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.

 Lance845 wrote:
But screening is MOSTLY deployment. Which again, is strategy. You put that unit in your list TO screen. You deployed it there to screen. When your moving around the board you move them in tandem to maintain your screen. When the enemy hits it it's done it's job and you move on to phase 2 of your strategy.

It's not a tactical discussion. It's a strategic one. It's a plan you enter the table with before the game even began.

You can have a completely fixed strategy with units that always have the same fixed role, but stating that you have to do that is pretty disingenuous. Someone who says "I put this unit into the game to screen, it always screens, I always put it in front of my units and screen them" is going to waste that unit if they're up against a long-range shooting opponent, wheras someone who puts a unit in and says "this unit can be used to achieve X and Y objective, or I can put it in front of my stuff as a screen, depending on the situation" will always get a good use case out of that unit regardless.

And if you classify looking at your opponent's list and then deploying based on the composition of the opposing force and where he's deploying his units as "Strategy" rather than "Tactics" I think I'd kind of challenge you to find a game that DOES have tactics, then, as it seems like you've got a pretty narrow definition of the term.

the_scotsman wrote:
And if you classify looking at your opponent's list and then deploying based on the composition of the opposing force and where he's deploying his units as "Strategy" rather than "Tactics" I think I'd kind of challenge you to find a game that DOES have tactics, then, as it seems like you've got a pretty narrow definition of the term.

I hoped we wouldn't dive into the rabbit whole of semantics too much

Call it strategy or call it tactics, but I think when it moves from "an idea in your head about how the army will work" to the reality "now where exactly do I place this unit" there is a level of discussion to be had about better or or worse places.

If I'm trying to screen units, how far apart do I place the relevant units? Are there times when I want to break the screen? In what order should I deploy them (if alternating deployments) in order work the deployment order to my advantage. Do I place the screening unit first, in hopes that my opponent places a something to deal with the screen, but use it as a feint and then place my to-be-screened unit somewhere else? There are questions to be asked.

===========================================

On a slightly different note, I think there is an opportunity to talk about and define "battle field roles" a bit better, because it can give us a language to talk about certain types of situations without having to discuss/relay all the details. The usual FOC slots (elites, FA, etc.) don't really convey the roles very well.

For example:

- Fire Support (long range, typically slow/lightly defended)
- Cannon Fodder / screening (cheap, disposable units)
- Gunline (units at the front edge of your forces, predominately using ranged weapons)
- Assault Push (units at the front of your forces, predominately focused on melee attacks)
- Skirmishers (highly mobile units, work around cover, short range gunfire / modest assault, often infiltrate/outflank)
- Mechanized (mainline units in transports and/or deep-strike capable)
- Flankers (fast moving, provide medium range fire support, may have outflank rules)
- Rapid assault (fast moving units designed to close range into melee - often glass cannon in melee)
- Heavy assault / tarpit (slower moving, high durability in melee)
- Support / force multiplier (units that provide synergies / buffs to your other units)
- Harassment (mess with your opponents tactical options, debuffs enemy units)

- Focus: Anti-vehicle/MC (high damage hits, high strength, high AP usually)
- Focus: Anti-horde (lots of attacks, lower strength, lower AP)
- Focus: Anti-elite (medium high/strength, high AP, moderate number of attacks/damage)

Thinking through these roles at a conceptual level allow us to start to talk about tactics generally. If you opponent is bearing down on you with a front of assault push units (assault intercessors, khorne berserkers, etc.) what are the options you can deploy to bring them down? Are they the biggest threat and need to be focused fired down? Can you sacrifice one of your units to tie them up and deny a charge instead? Those kinds of questions...

The most hard to grasp tactical concept in 40K is how to decide where you want to win.

The battlefield usually divides in 3 or more areas vaguely separated from the others.
If you are winning all over the table, then this is a no-game and any discussion is useless.
Usually, one player wins in one area of the table, and the other one wins in the other 2. Deploying your forces trying to foresee where you will win and where you will put a last stand, is really important.

How to divide your units on your fronts, what to put into the second line and when to send them, when to abandon a front and focus on the remaining ones... these are the kind of choices that make you win at a game of 40K.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
But screening is MOSTLY deployment. Which again, is strategy. You put that unit in your list TO screen. You deployed it there to screen. When your moving around the board you move them in tandem to maintain your screen. When the enemy hits it it's done it's job and you move on to phase 2 of your strategy.

It's not a tactical discussion. It's a strategic one. It's a plan you enter the table with before the game even began.

You can have a completely fixed strategy with units that always have the same fixed role, but stating that you have to do that is pretty disingenuous. Someone who says "I put this unit into the game to screen, it always screens, I always put it in front of my units and screen them" is going to waste that unit if they're up against a long-range shooting opponent, wheras someone who puts a unit in and says "this unit can be used to achieve X and Y objective, or I can put it in front of my stuff as a screen, depending on the situation" will always get a good use case out of that unit regardless.

And if you classify looking at your opponent's list and then deploying based on the composition of the opposing force and where he's deploying his units as "Strategy" rather than "Tactics" I think I'd kind of challenge you to find a game that DOES have tactics, then, as it seems like you've got a pretty narrow definition of the term.

Again, Strategy is your broad over all plan. When you see that you are facing Tau and you adjust your deployment you are adjusting your strategy for the game.

Tactics is "If I move this unit out this much I might get him to deploy his deep striking commander with relatively short range guns and that will allow me to use these units to get to that commander." Baiting is a tactic. Tactics mostly don't exist for one big reason. You use your entire army all at once. So there is no finesse to "what you will do next". Since the opponent watches you do it all at once. 40k has almost no tactics.

 Mezmorki wrote:


I feel like any of these topics could be fruitful for discussion. Comments above seem to assert that specific tactical situations are too complex to discuss / convey - but I think when it comes down to it there aren't really that many different situations/scenarios at a conceptual level within the topics above.

I don't think it's that they're too complex to discuss. It's more that it's quite complex to describe the situation whereas the "solution" is often quite simple, which leads to a lot of effort for very little pay-off. I'd also say a lot of the slightly more advanced tactics are things that are mechanically simple to do once you know they exist, which leads to the tactical discussion tailing off quite quickly.

For example, tri-pointing and moving your units to both control and block the enemy access to an objective are tactics that many new players don't see at first. Once they see them in action there's not really any difficulty using them. So the discussion gets as far as "this thing is possible" and that's it.

I'd also echo a previous poster and say if you want to spark these discussions try to write about it yourself. Take one of your topics and see what you can come up with to generate the type of discussion you want.

 Lance845 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
But screening is MOSTLY deployment. Which again, is strategy. You put that unit in your list TO screen. You deployed it there to screen. When your moving around the board you move them in tandem to maintain your screen. When the enemy hits it it's done it's job and you move on to phase 2 of your strategy.

It's not a tactical discussion. It's a strategic one. It's a plan you enter the table with before the game even began.

You can have a completely fixed strategy with units that always have the same fixed role, but stating that you have to do that is pretty disingenuous. Someone who says "I put this unit into the game to screen, it always screens, I always put it in front of my units and screen them" is going to waste that unit if they're up against a long-range shooting opponent, wheras someone who puts a unit in and says "this unit can be used to achieve X and Y objective, or I can put it in front of my stuff as a screen, depending on the situation" will always get a good use case out of that unit regardless.

And if you classify looking at your opponent's list and then deploying based on the composition of the opposing force and where he's deploying his units as "Strategy" rather than "Tactics" I think I'd kind of challenge you to find a game that DOES have tactics, then, as it seems like you've got a pretty narrow definition of the term.

Again, Strategy is your broad over all plan. When you see that you are facing Tau and you adjust your deployment you are adjusting your strategy for the game.

Tactics is "If I move this unit out this much I might get him to deploy his deep striking commander with relatively short range guns and that will allow me to use these units to get to that commander." Baiting is a tactic. Tactics mostly don't exist for one big reason. You use your entire army all at once. So there is no finesse to "what you will do next". Since the opponent watches you do it all at once. 40k has almost no tactics.

If that is the definition of 'tactics' you're going off of, then yeah I'd agree that 40k has relatively little of that in part due to the turn structure but also just how relatively small the maneuvering space available is versus the size of the armies. I've played game systems that are ostensibly "IGOUGO" with fairly limited interactivity from the opposing player (at least, about as much as there is in, say, Age of Sigmar, where just the change that makes chargers not always have priority and most units being melee based means the opposing player acts during the active player's turn much more commonly) that had a lot more of this kind of on-the-ground decision making than 40k does.

Most commonly this gets added in by the addition of reaction moves, like the ability to defer a unit's action until the opposing player's turn or Infinity's AROs, or the addition of action economy where you have to select which of your units you're going to activate.

Yup. Just also it's the actual definition of the terms.

tac·tic
noun
plural noun: tactics

an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.
"the minority attempted to control the Council by a delaying tactic"


strat·e·gy
noun
noun: strategy; plural noun: strategies

a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
"time to develop a coherent economic strategy"


In order to have tactics there needs to be more player to player interaction. I need to be able to make moves that impact YOUR decisions and you need to be able to make moves that impact mine. I can't bait you if I am unable to respond to your actions. There is no difference between a quick infantry action and a armored support action if all the actions go in a single wave to a single aim.

Again, to the basic topic of the thread, tactical discussions about 40k end up talking about list building because the utter lack of tactical decision making means you have no tools except strategy. And strategy starts in your list building and deployment.

 Lance845 wrote:
Yup. Just also it's the actual definition of the terms.

tac·tic
noun
plural noun: tactics

an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.
"the minority attempted to control the Council by a delaying tactic"


strat·e·gy
noun
noun: strategy; plural noun: strategies

a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
"time to develop a coherent economic strategy"

These do read like essentially exact synonyms of one another, but, sure.

A specific end.

A overall aim.

The Spartans strategy of holding a pass where they could limit the number of Persians they would have to fight at any given time was very effective at allowing the tactic of the Phalanx formation to keep the soldiers doing the fighting alive.

The strategy forced the enemy to face them on their terms. The tactics is how they kept winning the fights.

I appreciate the discussion of tactics vs. strategy semantics.... but can we just agree to not go there? It risks derailing the whole thread. There is a line somewhere between the two but I care more about talking about the specific element or decision point that occurs "on the table" regardless of whether we want to call it tactics or strategy.

Deployment is 100% critical, and it's certainly one of the higher level decisions with a bit of nuance to it. Let's talk about those nuances if we can

 Mezmorki wrote:

So the question is this (and hence why I'm asking this here in general and not in the tactics forum): What are the sorts of table-level tactical discussions that could be had, and why don't those seem to happen more? Is it a function of table-level tactics being relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about?

The answer is you need to have "table-level tactics" in the game in order to have a discussion about them. If the game doesn't actually have any then all you can talk about is strategy. And any attempt at discussion on tactics will degrade into a discussion on strategy because there isn't any other content to discuss. Essentially you could say they are "relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about" because they are so straight forward that they amount to basic arithmetic. Shoot the anti tank guns at the tank. Shoot the high rate of fire guns with no AP at the large model count unit with a bad save. Eliminate as many models as possible so the enemy has less tools to use against you. If thats the depth of the tactics you are capable of deploying then what else is there to say?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:

So the question is this (and hence why I'm asking this here in general and not in the tactics forum): What are the sorts of table-level tactical discussions that could be had, and why don't those seem to happen more? Is it a function of table-level tactics being relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about?

The answer is you need to have "table-level tactics" in the game in order to have a discussion about them. If the game doesn't actually have any then all you can talk about is strategy. And any attempt at discussion on tactics will degrade into a discussion on strategy because there isn't any other content to discuss. Essentially you could say they are "relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about" because they are so straight forward that they amount to basic arithmetic. Shoot the anti tank guns at the tank. Shoot the high rate of fire guns with no AP at the large model count unit with a bad save. Eliminate as many models as possible so the enemy has less tools to use against you. If thats the depth of the tactics you are capable of deploying then what else is there to say?

I have this argument a lot. I don't know why there is so much resistance to the idea. The only real tactic is target priority in this game. The strategy pretty much breaks down to what order you shoot things in and moving units so they will be able to use the optimal order. There is some thought that goes into it but I would hardly call it "tactics" and I am good at it - better than most but it is because I understand this game is about removing models. That is what this game has always been about.

Well, then I, and I believe the OP, would disagree with you. There is very frequently a challenge in figuring out what is or isn't optimal.

For example, I just had this situation happen yesterday:

I am deep striking a unit of 20 Acolytes with Hand Flamers and mining weapons. Where do I deep strike them?

Here's the situation:

It is turn 2 and my opponent's Blood Angels miraculously failed to kill a unit of Aberrants, who are now tied up in combat with a unit of Death Company to the north of the central objective. Around them nearby are a 3-strong Primaris Bike unit, a 3-strong Plasma Inceptor unit, a 3-strong Bullet Inceptor unit, a Sang Guard Ancient-dude, and a Libby Dreadnaught. The Libby Dread and the 3-strong Bullet Inceptors are on the central objective, and the Bike unit is blocked by the ongoing combat.

I identify the following possible areas of deep striking:

#1 - To the west of the central objective.
#2 - To the west of the ongoing combat near by an objective in no-man's land that I already control.
#3 - To the east of the opposite no-man's land objective in the opposite board corner that is currently held by an Impulsor with 5 Intercessors in it, and which would be south of a unit of 5-man Hellblaster squad on top of some cargo containers, and south-east of a 5-man Phobos Marine squad.
#4 - To the south of the central objective close to where I've moved my Patriarch and Magus. The Magus has +2 to cast Might From Beyond and Psychic Stimulus (Crouchling + Cult Psyche).
#5 - In the very back of my opponent's lines near a Forgeworld Relic Sicaran and Tech Marine.

This is further complicated by the fact that I don't know how far I will roll for my Perfect Ambush, which allows me to move up to d6" after being set up from ambush.


The correct answer here is... HARD!

For the post above - I think its questions exactly like this which are tactics - but without setting up little Chessboard style maps of which unit is where, its hard to really do. So people don't, and discussion turn into "its all list building, there is no tactics", as if your lists just play themselves against each and every opponent.

For the above - I'd probably say #3 because it denies/sets you up if your opponent doesn't send stuff in that direction. But I'd be hoping to crack the impulsor with shooting to then charge the marines, which may not be plausible.

Committing more to the centre might be a good idea if you have the units around for a solid counter-punch. I mean you say the Magus and Patriarch to the south, how far are we talking? Would you expect the Patriarch be able to charge in? There are issues of interrupts to consider (broken stratagem imo, but I guess it makes assault vs assault a bit more complex than "I charge, I win unless I roll terribly").

 Yarium wrote:
Well, then I, and I believe the OP, would disagree with you. There is very frequently a challenge in figuring out what is or isn't optimal.

For example, I just had this situation happen yesterday:

I am deep striking a unit of 20 Acolytes with Hand Flamers and mining weapons. Where do I deep strike them?

Here's the situation:

It is turn 2 and my opponent's Blood Angels miraculously failed to kill a unit of Aberrants, who are now tied up in combat with a unit of Death Company to the north of the central objective. Around them nearby are a 3-strong Primaris Bike unit, a 3-strong Plasma Inceptor unit, a 3-strong Bullet Inceptor unit, a Sang Guard Ancient-dude, and a Libby Dreadnaught. The Libby Dread and the 3-strong Bullet Inceptors are on the central objective, and the Bike unit is blocked by the ongoing combat.

I identify the following possible areas of deep striking:

#1 - To the west of the central objective.
#2 - To the west of the ongoing combat near by an objective in no-man's land that I already control.
#3 - To the east of the opposite no-man's land objective in the opposite board corner that is currently held by an Impulsor with 5 Intercessors in it, and which would be south of a unit of 5-man Hellblaster squad on top of some cargo containers, and south-east of a 5-man Phobos Marine squad.
#4 - To the south of the central objective close to where I've moved my Patriarch and Magus. The Magus has +2 to cast Might From Beyond and Psychic Stimulus (Crouchling + Cult Psyche).
#5 - In the very back of my opponent's lines near a Forgeworld Relic Sicaran and Tech Marine.

This is further complicated by the fact that I don't know how far I will roll for my Perfect Ambush, which allows me to move up to d6" after being set up from ambush.


The correct answer here is... HARD!

What other forces do you have? What is the current game score? Can you afford a CP reroll to fish for a good charge? Does dropping into any of these positions prevent you from moving with another unit?

The question is only hard because we lack context. With context, there will only ever be one correct move and it's usually pretty obvious.

Tyel wrote:
For the post above - I think its questions exactly like this which are tactics - but without setting up little Chessboard style maps of which unit is where, its hard to really do. So people don't, and discussion turn into "its all list building, there is no tactics", as if your lists just play themselves against each and every opponent.

For the above - I'd probably say #3 because it denies/sets you up if your opponent doesn't send stuff in that direction. But I'd be hoping to crack the impulsor with shooting to then charge the marines, which may not be plausible.

Committing more to the centre might be a good idea if you have the units around for a solid counter-punch. I mean you say the Magus and Patriarch to the south, how far are we talking? Would you expect the Patriarch be able to charge in? There are issues of interrupts to consider (broken stratagem imo, but I guess it makes assault vs assault a bit more complex than "I charge, I win unless I roll terribly").

Thanks Tyel! Yeah, I tried my best to describe the situation as best I could, but it's exactly these kinds of things that I consider to be "tactics" as well, and they are just SO complicated because the entire board state can matter, and it's REALLY hard to describe accurately. I had moved up my Patriarch to be about 3" south of the central objective, and my Magus was just a couple inches behind him. The Patriarch was here to charge and kill the Libby dread, which I had planned to put 2 smites into using the familiars of both my psychic HQ's to get an extra cast off each. The Libby Dread was already down to 5 wounds due to a truck exploding the previous turn. If it died from Smites and ancilliary shooting, the Patriarch would be able to charge the Phobos marines.

I ended up going with #1, and got lucky with my Perfect Ambush for a 5" move. This let me threaten both the ongoing conflict to the north and threaten the Libby dread. Then I got extra lucky with a super-smite off the Magus that dealt 6 mortal wounds to the Libby Dread. I ended up charging and killing both squads of Death Company and the Bullet Inceptors with the Acolytes. I chose this location because I wanted to hold the middle for both Domination and Priority Targets secondaries, and was hoping to consolidate into a position where I could keep my opponent's bikes and characters locked into their deployment zone (the path of their back line between their deployment zone quarter and the adjacent quarter was somewhat blocked by terrain). I figured if I went for #3, I would likely kill the transport, but then I wouldn't be able to charge and kill the guys inside (the transport would likely survive my shooting phase), and if I tagged a unit of 5 Intercessors, they'd easily punch an unsupported 20-man squad to death. Keeping close enough to the Patriarch and Magus (who both got off all their boosting powers onto the 20-man unit; Psychic Stimulus, Might From Beyond, Undying Vigor) made the unit really punch above their weight class, which just wouldn't have been possible if I went for #3.

 Yarium wrote:
Well, then I, and I believe the OP, would disagree with you. There is very frequently a challenge in figuring out what is or isn't optimal.

For example, I just had this situation happen yesterday:

I am deep striking a unit of 20 Acolytes with Hand Flamers and mining weapons. Where do I deep strike them?

Here's the situation:

It is turn 2 and my opponent's Blood Angels miraculously failed to kill a unit of Aberrants, who are now tied up in combat with a unit of Death Company to the north of the central objective. Around them nearby are a 3-strong Primaris Bike unit, a 3-strong Plasma Inceptor unit, a 3-strong Bullet Inceptor unit, a Sang Guard Ancient-dude, and a Libby Dreadnaught. The Libby Dread and the 3-strong Bullet Inceptors are on the central objective, and the Bike unit is blocked by the ongoing combat.

I identify the following possible areas of deep striking:

#1 - To the west of the central objective.
#2 - To the west of the ongoing combat near by an objective in no-man's land that I already control.
#3 - To the east of the opposite no-man's land objective in the opposite board corner that is currently held by an Impulsor with 5 Intercessors in it, and which would be south of a unit of 5-man Hellblaster squad on top of some cargo containers, and south-east of a 5-man Phobos Marine squad.
#4 - To the south of the central objective close to where I've moved my Patriarch and Magus. The Magus has +2 to cast Might From Beyond and Psychic Stimulus (Crouchling + Cult Psyche).
#5 - In the very back of my opponent's lines near a Forgeworld Relic Sicaran and Tech Marine.

This is further complicated by the fact that I don't know how far I will roll for my Perfect Ambush, which allows me to move up to d6" after being set up from ambush.


The correct answer here is... HARD!

I mean the same amount of thought goes into dropping 20 warriors. You consider all the options but really it comes down to is. Where are they going to remove the most points from the table or - can they kill something important AND take control of an objective or perhaps they also need to function as your primary front line. It is pretty much 3 choices.
1. Remove the most points
2. Remove some points and cap objective
3. Prevent opponents from removing points from your army.

The answer is almost always trying to do all these things at once. It is very simple to me.

There are no tactics in 40k because I, some person you dont know on the internet who claims to not play the game, have declared myself a galaxy brain genius who always knows the correct answer to every situation instantly.

I had a 2 units of Hand Flamer Acolytes with similar mining weapons (1 was 6x Rock Saws, 1 was 6x Rock Cutters) in reserve, and a Primus in reserve. The north-west corner objective was covered by a Rock Truck with 10 Neophyte Hybrids inside with 2 Mining Lasers and 3 Ridgerunners with Heavy Mining Lasers and Flare Launchers. Close to my board edge (south-centre) were another 3 Ridgerunners with Heavy Mining Lasers and Flare Launchers. Finally, a unit of 10 Neophyte Hybrids with 2 Mining Lasers were in my deployment zone holding my objective and keeping the back field zoned out.

I had Domination, Deploy Scramblers (my Neophytes in my back field had done 1 scrambler turn 1) and Direct Assault.
My opponent had Relentless Assault, Oaths of Moment, and Direct Assault.
I went first, and the score at that point was 16 to 5.

I play as though my opponent is a genius.
- No "distraction" units
- put him at Nash equilibrium (no good options)

 Yarium wrote:
Well, then I, and I believe the OP, would disagree with you. There is very frequently a challenge in figuring out what is or isn't optimal.

For example, I just had this situation happen yesterday:

I am deep striking a unit of 20 Acolytes with Hand Flamers and mining weapons. Where do I deep strike them?

Here's the situation:

It is turn 2 and my opponent's Blood Angels miraculously failed to kill a unit of Aberrants, who are now tied up in combat with a unit of Death Company to the north of the central objective. Around them nearby are a 3-strong Primaris Bike unit, a 3-strong Plasma Inceptor unit, a 3-strong Bullet Inceptor unit, a Sang Guard Ancient-dude, and a Libby Dreadnaught. The Libby Dread and the 3-strong Bullet Inceptors are on the central objective, and the Bike unit is blocked by the ongoing combat.

I identify the following possible areas of deep striking:

#1 - To the west of the central objective.
#2 - To the west of the ongoing combat near by an objective in no-man's land that I already control.
#3 - To the east of the opposite no-man's land objective in the opposite board corner that is currently held by an Impulsor with 5 Intercessors in it, and which would be south of a unit of 5-man Hellblaster squad on top of some cargo containers, and south-east of a 5-man Phobos Marine squad.
#4 - To the south of the central objective close to where I've moved my Patriarch and Magus. The Magus has +2 to cast Might From Beyond and Psychic Stimulus (Crouchling + Cult Psyche).
#5 - In the very back of my opponent's lines near a Forgeworld Relic Sicaran and Tech Marine.

This is further complicated by the fact that I don't know how far I will roll for my Perfect Ambush, which allows me to move up to d6" after being set up from ambush.


The correct answer here is... HARD!

Having a difficult math problem doesn't make it anything but a math problem. It's still arithmetic. 1217-36+102*6/4=

Even if you were to some how stumble into a situation that boarders on algebra it's still just a calculation. You are not playing against the other player. You are playing against your own ability to make a computation and come out right. There is no tactics there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
I play as though my opponent is a genius.
- No "distraction" units
- put him at Nash equilibrium (no good options)

Thats actually how I play nids. Overwhelming number of threats with redundant options. You kill a unit, I have 2 more that do the same job. You focus on that threat you let 2 others through. It's a rock solid strategy.

I can't say I agree at all here. By that kind of thinking, not only does no game have tactics (even Chess is potentially solvable, which only hasn't been because of our own ability to make computations and coming out right), but indeed the only reason that human existence is troubling is because we don't have perfect omniscience.

That's like saying "the future can be entirely predetermined due to the laws of physics, so there is no such thing as choice". While maybe (only maybe!) technically true, in reality you don't and can't have access to perfect information, and so have to make choices based on your limited understanding. Ergo, unless you have perfect information in 40k and perfect understanding, you also can only make guesses in a timely fashion as to what course of action is best.

the_scotsman wrote:
There are no tactics in 40k because I, some person you dont know on the internet who claims to not play the game, have declared myself a galaxy brain genius who always knows the correct answer to every situation instantly.

I mean. You should really play the game to have an opinion about it. EXP ofc is the most important factor in everything. I just assume that most people on dakka are 20+ year veterans of the game like I am. Like...seriously - in all that time you never figured out that the game is about killing things as fast as you can?

And saying "well the right answer is obvious" means either;

a) the right answer actually is obvious, but I'm a dummy, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.

b) the right answer actually isn't obvious, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.

 Yarium wrote:
I can't say I agree at all here. By that kind of thinking, not only does no game have tactics (even Chess is potentially solvable, which only hasn't been because of our own ability to make computations and coming out right), but indeed the only reason that human existence is troubling is because we don't have perfect omniscience.

That's like saying "the future can be entirely predetermined due to the laws of physics, so there is no such thing as choice". While maybe (only maybe!) technically true, in reality you don't and can't have access to perfect information, and so have to make choices based on your limited understanding. Ergo, unless you have perfect information in 40k and perfect understanding, you also can only make guesses in a timely fashion as to what course of action is best.

First, when 2 people play chess they ARE playing against each other. How you move pieces can and does effect how the opponent responds. You can sacrifice pieces for advantages, bait the opponent into making an opening, and all the other things that are in fact tactics.

But outside of that, computers beat chess masters all the time these days. Because they make computations based on probability.

But in 40k I don't need to know what you are going to do. I just need to know what I can do now to put you in the worst possible position on your turn. Thats it. It doesn't matter WHAT you do as long as I make sure you have the least possible resources to do it with.

 Yarium wrote:
I can't say I agree at all here. By that kind of thinking, not only does no game have tactics (even Chess is potentially solvable, which only hasn't been because of our own ability to make computations and coming out right), but indeed the only reason that human existence is troubling is because we don't have perfect omniscience.

Chess and even Go will eventually be perfectly solved. We've long since passed the point where any human can beat a Chess AI and Go is well on the way to this level of AI performance as well.

That's like saying "the future can be entirely predetermined due to the laws of physics, so there is no such thing as choice". While maybe (only maybe!) technically true, in reality you don't and can't have access to perfect information, and so have to make choices based on your limited understanding. Ergo, unless you have perfect information in 40k and perfect understanding, you also can only make guesses in a timely fashion as to what course of action is best.

Your brain runs on physics and makes choices based on outside stimulus which is also driven by physics; by which mechanism are you able to make a choice? The reality is that everything is predetermined including our evey action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I mean. You should really play the game to have an opinion about it. EXP ofc is the most important factor in everything. I just assume that most people on dakka are 20+ year veterans of the game like I am. Like...seriously - in all that time you never figured out that the game is about killing things as fast as you can?

People disparage me for not playing 9th edition due to the pandemic but ignore that I played from 3e to 6e, skipped 7e, and then played some games late in 8e. The game has changed in detail but the core of the game is still to bring the hardest list you can, try to put the right units attacks into their optimal targets, and build around the mission such that you can win even with below-average dice.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
The game has changed in detail but the core of the game is still to bring the hardest list you can, try to put the right units attacks into their optimal targets, and build around the mission such that you can win even with below-average dice.

This is accurate.

Good post!

You know, you read the forums here and it makes you think its only about the list. You start playing and learn there's more to it, and thats... thats part of life. But, you only learn that when you start losing.


You find out, life is this game of inches. So is 40k. Because in either game, life or 40k, the margin for error is so small. I mean, one bad charge or advance roll, and you don't quite make it. One inch too short in the shooting phase, and you can't quite Rapid Fire. The inches we need are everywhere around us! In every phase of the game, every advance , every charge, every deployment.

In this game, we fight for that inch. In this game, we tear ourselves, and everyone else around us, to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch! Because we know, when we add up all those inches, thats going to make the fething difference between winning, and losing! Between living, and dying!

I'll tell you this: In any fight, its the guy who is willing to die, who is going to win that inch. And I know, if I'm going to have any life anymore, its because I'm still willing to fight, and die for that inch. Because, thats what living is! The six inches in front of your face! Now, I can't make you do it! You have to look at your opponent across from you, look into his eyes! Now I think you're going to see a guy who will go that inch with you. That's 40k guys, thats all it is.


......................


For deployment I usually have some idea of what I want to do and then adjust after reserves are declared. And in general, the more elite the army I'm using, the more likely I'll try to hide in deployment and then counterpunch.

There ought to be some kind of standard "whiteboard" to draw things up and discuss strategy and tactics. While amounts of terrain do vary, ruins are common enough to be worth discussing at a basic level for sure. More advanced tactics seem like they'd be better put in the tactics forum even though it seems to have mutated into more of a list building exercise.

 Yarium wrote:
And saying "well the right answer is obvious" means either;

a) the right answer actually is obvious, but I'm a dummy, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.

b) the right answer actually isn't obvious, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.

C) the internet has always been populated by large numbers of individuals who base a large amount of their self-worth on proclaiming themselves to be genius level experts on a given topic but also coincidentally too far beyond the pleb-tier concerns associated with participating in that subject to ever be bothered to produce any kind of proof that theyre as good at it as they claim to be.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
And saying "well the right answer is obvious" means either;

a) the right answer actually is obvious, but I'm a dummy, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.

b) the right answer actually isn't obvious, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.

C) the internet has always been populated by large numbers of individuals who base a large amount of their self-worth on proclaiming themselves to be genius level experts on a given topic but also coincidentally too far beyond the pleb-tier concerns associated with participating in that subject to ever be bothered to produce any kind of proof that theyre as good at it as they claim to be.

Nobody here has proclaimed themselves to be a genius. On the contrary, we have said this gak is incredibly simplistic.

How about instead of flinging around ad hominem arguments you try to defend your position by providing any evidence at all that the game is anything more then we present it to be?