (5-7) and have played from coast to coast and border to boarder (with the exception of New England). I generally play in RTT's at least once a month. I rarely have the chance to get out more often than that due to wife and life.

I win a lot. At GT's I'm normally sitting at a single loss for the weekend or undefeated. At RTT's I lose from time to time but mostly only when a wild hair takes me and I've started branching into a new list. I see the same people generally in the top brackets at major events on a yearly basis with 1-2 new people sometimes sliding in. It's strange that it's all list and luck driven but that still happens.

The reason people don't discuss tactics in the the tactics forums to me is that it's nearly impossible to do so via the written word. The variables of terrain, movement, and modeling can't really be discussed. Let alone outlook, natural tendencies, and playstyle. How you react to a single poor difficult terrain test and the rolling effect that has on your overall strategy. It's all things that can't really be taught by word. And if you try to be abstract and discuss you get the guy who already knows everything who jumps on the math train or diverts the conversation.

Now, that being said lists honestly barely matter once you hit a certain point. And are very, very heavily dependant on your playstyle or personality. If the list has the tools you, as a player, need to deal with what you're likely to see then you're in good shape. How you get to that goal differs between people. Look at the lists of generally top placing players. It's never what the internet says is amazing. It might contain some elements but it's normally a pretty heavy departure.

That said lists can help people on their way to that point. And math sometimes helps. Points to damage ratios are a good starting point for people so inclined but I find myself personally drawn to abstract value over pure point efficiency at list building. Things like multiple deployment options, disruption capability, general and direct support. Those are just a few off the top of my head.

Basically I don't think it's to hard to get "good" (winning 2/3 games) at this game. But I do think it's pretty hard to get "excellent" (winning 80%+) at it.

If we are going to discuss tactics then during the game, maybe we should use some pictures of units on the table and some terrain so we can give examples of tactics in use.