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.

Hello everyone.

There is an issue I would like to address- namely, that of the distinction between tactics and competitiveness.

This has come up in a few threads in the Tactics forum that I have read. Basically, the impression that I get is that anytime anyone posts about using a unit that might not be the most points efficient model, someone will chime in to tell them they should never use it, and that they should use model X instead.

This is justified with the (paraphrased) statement of "This is a Tactics forum, what did you expect".

However.

That does not mean that everyone in the forum is necessarily looking to min/ max their lists for tournament/ highly competitive play.

If someone is asking about the best way to run a particular unit, please do not respond with "Don't run that unit, it's not efficient, run this instead".

Don't get me wrong, it's perfectly okay to mention that to them, but only if in addition to a comment that meaningfully contributes to the discussion.

For instance: A recent thread regarding Primaris Psykers for IG comes to mind. A more polite, helpful, and contributing respond might be "Personally, if I were making an army, I wouldn't run it because X is more efficient. That said, if you do want to run this unit, this is my opinion of the best way to do that."

The point being don't comment simply to say that they shouldn't run the unit, if they've made it clear that they do in fact want to run said unit. It doesn't contribute anything to the thread, and is a detriment to the forum and to Dakka as a whole.

Thank you for reading and please remember this when posting. Above all be polite. It makes discussions a lot more civil.

It is tactics and sometimes the best tactic is to not use the terrible X

I agree. Totally. If someone wants to build the best possible army, then they can do that.

However, if they want to know the best tactics with the knowledge that they want to run a particular unit, I think they should be able to get advice on that as well.

Please teach me how to play basketball well, but I insist on only using my left hand.

Haha I'm actually a lefty

One of the main problems is that people do not fully explain their tactics while discussing a unit. For example, if someone said they wanted to use broadsides with heavy rail rifles for killing flyers you would explain to them how 4 s7 shots from a high yield missile pod is better than one s8 shot from a heavy rail rifle. We can back this up with math and since they cost the same points HYMP seem to be the better choice. The original poster may not have explained that their tactic is to keep the broadside's out of range of the enemy so the 60'' for the heavy rail rifle is actually better for that tactic than the 36'' HYMP or that they also want a unit that can pen AV13 necron vehicles so the rest of the army can mop them up. If you don't fully explain what your tactic with the unit will be or what all your purposes are people are going to tell you to use the most mathematically competitive option.

I think it is on the user to determine the crap from the gold in this particular case.

I play Necron and when started out I heard three things...

1. Wraiths
2. A. Barges
3. Night Scythes

Everything else was usable and some of it was just deemed unusable.

That said, I've had great luck with Doom Scythes, Scarabs, and Destroyers which don't usually see too much love. The thing is - everyone in one way or another is affected by the global discussion of this game on the internet. The internet "meta" will eventually leak down into a local playgroup and people will adjust accordingly.

So what do you do when your opponent expects you to bring the "staples" of your army? Bring something else. Throw them off. Don't play such a vanilla netlist and you may find that you will do just as well.

That said - it is undeniable that some units are purely overpriced or underpriced and on a point-for-point matchup they are a steal to include in your army or just pure dead-weight.

Adjust accordingly. Do your own thing.

 Budikah wrote:
I think it is on the user to determine the crap from the gold in this particular case.

I play Necron and when started out I heard three things...

1. Wraiths
2. A. Barges
3. Night Scythes

Everything else was usable and some of it was just deemed unusable.

That said, I've had great luck with Doom Scythes, Scarabs, and Destroyers which don't usually see too much love. The thing is - everyone in one way or another is affected by the global discussion of this game on the internet. The internet "meta" will eventually leak down into a local playgroup and people will adjust accordingly.

So what do you do when your opponent expects you to bring the "staples" of your army? Bring something else. Throw them off. Don't play such a vanilla netlist and you may find that you will do just as well.

That said - it is undeniable that some units are purely overpriced or underpriced and on a point-for-point matchup they are a steal to include in your army or just pure dead-weight.

Adjust accordingly. Do your own thing.

Just because you have had success with something doesn't make it the best unit. Necrons is powerful enough that even the bad ones are as strong or stronger than some of the good stuff from other armies. And although they perform well doesn't mean there is not something the performs better, so people feel obliged to tell you so.

As for the internet meta vs your shop's meta, this goes back to the thought that you as the poster need to explain clearly what you are trying to accomplish by taking unit X. If I see you spending a ridiculous amount of points on ap1/2 weapons and I feel you have way too many I might say something. If before you would have said, 9 out of 10 of my opponents are GK so I need ap1/2 I would not have said anything about how much points you are spending on heavy weapons. If you do not explain what your local meta is we can only give advice based on the internet meta.

When I give advice on this forum, I do so from a competitive standpoint. I am a player that participates in tournies, and as such, my advice comes from that framework. When someone asks for an opinion on a unit that sucks, I will state that it sucks. Under the frame which I am operating from, it is true.

An assumption that I've always made is that when someone posts a list or asks for advice, they are asking for competitive advice (unless otherwise stated). Why? Because why else would you ask? If someone states "for fun" or "uncompetitive", I don't bother to respond.

If you play for fun, who the cares what you use? Why do I care to comment? If you play with a bunch of friends, drink some beers, and want to use an army with 30 Mandrakes--go for it. Playing for fun is just as respectable as going to big events. HOWEVER, I personally see little reason to discuss funhammer 40k. The cardinal rule for non-competitive games is to have fun. Really, the cardinal rule for all games is to have fun, it just so happens that people who want to play competitively have more fun playing under different constraints and against like-minded individuals who are also interested in a challenge.

Nevertheless, there is no real reason to discuss the "tactics" of a crap unit in a non-competitive setting. I believe that many people who post advice feel this way. It is the burden of the OP to specify constraints of "non-competitive" or "for fun only"--not those who reply.

I get what you are saying JGrand, but there are some people who are somewhere in the middle. They want to be as effective as possible with the units they want to bring, but don't want to carbon copy what the internet thinks those units should be. There are many other like minded people in this group that have experience using units that are perceived as sub par who can give them good advice on using that unit X quite effectively.

That's why I agree with the OP in trying to construct criticism as constructively as possible. If someone asks the question "How do I use X most effectively," they generally have already made some level of commitment to X (maybe they just made a bad ass conversion), but still want X to perform. Still, I don't think there is anything wrong with stating you think Y accomplishes it more efficiently, but at the same time, particularly from experienced competitive players like yourself, I think people would really appreciate you going into their mindset of committing to X, and finding the best way of maximizing X's unique abilities versus Y, instead of resorting to just taking Y in the first place.

To the OP: I agree with pretty much everything you said, and even though what you're asking for seems totally reasonable, you can't change the internet. Awhile back there was a lot of negative Blood Angel threads populating the front page, and someone eventually started a "Positive Blood Angel Tactics Only(or something similar)" thread, and it took about 3 replies before the hate train chugged along that track as well. The point is, even though this is supposed to be an area to share ideas and potentially learn a thing or two, all people really seem to want to do is take a stance and defend it in an argument. It's basically what makes forums go.

Show me a totally positive thread...it'll have maybe 5 replies.

Having said all that, I'm totally with you in spirit. Even further, I don't believe there to be too many bad units in 40k. Sure, there are selections in each codex that may not be as efficient points-wise as other options in said codex, but that doesn't make the unit in question perform better or worse when it's on the table-top. What needs to change is the language we use. Saying Warp Talons or Vanguard Vets "suck" isn't accurate. Both units have a lot of things going for them, but their cost is a tad higher that we'd like to pay considering their overall survivability and/or impact on the game, so we just throw them in the compost heap with the units that truly do suck (pyrovores and flayed ones come to mind). Is this fair? No. Is it fair to ask people to correctly articulate a units strengths prior to saying they're not going to see much playtime because it's a less desirable option in it's codex? I'm not sure...

Usually, the point difference between what we consider great and unplayable isn't even all that much. For example, people hate possessed space marines for all kinds of reasons, but mostly because they cost 26pts a model (without a mark). If they costed 22pts a model, I have a feeling they'd see more play. They still have a mobility issue, but I strongly believe that people would play them if they were just a smidge cheaper. If you've ever used them, you'd know they don't PLAY bad...they just take up a good chunk of points.

Here's an interesting question: How many times have you had a large amount of points get wiped off the board right away and still manage to be competitive? For me, the answer is quite often. That means that even though I am immediately handicapped in a game, I'm still able to play effectively. If this is the case, then it appears streamlining our lists to be "efficient" means far less than building them to have the tools to be "effective" with whatever gameplan we dream up.

 Danny Internets wrote:
Please teach me how to play basketball well, but I insist on only using my left hand.

This is a tactics forum and left-handed people are at a disadvantage, therefore we don't support left-handed players. Freaks that they are.

Seriously it's posts like Danny-boy's here that stopped me from asking anyone for advice on anything on this board, they just can't seem to figure out not every CSM player wants Nurgle everything with 3x Heldrakes.

Perhaps the way people ask is off.
A lot of people assume you want to take the most competitive list to a tournament as possible
Rather, you should ask, how would you get the most mileage out X unit.

Some units, are just garbage though, and people will insist they are worthless regardless.

MarsNZ wrote:

 Danny Internets wrote:
Please teach me how to play basketball well, but I insist on only using my left hand.

This is a tactics forum and left-handed people are at a disadvantage, therefore we don't support left-handed players. Freaks that they are.

Seriously it's posts like Danny-boy's here that stopped me from asking anyone for advice on anything on this board, they just can't seem to figure out not every CSM player wants Nurgle everything with 3x Heldrakes.

If you can't handle some mild snark, perhaps you're a bit too sensitive for the internet.

 JGrand wrote:
When I give advice on this forum, I do so from a competitive standpoint. I am a player that participates in tournies, and as such, my advice comes from that framework. When someone asks for an opinion on a unit that sucks, I will state that it sucks. Under the frame which I am operating from, it is true.

An assumption that I've always made is that when someone posts a list or asks for advice, they are asking for competitive advice (unless otherwise stated). Why? Because why else would you ask? If someone states "for fun" or "uncompetitive", I don't bother to respond.

If you play for fun, who the cares what you use? Why do I care to comment? If you play with a bunch of friends, drink some beers, and want to use an army with 30 Mandrakes--go for it. Playing for fun is just as respectable as going to big events. HOWEVER, I personally see little reason to discuss funhammer 40k. The cardinal rule for non-competitive games is to have fun. Really, the cardinal rule for all games is to have fun, it just so happens that people who want to play competitively have more fun playing under different constraints and against like-minded individuals who are also interested in a challenge.

Nevertheless, there is no real reason to discuss the "tactics" of a crap unit in a non-competitive setting. I believe that many people who post advice feel this way. It is the burden of the OP to specify constraints of "non-competitive" or "for fun only"--not those who reply.

The only problem with this, is sometimes people only have units x,y and z to work with and want the est tactics they can get for competitive play. Not everyone is as made of money GW likes to think. I play tournies with a definite sub-par 'nid list because of just that problem. It was a great 4e Codex list, and took a bit stick in the current codex. If look for tactic help on sub-par units it is because it's what I have to field.

 Danny Internets wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:

 Danny Internets wrote:
Please teach me how to play basketball well, but I insist on only using my left hand.

This is a tactics forum and left-handed people are at a disadvantage, therefore we don't support left-handed players. Freaks that they are.

Seriously it's posts like Danny-boy's here that stopped me from asking anyone for advice on anything on this board, they just can't seem to figure out not every CSM player wants Nurgle everything with 3x Heldrakes.

If you can't handle some mild snark, perhaps you're a bit too sensitive for the internet.

If you can't resist adding your childish WAAC comments to every tactics thread maybe you should look at unplugging yourself.

I'm 100% with OP on this one.

I'm taking tankbustas to my next tournament. Let the raging and frothing and gnashing of teeth begin.

Hipsters in 40k... because some lists are too "Mainstream" lol

If you want to win in a highly competitive tournament setting you should probably take the most efficient units that more experienced players have won with. If you don't want to take those units then don't expect to win, simple as that. Now obviously we all want to win when going to a tournament so if someone tells you the unit is bad and gives you a better suggestion... why bitch about it?

Now if we are talking pick-up games and game night with friends then ya I'm right there with the OP give me some advice that will make my mediocre poorly written but cool unit work.

As to the OP don't be so sensitive/easily trolled... if the little jabs Danny says offends you your not going to last long on Dakka

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm 100% with OP on this one.

I'm taking tankbustas to my next tournament. Let the raging and frothing and gnashing of teeth begin.

Good on yer, Mate! Dem boyz wiv da rokkitz will ger 'er dun!

Personally i'm a huge fan of Flashgitz, SAG Meks, Grots and Wierdboyz.

Mathhammer-wise i'd be better off shooting myself in the head than playing a game. I play them none the less because i enjoy them...

Not all of them at the same time for EVERY list, mind, but one or the other of them tends to find their way into most of my lists

If you don't want to take those units then don't expect to win, simple as that.

I think you are completely missing the point, as it is not as simple as that. Many, many veteran players take lists and units that aren't popular on the internet. Tony might be the best player in the US and every list he's brought in the last 3 years has a whole army of detractors. The fact is, most people simply haven't garnered enough experience with every unit in the game to definitively develop an informed opinion with them. Much negative perception is rooted simply in the fact that what a unit is good at doesn't fit a prevailing strategy or tactic. However, when your strategies and tactics embrace whatever it is the unit does particularly well, then that unit becomes more viable to you then it would be to someone who simply doesn't want to employ those strategies or tactics.

Take the poster child for scorn Pyrovore. It developed a negative reputation during 5th edition when the primary targets everyone was concerned with were MSU MeQ, Mech, three things it was quite sub par in dealing with. Now? In the current meta some of the most efficient and popular units, like blobs, orcs, Warriors, etc, are prime targets for a Pyrovore. Consider this, 3 Pyrovores in a pod cost about the same as a Helldrake and is 3 times as potent against the aforementioned units. 3 times as potent and yet the former is considered trash while the latter is considered one of the best units in the game. Why the disconnect? Are there armies that the Pyrovore won't have any great targets against? Sure. The same could be said for the Helldrake. Yet blobs, one unit they are extremely potent against, is one of the most popular troop selections in the game.


Not to derail with a Pyrovore discussion, just an example of why we should be constantly challenging our preconceived and possibly outdated perceptions of units as the meta continues to adapt and change.

Now obviously we all want to win when going to a tournament so if someone tells you the unit is bad and gives you a better suggestion... why bitch about it?

Speak for yourself. Down here in NZ, tournaments are one part playing to win and three parts having a good time.

Personally i'm a huge fan of Flashgitz, SAG Meks, Grots and Wierdboyz.

I actually reckon SAG Meks and Grots both have a place even on a competitive list. Weirdboys though, not so much. Flash Gits on the other hand, I reckon they have some potential - but theres no point in drawing it out now, because by the time I get good enough with them to use them competitively, they'll have been upgunned anyway in the next codex

ShadarLogoth wrote:

If you don't want to take those units then don't expect to win, simple as that.

I think you are completely missing the point, as it is not as simple as that. Many, many veteran players take lists and units that aren't popular on the internet. Tony might be the best player in the US and every list he's brought in the last 3 years has a whole army of detractors. The fact is, most people simply haven't garnered enough experience with every unit in the game to definitively develop an informed opinion with them. Much negative perception is rooted simply in the fact that what a unit is good at doesn't fit a prevailing strategy or tactic. However, when your strategies and tactics embrace whatever it is the unit does particularly well, then that unit becomes more viable to you then it would be to someone who simply doesn't want to employ those strategiegs or tactics.

Maybe I am. What I am saying is if you are the inexperienced player going to tournament to try and win why would you take a unconventional unit that all you know about is some information you got about from more experienced players on a tactics forum? Then those same veterans are telling you that the unit sucks and they have tried to make it work but you don't want to hear that and tell them they are just being negative? lol As to the Pyrovore discussion if I am going to tournament to win why would I tailor my list to squeeze in a mediocre unit when I can take another unit that not only does the job better but my other units don't have to compensate for what it can't do? There are obviously unconventional units out there that hold promise for a particular list that's out of the norm, but look at the lists that win tournaments every year...

Speak for yourself. Down here in NZ, tournaments are one part playing to win and three parts having a good time.

Personally i'm a huge fan of Flashgitz, SAG Meks, Grots and Wierdboyz.

I actually reckon SAG Meks and Grots both have a place even on a competitive list. Weirdboys though, not so much. Flash Gits on the other hand, I reckon they have some potential - but theres no point in drawing it out now, because by the time I get good enough with them to use them competitively, they'll have been upgunned anyway in the next codex

Ok but this thread is about how to WIN at tournaments with units most people just reject. I'm glad you have fun at tournament. Personally I have more fun playing with my close friends over beer and pizza. I don't pay 5$ to spend 6 hours in a room full of sweaty, neck bearded, mouth breathing, people who don't know how to use deodorant and who's parents didn't teach them any manners yet they still live with them and walk away empty handed because I took units I liked instead of the ones that worked. Now obviously there are exceptions to and I meet some really cool nice people sometimes and have a great game... But like I said I can get that with my friends. I've played at 5 different FLGS and they were all like this... Tournaments just aren't my scene lol but when I go I go to win. Obviously you feel differently. All I am saying though is if your not going to win ya take whatever you want. If you are then maybe you should listen to the experienced players even if they tell you what you don't want to hear.

Actually, this thread is about helping people win by giving them tactics that work with the unit they have/want/borrowed.

As the OP said, it is perfectly ok to suggest that the winning tactic is not to take the unit, but tips on how to use the unit on the table may be more helpful to the poster.

MarkCron wrote:
Actually, this thread is about helping people win by giving them tactics that work with the unit they have/want/borrowed.

As the OP said, it is perfectly ok to suggest that the winning tactic is not to take the unit, but tips on how to use the unit on the table may be more helpful to the poster.

Ahhh well in that case people should just learn to answer questions more theroly then. Tell them what you would take instead and then tell them If they insist how to use it most effectively. Kind of like what everyone else seems to be saying lol

Perhaps just tell them how to use it most effectively without telling them what you would take instead. Saves you time.

After all, in any game, the person who uses the units they have most effectively will win (unless you have my dice, in which case you are stuffed anyway).

Granted, most posts don't have enough detail about the way the unit fits into the battle plan - but any tips help.

 lambsandlions wrote:
One of the main problems is that people do not fully explain their tactics while discussing a unit. For example, if someone said they wanted to use broadsides with heavy rail rifles for killing flyers you would explain to them how 4 s7 shots from a high yield missile pod is better than one s8 shot from a heavy rail rifle. We can back this up with math and since they cost the same points HYMP seem to be the better choice. The original poster may not have explained that their tactic is to keep the broadside's out of range of the enemy so the 60'' for the heavy rail rifle is actually better for that tactic than the 36'' HYMP or that they also want a unit that can pen AV13 necron vehicles so the rest of the army can mop them up. If you don't fully explain what your tactic with the unit will be or what all your purposes are people are going to tell you to use the most mathematically competitive option.

I agree, teach a man to fish an all that.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

If you don't want to take those units then don't expect to win, simple as that.

I think you are completely missing the point, as it is not as simple as that. Many, many veteran players take lists and units that aren't popular on the internet. Tony might be the best player in the US and every list he's brought in the last 3 years has a whole army of detractors. The fact is, most people simply haven't garnered enough experience with every unit in the game to definitively develop an informed opinion with them. Much negative perception is rooted simply in the fact that what a unit is good at doesn't fit a prevailing strategy or tactic. However, when your strategies and tactics embrace whatever it is the unit does particularly well, then that unit becomes more viable to you then it would be to someone who simply doesn't want to employ those strategies or tactics.

Take the poster child for scorn Pyrovore. It developed a negative reputation during 5th edition when the primary targets everyone was concerned with were MSU MeQ, Mech, three things it was quite sub par in dealing with. Now? In the current meta some of the most efficient and popular units, like blobs, orcs, Warriors, etc, are prime targets for a Pyrovore. Consider this, 3 Pyrovores in a pod cost about the same as a Helldrake and is 3 times as potent against the aforementioned units. 3 times as potent and yet the former is considered trash while the latter is considered one of the best units in the game. Why the disconnect? Are there armies that the Pyrovore won't have any great targets against? Sure. The same could be said for the Helldrake. Yet blobs, one unit they are extremely potent against, is one of the most popular troop selections in the game.


Not to derail with a Pyrovore discussion, just an example of why we should be constantly challenging our preconceived and possibly outdated perceptions of units as the meta continues to adapt and change.

Pryovore is a bad example, even under 6e it is a poor unit, it still has the problems that canned it in 5e. Tyranofex would be a better example as the boost to 2+ armor really helped.

I get what you are saying JGrand, but there are some people who are somewhere in the middle. They want to be as effective as possible with the units they want to bring, but don't want to carbon copy what the internet thinks those units should be. There are many other like minded people in this group that have experience using units that are perceived as sub par who can give them good advice on using that unit X quite effectively.

Sure, I can understand that. However, I do think it is the burden of the OP to specify the type of advice they are looking for.

That's why I agree with the OP in trying to construct criticism as constructively as possible. If someone asks the question "How do I use X most effectively," they generally have already made some level of commitment to X (maybe they just made a bad ass conversion), but still want X to perform. Still, I don't think there is anything wrong with stating you think Y accomplishes it more efficiently, but at the same time, particularly from experienced competitive players like yourself, I think people would really appreciate you going into their mindset of committing to X, and finding the best way of maximizing X's unique abilities versus Y, instead of resorting to just taking Y in the first place.

I also agree that constructive criticism is best. People can be very dismissive or give horrible advice. It is really up to posters to decide who they trust and who they want to ignore. It also helps that there is the "ignore" feature for particularly petulant posts.

I think you are completely missing the point, as it is not as simple as that. Many, many veteran players take lists and units that aren't popular on the internet. Tony might be the best player in the US and every list he's brought in the last 3 years has a whole army of detractors. The fact is, most people simply haven't garnered enough experience with every unit in the game to definitively develop an informed opinion with them. Much negative perception is rooted simply in the fact that what a unit is good at doesn't fit a prevailing strategy or tactic. However, when your strategies and tactics embrace whatever it is the unit does particularly well, then that unit becomes more viable to you then it would be to someone who simply doesn't want to employ those strategies or tactics.

I'd disagree on the Tony Kopach example. His lists are pretty dull. Plenty of us were advocating for Guard blobs at the beginning of 6th and it was common knowledge to even the greenest players that Grey Hunters and Rune Priests were auto takes. His current list just uses another blob and some of the more meta friendly SM stuff. Again, people know that Thunderfires and Storm Talons post point reductions are good. I don't know that he is a particularly revolutionary player. He is a smart player who builds good lists.

Take the poster child for scorn Pyrovore. It developed a negative reputation during 5th edition when the primary targets everyone was concerned with were MSU MeQ, Mech, three things it was quite sub par in dealing with. Now? In the current meta some of the most efficient and popular units, like blobs, orcs, Warriors, etc, are prime targets for a Pyrovore. Consider this, 3 Pyrovores in a pod cost about the same as a Helldrake and is 3 times as potent against the aforementioned units. 3 times as potent and yet the former is considered trash while the latter is considered one of the best units in the game. Why the disconnect? Are there armies that the Pyrovore won't have any great targets against? Sure. The same could be said for the Helldrake. Yet blobs, one unit they are extremely potent against, is one of the most popular troop selections in the game.

Not to derail with a Pyrovore discussion, just an example of why we should be constantly challenging our preconceived and possibly outdated perceptions of units as the meta continues to adapt and change..

While I have disagreed (and still do) with some of your unit ideas, I do like the fact that you want to challenge the status quo. While I like to play in tournies, I've always believed in trying to make a fun list. I also like the idea of trying to make use of units that people think "suck." However, there is a good amount of group think that has to be overcome. There are also some hopeless units.

As I mentioned before, I do like the idea of people being more polite and constructive. However, there are times when there are bad ideas and units that are hopeless. Ultimately, I think it is up to the OP to specify the type of 40k they are trying to play. The community can help by giving productive and constructive feedback.

No doubt, and believe me, while I agree with you that Tony's list aren't particularly innovative or filled with fringe units, I've seen a number of people just since Adepticon talk about what an "awful" list it is. That just never ceases to amaze me. If you perceive a list to be "poor" and it has proven success, chances are its your perception and analysis that is poor, not the list with the proven track record (the general "you", not you in-particular JGrand ).