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.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
Eh, Helsinki is all right, but Espoo, man, that's where all the cool people live.

Tampere for us. Plus, that's where the moomin museum is. And that wins any debate about Finland!

Deadnight wrote:


Agreed. As I get older, i tend to see more and more value in the DIY approach, and seeing the game as a modular construct. Is up to us to put the bits and pieces together to give us the game we want.

There is one other quote perfectly apt here, this time from 7th ed BRB:

"The Spirit of the game: Warhammer 40,000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40,000 calls on a lot from you, the player. Your responsibility isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written."

What constantly amazes me is that for some parts of community, adhering to this is a fatal flaw of character and going against "the norm". This is even more amazing in times of social media, when it takes no more than an evening of surfing to find plenty of places in which this approach is cherished and people who utilize 40K this way. I have recently found a guy who sought after, bought and build an original Anphelion Base FW kit for his table - the single most expensive terrain kit, made especially for the most complex official campaign FW ever published. I won't be very surprised if most of dakkanauts don't even realize, that Zone Mortalis expansion was not only played, but original FW kits were bought and many people made their DIY tables for it "before it was cool", that is before third party producers made alternatives for Newcromunda.

nou wrote:
First, a handy quotes from 8th ed BRB:

"In truth there is no right or wrong way to go about engaging with the Warhammer 40,000 hobby – it’s best to just find what you most enjoy and go for it. From gaming tournaments and campaign events to world-class painting competitions, from dining- table warfare to exciting battles at local clubs, there’s a world of fun to be had with Warhammer 40,000 [...]"

"The kind of game people look for varies immensely, however, from friendly mutual storytelling to highly competitive tournament play. Luckily, whether you are seeking to forge a thrilling narrative, play in a blistering head-to-head deathmatch, or even weave game after game into an ongoing campaign of conquest, the Warhammer 40,000 hobby offers ample opportunity to engage with any or all of these ways to play."

Something along the lines existed in every edition's BRB, and GW sales are not going through the roof currently because a handfull of meta chasing tournament sworn competetive players, which amount to few thousands around the world and most certainly not because of a few permanent dakka whiners, but because of all that anonymous garagehammer players who never set foot in competetively focussed FLGSs - GW even admit it openly from time to time in various interviews on various conventions, that majority of their playerbase never attended a tournament.

As to terrain discussion - GW sells not only swiss cheese ruins, but also stackable Munitorum Containers, Sector Mechanicus terrain with Ferratonic Furnaces and Haemotrope Reactors, and Wall of Martyrs pieces - all those are official terrain without windows to draw LOS or with explicit official rules for cover and if you have watched any GW GT you'll see they use plenty of solid container walls and rows of Ferratonic Furnaces to completely block LOS between entire table areas.

And to adress the absurd notion, that homemade terrain looks like gak - go and google or pinterest "warhammer 40k terrain" and repeat with straight face, that all non-official terrain looks like gak and is unsuitable for serious play... The amount of easy to build LOS blocking foam rock tables, Necron scenery without a single window or fully blown diorama tables will last you for weeks of just scrolling through all this eye candy.

The only true part of this terrain discussion here is that for some bizarre reasons, a large part of 40K crowd neglects terrain as an important part of wargaming experience for the last 20+ years. Most 40K centric FLGSs I've been to have miserable terrain selection and as soon as you step outside and look at historicals this changes drastically and you can see in person and play on fully blown thematic tables, no problem. It is the same in case of Necromunda - people invest many times more money and time into their Necro tables than they do invest in their gangs and nobody there argues, that only officially supplied terrain kits are allowed, INQ28 is another GW inspired game with no terrain problems. Even here on dakka there are plenty of painting and modeling blogs with stunning homemade terrain.

As to the OP question - as seen in discussion above, YMMV. If you play on "standard tournament table" with "four pieces of terrain in the corners and one humble partial LOS block in the middle" then tactics are limited or non existent - the very existence of static gunlines is enough argument in favor of "listbuilding is all that matters". But as soon as you step out of those ruts, tactics begin to matter a lot, no matter if you houserule or if you stick only to official GW supplied material available in Narrative sections of BRB. Many people in this thread would get a fit if they saw how terrain dense my typical 40K table is and I bet that even some of tournament veterans would suddenly lose their prowess faced with multilevel labirynths of LOS blocking, impassable and difficult terrain to manouver around.

Trully, you get out only what you put in.

@Greatbigtree

Your vertical ascent limitations are very similar to those I use, they indeed change both figurative and literal landscape of the game a lot.

So terrain can really determine how much tactics are going to be involved, like if you were playing on flat grass meadow with no hills then naturally tactics become less relevant in terms of movement. And just like real life, if the terrain has alot of obsticals, then tactical movement etc will play a much larger part.

Thanks for your post appreciate it.

8th Edition has followed the trend of the past few editions where Army composition matters more and more, with tactics being less and less prevalent. 8th Edition has become the turning point where Army choice has a greater impact than the Gameplay of the army user (in general. There's always exceptions of course). This doesn't mean that "tactics" or "gameplay" of the player doesn't matter. It just matters less than their choice of army does. Smart play can always give you an advantage, just less so with the new edition.

Yeah, i still think its better to win with a army you like for various reasons and not only for competitive list. Being that tactics are minimal in obvious situations like a lack of terrain i would probably insist on playing in more of a tactics based landscape, but if i cant find one and have to play in a flat field,that's fine because even though its unlikely, its still possible with the right luck to win, and coming out with a win with the army you like instead of it being a army based just on a list, would be much more rewarding and cooler i think.

Deadnight wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
Eh, Helsinki is all right, but Espoo, man, that's where all the cool people live.

Tampere for us. Plus, that's where the moomin museum is. And that wins any debate about Finland!

Also the games museum. They have a copy of one of the earliest war/board games made in Finland, which came out for Christmas 1918, depicting the just-ended Finnish Civil War, and has its rulebook written entirely in verse (in two languages!).

I think with a culmulative victory point game the toolbox of tactics closes down a lot. So in this type of game(which most of 8th is) the Armies with the best units to deny your opponent objectives and the cheapest/hardest to remove units to hold will win. The Tactics involved have to fit that framework.

End of game scoring can lead to a lot of camping and end turn objective grabs...until then you just point and shoot, but with a lot of terrain you could have a larger framework of Tactics.

fFghting to the last man obviously has the most Tactics, but many seem bored without a mission after a set number of those games.

So the best games should combine the 3.
Killing the enemy should matter....on some scoring ...somehow.
NOT being forced to grab an objective that your army is ill suited to do and results in suicidal units
And anything that prevents camping and mobility and LOS with lots of Terrain.

Those are the best....Not everyone likes to play that way so sometimes you will find games you don't like.

It isn't broken...it is just that players all like different shakes.

 admironheart wrote:
I think with a culmulative victory point game the toolbox of tactics closes down a lot. So in this type of game(which most of 8th is) the Armies with the best units to deny your opponent objectives and the cheapest/hardest to remove units to hold will win. The Tactics involved have to fit that framework.

End of game scoring can lead to a lot of camping and end turn objective grabs...until then you just point and shoot, but with a lot of terrain you could have a larger framework of Tactics.

fFghting to the last man obviously has the most Tactics, but many seem bored without a mission after a set number of those games.

So the best games should combine the 3.
Killing the enemy should matter....on some scoring ...somehow.
NOT being forced to grab an objective that your army is ill suited to do and results in suicidal units
And anything that prevents camping and mobility and LOS with lots of Terrain.

Those are the best....Not everyone likes to play that way so sometimes you will find games you don't like.

It isn't broken...it is just that players all like different shakes.

I don't know. It sounds more like you just don't like progressive scoring missions. I haven't had issues with them. In fact, some of the closest (and therefor funnest for me) were such missions. Most have been with one side taking an early lead and the other coming back to toward the end. A rare thing in my experience in Warhammer 40k where the game actually swings between the players. I have even played forces that were better for leading early or coming back in the end. I will go as far as saying these games are one of the few times there is tactical play involved as both players have to decide how early to commit to capturing the objectives opposed to how long they can hold them. Additionally, these missions are usually were Troop choices get to shine a little bit which I think is where a 28mm game such as 40k should put the focus.

I think end of mission objective captures are a fine mission type. One of my favorites is the Battlefront (of Flames of War fame) where each player places two objectives in their deployment zone and the first player to have one of their units near an enemy objecitve with no enemy units nearby wins within a set/variable number of rounds. I like this mission as it requires both offensive and defensive play, requires division of forces both for offense and defense but also objective 1 and 2.

I disagree that Kill Points or total elimination of units has the most tactics used. In fact, I think it has some of least. Again, I think you are showing your bias to a killy army/playstyle and not a more balanced one. I have never played a miniatures war game with that kill point mission objective that didn't feel rather hallow. The can be fun sure, but they don't have much going one often devolving into long range pot shots or one or both side castling up. There is a good reason why many games suggest these types of mission as first one new players should try.

I have played very few games where killing the enemy didn't matter even if it had no direct effect on the mission win conditions. Crippling/removing enemy units from the battlefield is to remove the influence your opponent has on said battlefield. The less control your opponent has the more you can predict and further influence their actions as you have more control over the battlefield accomplishing what you want to while deny them the same. The only times killing didn't mater was with games that required too much moving and not enough time to accomplish mission objectives. Think hammer and anvil with small deployment zones and only 4 rounds of play. Again, I think you are too biased toward enemy elimination. As a player that constantly suffers from tabletop blood lust as well, it is easy and fun to be killing your opponent's army. However, concerning yourself with the mission objectives is where tactics often come to play.

Think of it this way, in chess you must eliminate only the king to win. No other pieces matter. Removing your opponent's pieces removes your opponent's influence to prevent you from winning as well as prevent them from winning. At the same time, removing too many of you opponents pieces can make it more difficult to win as their king now has more room to maneuver and thus is harder to pin down in checkmate. You have to play to capturing the king not killing all your opponent's pieces. Otherwise, you might find yourself having a lot of games of chess ending in stalemate.

Darsath wrote:
8th Edition has followed the trend of the past few editions where Army composition matters more and more, with tactics being less and less prevalent. 8th Edition has become the turning point where Army choice has a greater impact than the Gameplay of the army user (in general. There's always exceptions of course). This doesn't mean that "tactics" or "gameplay" of the player doesn't matter. It just matters less than their choice of army does. Smart play can always give you an advantage, just less so with the new edition.

Disagree. 6th and 7th put more emphasis on faction selection and list building than 8th does. Those editions were truly won or lost during list building, in 8th you have that only with extreme matchups like GK versus Aeldari soup. Anything else is winnnable, maybe not with equal chances on both sides, but still winnable.

Also, don't play 2000 point games on 6x4 tables, they are too cramped and the rulebook actually discourages that point level. Play the standard format (1750 on a 6x4), you have more tactical options, those 250 points matter a lot.

Spoletta wrote:

Darsath wrote:
8th Edition has followed the trend of the past few editions where Army composition matters more and more, with tactics being less and less prevalent. 8th Edition has become the turning point where Army choice has a greater impact than the Gameplay of the army user (in general. There's always exceptions of course). This doesn't mean that "tactics" or "gameplay" of the player doesn't matter. It just matters less than their choice of army does. Smart play can always give you an advantage, just less so with the new edition.

Disagree. 6th and 7th put more emphasis on faction selection and list building than 8th does. Those editions were truly won or lost during list building, in 8th you have that only with extreme matchups like GK versus Aeldari soup. Anything else is winnnable, maybe not with equal chances on both sides, but still winnable.

Also, don't play 2000 point games on 6x4 tables, they are too cramped and the rulebook actually discourages that point level. Play the standard format (1750 on a 6x4), you have more tactical options, those 250 points matter a lot.

You mention that anything short of bottom army versus top army, any match is winnable. But this has been true of past editions aswell, and really depends on what you define as winnable, since technically any match-up, even one where you only have half the points of your opponent is "winnable". I think it would be realistic to call "winnable" in these circumstances as "having a reasonable and substantial statistical chance of winning". In this context, 8th doesn't perform as well as 6th or 7th (though those editions were pretty bad when it comes to this aswell). I think the easiest way to change this would be to change the way Command points are gained and a change to the allies system. These 2 wouldn't be a perfect fit, but would make it better than it was in 7th.

Well bigger then 6x4 tables don't fit in to most stores, some tables are even smaller. Plus am not sure that people who spend money to buy an army optimised for 2k points would now like to either buy a 1750pts army or rebuild the one they have now. Specially if they are winning right now.

The less control your opponent has the more you can predict and further influence their actions as you have more control over the battlefield accomplishing what you want to while deny them the same. The only times killing didn't mater was with games that required too much moving and not enough time to accomplish mission objectives.

I have very little expiriance with scenarios where killing didn't matter as much. One was a game where you had to bring an objective to your deployment zone after it spawned turn 3 on one 9 markers. That ended with my opponent zipping his jetbikes to the other side of the table and conga the unit with the relic to their deployment zone for an automatic win at the end of their turn.

The other was a scenario where my army was suppose to leave through a designated table edge. My opponent charge all of my army turn one. Didn't even kill most of it, but I just couldnt kill 200orcs fast enough.

I don't think that non kill scenarios work very well outside of maybe narrative games.

Darsath wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Darsath wrote:
8th Edition has followed the trend of the past few editions where Army composition matters more and more, with tactics being less and less prevalent. 8th Edition has become the turning point where Army choice has a greater impact than the Gameplay of the army user (in general. There's always exceptions of course). This doesn't mean that "tactics" or "gameplay" of the player doesn't matter. It just matters less than their choice of army does. Smart play can always give you an advantage, just less so with the new edition.

Disagree. 6th and 7th put more emphasis on faction selection and list building than 8th does. Those editions were truly won or lost during list building, in 8th you have that only with extreme matchups like GK versus Aeldari soup. Anything else is winnnable, maybe not with equal chances on both sides, but still winnable.

Also, don't play 2000 point games on 6x4 tables, they are too cramped and the rulebook actually discourages that point level. Play the standard format (1750 on a 6x4), you have more tactical options, those 250 points matter a lot.

You mention that anything short of bottom army versus top army, any match is winnable. But this has been true of past editions aswell, and really depends on what you define as winnable, since technically any match-up, even one where you only have half the points of your opponent is "winnable". I think it would be realistic to call "winnable" in these circumstances as "having a reasonable and substantial statistical chance of winning". In this context, 8th doesn't perform as well as 6th or 7th (though those editions were pretty bad when it comes to this aswell). I think the easiest way to change this would be to change the way Command points are gained and a change to the allies system. These 2 wouldn't be a perfect fit, but would make it better than it was in 7th.

Hmm, no, not in my experience. Necron decurion was not a "top" army in 7th, but i can assure you that half the factions of the game had no chance against it. The distance between "good" factions and "bad" factions in 7th was enormous.
6th was a bit better, but not by much. In 8th a mid tier faction can win against an imperial soup played by an average player, maybe not 50% of the time, but 35-40% isn't unheard of. I have seen battle reports of DE vs GK which were quite close until turn 3-4. I played CSM against Eldar once in 7th and was almost tabled in turn 1, and that was with an "optimized" CSM list not even a fluffy one (not either ultra competitive though).

How does a GK army survive till 3ed turn vs DE, normaly with doom the GK should have a crippled army by the end of turn 3. Plus stuff like vect+doom do a huge number of GM NDKs.

I would disagree quite a bit. There are plenty of armies that could compete (from both above and below) when it came to the decurion. Space Marines, Eldar, T'au, and Mechanicus for example all have pretty favourable match-ups. Some armies, though, like Tyranids, Orks and Grey Knights didn't really have much of a chance against the army though, as they were the bottom tier armies of the edition. Still, some armies like Tyranids had tricks that could help them win at least on objectives if nothing else (not ideal, but at least decurion didn't grant obj secure) with their 2+ cover save trick being a decent way to hold objectives against Necrons. All of this is without mentioning the typical Daemon lists that dominated the tournament setting near the end of 7th, or the mess that was Ynarri. In the latter case, though, that was almost assuredly designed with 8th in mind, and is still a mess to this day.

Spoletta wrote:

Darsath wrote:
8th Edition has followed the trend of the past few editions where Army composition matters more and more, with tactics being less and less prevalent. 8th Edition has become the turning point where Army choice has a greater impact than the Gameplay of the army user (in general. There's always exceptions of course). This doesn't mean that "tactics" or "gameplay" of the player doesn't matter. It just matters less than their choice of army does. Smart play can always give you an advantage, just less so with the new edition.

Disagree. 6th and 7th put more emphasis on faction selection and list building than 8th does. Those editions were truly won or lost during list building, in 8th you have that only with extreme matchups like GK versus Aeldari soup. Anything else is winnnable, maybe not with equal chances on both sides, but still winnable.

Also, don't play 2000 point games on 6x4 tables, they are too cramped and the rulebook actually discourages that point level. Play the standard format (1750 on a 6x4), you have more tactical options, those 250 points matter a lot.

Lies, a 4×6 is too small for anything over 1000 points, and even then only if you're setting up on the 4' edges. 2000 points needs at least a 6x8 (or a 4x10 with corner deployment zones 48" apart). And twice as much LoS-blocking terrain as you think you need in either case.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
I think with a culmulative victory point game the toolbox of tactics closes down a lot. So in this type of game(which most of 8th is) the Armies with the best units to deny your opponent objectives and the cheapest/hardest to remove units to hold will win. The Tactics involved have to fit that framework.

End of game scoring can lead to a lot of camping and end turn objective grabs...until then you just point and shoot, but with a lot of terrain you could have a larger framework of Tactics.

fFghting to the last man obviously has the most Tactics, but many seem bored without a mission after a set number of those games.

So the best games should combine the 3.
Killing the enemy should matter....on some scoring ...somehow.
NOT being forced to grab an objective that your army is ill suited to do and results in suicidal units
And anything that prevents camping and mobility and LOS with lots of Terrain.

Those are the best....Not everyone likes to play that way so sometimes you will find games you don't like.

It isn't broken...it is just that players all like different shakes.

I don't know. It sounds more like you just don't like progressive scoring missions. I haven't had issues with them. In fact, some of the closest (and therefor funnest for me) were such missions. Most have been with one side taking an early lead and the other coming back to toward the end. A rare thing in my experience in Warhammer 40k where the game actually swings between the players. I have even played forces that were better for leading early or coming back in the end. I will go as far as saying these games are one of the few times there is tactical play involved as both players have to decide how early to commit to capturing the objectives opposed to how long they can hold them. Additionally, these missions are usually were Troop choices get to shine a little bit which I think is where a 28mm game such as 40k should put the focus.

Big blobs of hard to kill units camping an objective when other armies may not have such a neat and nasty combo....is not always fair.

I think end of mission objective captures are a fine mission type. One of my favorites is the Battlefront (of Flames of War fame) where each player places two objectives in their deployment zone and the first player to have one of their units near an enemy objecitve with no enemy units nearby wins within a set/variable number of rounds. I like this mission as it requires both offensive and defensive play, requires division of forces both for offense and defense but also objective 1 and 2.

I like it too but I have heard of horror stories.

I disagree that Kill Points or total elimination of units has the most tactics used. In fact, I think it has some of least. Again, I think you are showing your bias to a killy army/playstyle and not a more balanced one. I have never played a miniatures war game with that kill point mission objective that didn't feel rather hallow. The can be fun sure, but they don't have much going one often devolving into long range pot shots or one or both side castling up. There is a good reason why many games suggest these types of mission as first one new players should try.

I disagree. I will give you an example. I Play a very mobile list. It has not Holding power.(not much does in 8th) Most of 8th is a devolved game of lining up and charging up the middle. Who does the most shooting/hacking wins that portion of the board. The surviving units win the objectives....That is a very small toolbox of tactics. In a kill game I can send out a bait unit....goad the berzerkers to come kill it.....then shoot the berzerks off the table as I round the Buildings. So there is a set up, decisions the opponent needs to make if he should or should not take the bait, and executing the hammer and anvil. THAT does not happen in rush to claim the objectivs. On a simpler note...you may have a second wave to help re take or keep the objective....but sill a Much much simpler tactic and game play.

I have played very few games where killing the enemy didn't matter even if it had no direct effect on the mission win conditions. Crippling/removing enemy units from the battlefield is to remove the influence your opponent has on said battlefield. The less control your opponent has the more you can predict and further influence their actions as you have more control over the battlefield accomplishing what you want to while deny them the same. The only times killing didn't mater was with games that required too much moving and not enough time to accomplish mission objectives. Think hammer and anvil with small deployment zones and only 4 rounds of play. Again, I think you are too biased toward enemy elimination. As a player that constantly suffers from tabletop blood lust as well, it is easy and fun to be killing your opponent's army. However, concerning yourself with the mission objectives is where tactics often come to play.

Again I will give you a simple example where this is mostly wrong. So this weekend I had a game vs some Titans with big choppy swords. The mission stated you need to occupy the center. I had a huge lackluster moment of bad decisions and moved my army to do WHAT THE MISSION said. The titans chopped open my tanks and slaughtered my units. AS I said in my post. No tactics....Just a dumbed down game where you move up and kill. Whoever has the most dakka/choppa or the hardest to kill units to hold wins.

In that game I still ended up with more points left over. I still killed all the titans. But I was slaughtered on VPs. My army has a hard time getting a First Strike accomplished, but by turn 3 or 4 I can pretty much table or almost table most other armies. But if for 3 turns I lose on VPs and the enemy has a couple grots hiding in the corner and I have 50+ models I still lose....DOES NOT SOUND like tactics.

Think of it this way, in chess you must eliminate only the king to win. No other pieces matter. Removing your opponent's pieces removes your opponent's influence to prevent you from winning as well as prevent them from winning. At the same time, removing too many of you opponents pieces can make it more difficult to win as their king now has more room to maneuver and thus is harder to pin down in checkmate. You have to play to capturing the king not killing all your opponent's pieces. Otherwise, you might find yourself having a lot of games of chess ending in stalemate.

See I play chess quite a bit differently. I have defeated many better players by doing a non standard game play. I hate queens and am bad at them. Most players will use the queen well and is their center piece. I trade Queen for Queen. then kill off both Knights while leaving usually 1 knight for myself and 1 bishop for the opponent. A bishop can ONLY touch half the board. So after this Tactic, I now have board control and can stay away from his area....making him useless. Coupled with most players not used to such an aggressive playstyle and losing their most fined tool piece....I catch them off guard or they hide their Queen for most of the game. Either way its a win for me. These are decision making tactics.

In another game this weekend the Bozy mobbed up and threw a 40 man unit in my side of the board. At the same time a hard unit of Bikers made it into my back field. So he controlled all the objectives. (From this simple combo of powers/strats to disrupt his opponent.) It is some nice combos....but does not take more than a 12 year old grasp to pull it off and charge. He was counting on the very hard to kill Mob and Bikers to hold the ground. Before his next turn both units were eliminated and I was flanking on both sides. My tanks and few hth units plus psychics plus strats won the day....I had to keep units together. move them in place. offer the original bait, then deliver the hammer and anvil. Even if he knew that his army is a one trick poiney and he could not really change his play. After turn 2 he was crushing me in objectives. By turn 3 he had almost no units and then I was crushing. We ran out of time before turn 5 but he conceded and I doubled his points. I really have no units other than a full squad of wraithmodels with back up that could have hoped to hold ANY ground....Any things else would have been evaporated like the titans did to me.

The Winners of the game have big hard to kill monsters. They have multiple units of 30 Plague Bearers/30Pink Horrors, They have Massive hard to kill units that they plob on objectives. THAT IS the most SIMPLE of tactics. Then they dare you to remove them.

This is a Game about Models. so Miniatures should MATTER in a game other than to see how pretty they look. LOS and maneuvering should matter. And progressive scoring in some way should count...but you should not lose the game on turn 2 of a 6 round game just because you did not try to rush a mob into his mob to see who had more dakka or choppa and harder to kill unit. That is a very very BORING game.

Tactics always matter.

Some armies have obvious tactics which are comparatively easy to pull off. Others require a good deal more effort.

But if anyone thinks their list alone will do the heavy lifting, they’re dead wrong. Especially when it comes to Tactical Objectives and the scoring thereof.

@admironheart

How can the same game have units that can camp on an objective and be tough to shift and not have much staying power? You have claimed both in your post. If it is the former use them, if is the later eliminate them and take the objective.

Why can't you bait those bererkers to an objective and do the same thing? I can't possibly see a good player bother being kited around the table for that to be a worthwhile tactic. Have you tried using your speed to capture an objective, leaving as the enemy approaches and blasting them off again to re-take it? If you have the speed and firepower at your disposal use it.

If your faction doesn't have methods to capture and hold objectives that is a failure the game since it is a very common mission type. However, if you build an army that is only built for speed and killing without the ability capture and hold objectives that is on you. Again, it sounds like you build a very scissor heavy list (/moving and killing) and don't like the fact that rock (hold objective) units exist.

It sounds like your opponents in both Warhammer 40k and Chess are rather mediocre players they are falling for the tactics you mention. Those tactics are on the same level of the distraction carnifax, they work only up to a middling level of player before they don't work at all.

Of course tactics matter.

The problem is that the degree to which they matter diminishes greatly depending on the the matchup. Also, dice and randomness can reduce the impact of tactics (for example, spiked overwatch killing something it shouldn't.)

 Marmatag wrote:
Of course tactics matter.

The problem is that the degree to which they matter diminishes greatly depending on the the matchup. Also, dice and randomness can reduce the impact of tactics (for example, spiked overwatch killing something it shouldn't.)

I agree with the sentiment but use different terminology. A lucky or unlucky dice roll is where tactics happen. It is when things go according to plan that you are just following your strategy.

So I play Craftworld Eldar. It is a fun army.

Ive played it since 1994.

Why can't you bait those bererkers to an objective and do the same thing? I can't possibly see a good player bother being kited around the table for that to be a worthwhile tactic. Have you tried using your speed to capture an objective, leaving as the enemy approaches and blasting them off again to re-take it? If you have the speed and firepower at your disposal use it.

In 8th edition with 90% of the missions it is hard for someone not to be on every objective by turn 2 if they want. I wish I could find a game in 8th where units would move slower than their bullets that you could actually do what you suggested.

Other than a maxed size unit of Wraithguard(Blaces/axes) Name a unit that I can put in the middle of the table.

Then take a hit from the enemy shooting, psychic, and assault phases without evaporating?

There are quite a few units that are like that in the various armies...and cheap. (wraith units that size are a quarter of the list)

Those hard to kiil units you referenced. (the only reason I did kill them was due to my very 'scissor' list) in 3 out of my 4 games...my opponents said no one had removed their 'hard' units in as short a period as I was able. I have lots of Dakka and choppa.

The winner had two 28 Plague Bearers, 30 Pink Horrors, 2 Daemon Princes of Tzeentch, Sorcerors,and a slew of Terminators.

You don't kill that easily if at all with most lists. YOUR favorite game play would see those units rush an objective, hold it and win the game. Simple and effective (extremely low tactics) but would win the game. Explain to me how building an effective list like that and utilizing simple tactics (I am sure the player has a profound grasp of the game I will never have, can deploy better, anticipate my moves better and hardly ever make a mistake) Nothing wrong with that. BUT to claim that is better tactics is ludicrous!

"How does a GK army survive till 3ed turn vs DE, normaly with doom the GK should have a crippled army by the end of turn 3. Plus stuff like vect+doom do a huge number of GM NDKs."
Well, first off, if DE DOOMed you, they're cheating. DE don't have DOOM. Aeldari Soup and DE are not the same thing.

Second, wasn't GK vs Aeldari Soup the one excepted scenario to "winnable"?

Third, I think you'd be surprised by either how good the best players are or how bad the worst players are. Also, dice. A GK army certainly *does* have a chance vs a DE army. Just not a good chance.

I think one nice idea to improve Progressive scoring in a 6 round game would have Round 1 and 2 gain standard VPs,
Rounds 3 and 4 would double the mission VPs
And Rounds 5 and 6 would triple those same VPs.

Someone holds an objective for the first 4 rounds would get 6 VPs but if you kill them then hold it for turns 5+6 you would get 6 as well. So deciding how long you want to be vulnerable would be a tactical choice. And some of those camping Guard Armies would have the chance to actually move across the field of play.

Now THAT would be Progressive Scoring.

 admironheart wrote:
I think one nice idea to improve Progressive scoring in a 6 round game would have Round 1 and 2 gain standard VPs,
Rounds 3 and 4 would double the mission VPs
And Rounds 5 and 6 would triple those same VPs.

Someone holds an objective for the first 4 rounds would get 6 VPs but if you kill them then hold it for turns 5+6 you would get 6 as well. So deciding how long you want to be vulnerable would be a tactical choice. And some of those camping Guard Armies would have the chance to actually move across the field of play.

Now THAT would be Progressive Scoring.

Except most games don't make it past turn 2, let alone turn 5.

40% army/40% luck/ 20% tactics (which is mostly target priority and deployment)

 admironheart wrote:

In 8th edition with 90% of the missions it is hard for someone not to be on every objective by turn 2 if they want. I wish I could find a game in 8th where units would move slower than their bullets that you could actually do what you suggested.

I can't help you much, I don't any experience with CWE. I play Chaos Space Marines and mostly play against other kinds marines and Necrons. I know in a five objective, progress scoring game my plan would shore up my deployment zone objectives with my Chaos Space Marines/Cultists with rhinos on hand. I would have my land raider and chosen or mauler fiend try to take the center objective, though' I doubt they are going to last any amount of time. I would hope they buy me enough time to figure out what my opponent is going to do. I would try speed bump the enemy with my Raptors but not really expecting anything out them. Best case scenario, my opponent wants to kill them and maybe I can pull them away for a bit. I would plan to use my terminators to deep strike on to an objective they can hold. I don't think I would try for all of the objectives as it would thin my forces too much. I would probably let my opponent have one of their objectives all game long. I want to keep my deployment zone objectives mine, but the moment I could, I would try to take a Rhino full of marines to reinforce the center objective as what I have trying to hold it isn't likely to last. I would like to use at least one of my Terminator squads to take one of my opponent's objectives or at very least tie up some of their larger threats from affecting my other held/capturing efforts. One of the terminators squads might need to also shore up the center objective as that is where the game is likely to be won or lost. As you can tell not exactly a great list with little chance of pulling off this strategy especially against a good probably even an average list.

As for Eldar, couldn't you use Guardian Defenders or Storm Guardians cheaply defend your nearer objectives or even contest the center via whatever the Eldar Objective Secure ability is called? They don't look like they can take much punishment, but they look cheaper than a marine scout. They shouldn't be too much of your army point total to allow you units that can pry an objective away from your opponent. I also think relying a single unit to hold anything but your back line isn't going to work in 8th edition. You are going to have to redirect forces where they are needed since you have speed but not durability. I think that is were the tactics are. You need to figure out which objectives you want to take and hold and at very least decide which objective you are going to ignore. Just like my army, you will be spread too thin if you try to hold all the objectives all the game. It might even be for the best to ignore the center and go for the rest. If I remember correctly, at least one of the 5 objective, progressive scoring missions has weighted VP objectives though. So ignoring the middle objective is risky.

I am not going to say that Warhammer 40k has good balanced armies. I can tell you my marine/terminator/raptor Black Legion definitely feels very lack luster. I am not some expert gamer especially not with 40k. I don't fall for distraction carnifaxes and I know how to position my forces to keep my opponent from causing too much trouble with deep strike though. I will admit I can be baited still as blowing up units is fun even if it doesn't help win. However, your descriptions always seem show your army has plenty of punch and even speed to get it where you want. I don't see how you couldn't use that to either take objectives early and leave them if your opponent is mounting an attack. Conversely, you could hold up a bit until your opponent show their hand and redeploy to deal with it. Which it seems deep strike is making that difficult if I am reading between the lines correctly.

It is easy to say you are going to rush an objective, hold it and win, but actually doing it isn't. In the Battlefront style mission I mentioned, you have also have to have units camping both your objectives to keep your opponent from doing the same rush, hold, win. So you have to balance out how many units to commit to attack and how many to keep in defense. You can't gun line out the game as you will likely run out rounds before mounting a counter attack. You also can't readily alpha strike as you leave yourself open to deep strike force eliminating your weak defense and taking the objective. In addition to splitting your force for attack and defense, the most common Battlefront mission strategy is to put your objectives as far as part from each other to further split your attacker's force. This is less effective in 40k without templates, but if you have a faster army you could at very least keep your objectives close enough that a few units between them could rush over to prevent total capture. Which again because 40k is IGOUGO can be tough especially if a deep strike attack occurs (which is easy enough to say deep strikers can't capture the turn the came in).

Again, I think you need to look into how you use your fast, hard hitting playstyle to take and capture objectives with the understanding that Warhammer 40k is an unbalanced mess that even if you do everything right, your opponent only needs to have a much better list and do a couple of things right and win. Which is what this whole thread is about. Because 40k is an unbalanced mess largely won before the first model touches the table, I don't really worry about it. My marines fight and die in the name of Abbadon and end up losing most of the time. There are certainly rules that bother me and more than handful imbalances I can't possible imagine the game designers didn't see, but I try to not let it get me down.

Except if you play double frag cannon Deathwatch in Kill Team. Then you are just the worst./s...kinda.

 Stormatious wrote:
Do tactics matter enough to effect a win regardless of your army/race?, this is a follow up to people saying my army is gak and me thinking they're wrong no matter how much facts there are lollll.


Like for e.g could 30 troops face off against 120 troops and win?

Of course they do otherwise why would you even play the game.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
Do tactics matter enough to effect a win regardless of your army/race?, this is a follow up to people saying my army is gak and me thinking they're wrong no matter how much facts there are lollll.


Like for e.g could 30 troops face off against 120 troops and win?

Of course they do otherwise why would you even play the game.

Lol wish that was the first comment of this thread and it ended there. But seems to be more complicated then that.

@ Nou: The vertical numbers worked out for us, as I bought some 1” pink insulation foam to build with. So hills would always have levels in convenient 1” height increments. Which made it simple for us to agree on the whole 1/2/3+” height limits for what does what. Tiered hills that rise to one side are some of my favourite terrain, as the “long slope” side could have no movement impact, while the long sides were difficult, while the final side would be impassible. The low part of the hill would be cover for infantry, 2nd their blocks LOS to most infantry but (Tall, IG tanks) would only have cover while the tallest parts would block LOS to everything... except Knights and Flyers.

Honestly? If you (general you, nobody specific) need some terrain to increase the importance of movement and positioning, teardrop shaped hills are fantastic and easy for total novices to build. Hint! Cut the covered sections out from lower tiers to build the higher tiers! Saves material, and the glue will dry better / faster.

To me, GW terrain is terribly overpriced. I’m happier to play on my modest looking but FUN terrain pieces that I build with game mechanics in mind, to ensure my battlefields have terrain that is impactful to the game.

And yes, I also find that 8ths terrain rules are lacking, so we improved them! If I have to shoot through trees to hit you, you get cover. Even if you aren’t touching the terrain. Because that change was stupid, and diminished the importance of placement. Same deal with ruins. We changed the game to make it better for us. On the basis that I enjoy playing 40k again, whereas the hardcore RAW adherents complain endlessly about what a mess the 40k rules are and how there’s no tactics to it, all I can say is that I am getting what I want from 40k. A pretty decent core of a game that I can tweak with my opponents to make a really fun experience that can be challenging *after* the list building stage.

Obviously I’m not a tournament player these days. Never was much into tournaments, but my gaming group has always been competitive. We all like to win, and we all want an interesting game so as of 8th, we have started house ruling to make a more interesting experience. Mostly to do with terrain. I also let my friends know I won’t play against a 3+ Knight list without warning. That’s something I carried forward from 7th. I did it a few times with my TAC lists and win or lose... it wasn’t fun. My Knight playing friend also didn’t find it fun, so we agreed to that. I want him to have fun with his minis, so when he wants to run that type of list he lets me know and I bring a list to have an interesting game with. Amusingly, that puts the balance of the game on my shoulders, to take a tailored list that isn’t perfectly optimized! I’ve gotten pretty good at that, so that those games are close.

Wow, much off topics. So rambly. I hope you have the good fortune of finding like minded people to play with, and if you don’t, that you have the courage to talk to strangers and *ask* if they’d like to play with the tweaks you like. I rarely have a pickup game these days, but when I do I ask my opponent about the shooting “through” forests or over low walls granting cover. I rarely encounter the RAW adherents in real life. Most people are happy to play with someone (like me) that likes the cinematic sense of, “yes, even though you aren’t in the cover you should benefit from it being in the way.”

Take ownership and responsibility for your fun. It doesn’t take much to make the game better, and most people are happy to try it.

Depends on the meaning of "tactics". My last game against Tau, I ended up having to outshoot them. With Blood Angels. I relied on my guys have a 2+ in cover and Tau maxing at 3+, because I couldn't survive a charge. In this case, "tactics" was accepting math that was absurd thematically.