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.

Hollismason wrote:

Your approaching it the wrong way, the reason chess has been around for so long and is by many considered a "perfect" game is the fact that it is completely and utterly balanced and relies solely on the skill and ability of the players. 40k does not , by its inherent nature it is unbalanced. The game is a arbitrary set of rules, many of which do not work or can be misinterpreted. You cannot misinterpret the rules for chess.

Next, No one is on a equal footing regardless of point values.

Basically, the more unbalanced something is the less tactical depth it has.

Sure there are some tricks people pick up when playing, sling shotting special characters into combat, positioning, etc.. but all of these are just manipulation of the rules, not actual depth. Why?


Well a lot of it is the structure itself, first off it's random. Second, it has no internal balance, and 3rd the players do not start on equal footing.

Because of this it is impossible to "foresee " your actions, because those actions can fail due to dice rolls. That's why it's not a tactically sound game, but also what makes things in the game more powerful when there are no dice rolls to rely on.

Let me start off by saying that Chess has been objectively proven to be unbalanced. White always manages to have a 55% win rate in competitive play as a result of first move advantage.

Also saying that a game can't have tactical depth because it's has randomness is absolutely wrong. You don't need to "foresee" your actions to plan ahead and make tactical discussions. If the game had 0 tactical choices then you could have anyone play your army (including people who've never played before) and they'd have the same chance of winning as you playing it. Of course that's wrong and that why you're wrong about 40k having no tactics involved.

Here is a excellent video about the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9ZI9kMsvRQ. It specifically is about video games but all of the points it talks about are just as valid for 40k and games in general.

Because everyone's too busy whining about 7th edition. Come back in a year when people are cried out.

I don't know. If we're talking tactics, and a thread is titled as such, then..."get rid of that unit" is not really discussing the tactics. I think a big part of why it comes up so much is because people like to be "that guy" and show they have a smarter strategy.

This is a problem because tactical discussion is a healthy part of the game in person, but absent on boards like this, as people would rather one-up each other with clever alternative builds.

I think probably the worst part is how this propagates the cycle of listhammering that goes on. People post the conventional internet knowledge and that stuff is so rarely true at a table in the middle of a game a lot of the time.

my biggest problem with these threads is that they are useless in the majority of the times that people ask these questions. Anyone who plays these games can give good answers to, 'What could I have done then,' but they are after the fact, with an infinite amount of time to consult the rules and come up with viable tactics other than, 'die well.'

 Fenris Frost wrote:
I don't know. If we're talking tactics, and a thread is titled as such, then..."get rid of that unit" is not really discussing the tactics. I think a big part of why it comes up so much is because people like to be "that guy" and show they have a smarter strategy.

This is a problem because tactical discussion is a healthy part of the game in person, but absent on boards like this, as people would rather one-up each other with clever alternative builds.

I think probably the worst part is how this propagates the cycle of listhammering that goes on. People post the conventional internet knowledge and that stuff is so rarely true at a table in the middle of a game a lot of the time.

Agree, but usually people just want to get more wins by any means possible. Very few threads start with "I want to field XYZ, how do I make it work best?". In those that do, you simply have to discount whoever is telling you to drop the unit - just like the people that keep posting "MOAR BOYZ!!!!!!" and "NOT ENUFF DAKKA!!!!!!" in every single ork thread. Those are simply a lost case.

 Sigvatr wrote:
There are no real tactics in 40k. 40k is mostly decided in the list-building phase, which already got an own sub-forum dedicated to it, and the rest mostly boils down to rolling the dice. There are general strategies such as when to assault with what or what to prioritize with shooting, but in general, 40k is about as deep as a Miley Cyrus song.

If this were true, why do the same people keep winning major GTs year after year? They use the same lists as other people attending the events, yet they win and the others do not.
According to your theory, its just random luck that they are winning.

 Murenius wrote:
tldr: discussions in tactics forum are not about tactics in the word's sense, but only about putting units in front of each other and see how they fare in shooting each other to death..

One major source of this are the users. Posts about how to use specific units to best effect drop off the front page quickly. The nature of forums do not lend themselves to this kind of a venue.

These are some threads I started. They fell off the page very quickly because noone wanted to post on them.
All these posts were done during 6th edition, so the content is outdated. If you look you will see the type of content you ask for.
How to Win Games and Influence Heritics
C:SM Unit Review : MotF
Playing the SeerStar
Daemon Princes and You

The problem is not the users on the forum. The problem is the way forums are designed. Since comments push a thread to the top, posts that describe tactics are pushed down by people talking about list building.

I also do not like the assertation that there are no tactics in 40k. That was true of earlier editions but less and less so now. True Line of Sight, the inclusion of allied builds, the multiple detachment format and how it all interacts together, the presence of countless supplements, that all affects list-building. But what is done on the table is key. The grot thread is a good example of that -- many people give suggestions, theories, or anecdotes of experience to the contrary of them being entirely worthless in certain lists and on-table contexts, but the armchair generals of the internet echo chamber simply look at their cost and how effective they are at killing a tac squad in a vacuum and say "take boyz instead."

What people aren't respecting is that people sometimes do not want to take the most 10000% optimal unit, for various reasons -- paintjobs, sentimental value, fluff, etc. Talking about what you can do with a unit is very different than talking about what it can't do.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
Talking about what you can do with a unit is very different than talking about what it can't do.

Well said. While there is a place for advising against using a unit in a certain way (for example, using the LRBT as a tankbuster when it's hardly effective in that role) it's just as important to consider what a unit can do (prioritising MEQ with the aforementioned LRBT). No unit would exist without a purpose, and even if other units outshine it in that role, that never means it cannot perform said function.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
What people aren't respecting is that people sometimes do not want to take the most 10000% optimal unit, for various reasons -- paintjobs, sentimental value, fluff, etc. Talking about what you can do with a unit is very different than talking about what it can't do.

Don't forget one of the most important factors, cost. Some people are averse to spending thousands of dollars because someone on the internet says so. If you lack the model, or the ability to get or proxy it, someone saying, 'answer their superheavy with one of your own' is wasting their breath.

Perhaps you'd like to scope out my blog and see some interesting takes? or some ways to look at the battlefield? Even a few notes of interest for any player who just wants to refresh themselves on the things to remember.

In game Strategy and in game tactics are different. List building requires anticipation and is NOT bereft of its own genius. and anyone who tells you this is a tactically shallow game clearly doesn't play that many to realize that war gaming in general allows for only so much. but what 40K gives you that no other game is ever likely to is WAY MORE VARIED matchups with WAY more varied challenges to overcome because of its complexity of rules and the enormous variety in the codex's.

Dakkadakka Tactics threads get bad because people lose sight of the ball a lot. Its to be expected. but the nuggets are out there. I find some GOOd info now and again, I see things that I occassionally simply had not considered. I probably dont get as MUCh from Dakkadakka tactics threads as Id like but the good posters know who they are and I certainly do. they are there.

Nice to know you are reading and posting here,in fact it was reading your blog that inspired me to create this thread.

This discussion shows me that there are quite some people here interested in in depth discussions.

I think that there are some quality posters, but I also think that keyboard courage is a thing. Unfortunately we treat people here a lot worse than we would in person and it inhibits true debate somewhat, but there are some places I know of that are more... accepting of new ideas.

 Jancoran wrote:
I think that there are some quality posters, but I also think that keyboard courage is a thing. Unfortunately we treat people here a lot worse than we would in person and it inhibits true debate somewhat, but there are some places I know of that are more... accepting of new ideas.

This is what happens. The Internet is a place people go to find others that agree with them and to ridicule the unorthodox / unfamiliar. Given that Dakka is a community of highly discerning, intelligent and genuinely interesting people, we have to be on guard against falling down to the level of being insensitive to the ideas of others.

40k possesses a level of strategy and tactics that are there when you look for them. Net optimized lists, tournament success, etc... these are all great, but the game is about so much more than that.

I spend a lot of time thinking about how to screw with my opponents. In 5th edition, I put together a 1850 point CSM list was composed of one CL, 2 minimum sized squads of CSM with plasma guns, and 33 Chaos Spawn. It went undefeated in 8 games against everything including Space Wolves, Grey Knights and IG Armor. If you remember, Spawn were the worst thing you could have in your army in 5th edition, yet none of those really great lists had a good answer to a horde of them.

That's what tactics is, knowing that, even with forced movement, you can cover so much of the table at one time that nothing is ever really going to get out of reach.

In 6th edition, I liked playing Noise Marines with full sonics and Plasma Chosen in Rhinos. The common logic was that taking Rhinos meant giving your opponent first blood. Sure, that was true some of the times, but then there were those times I got the Rhinos into position to as shields so that my squads could rain 40 shots down the next turn. That happened more often then the Rhinos exploded, which is not something you were going to learn on the interwebs. I mean, forget Heldrakes and Daemon princes, make someone decide if they really want to risk blowing up a Rhino just to become the target of whatever is behind it. When you make the other guy think twice about what he was going to do, you have a good game going.

I know results will vary based on the individual player, and that Eldar waveserpent spam is still going to wreck most armies. But all that means is that you don't win 100% of the time, and that's certainly not a bad thing when you get to experiment and do actual fun, interesting things with your forces.

Here here!!!

 techsoldaten wrote:

This is what happens. The Internet is a place people go to find others that agree with them and to ridicule the unorthodox / unfamiliar. Given that Dakka is a community of highly discerning, intelligent and genuinely interesting people, we have to be on guard against falling down to the level of being insensitive to the ideas of others.

This is so true. If people enter the discussion to see their position agreed on and not to find new aspects about the topic the discussion will quickly degenerate. However, this thread shows that there are enough people ready and able to focus on the subject. Nobody should ever be ridiculed for a claim in a discussion, rather he should be asked for arguments. Many discoveries in human history had to stand up against existing common opinions. I am sure before the wheel was finally used it was invented multiple times and the inventor was ridiculed for being lazy, blasphemic, going against the natural order and finally slain.

 techsoldaten wrote:

I spend a lot of time thinking about how to screw with my opponents. In 5th edition, I put together a 1850 point CSM list was composed of one CL, 2 minimum sized squads of CSM with plasma guns, and 33 Chaos Spawn. It went undefeated in 8 games against everything including Space Wolves, Grey Knights and IG Armor. If you remember, Spawn were the worst thing you could have in your army in 5th edition, yet none of those really great lists had a good answer to a horde of them.

That's what tactics is, knowing that, even with forced movement, you can cover so much of the table at one time that nothing is ever really going to get out of reach.

In 6th edition, I liked playing Noise Marines with full sonics and Plasma Chosen in Rhinos. The common logic was that taking Rhinos meant giving your opponent first blood. Sure, that was true some of the times, but then there were those times I got the Rhinos into position to as shields so that my squads could rain 40 shots down the next turn. That happened more often then the Rhinos exploded, which is not something you were going to learn on the interwebs. I mean, forget Heldrakes and Daemon princes, make someone decide if they really want to risk blowing up a Rhino just to become the target of whatever is behind it. When you make the other guy think twice about what he was going to do, you have a good game going.

I know results will vary based on the individual player, and that Eldar waveserpent spam is still going to wreck most armies. But all that means is that you don't win 100% of the time, and that's certainly not a bad thing when you get to experiment and do actual fun, interesting things with your forces.

The funny thing is that this way of playing is not even weird or unorthox or something. If you abstract this what you did was to approach your opponent with a set up he was not used to. By this you created a high probability that he doesn't know how to prioritize his targets in the most efficient way. Or you use the fact that the most common lists in that meta were not prepared to deal with a fast approaching army using rapid fire to deliver high amounts of fire. And so on. It's rewarding to try unorthodox strategies.

Now many players on the internet say "But why? We'll just have a stand off and shoot each other in turns." And since they are right if you really stand on an empty board and just shoot it is hard to contradict them.

Many people forget that 40k is about having fun. While winning is a nice thing and it's important to have fun with competitiveness it is still true that the journey is the reward. If you do not aim at having a great time with your opponent you're likely to have no fun at many points. That's even true in tournaments. The best matches I had in tournaments in various systems were those with a spirit of friendly competitiveness. And if you're a WAAC type you will most likely end up blaming the 7th edition ruleset, GW, the new Codices etc. for not having a great time. They expect some authority to deliver all of that for them and accommodate for their own personal shortcomings...

Many people forget that 40k is about having fun. While winning is a nice thing and it's important to have fun with competitiveness it is still true that the journey is the reward. If you do not aim at having a great time with your opponent you're likely to have no fun at many points. That's even true in tournaments. The best matches I had in tournaments in various systems were those with a spirit of friendly competitiveness. And if you're a WAAC type you will most likely end up blaming the 7th edition ruleset, GW, the new Codices etc. for not having a great time. They expect some authority to deliver all of that for them and accommodate for their own personal shortcomings...

This, a thousand times over. It makes me feel good to know I'm not alone in this sentiment.

Basically people need to either, A: Include all the information when posting a tactics question (so, correct posting 101)

Couldnt agree more with this. Been guilty of it myself just posting something like "how do I beat AV14 with Orks"?
So much more info needed to be provided. Inevitably the answer turned out to be "spam tankbustas" of which I own none and wont be buying any of. Added to that, there was no actual tactics on using the TBs or how they are effective.
Short enough thread.....but my initial question was gak.

If you ask someone offline about the same questions that people ask on forums like dakka, you are likely to get concise, yet tactically depthy responses to the question at hand, rather than, "buy x and shelf y this edition," which is what the internet will put forward inevitably. People tend to be very dry and unhelpful, thinking they are simply being objective, which is just something that tends to happen when peoples' anonymity is guaranteed by a server separating them from all the people they piss off.

That said, discussion along the lines of, "This unit is good, this other unit is bad, and this other, other unit is situationally good, and this other, other, other unit is always good at everything," or, rather, list-building discussion, is in fact, and aspect of the hobby and game. Part of the strategy of the game itself goes on when games aren't being played.

The lack of terrain in your current meta, or its inclusion isn't relevant when discussing the risk/reward ratio and objective holding/ unit killing power point per point is a good thing to have, unless the situation presented by the OP is a very, very specific scenario where the terrain or lack thereof on his board made or broke the game for him. If I want to know the potential of a unit on paper before I spend somewhere between $10 and $100 dollars for it, as well as a couple hours integrating it into a list, I want dry, objective, answers. So, I would never involve terrain or something that would skew my mathhammering of the unit in question.

Terrain and the lack thereof in the current 40k meta is an issue, but not one that has to do with how good a unit is/ can be. Point cost to potential damage output/ staying power is more or less a statistic like gearscore/ playerscore back from before World of Warcraft 4.0; it was a good idea backed by good intentions, but instead of taking it with a grain of salt and involving that player's experience with the game, and potential for winning, people took that as the end-all, be-all of a player's potential and it turned into,"Your Gearscore is 1000. Mine is 1001, so I must be better."

Tactical discussion is always to be taken with salt, else 40k turn into a table-top version of WoW. I sincerely hope this never happens, as what happened to a once great game was more or less the result of its community being perpetually negative and cynical about everything that went on about it.

Well I think the horse is dead and the lesson here is: may the people with great advice be ever on your friends list.

=)

 Powerfisting wrote:

The lack of terrain in your current meta, or its inclusion isn't relevant when discussing the risk/reward ratio and objective holding/ unit killing power point per point is a good thing to have, unless the situation presented by the OP is a very, very specific scenario where the terrain or lack thereof on his board made or broke the game for him. If I want to know the potential of a unit on paper before I spend somewhere between $10 and $100 dollars for it, as well as a couple hours integrating it into a list, I want dry, objective, answers. So, I would never involve terrain or something that would skew my mathhammering of the unit in question.

On the contrary, if you don't know how the unit works in standardized tournament layouts, you're missing a lot of information.

The efficiency of a unit varies greatly with terrain.

 Powerfisting wrote:

That said, discussion along the lines of, "This unit is good, this other unit is bad, and this other, other unit is situationally good, and this other, other, other unit is always good at everything," or, rather, list-building discussion, is in fact, and aspect of the hobby and game. Part of the strategy of the game itself goes on when games aren't being played.

No one is saying this kind of discussion is bad. It's just that it has nothing to do with tactics and belongs on the list building forum.

Sure, I accept the point that the units you choose govern what you can do in a game. But tactics is how you use your units, not which one you choose.

 Powerfisting wrote:

The lack of terrain in your current meta, or its inclusion isn't relevant when discussing the risk/reward ratio and objective holding/ unit killing power point per point is a good thing to have, unless the situation presented by the OP is a very, very specific scenario where the terrain or lack thereof on his board made or broke the game for him. If I want to know the potential of a unit on paper before I spend somewhere between $10 and $100 dollars for it, as well as a couple hours integrating it into a list, I want dry, objective, answers. So, I would never involve terrain or something that would skew my mathhammering of the unit in question.

Terrain and the lack thereof in the current 40k meta is an issue, but not one that has to do with how good a unit is/ can be. Point cost to potential damage output/ staying power is more or less a statistic like gearscore/ playerscore back from before World of Warcraft 4.0; it was a good idea backed by good intentions, but instead of taking it with a grain of salt and involving that player's experience with the game, and potential for winning, people took that as the end-all, be-all of a player's potential and it turned into,"Your Gearscore is 1000. Mine is 1001, so I must be better."

There are no meaningful statistics that exist called "damage output," "shot power," or "unit killing power per point spent." Those metrics exist for video games, not 40K.

If there were, each would have to be a logarithmic function that takes into account distance, toughness, range and a number of other factors. While it may be useful, mathhammer is based around MEQ, which is really only relevant when fighting Space Marines and guns with a 24 inch distance (not, for instance, when fighting Eldar.)

And that is exactly what is wrong with this kind of logic, and the general misuse of the word 'tactics' on this forum. If maximizing killing power per point spent was a genuine, valid tactic, no one anywhere would have any excuse of buying armies except for Eldar Wave Serpent spam. They can generate a higher number of higher power shots per turn that affect a larger group of enemy units, and have a lot of other benefits as well. Anything other than that would be a defective, suboptimal list.

But tactics is different, it's when you know how to beat the superior army with a defective, suboptimal one.

A dude at my local FLGS used to show up with a Chaos Army that had Typhus, 160 Plague Zombies, and 6 Heldrakes. He knew how to beat Wave Serpent spam armies with it, along with a lot of others. He was incredibly good at controlling the placement of his units, using the sheer number of bodies to prevent the Eldar from getting in shots. He had to survive with the Zombies for about 3 turns until the Heldrakes got there.

I guarantee the mathhammer on those matches did not favor Chaos.

I'm not saying mathmammer is the end-all be-all to 40k. The last paragraph of my post expressed that sentiment, I think. What I was trying to say was that mathhammer does have a place in the game, and artificial metrics are needed to make it happen. Terrain is impossible to involve in mathhammer, as it would require the mathhammer-er to write a bellcurve to factor in the probability of an individual model not having a line of sight to its target, which would be a tremendous undertaking and would only be reliable as long as their group's meta stayed still. I know someone who did something similar to this for a calculus assignment (God-Emperor bless his soul).

tactics involving unit placement and movement are valid, and so is mathhammer. The problem with the tactics forum is that people don't know how to take advice with salt.