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.

Hi Dakka,

Background to the thread in spoiler:


I find that most tactics threads here and elsewhere centre mostly around which units to pick to make an optimised list. 1D4chan is useful, but is mainly just describing each unit. This obviously has its place and is very important, but I think that it's misleading to call this "tactics".

My question is, how does one develop a game sense, to make sound tactical and strategic decisions once the game has started? Things like deploying correctly, having a good game plan (strategy), surrounding transports to stop the unit inside from disembarking, bubble-wrapping valuable units (tactics), and other game-mechanical advantages which are not army-dependant or reliant on spamming the best units in the codex.

For an experienced player these things might seem obvious, but for a noob I can assure you that they're not, so I hope this thread could be a place where newer players could gain some knowlege from the veterans out there!

I think a lot of that comes from playing games to be honest, there's no better way to learn than experience. But for those of us that don't get the time to play as much as we might like, watching battle reports are a very good way to see how more experienced players use the armies you play.

An experienced player can read the game, i.e., he/she can think ahead of the game what to do next and what the enemy is planning next. Thinking ahead is key.

Tactics is another issue. Here the mission played plays an important role. You have to stick to the mission objectives to be achieved in the first place. No matter if one of your units is getting destroyed somewhere at the battle field. Stick to the objectives.

The army composition also plays a decisive role. You need firepower, mobility and durability. And you should be able to battle the enemy at all threat ranges.

There are a few things that I see new players do often:

Not playing to the objectives
It may seem obvious, but especially with 'acceptable casualties' it's even more important to play to the objectives. Sure, killing the enemy makes it easier, however if you aren't scoring until turn 3 then it can often be too late. When considering your movement / shooting / assault you need to always keep in mind "how does this help me achieve my objective"

Not committing enough shooting to wipe out a unit
Often I'll see new players take the 'average' roll as being a guarantee when in reality it's further than the truth. Some (un)lucky dice rolls could mean the enemy is still standing with their special weapons after your onslaught. I always think about the following:
1) Commit more firepower than you expect is needed.
2) Ensure that your firepower has multiple targets. That way if you do wipe out the unit, that you can shoot at something else.
3) Ensure that you can shoot even if the enemy removes models. I've seen many times that one unit has shot, but due to how models have been removed, that no other units can shoot at the damaged unit.

Not asking enough questions about the opponents list
Knowing which questions you should be asking is key. Ask them if they have any special tricks that they might use. If in doubt you can always ask your opponent to look at their codex and army list. This should give you an idea about capabilities of their list, what their weaknesses are, and where you can expect the most damage.


In terms of other tricks, there is a lot of nuance in the combat phase. You should be aware of taking hostages. Also, having a unit tag a shooting unit can severely diminish your opponents damage output even if you don't expect to do any real damage. For example, a Rhino against a heavy weapons team prevents them from doing any useful work next phase. You can use the charge / pile in / consolidate as free movement, often I've charged a unit just to move in the opposite direction to secure an objective.

This tends to be a super undeveloped area even online. I think its due to a few elements:

1) A lot of people don't formally understand what they are doing in a way that they can explain it to others. They've trial and error built up a selection of tactics and methods which are partly subconscious. So they use them but they can't explain them.

2) Some rely heavily on a near photographic memory of unit stats across the game - so they've got tactics but unless you've a very good memory (and a desire to put the work into memorizing stats too) then it can sometimes not be a viable appraoch for all.

3) Online its hard because it requires a lot more typing to describe what to do - or you have to get out paint and start drawing movement diagrams and then uploading them and then also explaining. Ergo its A LOT more effort than "Just swap those Scouts for some more Tactical marines to increase your damage output per turn whatever"

4) Because its undeveloped there isn't a culture of exchanging the information so it gets left to the side.




I think there are a few things that can help
1) Line of sight denial terrain. This should be a thing on most 40K and AoS and indeed most wargame tables. Most game systems break heavily if the army with guns has undisputed line of fight over most over the table because it means that movement becomes far less important. It also means that in games like 40K and AoS where there are a large number of close combat units, the close combat player is playing at a disadvantage.
So part of the tactics of the game begins from terrain placement and ensuring that there is fair deployment and also line of sight blocking going on.

2) Having a plan of attack. Often this gets cut down to the shorthand of "go for the objectives." However this is about having an idea what you will use each unit for before your opponent has put a single model down on the table. Have a plan of how you are going to play out the game, what units you want to put where and which objectives you are going to aim for.
This helps you pick and choose what to put where, to make early game choices on how to approach the game and also it gives you a sense of agenda to your playing instead of leaving you totally reactionary to what your opponent does.

3) read your opponents army and try to guess their tactics and attempt to counter or tackle with those issues. So alongside having a plan is being ready to adapt your plan to your opponents situation. Eg if they start deploying all on one side of the map you can get a general idea that they are going to hit that corner/side hard and maybe then sweep into the middle. So now you can' adapt your choices. Maybe you'll perfect counter and chock the other side of the board so that the main battle ends up in the middle after you each claim a corner; or maybe you'll bulk your army up in the same corner.

Or perhaps they hold a unit of air models or deep striking ones in reserve, now you know that there's a potential threat to your archers/snipers/artillery that you can attempt to work with, perhaps you leave a unit back to protect them; maybe you advance slower so that the ranged moves up with the rest of your army; perhaps you write them off early and decide that its ok if your opponent tears them apart because those units will be distracted there so you leave them really out on their own to lure those units in etc...

4) Understand what your units do. This is mostly getting a very basic understanding of dice theory. Basically its about working out that a 4+ to hit is going to be less reliable than a 3+ and a 2+ is going to be darn reliable. Then its about looking at the damage and nature of the damage - working out which units are counter to what and making use of that information even without knowing the ins and outs of your opponents army in detail.

Ergo learn your own army - learn what the role of each unit is and what they are going to do for you on the table. Even if you "use them wrong" you at least know what to expect and you know not to get your hopes up when you knowingly go into a bad matchup.

5) Whilst flanking doesn't give you extra damage, it does still work. Learning to move units to the side and around behind so that you can pile more into close combat is important. Sure you don't get any attack bonus for attacking a "flank" but you do get more models in combat.
Again pile on the damage if you're intent on taking out an enemy unit fast. Remember you might only have 6 turns and at least one or two of those will already be lost to getting into position to make attacks.
This is linking up to what is said above by another about converging more fire on something than you "need" to ensure destruction/suitable damage.

The reason strategy is discussed so much more than tactics is that tactics are so situational it can be a challenge to even discuss, but I can definitely make a list of mistakes I see new players making.

1) Have a plan for if you go first, and if you go second, and try to deploy as if you will be going second. Seize the initiative is almost always a thing, and it can totally feth you over if you deploy non-defensively. I see so many new players go for just like 1 extra inch forward to be right on the deployment line rather than deploying in cover, and then they get blown away by a gunline turn 1.

2) Mess with opponent's line of sight in your deployment as much as you can. This is a great example here with the Tau: Let's say you had your PBC, and you know you can't be out of range of the tau's guns - they're too long. but, you find a nice wall to tuck it behind such that half his army on one side of the table can't draw good line of sight to it, unless he shifts over. Now if he wants to focus his fire on the PBC, he has to clump up all his stuff, and all his weapons (including markerlights) with the "heavy" type will be suffering a -1 to hit because he moved. When I put a unit down my first priority is can I get a cover save bonus, and my second is can I do something to make sure all the enemy's shooters can't see my one unit. if I make my opponent split up his fire, then I have a good chance that he'll damaage two units instead of killing one. The nice thing with death guard is you have Myphitic Blight Haulers so you can pretty much be guaranteed to be in cover if you want to be, and you can focus on trying to hide stuff.

I've found against Tau one of the biggest mistakes people make in general is believing that out-shooting them is an impossibility and they must go to them no matter what army they're playing. Tau in general, at least in my experience, are not actually that super great at extreme long range shooting, and need to get things in range of fusion gun commanders and rapid fire pulse rifles to really start hosing things down. Making the rhino a target was probably a smart move, but what I would have done is move it to the mid-board where my plague marines could hop out and be within rapid fire range, but get it somewhere in cover and pop smoke launchers to make it relatively tough to take out.

In the world of maelstrom which often requires six objectives equally distributed at the battle field, the tactical flexibility is a bit smaller than in other missions.
For instance, refused flank is a useful tactics to attack an army where it is weaker.
But this tactics is questionable when you have to secure objectives all over the board.

Thank you so much for all your replies so far, there's already some great advice in there and it's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. It's also interesting to hear your ideas of why this is such an under-represented topic.

I must admit that I'd never thought of watching battle reports for anything other than enjoyment. But that is indeed an excellent idea of getting a game sense without actually playing.

One thing that's happened twice this week is having my back-field predators being tied up by either an Eversor or a teleporting Crisis commander with 4 multimeltas on him, effectively neutering them for at least a turn and ultimately killing them. This is exactly the kind of advanced tactics which I could either be prepared for, or try to find a way to execute myself.

 master of asgard wrote:
Thank you so much for all your replies so far, there's already some great advice in there and it's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. It's also interesting to hear your ideas of why this is such an under-represented topic.

I must admit that I'd never thought of watching battle reports for anything other than enjoyment. But that is indeed an excellent idea of getting a game sense without actually playing.

One thing that's happened twice this week is having my back-field predators being tied up by either an Eversor or a teleporting Crisis commander with 4 multimeltas on him, effectively neutering them for at least a turn and ultimately killing them. This is exactly the kind of advanced tactics which I could either be prepared for, or try to find a way to execute myself.

I think primarily it's underrepresented because I can easily talk about which units to choose, and even mathematically break down the damage each of those units do while discussing actual tactics on the tabletop requires either lengthy discussions of situation, drawings, or some other kind of visual aid to help you figure out what's going on.

The easy solution to the problem you put forward there is: just say "don't take predators, predators are bad because math" - which is, admittedly, kind of true. Predators are not a terribly competitive choice right now for backline anti-tank, their job is done better by Devastators or allied options like guard basilisks or imperial knight helverins.

The problem that creates is, the person running the Predator then doesn't know that they should prevent that kind of maneuver by creating a deep strike screen, that they could have deployed their predators in a corner, anywhere 9" away from a board edge and 18" away from any of their other units, and they could have largely prevented their being tied up in melee. And they can, instead, say "OK, predators bad, I'll switch to allied guard basilisks" and then they place those allied guard basilisks down the same way, they get tied up the same way, and killed the same way.

For some reason, the internet hive mind loves to assume perfect tactical play, but also assumes that people don't realize less optimal unit choices are not optimal. "screen your backline support units perfectly" is treated as a given, while "take basilisk over predator" is some kind of holy wisdom only given to the chosen few mega-brains.

As to why....well...The uncharitable interpretation as to why the solution to a player's problems is treated as "take different units" is that different units cost money and time, and they are a convenient way to say the reason you lost is because of something you can't, or won't fix. "I lost this game because bad unit bad and I won't buy good unit for fluff/money/time reasons" is much easier to believe than "I made a bad choice and lost the game because of that". Reality is, yeah, there's almost always a mix going on when you win or lose a game. Luck, unit balance, mission balance, decisions, and list matchup play a role. But I do think decisions automatically get downplayed by a large part of the active online community because Bad Unit Bad Take Good Unit Instead is both easier to discuss online and diffuses blame away from the player.

To the OP: dakka and other forums tend to favor discussions based on quantitative analysis of units. Nuanced conversation about actual tactics generates a lot of conflicting opinion, the original point tends to get lost.

If the question you're looking to answer is "how to understand what's important," as in what to focus on when learning the game, experience is the best teacher. This can come from playing games, this can also come from watching games. Watch battle reports on YouTube and hang out in a store to watch other people play. Eventually, you'll develop an instinctive appreciation for what matters and why.

If the question you're looking to answer is "how to understand important tactics in each phase," that's a different conversation. You mention surrounding units, bubble wrapping, deployment, etc. I could write 10 pages on each of these topics and barely scratch the surface of what people need to know. Part of the reason this stuff is hard to discuss is it's characteristic, some armies will never have the tools to surround a transport. But the other thing to understand is you can't play to these tactics, there's no one who deploys an army and says their goal is to surround a Rhino to prevent disembarkation. The situation has to come up and your army has to be ready to capitalize on the opportunity.

I feel like there's little value to writing down possible tactics. They can't be easily described, they can change with each new FAQ, and they often depend on an individual playstyle (i.e. you can only pull them off if you deploy a certain way, take certain units, etc.) Beyond that, how many people are actually going to read and appreciate anything beyond the simplest tactics? I'm not sure it's possible to communicate the value beyond a small group of people who have actually seen it and intimately understand what you are talking about.

There aren't a lot of shortcuts for 40k and the Internet is an imperfect medium. I learn something new every game but most of it is not easy to discuss.

There are lots of general tactics that don't really vary from one army to another. Several like playing to the Objectives have already been touched on.

What I find tends to work well is to identify what I want the different parts of my army to do ahead of time. Once I am deploying, I need to decide how they will do that on this battlefield given the terrain in play and the opponent I am facing. I then try to do the opposite to my opponent's army and work out what his units will be trying to do and how to counter it.

To take your battle of Death Guard vs Tau, you decided to advance in order to maximise your close-ranged firefighting potential. This is normally a reasonable tactic for Death Guard as they are one of the toughest armies in the game and have rules that support this. However it is risky against Tau as they are probably the shootiest army in the game and can lay down incredible amounts of firepower, especially if they get the first turn.

In your case, you need to consider deploying your units behind cover or out of line-of-sight to minimise your opponent's early shooting opportunities. PBCs have the ability to fire indirectly and so can be deployed in such a way that your opponent cannot shoot them but you can happily bombard him. PBCs are one of the hardest units in the game to kill for their points.

Another skill is target priority. Where possible, the units you want to kill first are those that present the greatest threat to your own units. In some games, this will need to be replaced by those that can score the most points. This can lead to a situation where you ignore a threatening target in favour of wiping a scoring unit off an objective. This is largely something that comes with practice but if you get into the habit of performing a quick threat-assessment at the start of each round, you will find it quickly becomes easier. Playing a new opponent/army is always tricky as you won't know what all their most threatening units are capable of yet.

Another useful skill is firing order. I generally start by firing my units that have the most limited selection of targets first (often these are my short-ranged units but can also include units with limited lines-of-sight). Get them to do as much damage as possible and save your longer ranged and better positioned units to fire last at whatever got lucky against your opening shots. What you want to avoid is a unit with multiple targets wiping out a unit that was the only available target for a unit that had not fired yet.

Play the objective.

I've run sub-optimal armies for years and ignored the meta as much as I can and yet still win quite a lot of the time. I write fluffy lists and take units I want, regardless of internet 'efficacy' stats.

If you play the objective, you're already better than the average. It doesn't matter if your army gets crushed and you have 2 men left on the field and theirs is intact, if you've won the objectives.

You can't pooh-pooh real-life military strategy, either.

I mean, chaff screens are just tabletop-sized examples of elastic defence.

You can't pooh-pooh real-life military strategy, either.

Lanchester square law has been used in WWII.
It basically says that doubling tanks requires four-folding weapons to deal with them.
This basically comes in at small pt levels.