Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm getting more and more worried about the level of tactics required for 8th. It seems as though each new revelation takes away another tactical aspect of the game so that its shaping up to be more about dice rolling than positioning. Most rules haven't been released yet and many that have I'm totally on board with, but there are some major ones that are beginning to give me the gut feeling that, for example, advancing up the board with unsupported mech is not really going to be a risky proposition, and that we may just see the terrain and positioning aspect become a very minor consideration.

Four things initially are giving me this gut feeling:
1) No armour facings for vehicles (going to paste and copy myself from another thread) -
Something that doesn't seem to have been picked up yet - it's also a huge nerf to Deepstriking and Outflanking (and to a more minor extent Scouting/Infiltrating) shooty units. Outflank and Deepstrike in particular allowed for side and rear armour shots quite easily from these units. In some cases like drop pods there was very little risk for the reward (if considering them a suicide unit) but in the majority of cases there was, and it was a very widely used strategy that promoted thinking ahead tactically. That is gone now.
It's an example of how oversimplification can take away skill aspects from the game.

Here's a good example of this latter point:
Imagine a Guard Vet unit with Auto cannon and 3 Grenade launchers (Yes I know no-one ever took these but just roll with it a minute) had used a Chimera to deploy forward into ruins in the centre of the board. Now in 7th their marine opponent would have to dislodge them before marching that Dread past and exposing it's squishy rear armour because av10 is very vulnerable to 2 st7 and 3 st6 bs4 shots. Now in 8th... The Dread doesn't give a damn and is happy as Larry to leave enemies in its rear.

2) Blasts and templates giving a D6 roll - whilst I personally think the rolls shown so far are too low, that is another matter. This takes away the tactical spacing aspect of the game and allows the unrealistic 'bunch up' of units. A D6 roll has a huge amount of variance too which adds to, not takes away from the randomness of 7th - rather than d6, something like d3+2 is far less varied and easier to plan around (same applies to damage but this is less of an issue as we are used to the damage tables from 7th anyway).

3) Morale phase - no-one ever falling back. Some units are pretty much immune to break tests now (units of 3 models for example) and the smaller a unit the less likely it is to ever be affected by it. The fact that you can't push an enemy unit back or off an objective is pretty big hit against tactical play.

4) Models in units having complete split fire. This is absolutely massive. Units during list building need no longer be specialised. You don't have to carefully consider whether to hit the mob of boyz about to rush you or the Trukk gunning for the objective. This makes complete sense fluff wise, but game wise it takes away quite a lot of major tactical decisions during a battle.

I've been quite happy with the majority of the leaked rules so far, but it seems the most recent ones are making it look like it may gear up to be a game where plopping your models down, pushing up the centre in a huddle and rolling dice, is as well rewarded as trying to outflank (not the rule) the opponent and cluster them up before hitting them hard.

I realise these rules have been brought in to streamline and avoid silly debates about template coverage/ armour facing etc but that doesn't mean it hasn't taken away from the tactics in game. What's your thoughts on how the tactical aspect of 8th is shaping up?

*This is not a 'sky is falling' post - I like the sound of most of the new rules. Just a discussion on the sum of the affect concerning the rules that may take away from tactical play.*

What tactics are there is 7th ed atm..


Its pretty much take a Net list, point and click.


I reckon there is going to be a lot more tactics on the table as the playing field is going to more even across the board (if the promises are true)

It seems to me that positioning is much more important than it is in 7th. Single saves and modifiers mean that cover dramatically increases the capability to suffer ranged fire, while the new melee rules make positioning extremely important for both parties. Will gun lines stick together so they can cover and support each other? Will they spread out so multiple units don't get stuck in close combat? That's one more tactical decision than I can name in 7th, hah.

 Luciferian wrote:
It seems to me that positioning is much more important than it is in 7th.

This.

Also with most weapons now getting a much more specific role, list building appears to require a lot more balancing, ie making sure you have anti tank, but not too much anti tank or hordes will dominate. I think it is looking more tactical than 7th ever could be to be honest.

GodDamUser wrote:
What tactics are there is 7th ed atm..


Its pretty much take a Net list, point and click.


I reckon there is going to be a lot more tactics on the table as the playing field is going to more even across the board (if the promises are true)

Well, you have to know to use a ranged unit for ranged attacks and try to keep them out of melee (unless their good at melee too!). Plus, you have to know that melee units should try and quickly get in to close combat, try and avoid being killed by ranged units and avoid tar pit units. Not only that, but you got to know what weapons are good against tough units and which ones are good for lots a not so tough targets. Except for grav, that's good for everything. /s

Yeah, I am not exactly sure where all this tactical play comes in with 40K. With the right list and action flow chart, you could probably do quite well completely being a bot with a top tier army vs. lesser tier one. The game is very front loaded when it comes to deciding the victor. I suppose you could call that strategic, but definitely not tactical.

Well the old vehicle rules forced you to do very meta-gamey things like park your butt at the edge of a table so people couldn't flank you. I didn't consider that very tactical, and there were tons of ways to mitigate that made the tactics worthless - like Jink or Smoke or all around armor vehicles.

Blasts and templates going away are basically there to speed up the game, which it really needed. I'm willing to make that sacrifice. Note that taking away 'tactical spacing' actually allows you to tactically hide behind things better than before. Infantry would happily group up behind solid cover rather than be spread out in the open. Also, tactical spacing slowed units down horribly as they stayed in difficult terrain for longer (typically an extra turn), so there's that to consider, especially now that there's a Move stat and you might be moving less than 6".

The Morale Phase, barely existed with all the mitigation and high leadership that existed in the game.

Split fire should have been default from day one. Removing specialized units is probably a good thing and probably forces you to think more tactically about how you'll move your vehicle than your armor facing did before (cover to cover if you can). Every heavy weapon is now a threat, you can't ignore that Lascannon because he'd have to waste 9 guys shooting bolters at you to use it.

Or you tactially tie up the nearest heavy weapons with assault before you roll out your tanks to shoot stuff.

WH40K was always tactics-lite, and I really don't think it's gotten much lighter on that side of things. Going first was always the biggest tactical advantage anyone could get, and until that changes, all the other stuff is probably just small potatoes.

Drop pods were hardly what I would call tactical, I find few who would disagree with that.

Further on the point of the Dreadnaught, in 7th he would simply charge the squad to kill it or be turned so the model was facing the unit. Or more realistically, who the feth is taking a dreadnaught, and who the feth is not taking the dreadnaught in a drop pod? Tactical scenarios like this never existed simply because such a situation never happened.

I'd wait for more info on how blasts will work. We literally only know the weapon profiles. I don't care about the bunching up really, I literally told my opponents that if they wanted to use blasts I would always count 2 models hit by a small blast and 4 by a large so I can actually play my games faster.

Morale phase is interesting, but hey 90% of the players ignored it anyway because Space Marine, Fearless, etc. It was all or nothing, it's just simplified.

Complete split fire opens up more tactical options, I don't even know how you could spin that any other way. With this simple change Troop options that include special weapons are no longer useless and MAY be viable.

7th ed. was decided in the list building phase, no tactics involved.

 Rippy wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
It seems to me that positioning is much more important than it is in 7th.

This.

Also with most weapons now getting a much more specific role, list building appears to require a lot more balancing, ie making sure you have anti tank, but not too much anti tank or hordes will dominate. I think it is looking more tactical than 7th ever could be to be honest.

Yes snipers are a legitimize part of an army now.

So far I think deepstriking is mostly fine. What if your enemy puts his IC at the back of his army and doesn't have it bubbled wrapped? Or what if your going for an objective? What if it's the only quick way to get in range of a long range unit? I think it's still a tactical consideration, but not the be all and end all for the game like it felt for me playing Tau. I was constanbtly trying to get deepstrikes fo I could outflank with fusion suits.

I imagine playing DE is much the same trying to get those outflanks. It felt like the only legit tactic I had. That or gunline. I feel they toned it down, but that this opens up other options since deepstrike isn't as critical of a finisher and if you fail your reserves roll it could mean an early gg. Deepstriking guarantees you can get close fast with high powered weapons, but it also means your much more vulnerable to having those units focused on too.

For me, those don't seem like large issues because:

1.) Vehicle facings, in terms of complexity vs payoff, is really bad. What I mean by this is that the concept of facings has a lot of rules bloat for what amounts to a very, very minor variance in gameplay. Most vehicles (except for flyers I think?) in this and past editions, if I remember correctly, can pivot on the spot for free before ending their move, so most people would end their movement with the vehicle's strongest armor facing the enemy while trying to put the rear somewhere behind cover in anticipation of outflankers or deepstrikers. For me, the only real tactical considerations here is possible Outflankers, charging a vehicle to melee it's rear armor, or for shooting hull/sponson mounted weapons.

Another thing is that most takes have such wide sides that people are usually shooting at the side armor anyways, or their armor is basically the same all around. It also brought up ambiguous situations such as "what is the rear armor of an Eldar Wave Serpent?" (do not start this discussion again), which brought up a lot of convoluted debates. With the simplification we get rid of a lot of rules bloat at the expense of some relatively small tactical considerations, which is compensated by other tactical considerations below.

2.) Blast Weapons and Templates in theory affected placements. In practice, everyone either cheesed it by spreading them out to the maximum 2 inches (making using flamers near suicide, small blasts completely useless, and large blasts overcosted). It actually shows how bad this mechanic can be when a single power (lash of submission) can become broken just by allowing you to bunch people up for a strike. In addition, Blast weapon's near disregard for the model's BS often made them unfavourable for high-BS armies and a complete crapshoot for low BS armies; how many of you have actually fired a frag missile recently, much less frequently? My fairly accurate space marine suddenly turns into a drunkard when he's asked to fire a frag missile or plasma cannon rather than his bolt pistol. It also makes them finally viable against low-model count units, which wasn't an option before. This way it makes blast and flame weapons a legitimate consideration when compared to straight up high-volume of fire weapons (assuming pricing is decent. The current rules of the Battle Cannon vs the Punisher I hope is something that is solved by a large point gap).

3.) As I understand it, you can inflict wounds on enemies in close combat rather than just completely wiping the unit via sweep advance, so morale isn't completely gone. However while in theory we're losing the tactical considerations of breaking a unit and having it run off the board, in the current situation a bunch of units are either immune to it entirely (getting Fearless somehow) or stop at the board's edge with ATSKNF.With the current meta enviroment, killing units via making them fall back is so useless that items geared towards it are considered much less useful than if they just straight up killed things. Only a few armies are really vulnerable to mass morale disruption and they're either looked down as low-tier (Orks), just bring a metric crapton more stuff to compensate (IG), or have high enough leadership to make it a non-issue (everyone else who isn't fearless or a Space Marine).

4.) I feel like this actually opens up more tactical considerations, as you can now take smaller units with mixed weapons and have other slots open, rather than being forced to take duplicates in the same squad. While yes this means it's easier to build an all-rounder list, it also means that the amount of firepower you put out is now also a consideration: Do I take one of each weapon in 3 squads to keep it all balanced, or should I take 2 copies of a single weapon because I need a bit more anti infantry/anti tank? This also opens up some risk-management choices during the game; Currently if you saw a squad of Plasma Vets and a squad of Flamer Vets, the choice of who to target with the majority of your shooting comes down to simply which weapon you wanted to remove from the table. Now with mixed units, you still have to dedicate the same amount of firepower to maybe wipe out half of the opponent's special weapons of that type (the vets now could have mixed flamer/plasma in the same unit). This may make shooting them less viable than, say, firing at the Company Command Squad to remove their buffs instead, and that choice will entirely depend on board situation rather than a predictable set of values.Another thing this opens up is that models in the unit will not solely be bought for their "ablative wounds", so you won't be paying a premium for their weapons just for extra wounds (which a lot of units suffer from right now, like terminators) and some weapon options more viable (the Flamer on a Fire Dragon Exarch or the Shuriken Cannon on the Dark Reaper Exarch, for example).

This new edition of 40k is going to be a completely new game, so the same mindset we had in previous editions will have to be abandoned when we look towards these new rules. We are going to lose some of the traditional thoughts for tactics, but I see a bunch of new ones opening up that might not be evident on first glance.

Look at Age of Sigmar for reference. People still to this day don't understand that removing rules doesn't remove strategy. Old Fantasy was kind of as stale as 40k is now. Back then every single army had to have spell casters or lots of dispell scrolls because psykers OP. Fast Cavalry ruled the game. Monsters where useless because artillery could instakill them 1st turn. Half the armies were unplayable. There were a couple of playstyles and you got punished for doing anything different *cough* like deathstars and taudar *cough*.

Granted, there are still 'top tier' armies in sigmar, but the balance and strategy is far far better. Say what you want about 7th edition, but the fact that there are about 7 or so armies that are just awful is unforgivable.

No armor facing for vehicles? First of all, why take vehicles when you can take bikers and monstrous creatures? Nobody cares about vehicles. Second with melta and grav spam in drop pods, who cares about armor values in the first place? There's no strategy when the game invented units that broke the rules.

As for units not falling back? Good. I bought and painted 15 Blood Claws, stuck them together with a Wolf Lord for LD 10, and rolled some fives and sixes in a row and ran off the board turn 1. A mechanic that doesn't even let you play with the models you buy is not a good mechanic. Have you ever played orks? I doubt you have otherwise you would have no desire to keep morale. You lose models to your own rules each turn, or just keep running off the board with no hope of return (roll double 1s are you f-ing serious GW). Its not a fun mechanic for anyone not a space marine.

 Don Savik wrote:
Look at Age of Sigmar for reference. People still to this don't understand that removing rules doesn't remove strategy.

Or Chess. Or Go.

A clean game with minimalist rules means that players play more of a pure strategy game, rather than gaming various artifacts and intersections of the ruleset.

One, I think the absence of armor facings in a tactical level game of this scale is really a mistake. Unless you have a game with counters representing platoons of tanks or more, an AFV's facing should always matter. Instead of fixing some issues, GW tossed a good idea and replaced it with something simpler - not better. As I mentioned before, vehicles are now glorified bean counters.

Two, losing templates speeds up the game but as you say it makes any positioning to avoid their threat completely irrelevant. Now troops can bunch counter-intuitively with impunity and it removes any special tactical situation where a battlefield choke point can be leveraged to slaughter attacking infantry. If this isn't obvious to anyone, there is no sense trying to explain it further.

Third, although GW's previous morale mechanic was overly convoluted and in desperate need of revision, the lack of any dynamic where broken troops flee combat will certainly affect game play. The new way should be faster but doesn't allow for much variety.

Fourth, I find it funny when people say how unrealistic it is for a unit to have a single heavy weapon and then can't shoot with the rest of the models at another type of threat from another direction. This absolutely correct. However, it is just as unlikely that any unit would be able to systematically choose to shoot at individual targets from any direction with complete coordination, especially in the heat of battle within scant moments. In our group we allow split fire between two targets with a passed leadership test to indicate the discipline of better training with certain units. So in principle I like split fire, I just think GW made it way too easy.

The amount of tactics was neither increased nor decreased- they just changed. We don't have armor facings or templates anymore, but now we have to worry about positioning our melee units better due to the removal of initiative. We have to appropriately checkerboard our ranged units now so that we don't get multiple units locked in combat due to the 3'' rule for melee units. Cover is more important then ever now due to it stacking with armor saves. We have to use proper positioning to protect our characters, and snipers and fast-movers to kill the opponent's. etc

We've gained a lot of new factors that we have to take into consideration when playing.

Some very good points have been made, yet I still can't get past the feeling that a lack of AV facing/lack of blasts/lack of breaking takes away from tactical play. 7th could be very tactical if not using 'net lists'.

 Quickjager wrote:
Drop pods were hardly what I would call tactical, I find few who would disagree with that.

Further on the point of the Dreadnaught, in 7th he would simply charge the squad to kill it or be turned so the model was facing the unit. Or more realistically, who the feth is taking a dreadnaught, and who the feth is not taking the dreadnaught in a drop pod? Tactical scenarios like this never existed simply because such a situation never happened.

I used Drop Pods as an example of a circumstance of it not being tactical - no risk for the reward.

The Dread was an example, it could easily apply to a Pred, Serp, Russ etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Don Savik wrote:
Have you ever played orks? I doubt you have otherwise you would have no desire to keep morale.

Yes I used to own an Ork army through 2nd and 3rd. Also used to have Eldar and Nids. Currently own CSM, Renegades, BA, Crons and a few Inq. So with that variety I am aware of how morale failure could cripple parts of the field for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:
It seems to me that positioning is much more important than it is in 7th. Single saves and modifiers mean that cover dramatically increases the capability to suffer ranged fire, while the new melee rules make positioning extremely important for both parties. Will gun lines stick together so they can cover and support each other? Will they spread out so multiple units don't get stuck in close combat? That's one more tactical decision than I can name in 7th, hah.

I suppose this could make up for some of the things being lost.

I don't understand why people think armor facing on tanks created tactical situations where as every other model min the game had 360 degree LOS. If all models have facings, then perhaps this would be true, but vehicles were at an inherit disadvantage being the only models with facing, limited shooting arcs and purposefully designed weakspots.

Oh noes, Vehicles will be worth taking again, and things like Riptides and Dreadknights wont be arbitrarily better than Dreadnoughts and Gorkanauts!

Tactical play is more at a higher level like refused flank or symetrie de position.

It heavily depends on the missions. Maelstrom missions are less tactical since the occupation of mission objective does not necessarily require to outmaneuver the enemy.

 Coyote81 wrote:
I don't understand why people think armor facing on tanks created tactical situations where as every other model min the game had 360 degree LOS. If all models have facings, then perhaps this would be true, but vehicles were at an inherit disadvantage being the only models with facing, limited shooting arcs and purposefully designed weakspots.

Because a person can turn on the spot and being shot in the chest from the side and from the front will both put you down. Vehicles cannot just turn on the spot to face whoever is shooting them, and tend to be better armoured on their front facings. Shooting arcs and built in weakspots actively encourage tactical play.

Poly Ranger wrote:

 Coyote81 wrote:
I don't understand why people think armor facing on tanks created tactical situations where as every other model min the game had 360 degree LOS. If all models have facings, then perhaps this would be true, but vehicles were at an inherit disadvantage being the only models with facing, limited shooting arcs and purposefully designed weakspots.

Because a person can turn on the spot and being shot in the chest from the side and from the front will both put you down. Vehicles cannot just turn on the spot to face whoever is shooting them, and tend to be better armoured on their front facings. Shooting arcs and built in weakspots actively encourage tactical play.

Would be the case if this was an advanced battle simulator.

Since it isn't, there is tactical play in this as well. Running your tincans in a way that allows you to use them for cover is tactical play. Is turning their sides to the enemy realistic? Nah, but neither is being able to hit 5 melee attacks in the same time it takes another unit to fire one bullet, so realism can get f****d.

There is plenty of tactical play in this, you're just getting bogged down in an unnecessary pattern of "how would real tanks work if they were tiny little boxes about the size of 3 marines and had weaponry that would get shat on by WW2 tanks since their range is pathetic compared to a real tank."

Poly Ranger wrote:

 Coyote81 wrote:
I don't understand why people think armor facing on tanks created tactical situations where as every other model min the game had 360 degree LOS. If all models have facings, then perhaps this would be true, but vehicles were at an inherit disadvantage being the only models with facing, limited shooting arcs and purposefully designed weakspots.

Because a person can turn on the spot and being shot in the chest from the side and from the front will both put you down. Vehicles cannot just turn on the spot to face whoever is shooting them, and tend to be better armoured on their front facings. Shooting arcs and built in weak spots actively encourage tactical play.

IRL, people in combat don't have 360 vision(they often even tunnel vision at their shooting target), flanking people really does work. Infantry and all other non vehicle models really should have a 180 degree sight arc (and this is being friendly, It's probably more like 160 degree.

if you added this to the game, the positioning part of warhammer would be amazingly more tactical. However, with the scale of warhammer games ( 100+ models is seen often) is might not work so well. Works well in Warmahordes.

I agree with the consensus that there will be less micromanaging but the impression I get so far is that a lot less will be decided in the list-building phase and a lot more during the game.

Take a classic example of a gunline army vs an assaulty horde. Previously the game would be pretty much decided around turn 2 based on whether enough of the assaulty units made it into contact with the shooters before being blown away.

Higher movement stats and (allegedly) the ability to assault out of vehicles and Deep Strike changes all of that. Now assaults are easier to pull off but also easier for the shooters to escape from. They can retreat in good order and allow their buddies to shoot their attackers while they catch their breath. I think this will make the game a lot more tactical during play as you can to decide how to deploy your army for mutual support, where to assault with minimum resistance and whether to retreat units or not.

I am looking forward to giving the new edition a whirl as I think it will play faster but also result in fewer lop-sided games. Rock-paper-scissors match-ups have always been a problem in 40k. While the new system doesn't eliminate that entirely, players will now have tactical options, even when they units are engaged in fights that do not favour them. Previously a shooty unit that got caught in assault was basically on a count-down to death with nothing but the dice determining how long they lived or died. Now both sides have more choices to make which makes for more interesting games and less of the game simply playing itself by rolling endless buckets of dice against each other.

There are currently no tactics at all in 40k at the moment, so the situation can only improve.

NB: Deciding facing of vehicles, specialising units in list building and hoping that the other guy rolls more than 8 or 9 for morale do not count as "tactics"

Tactics at the moment goes into how unkillable can your list be made. If it's completely unkillable then you win.

Alternatively, you can make your list so shooty that on turn one you table your opponent. Or at least kill 90% of their army.

 amanita wrote:

Fourth, I find it funny when people say how unrealistic it is for a unit to have a single heavy weapon and then can't shoot with the rest of the models at another type of threat from another direction. This absolutely correct. However, it is just as unlikely that any unit would be able to systematically choose to shoot at individual targets from any direction with complete coordination, especially in the heat of battle within scant moments. In our group we allow split fire between two targets with a passed leadership test to indicate the discipline of better training with certain units. So in principle I like split fire, I just think GW made it way too easy.

The way I look at it, this should be covered by the basic training of ANY guy you're handing heavy weapons to. While a machine gunner might be happy to shoot at what his buddies are, the guy with a bazooka should be shot on the spot by his sarge for doing the same thing. You're right in that the unit's leadership makes those decisions, but if you've trained your guys well enough, you heavy weapons crew doesn't fire without orders anyways.

Ultimately, though, this split fire rule adds player agency, which is a good thing. Making it unreliable via a Leadership test isn't tactical, it's random. So now units have a choice; throw in their heavy firepower with the squad in hopes of wiping out the enemy unit, or split off the fire to higher priority targets, maybe leaving some opposition alive to shoot back. That's value added tactics IMO, as it forces people to make decisions, but doesn't totally punish them by forcing them to shoot an entire squad at a unit most of them can't hurt just to get the Lascannon shot in.

Edit: Also let's not forget that the 'strikes first' rule makes counter-assault a viable tactic for shooty armies - even Tau. You probably won't win the CC, but you'll keep the enemy in place (hopefully through their turn) and reduce their numbers so they can be mopped up with shooting on your next turn.

40K was too complicated for its own good, making the game simpler can only be good as it will increase the player base.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Tactical play is more at a higher level like refused flank or symetrie de position.

It heavily depends on the missions. Maelstrom missions are less tactical since the occupation of mission objective does not necessarily require to outmaneuver the enemy.

Maelstrom is non-strategic, non-tactical play. It's basically garbage gaming, due to the churn in random objectives drawn mid-game.

Compared to Maelstrom, AoS / 8E is guaranteed to be a more tactical, more strategic game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Tactical play is more at a higher level like refused flank or symetrie de position.

It heavily depends on the missions. Maelstrom missions are less tactical since the occupation of mission objective does not necessarily require to outmaneuver the enemy.

Maelstrom is non-strategic, non-tactical play. It's basically garbage gaming, due to the churn in random objectives drawn mid-game.

Compared to Maelstrom, AoS / 8E is guaranteed to be a more tactical, more strategic game.

To help me understand where this is coming from, can you define strategic decision and tactical decision?

Because I would say Maelstrom is the best way to play this game, for strategy and tactics.

Maelstrom is still pretty remedial compared to ITC maelstrom, in which only get to score at the START of your turn, giving your opponent a turn to react to your scoring move.

@Maratag - if you believe that Maelstrom is the best way to play 40k, there's nothing I can do to help you.

If it's anything like Sigmar (and thats how its shaping up) it'll actually be more about tactics on the table and less about strategy in the list building stage.

Which is, tbh, the goal.