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.
2021/03/02 10:23:40
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
There is a lot of talk of maths and logic and flow charts and such in this thread but I bet when you are actually at the table it's a different story. There's no substitute for experience obviously, but the game is constantly evolving, so there's that too.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/02 10:32:53
Spoletta wrote: Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.
I feel part of the problem with 8th and 9th compared to previous editions is that the main random elements have almost completely been removed. In previous editions you couldn't pre-measure so had to judge whether you were in range to shoot/charge or not.
The specific issue with not having pre-measuring is that it rewards players for having certain attributes/abilities another player may lack, such as very good spacial awareness and estimation of distance, this is not something that is a skill as such, and such cannot be really improved to a point you have parity with the player with such ability, you have it or you don't and can only marginally improve it... Without pre-measuring you are handing a huge advantage to the above player that other skills their opponent may have will not be able to match in some respect as it is such a huge boon for a game where estimation of measurement is so important.
You've edited out the second part of that point, which is the most important one. I understand some people don't like things like estimating ranges as part of game design and also understand there are perfectly valid design reasons to remove it. I don't necessarily think 40k removing estimation of ranges is overall a bad thing. What is bad is doing so while also removing randomness almost everywhere else, especially with dice rolls. The general increase in lethality is also a factor here (of which re-rolls and +1 bonuses are a major culprit) because it removes variance through the brute force of weight of dice.
It wasn't really, I discounted the bottom part of your paragraph, not because the reduction of randomness hasn't had an impact, but the specific issue of taking away pre-measuring only impacts some people, and those people cannot catch up as they don't have the specific ability as I explained above, re-including it does not increase randomness wholesale, just for some people. The rest I tend to agree with you, however I like the reduction of randomness also, it was bonkers that you couldn't dictate when your reserves arrived for example.
My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog
2021/03/02 11:31:24
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Spoletta wrote: Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.
What list you bring in 9th is actually fairly secondary as long as you don't bring an absolute mess.
In 9th the better player *THAT GOES FIRST* wins. Period.
There are players with close to 100% win rate with bad factions *AGAINST BAD PLAYERS/ARMIES* (against meta lists). Luck can't carry you for all your games, and if lists are also not doing that, what is left? I'll give you an hint, it starts with "t".
Games of 9th are won by the player *WHEN LISTS ARE EQUIVALENT*, not by the list. There are a few unfortunate factions like Tau which simply have no tools to play the current edition, but apart from that you can win with everything against everything as long as you are the better player.
Fixed for you.
If you want to experience a better game, use 9TH Beta Maelstrom so that you can recognize how gak the GT 2020 pack is
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/02 11:34:34
2021/03/02 11:35:14
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
There is a lot of talk of maths and logic and flow charts and such in this thread but I bet when you are actually at the table it's a different story. There's no substitute for experience obviously, but the game is constantly evolving, so there's that too.
Some armies play soliter or like clockwork, specially when they go first. And it doesn't even get effected what ever they are good or bad, they just have one way of playing at that is all. There very little stuff out of the norm, you can do when playing a tau army.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2021/03/02 11:59:27
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
I think you are trying to undermine the OP’s thread with your semantics. Blistering off strategy from tactics so that you can say that tactics don’t matter. Strategy is a grand word to employ in a very tactical level game. When a company commander makes a tactical plan it is based off his estimate of the situation, part of which is considering the impact of the situation on his doctrine and tactics. They are not separate. In any case, the OP had a good thread about Tactics threads that go beyond list- building.
I agree that the planning aspect of the game is very important. If you make your plan after you deploy your models you are in trouble. Having said that, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. There is another player in the game. Sometimes the game goes as planned. Other times - not so much. Yes, there are times in the game when the choice of targets is obvious. Other times it isn’t. Mistakes get made in the heat of the moment. Additionally, what is obvious to one person might not be to another. The most important choices are often in the movement phase. I play weekly when there is not a lockdown, including four tourneys in 9th Ed. I am trying a new army to cleanse the palette, and I made plenty of mistakes two weeks ago in a six round tourney in how I moved some of my units.
There is value in Tactics threads that go beyond list building/ design. Some of those would discuss planning. Others would discuss how to get the most out of the movement phase/charge phase/fight phase.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2021/03/02 12:29:04
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Does your opponent have any melee threats?
Yes: Don't put your guys in a position that makes them good targets to charge unless its a bad unit for them to charge. I.E. park a devilfish in front of your firewarriors. Otherwise see No.
No. Then position yourself to optimize your guns for shooting at their intended targets to remove as many models as possible.
2 the psychic phase
Use the powers you picked to do the things you picked them to do.
3. The shooting phase.
Shoot your guns at the units they are in range of to cause the most damage and remove the most guns from the opponents army.
4 the charge phase
If within 8 or less inches of an enemy and your unit is capable of causing good/equal or better damage in melee than their target, then charge.
The most common result on 2d6 is 7 and you only need to be within 1" to pile in and fight. So do that and remove even more models while, if any of his survive into his next turn, he has to fall back in order to shoot your guys, which will get shot at anyway. At least this way you have removed some more guns from the equation.
???
Profit.
The problem is that this flowchart has no grounding in 9th at all.
As an example, lets say I'm playing against a fast army like Harlequins or Slaanesh Daemons. I've managed to roll to go first.
Should I move up the table to get on to the mid-board objectives?
The upside - I've got some bodies on those objectives, if they are not cleared/contested I may score 15 points on the Primary.
Also, there is a risk that if I don't get some stuff up the table *now*, I may get screened out such that I'm never going to be able to.
The downside? By throwing stuff 12-15" forward, I going to be in their short range guns (Harlequins) and allow very easy, essentially guaranteed first turn charges.
If I don't move up though, my opponent will just claim all those objectives, and they'll be on for getting 15 points. But then maybe that facilitates an easy charge in my 2nd turn. I might want to aim for a low scoring game, where we both expect to largely deny each other on the central Primary points and instead claw out a win on secondaries. The scenario and terrain all impact this.
Now as said if you crunch these numbers really hard - i.e. simulate thousands of games, exploring the probability curves generated by all the various choices - there probably is a right statistical decision that is most likely to see you win the game. But the idea its obvious is false. Unless you've got a super computer in your head I don't see how you'd work it out. It also applies to essentially any game where you don't have to physically do something.
I found it a bit overblown - but an example of this was the "what if you move Magnus backwards" discussion about a year ago. It turns out the game changes if you don't adopt this approach of "he's a one-way missile, ride or die". I guess you could say you just re-calculate your turn as per the flowchart in accordance with this new information and since you are a supercomputer the optimal approach is obvious, but its just not real life.
2021/03/02 13:16:52
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
I think you are trying to undermine the OP’s thread with your semantics.
I am not. I answered the question in the OP. Table-level tactics are called tactics. Army List Tactics is part of strategy. He asked why it's so hard to talk about tactics and why it always ends up talking about list building. I answered that it's what happens when there are no tactics to speak of and strategy is all the game is composed of.
Blistering off strategy from tactics so that you can say that tactics don’t matter. Strategy is a grand word to employ in a very tactical level game. When a company commander makes a tactical plan it is based off his estimate of the situation, part of which is considering the impact of the situation on his doctrine and tactics. They are not separate. In any case, the OP had a good thread about Tactics threads that go beyond list- building.
Crack open a dictionary my friend. Or go take one of those classes you taught.
I agree that the planning aspect of the game is very important. If you make your plan after you deploy your models you are in trouble. Having said that, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. There is another player in the game. Sometimes the game goes as planned. Other times - not so much. Yes, there are times in the game when the choice of targets is obvious. Other times it isn’t. Mistakes get made in the heat of the moment. Additionally, what is obvious to one person might not be to another. The most important choices are often in the movement phase. I play weekly when there is not a lockdown, including four tourneys in 9th Ed. I am trying a new army to cleanse the palette, and I made plenty of mistakes two weeks ago in a six round tourney in how I moved some of my units.
There is value in Tactics threads that go beyond list building/ design. Some of those would discuss planning. Others would discuss how to get the most out of the movement phase/charge phase/fight phase.
This isn't JUST a tactics thread. It started with a question about why the discussions go the way they do. But if you want it to be a tactics thread, then me and Canadian have listed all the tactics that exist in 40k without going into specific armies. But whos principles broadly apply to all armies. Instead of trying to tell me I am derailing the thread maybe you should respond to those points? Instead of telling me other tactics exist why don't you actually post some?
Does your opponent have any melee threats? Yes: Don't put your guys in a position that makes them good targets to charge unless its a bad unit for them to charge. I.E. park a devilfish in front of your firewarriors. Otherwise see No.
No. Then position yourself to optimize your guns for shooting at their intended targets to remove as many models as possible.
2 the psychic phase Use the powers you picked to do the things you picked them to do.
3. The shooting phase. Shoot your guns at the units they are in range of to cause the most damage and remove the most guns from the opponents army.
4 the charge phase If within 8 or less inches of an enemy and your unit is capable of causing good/equal or better damage in melee than their target, then charge.
The most common result on 2d6 is 7 and you only need to be within 1" to pile in and fight. So do that and remove even more models while, if any of his survive into his next turn, he has to fall back in order to shoot your guys, which will get shot at anyway. At least this way you have removed some more guns from the equation.
???
Profit.
The problem is that this flowchart has no grounding in 9th at all.
As an example, lets say I'm playing against a fast army like Harlequins or Slaanesh Daemons. I've managed to roll to go first.
Should I move up the table to get on to the mid-board objectives? The upside - I've got some bodies on those objectives, if they are not cleared/contested I may score 15 points on the Primary. Also, there is a risk that if I don't get some stuff up the table *now*, I may get screened out such that I'm never going to be able to. The downside? By throwing stuff 12-15" forward, I going to be in their short range guns (Harlequins) and allow very easy, essentially guaranteed first turn charges. If I don't move up though, my opponent will just claim all those objectives, and they'll be on for getting 15 points. But then maybe that facilitates an easy charge in my 2nd turn. I might want to aim for a low scoring game, where we both expect to largely deny each other on the central Primary points and instead claw out a win on secondaries. The scenario and terrain all impact this.
You answered your question. Do you want to risk giving up the mid field and victory points or do you want to contest the mid field, give yourself flexibility in options later in the game, and grab some victory points for yourself. It's a super simple equation man.
Make use of terrain and positioning to minimize their charges. Put unfavorable targets in front (see the devilfish example) so that when they charge they have to charge bs they don't actually want to be charging. Do all that to the best of your ability with the resources you have. If you don't have the resources to do that then you need to go back to your list building and strategy and bring better things to protect yourself against their threats. Further, if you hold back then THEY will effectively claim first turn advantage when they start shooting you first. Your dice pool value will depreciate faster because you didn't capitalize in taking out a chunk of theirs when you had the opportunity.
Now as said if you crunch these numbers really hard - i.e. simulate thousands of games, exploring the probability curves generated by all the various choices - there probably is a right statistical decision that is most likely to see you win the game. But the idea its obvious is false. Unless you've got a super computer in your head I don't see how you'd work it out. It also applies to essentially any game where you don't have to physically do something.
No the equation is just not as complex as you are making it out to be. Controlling the midfield is extremely powerful. Or more acurately, not being able to move freely for yourself is extremely damning. Don't let your opponent do it.
I found it a bit overblown - but an example of this was the "what if you move Magnus backwards" discussion about a year ago. It turns out the game changes if you don't adopt this approach of "he's a one-way missile, ride or die". I guess you could say you just re-calculate your turn as per the flowchart in accordance with this new information and since you are a supercomputer the optimal approach is obvious, but its just not real life.
It doesn't take a super computer. You have a unit on the table. You look at where the opponent is. How do you maximize the impact of that one unit? See flow chart. Great. Now move on to the second unit. How do you maximize the impact of THAT one unit? See flow chart. Great. And so on..
These big complex networks of interconnected units... your looking at the trees for the forest and being overwhelmed by it's sheer size. Stop. Look at one tree. It's not so complex.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/02 13:28:50
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2021/03/02 13:29:45
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
It's frustrating to try and discuss Subject X, when a few participants continuously assert that Subject X doesn't even exist, or that it's existence is so trivial that there is nothing really worth discussing. You all have made your position clear many times over at this point.
Other people have come to a different conclusion based on their experiences - and I want to hear more from them. There's a chance we all might learn or discover something in the process.
Mezmorki wrote: It's frustrating to try and discuss Subject X, when a few participants continuously assert that Subject X doesn't even exist, or that it's existence is so trivial that there is nothing really worth discussing. You all have made your position clear many times over at this point.
Other people have come to a different conclusion based on their experiences - and I want to hear more from them. There's a chance we all might learn or discover something in the process.
I am also happy to hear from them. They claim there are more tactics. Hey all you guys. Post them. Stop telling us they exist and show us they exist. Please. I would be incredibly happy to get proven wrong. Despite what anyone here might think I love being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means I get to learn something and my ideas can grow. Stop telling me you CAN do it and DO it.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2021/03/02 13:52:37
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Mezmorki wrote: It's frustrating to try and discuss Subject X, when a few participants continuously assert that Subject X doesn't even exist, or that it's existence is so trivial that there is nothing really worth discussing. You all have made your position clear many times over at this point.
Other people have come to a different conclusion based on their experiences - and I want to hear more from them. There's a chance we all might learn or discover something in the process.
I am also happy to hear from them. They claim there are more tactics. Hey all you guys. Post them. Stop telling us they exist and show us they exist. Please. I would be incredibly happy to get proven wrong. Despite what anyone here might think I love being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means I get to learn something and my ideas can grow. Stop telling me you CAN do it and DO it.
I did?
2021/03/02 13:55:20
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Mezmorki wrote: It's frustrating to try and discuss Subject X, when a few participants continuously assert that Subject X doesn't even exist, or that it's existence is so trivial that there is nothing really worth discussing. You all have made your position clear many times over at this point.
Other people have come to a different conclusion based on their experiences - and I want to hear more from them. There's a chance we all might learn or discover something in the process.
I am also happy to hear from them. They claim there are more tactics. Hey all you guys. Post them. Stop telling us they exist and show us they exist. Please. I would be incredibly happy to get proven wrong. Despite what anyone here might think I love being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means I get to learn something and my ideas can grow. Stop telling me you CAN do it and DO it.
Post me a screenshot of a table with models on it (deployment, T2, T3, doesn't matter) and give me the secondaries chosen by each side (along with all WT and psychic powers), current primary score and I'd be happy to.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/02 13:55:46
2021/03/02 14:03:05
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
I think I tried to do that, and rather than talk about which option would be best for deep striking and for what reason, they just said "the answer is obvious because math" and started talking about how tactics didn't exist.
Galef wrote: If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
2021/03/02 14:06:38
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Doesn't the DG Morty+termi spam list more or less have fixed first two turn, the way it functions with getting on objectives, morty doing his things lawn mawer slowing down enemy with the half movment plague spread.
I think the only time they play different, is when they play a mirror and go second.
Same with harlis, all their games seem to be very similar in how they are played, if they go first. it is the mock up turn 2+ turns that tend to look different, based on what is left alive and how good the rolls went.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2021/03/02 14:08:35
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
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.
What you are describing here is arguably logistics, rather than tactics, as you are basically discussing "points economy" rather than the "action economy" that typically defines tactics in gaming. And that, in a nutshell, is basically why tactics are largely irrelevant in 40k. Which isn't to say they don't exist - they do, but they generally aren't as meaningful and are rarely as important as the strategy and the aforementioned "logistics".
I know the answer to this, because the answer is obviously "thing I like is Tactics, thing I don't like is Strategy" but I'm really not seeing a whole lot of a distinction here.
This is why I mostly avoid these types of discussions. They ultimately are derailed by people that fancy themselves as an armchair Clausewitz or whatever that are offended by the perceived slight to their e-peen when someone suggests that their skillset isn't as meaningful or relevant as they wish it was. Its not really helped by the opposite sides of these arguments trying to feather themselves up by inanely claiming that whatever decision-points that exist within the game are no-brainers or obvious. They certainly aren't *hard* choices, but the implication that they are essentially "automatic" choices or are so simplistic that they can be easily resolved at a glance using a mental flowchart or a simple probability calculation that a 3 year old could mentally process is itself a far cry from reality too.
I think people are overstating the simplicity of tactics in 40k, although I do agree that they are shallower than most other games.
9th at least improved this markedly over 8th as terrain means positioning of units is actually relevant now and among other improvements.
At last, a reasonable and level-headed assessment.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/03/02 14:10:13
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2021/03/02 14:12:36
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
https://www.goonhammer.com/start-competing-charge-and-fight-phase/ - Bunch of positioning nuances related to charges, consolidation moves, forcing fallbacks
- Situations of when to not use your full charge move
- Wrapping units, tri-pointing
- Positioning around walls
- tips/tactics on charge defense
Karol wrote: Doesn't the DG Morty+termi spam list more or less have fixed first two turn, the way it functions with getting on objectives, morty doing his things lawn mawer slowing down enemy with the half movment plague spread.
I think the only time they play different, is when they play a mirror and go second.
Same with harlis, all their games seem to be very similar in how they are played, if they go first. it is the mock up turn 2+ turns that tend to look different, based on what is left alive and how good the rolls went.
Harlequin gameplay strategy plays completely differently if your opponent has valuable vehicle targets available on the board for you to try and attack turn 1 vs if they don't have that.
Part of why they're so good is that they're so absurdly mobile that they have tons of options - they can advance forward in a big clump with the shadowseer making everyone super difficult to kill, they can explode all over the board grabbing every objective and splitting your forces up multiple ways, and they can send out multiple squads to various areas to attack units they want to target.
The faster your movement speed in 40k is, the less your overall strategy needs to play fixed. That's why DG terminator spam, necron warrior spam and ork boyz spam are the most fixed lists in terms of what they do on the tabletop.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2021/03/02 14:20:07
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Karol wrote: Doesn't the DG Morty+termi spam list more or less have fixed first two turn, the way it functions with getting on objectives, morty doing his things lawn mawer slowing down enemy with the half movment plague spread.
I think the only time they play different, is when they play a mirror and go second.
Same with harlis, all their games seem to be very similar in how they are played, if they go first. it is the mock up turn 2+ turns that tend to look different, based on what is left alive and how good the rolls went.
See, when I see players "always doing the same thing", then I start to try and think of what can be done that does disrupt that plan. Going into a tourney back in the before-times, my friend and I would practice through some games we expected to play, and we'd do these "turn 2 then re-rack" games. One player would play the scary list (proxied up a bunch) and throw it at the real list of the other player. Like the 90 Ork Boyz jumped into your face backed up by all the Smasha Gunz and Relic Shokk Attack Gunz vs my GSC and Nid list at the time. The question was "how can you deal with this?", and my standard method of deployment turned out to compare really poorly; I got swarmed right away. So we re-racked and played the first 2 turns again. Same result. We then really put our head to it, and crafted a whole different deployment arrangement. This new arrangement put models in specific locations that totally changed how the Ork's Da Jump move interacted with my front lines; changing how many models could get killed and their pile in's and consolidates. This put me into a far better position where it'd still be a tough game for me, but it was winnable now rather than "I'm just playing not to die".
All because we identified the weakness of the first moves of the Orks. So yeah, I think if players are always doing the same things because they are the generic "best" move, then they leave themselves open to studying their moves and developing counter-acting actions that deal with those specific moves - but these counter-acting actions are not intuitive. Training is required to help you identify and spot these spots and positions.
Galef wrote: If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
2021/03/02 14:47:41
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Mezmorki wrote: It's frustrating to try and discuss Subject X, when a few participants continuously assert that Subject X doesn't even exist, or that it's existence is so trivial that there is nothing really worth discussing. You all have made your position clear many times over at this point.
Other people have come to a different conclusion based on their experiences - and I want to hear more from them. There's a chance we all might learn or discover something in the process.
I am also happy to hear from them. They claim there are more tactics. Hey all you guys. Post them. Stop telling us they exist and show us they exist. Please. I would be incredibly happy to get proven wrong. Despite what anyone here might think I love being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means I get to learn something and my ideas can grow. Stop telling me you CAN do it and DO it.
Post me a screenshot of a table with models on it (deployment, T2, T3, doesn't matter) and give me the secondaries chosen by each side (along with all WT and psychic powers), current primary score and I'd be happy to.
No. YOU post a screen shot and dig into it. I am not going to do your leg work for you.
Yarium wrote:I think I tried to do that, and rather than talk about which option would be best for deep striking and for what reason, they just said "the answer is obvious because math" and started talking about how tactics didn't exist.
I don't think the argument has been made that it's so simple that any 3 year old could do it or that it's done correctly 100% of the time by super geniuses.
The argument that has been made is that there isn't anything else to it. Just because the "tactics" or as someone else called it and I am inclined to agree, logistics, of 40k are made up of simple formulae and flow charts doesn't mean everyone does it perfectly every time. But it also doesn't make the individual choices any more complex. 40k IS won by good list building as part of a solid strategy with a firm understanding of the logistics of the game.
A comparison I have been mulling over is magic the gathering. In magic if you CAN attack and it costs you nothing to attack then not attacking is a loosing move. At every single opportunity where you can remove the opponents health or resources you need to be doing that to win. You don't trade a monster for a monster. But if you can get a hit in without loosing a monster then you sure as gak need to be attacking. 40k isn't any different. The models are resources. They come with dice every turn that can remove your dice. You need to take every opportunity to maximize your dices impact and remove theirs. Which goes back into understanding the value of dice, which is simplified into more dice is always better and making sure that you always throw more dice every turn than your opponent widens the gap between your victory and their defeat.
Where do you deep strike? Where you will have the biggest impact and remove the most dice.
Should you move into the mid field? If you don't they will and when they do they will use that chance to remove your dice.
And again, this is in big part because of how little player to player interactivity there is in the game. When I attack I attack with everything. When you attack you attack with everything. Any opportunity for me to step in and interact with your turn is novelty at best and primarily made up of no brainer decisions. "Should I deepstrike my Deathmarks in response to you deepstriking?" Yes. Thats why you put them in the list to begin with. You cannot have deep tactical decision making if your every choice in the game is defined by your strategy and the logistics of the game state.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
0041/03/02 14:56:08
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Mezmorki wrote: It's frustrating to try and discuss Subject X, when a few participants continuously assert that Subject X doesn't even exist, or that it's existence is so trivial that there is nothing really worth discussing. You all have made your position clear many times over at this point.
Other people have come to a different conclusion based on their experiences - and I want to hear more from them. There's a chance we all might learn or discover something in the process.
I am also happy to hear from them. They claim there are more tactics. Hey all you guys. Post them. Stop telling us they exist and show us they exist. Please. I would be incredibly happy to get proven wrong. Despite what anyone here might think I love being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means I get to learn something and my ideas can grow. Stop telling me you CAN do it and DO it.
Post me a screenshot of a table with models on it (deployment, T2, T3, doesn't matter) and give me the secondaries chosen by each side (along with all WT and psychic powers), current primary score and I'd be happy to.
No. YOU post a screen shot and dig into it. I am not going to do your leg work for you.
I'm gonna level with you. I really don't care if you're persuaded or not. I'm posting out of idle boredom. If you'd like to understand why you are mistaken, I'm happy to help. If not, that's your choice.
2021/03/02 14:59:01
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Lance845 wrote: No. If you are in the position to do it you either do it or don't. It's not calculus. Either your big expensive unit is at risk or it isn't. It's either cutting swathes through the enemies army or it isn't. Every turn it isn't your points are not paying for themselves. If it dies then your points are gone. 2+2. Whats the best course of action in the moment.
Don't make it out to be more complicated than it is.
Your assessment would be more correct in 8th. When killing isn't the main path to success then the choices change quite a bit.
I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.
These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.
Killing is still the main path to success. It is just more about where your units are when they are killing.
Before in 8th with my ultras I wouldn't leave my deployment zone if I had a ranged advantage - I would shoot them down - then win in the later rounds with no opposition. Now with the loss of a turn in 9th - It forces me to leave my deployment zone and start scoring objectives in earlier rounds. All it has done is change my unit selection a bit and made a responsive CC unit more attractive because I am now going to the middle of the table. It is still just as much about killing units. In fact with the killing secondaries - you could even stay killing is more important because I almost always take the kill more secondary.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2021/03/02 15:02:55
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
i think the smaller boards and less significant rules interaction between side and front (f.e. Armor) has significantly lowered tactical interaction imo.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2021/03/02 15:17:50
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Lance845 wrote: No. If you are in the position to do it you either do it or don't. It's not calculus. Either your big expensive unit is at risk or it isn't. It's either cutting swathes through the enemies army or it isn't. Every turn it isn't your points are not paying for themselves. If it dies then your points are gone. 2+2. Whats the best course of action in the moment.
Don't make it out to be more complicated than it is.
Your assessment would be more correct in 8th. When killing isn't the main path to success then the choices change quite a bit.
I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.
These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.
Killing is still the main path to success. It is just more about where your units are when they are killing.
Before in 8th with my ultras I wouldn't leave my deployment zone if I had a ranged advantage - I would shoot them down - then win in the later rounds with no opposition. Now with the loss of a turn in 9th - It forces me to leave my deployment zone and start scoring objectives in earlier rounds. All it has done is change my unit selection a bit and made a responsive CC unit more attractive because I am now going to the middle of the table. It is still just as much about killing units. In fact with the killing secondaries - you could even stay killing is more important because I almost always take the kill more secondary.
Honestly, I've felt like the last 3 games I've won, I've won because my opponent chose to optimise their list more around killing and I've chosen not to.
To use my last game as an example: ultras vs GSC, I was playing the GSC. I had 2 characters and 2 min-sized troops squads in deep strike and 2 min-sized biker squads on the board whose primary job was to keep those secondary points coming. My opponent had multiple squads he chose not to Combat Squad in order to keep them as optimal as possible for stratagem and aura purposes (chapter master reroll to hit) and he picked 2 of his 3 secondaries to be the ones that basically happen automatically to avoid the ones that required him to take actions instead of using his squads to kill stuff.
He got first turn, and by spending 1CP on Evasive Maneuvering I was able to be a gigantic pain in his ass with a Goliath truck, requiring him to pump a redemptor dreadnought (he half-healthed it with that before I used the stratagem to ignore his AP-1 and AP-2) two squads of eliminators, a double-shooting 10 man intercessor block and then another 10-man intercessor block to finally take it out, then the last 5 intercessors didn't have enough juice to wipe out the squad inside, who proceeded to on my turn spend another 1cp and resurrect back to almost full HP, at which point they popped behind some Obscuring terrain and waited for his deep strikers to come in.
My opponent ended up killing more points than I did by the end of the game, but couldn't score for gak - he got like 6pts for raise the banners, 10pts for Bring it Down, and 4pts for engage on all fronts. By just hiding gakky 55pt units around the board and not choosing to do anything with them I was able to score 40 secondary points, and force my opponent to do stuff like move his 130pt jump pack buffer HQ away from the units he was supposed to buff, away from the objectives, directly into the corner of his own deployment zone to try and hunt down some dumb idiot with a pair of knives teleporting Homer Simpson into his backfield.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2021/03/02 15:18:41
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
As we talk about tactics and decisions, we're often saying things like "moving up the field is the obvious move." I agree that there are a lot of big picture binary decisions like this, e.g. do I stand still or move up.
But we seem to be glossing over a lot of the details, which gives the impression that details don't matter - but they do. If the obvious move is "yes, let's advance up the field with Unit X", the question then becomes how do you execute that move. I think there is a level of interaction in the tempo and timing between players, for example, I want to move up enough to be able to reach the objective in my following turn (assuming I can't each it this turn). How am I arranging my models in the unit as I advance? Are they in a staggered line such that the maximum number of models possible are as close to possible. Do I have shorter range weapons I need to put in front in order to get in range, but if I take return fire, would removing those models then put me out of reach of the objective (or conversely help me get out of range of other enemy weapons?) Removing your opponent's models is often the goal, but you also need to keep an eye on preserving your own models, or else you won't have anything alive to hold objectives. Continuing the example, are there opportunities to use terrain as I advance? Is it worth getting closer but actually staying out of LoS (if there is suitable terrain), even if means I won't shoot, in order to preserve my unit's model count?
I think another big consideration is that while technically decisions can be reduced to "logistics" (i.e. optimal orders), there are still two major elements of uncertainty that preclude players from making perfect choices. One is randomness, the other is your opponent's response. In regards to the first, if the "optimum" choice is to advance into range and shoot, and you roll a pile of bad dice and fail to kill a critical target, your unit is now compromised. You made a risk assessment that ended up going badly - and there are now other choices to make (or re-make). Do I need to re-prioritize other shooting to try and take out the earlier target? What do I now need to do try and keep my other unit alive? If that unit dies, what can I do with other units to make up for it and try and turn things around?
In regards to your opponent's moves - my opponents routinely do things I didn't expect them to do, and they also on occasion miss doing "an obvious move" from my vantage point (and make mistakes). But my opponent can't read my mind and doesn't necessarily see the obvious move in the same way I do. All this is to say, that even in a IGOUGO format, there are interactions between players, and you can't bank on an opponent doing a certain thing with 100% certainty. This uncertainty creates a space for tactical choices to be made.
Also aspect of the game, although one that doesn't excite me much but I nonetheless recognize adds tactical choice, are stratagems and command point management. You never know when a critical die-roll is going to go badly and you might want a spare CP to spend on a re-roll. Or that the sheer number and magnitude of stratagems that can come into play preclude you from knowing exactly what tricks your opponent might pull out of their hat, which can throw all of the careful math hammer work you've done out the window and change the whole course of the game. I think there is quite a bit of tactical nuance in this element of the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ==================================
I finished a game last night of Eldar vs. Tyranids. We were playing on short board edges with 4 objectives in neutral ground. Both of us deployed forward, and then my opponent infiltrated their two units of genestealers in the midfield in a risky but aggressive spot (which I wasn't expecting them to do).
This required me to change up the tactical moves I had planned out, as I didn't want to advance upfield and run into the genestealers too quickly. They were in heavy cover and the two groups were big. I ended up deciding to pull back and create a bit more space so that I could get at least two rounds of shooting in before having to deal with them in melee. Of course, this basically meant I was conceding the field to my opponent, who pulled ahead quickly on objectives.
I then faced a number of other tactical choices. Do I use my wave serpents with embarked units to zip across the board and contest other objective points, or do I keep my forces bunched up, concentrate down the genestealers and then try to push up aggressively and make up for lost time on the objectives?
I tried for the latter, but my opponent got a unit of hormogaunts in range to charge and the remntants of genestealers tied up my two big units of jetbikes. I few unfortunate hits rendered two of my wave serpents immobile, so they couldn't push across the board anymore. So even my fallback plan got upended. The following turns there was a lot of subtle tactical positioning to use striking scorpion and wraithguard units to provide a charge screen so that I could get my jetbikes free to zip around again.
Through all of this, my spirit seer, farseer, and warlocks were having to make some choices about what powers to use on what units. Buffing certain units might mean that it would discourage my opponent from charging that unit enough that they would move onto a different target. So how I distributed buffs to try and cajole / bait my opponent into attacking other units was critical.
My mobile wave serpents were also instrumental in protecting units by way of simply blocking the movement path of my opponent, even if it meant putting the serpent in a vulnerable spot. How I positioned these relative to my forces, and deciding how/where to block movement and what units in turn to protect was another head scratching moment.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/03/02 15:39:40
Lance845 wrote: No. If you are in the position to do it you either do it or don't. It's not calculus. Either your big expensive unit is at risk or it isn't. It's either cutting swathes through the enemies army or it isn't. Every turn it isn't your points are not paying for themselves. If it dies then your points are gone. 2+2. Whats the best course of action in the moment.
Don't make it out to be more complicated than it is.
Your assessment would be more correct in 8th. When killing isn't the main path to success then the choices change quite a bit.
I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.
These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.
Killing is still the main path to success. It is just more about where your units are when they are killing.
Before in 8th with my ultras I wouldn't leave my deployment zone if I had a ranged advantage - I would shoot them down - then win in the later rounds with no opposition. Now with the loss of a turn in 9th - It forces me to leave my deployment zone and start scoring objectives in earlier rounds. All it has done is change my unit selection a bit and made a responsive CC unit more attractive because I am now going to the middle of the table. It is still just as much about killing units. In fact with the killing secondaries - you could even stay killing is more important because I almost always take the kill more secondary.
Honestly, I've felt like the last 3 games I've won, I've won because my opponent chose to optimise their list more around killing and I've chosen not to.
To use my last game as an example: ultras vs GSC, I was playing the GSC. I had 2 characters and 2 min-sized troops squads in deep strike and 2 min-sized biker squads on the board whose primary job was to keep those secondary points coming. My opponent had multiple squads he chose not to Combat Squad in order to keep them as optimal as possible for stratagem and aura purposes (chapter master reroll to hit) and he picked 2 of his 3 secondaries to be the ones that basically happen automatically to avoid the ones that required him to take actions instead of using his squads to kill stuff.
He got first turn, and by spending 1CP on Evasive Maneuvering I was able to be a gigantic pain in his ass with a Goliath truck, requiring him to pump a redemptor dreadnought (he half-healthed it with that before I used the stratagem to ignore his AP-1 and AP-2) two squads of eliminators, a double-shooting 10 man intercessor block and then another 10-man intercessor block to finally take it out, then the last 5 intercessors didn't have enough juice to wipe out the squad inside, who proceeded to on my turn spend another 1cp and resurrect back to almost full HP, at which point they popped behind some Obscuring terrain and waited for his deep strikers to come in.
My opponent ended up killing more points than I did by the end of the game, but couldn't score for gak - he got like 6pts for raise the banners, 10pts for Bring it Down, and 4pts for engage on all fronts. By just hiding gakky 55pt units around the board and not choosing to do anything with them I was able to score 40 secondary points, and force my opponent to do stuff like move his 130pt jump pack buffer HQ away from the units he was supposed to buff, away from the objectives, directly into the corner of his own deployment zone to try and hunt down some dumb idiot with a pair of knives teleporting Homer Simpson into his backfield.
Sounds like you outplayed him - maybe he didn't know you could make your goliath truck have -2 AP. That is the kinda trick that only works once. On the topic of the thread though it is not tactics to use a defensive stratagem when you are getting shot at. Just as its not tactics to use the rapid fire stratagem to double my shots with intercessors. It is prepland list buildings tactics on the table it is plug and play. Which is what we are claiming is where tactics in this game actually end.
40k is very similar to playing a tower defense game. You deploy your units on line somewhere and they shoot things when they come into range and you have some ploys to use to make your job easier. 40k just adds the element of movement - but the game is so short even if you move every turn some units can't even reach the other side of the table - so deployment plays way more a factor that movement does. I would argue that 50% of the game is determined by list construction and deployment 40% is randomness and 10% is decision making outside of deployment.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2021/03/02 16:35:13
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Killing is still the main path to success. It is just more about where your units are when they are killing.
Before in 8th with my ultras I wouldn't leave my deployment zone if I had a ranged advantage - I would shoot them down - then win in the later rounds with no opposition. Now with the loss of a turn in 9th - It forces me to leave my deployment zone and start scoring objectives in earlier rounds. All it has done is change my unit selection a bit and made a responsive CC unit more attractive because I am now going to the middle of the table. It is still just as much about killing units. In fact with the killing secondaries - you could even stay killing is more important because I almost always take the kill more secondary.
Killing matters more when you have no options to force a different game state. When the new DE book hits I bet a lot of people will find it hard to play their current limited movement lists against them.
Mezmorki wrote: It's frustrating to try and discuss Subject X, when a few participants continuously assert that Subject X doesn't even exist, or that it's existence is so trivial that there is nothing really worth discussing. You all have made your position clear many times over at this point.
Other people have come to a different conclusion based on their experiences - and I want to hear more from them. There's a chance we all might learn or discover something in the process.
I am also happy to hear from them. They claim there are more tactics. Hey all you guys. Post them. Stop telling us they exist and show us they exist. Please. I would be incredibly happy to get proven wrong. Despite what anyone here might think I love being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means I get to learn something and my ideas can grow. Stop telling me you CAN do it and DO it.
I did?
I'm guessing Lance has me blocked.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/02 16:36:45
2021/03/02 17:01:18
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Lance845 wrote: No. If you are in the position to do it you either do it or don't. It's not calculus. Either your big expensive unit is at risk or it isn't. It's either cutting swathes through the enemies army or it isn't. Every turn it isn't your points are not paying for themselves. If it dies then your points are gone. 2+2. Whats the best course of action in the moment.
Don't make it out to be more complicated than it is.
Your assessment would be more correct in 8th. When killing isn't the main path to success then the choices change quite a bit.
I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.
These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.
Killing is still the main path to success. It is just more about where your units are when they are killing.
Before in 8th with my ultras I wouldn't leave my deployment zone if I had a ranged advantage - I would shoot them down - then win in the later rounds with no opposition. Now with the loss of a turn in 9th - It forces me to leave my deployment zone and start scoring objectives in earlier rounds. All it has done is change my unit selection a bit and made a responsive CC unit more attractive because I am now going to the middle of the table. It is still just as much about killing units. In fact with the killing secondaries - you could even stay killing is more important because I almost always take the kill more secondary.
Honestly, I've felt like the last 3 games I've won, I've won because my opponent chose to optimise their list more around killing and I've chosen not to.
To use my last game as an example: ultras vs GSC, I was playing the GSC. I had 2 characters and 2 min-sized troops squads in deep strike and 2 min-sized biker squads on the board whose primary job was to keep those secondary points coming. My opponent had multiple squads he chose not to Combat Squad in order to keep them as optimal as possible for stratagem and aura purposes (chapter master reroll to hit) and he picked 2 of his 3 secondaries to be the ones that basically happen automatically to avoid the ones that required him to take actions instead of using his squads to kill stuff.
He got first turn, and by spending 1CP on Evasive Maneuvering I was able to be a gigantic pain in his ass with a Goliath truck, requiring him to pump a redemptor dreadnought (he half-healthed it with that before I used the stratagem to ignore his AP-1 and AP-2) two squads of eliminators, a double-shooting 10 man intercessor block and then another 10-man intercessor block to finally take it out, then the last 5 intercessors didn't have enough juice to wipe out the squad inside, who proceeded to on my turn spend another 1cp and resurrect back to almost full HP, at which point they popped behind some Obscuring terrain and waited for his deep strikers to come in.
My opponent ended up killing more points than I did by the end of the game, but couldn't score for gak - he got like 6pts for raise the banners, 10pts for Bring it Down, and 4pts for engage on all fronts. By just hiding gakky 55pt units around the board and not choosing to do anything with them I was able to score 40 secondary points, and force my opponent to do stuff like move his 130pt jump pack buffer HQ away from the units he was supposed to buff, away from the objectives, directly into the corner of his own deployment zone to try and hunt down some dumb idiot with a pair of knives teleporting Homer Simpson into his backfield.
Sounds like you outplayed him - maybe he didn't know you could make your goliath truck have -2 AP. That is the kinda trick that only works once. On the topic of the thread though it is not tactics to use a defensive stratagem when you are getting shot at. Just as its not tactics to use the rapid fire stratagem to double my shots with intercessors. It is prepland list buildings tactics on the table it is plug and play. Which is what we are claiming is where tactics in this game actually end.
40k is very similar to playing a tower defense game. You deploy your units on line somewhere and they shoot things when they come into range and you have some ploys to use to make your job easier. 40k just adds the element of movement - but the game is so short even if you move every turn some units can't even reach the other side of the table - so deployment plays way more a factor that movement does. I would argue that 50% of the game is determined by list construction and deployment 40% is randomness and 10% is decision making outside of deployment.
I'm not responding to this idiotic "tactics don't exist" canard, in my eyes it's pretty much over when you've got someone who's worked for an actual armed forces organization saying "no, your definition of tactics vs strategy is not correct here folks."
I'm responding to your statement that "killing is what wins the game". By pointing out that, in many of my games of 9th, an opponent deciding to focus more of their gameplay on killing, rather than scoring, has in fact led to them losing the game.
Even if my opponent had anticipated my ability to ignore AP-1, or lets say I forgot to use that stratagem, he would have probably wiped out the goliath with the double-shooting squad of primaris marines, then the 10 intercessors would have killed the squad inside, then the 5 remaining intercessors would have gotten to deal 1.2 damage to a ridgerunner or something. Big whoop. The only thing that acolyte squad ended up doing in the game was contribute to wiping out most of the deep strike force of eradicators and inceptors that came down.
My opponent deployed and played his forces to optimize their killing power - fielding barebones HQs whose only job was handing out buffs, keeping the squads clumped together and max-sized rather than combat squadded in order to get those buffs, selecting secondaries that would not require him to forgo attacking with his troop squads, and spending his CPs to maximise the offense of those units.
And that's a large part of why he lost. His big clump in the deployment zone meant I was able to steal the lighter defended objective in his DZ, which gave me 4pts for every turn I held it and my own home objectives with a mission secondary. His big clump around another captain out of deep strike to maximise offense meant his deep strikers were in 1 place instead of potentially 4 places, which meant I could just fling a suicide squad at them to reduce their numbers and effectively, after that, ignore them as they trundled around the board after I just moved my ridgerunners to the complete opposite corner behind some obscuring terrain. The eradicators' second shot was against like jackal bikes or something.
The fact that my opponent played with a fixed, pre-planned strategy based on killing that was built out from the list phase and just took the 3 general use secondaries everyone chooses meant I could probably have won with even more of a joke of a list than you just have by default by nature of playing GSC in 9th.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2021/03/02 17:11:54
Subject: Re:Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
The things you described on the last page are all tactics. Boxing someone in, overwhelming with threats are tactics. What you call strategy is just planning. That planning employs and visualizes tactics. Some of what you describe could be called a Concept of Operations.
If your argument is that planning is important to victory in 40k then great. But your planning involved the understanding and employment of tactics. If you can truly effortlessly visualize victory then it is likely due to a deep understanding of the tactics of 40k. I look forward to your Tactics articles!
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2021/03/02 17:21:01
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
I dont block anyone. I just havent had time to go back through the thread and find whatever it is you are referencing yet. Out and about with chores today.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2021/03/02 17:28:27
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
Lance845 wrote: No. If you are in the position to do it you either do it or don't. It's not calculus. Either your big expensive unit is at risk or it isn't. It's either cutting swathes through the enemies army or it isn't. Every turn it isn't your points are not paying for themselves. If it dies then your points are gone. 2+2. Whats the best course of action in the moment.
Don't make it out to be more complicated than it is.
Your assessment would be more correct in 8th. When killing isn't the main path to success then the choices change quite a bit.
I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.
These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.
Killing is still the main path to success. It is just more about where your units are when they are killing.
Before in 8th with my ultras I wouldn't leave my deployment zone if I had a ranged advantage - I would shoot them down - then win in the later rounds with no opposition. Now with the loss of a turn in 9th - It forces me to leave my deployment zone and start scoring objectives in earlier rounds. All it has done is change my unit selection a bit and made a responsive CC unit more attractive because I am now going to the middle of the table. It is still just as much about killing units. In fact with the killing secondaries - you could even stay killing is more important because I almost always take the kill more secondary.
Honestly, I've felt like the last 3 games I've won, I've won because my opponent chose to optimise their list more around killing and I've chosen not to.
To use my last game as an example: ultras vs GSC, I was playing the GSC. I had 2 characters and 2 min-sized troops squads in deep strike and 2 min-sized biker squads on the board whose primary job was to keep those secondary points coming. My opponent had multiple squads he chose not to Combat Squad in order to keep them as optimal as possible for stratagem and aura purposes (chapter master reroll to hit) and he picked 2 of his 3 secondaries to be the ones that basically happen automatically to avoid the ones that required him to take actions instead of using his squads to kill stuff.
He got first turn, and by spending 1CP on Evasive Maneuvering I was able to be a gigantic pain in his ass with a Goliath truck, requiring him to pump a redemptor dreadnought (he half-healthed it with that before I used the stratagem to ignore his AP-1 and AP-2) two squads of eliminators, a double-shooting 10 man intercessor block and then another 10-man intercessor block to finally take it out, then the last 5 intercessors didn't have enough juice to wipe out the squad inside, who proceeded to on my turn spend another 1cp and resurrect back to almost full HP, at which point they popped behind some Obscuring terrain and waited for his deep strikers to come in.
My opponent ended up killing more points than I did by the end of the game, but couldn't score for gak - he got like 6pts for raise the banners, 10pts for Bring it Down, and 4pts for engage on all fronts. By just hiding gakky 55pt units around the board and not choosing to do anything with them I was able to score 40 secondary points, and force my opponent to do stuff like move his 130pt jump pack buffer HQ away from the units he was supposed to buff, away from the objectives, directly into the corner of his own deployment zone to try and hunt down some dumb idiot with a pair of knives teleporting Homer Simpson into his backfield.
Sounds like you outplayed him - maybe he didn't know you could make your goliath truck have -2 AP. That is the kinda trick that only works once. On the topic of the thread though it is not tactics to use a defensive stratagem when you are getting shot at. Just as its not tactics to use the rapid fire stratagem to double my shots with intercessors. It is prepland list buildings tactics on the table it is plug and play. Which is what we are claiming is where tactics in this game actually end.
40k is very similar to playing a tower defense game. You deploy your units on line somewhere and they shoot things when they come into range and you have some ploys to use to make your job easier. 40k just adds the element of movement - but the game is so short even if you move every turn some units can't even reach the other side of the table - so deployment plays way more a factor that movement does. I would argue that 50% of the game is determined by list construction and deployment 40% is randomness and 10% is decision making outside of deployment.
I'm not responding to this idiotic "tactics don't exist" canard, in my eyes it's pretty much over when you've got someone who's worked for an actual armed forces organization saying "no, your definition of tactics vs strategy is not correct here folks."
I'm responding to your statement that "killing is what wins the game". By pointing out that, in many of my games of 9th, an opponent deciding to focus more of their gameplay on killing, rather than scoring, has in fact led to them losing the game.
Even if my opponent had anticipated my ability to ignore AP-1, or lets say I forgot to use that stratagem, he would have probably wiped out the goliath with the double-shooting squad of primaris marines, then the 10 intercessors would have killed the squad inside, then the 5 remaining intercessors would have gotten to deal 1.2 damage to a ridgerunner or something. Big whoop. The only thing that acolyte squad ended up doing in the game was contribute to wiping out most of the deep strike force of eradicators and inceptors that came down.
My opponent deployed and played his forces to optimize their killing power - fielding barebones HQs whose only job was handing out buffs, keeping the squads clumped together and max-sized rather than combat squadded in order to get those buffs, selecting secondaries that would not require him to forgo attacking with his troop squads, and spending his CPs to maximise the offense of those units.
And that's a large part of why he lost. His big clump in the deployment zone meant I was able to steal the lighter defended objective in his DZ, which gave me 4pts for every turn I held it and my own home objectives with a mission secondary. His big clump around another captain out of deep strike to maximise offense meant his deep strikers were in 1 place instead of potentially 4 places, which meant I could just fling a suicide squad at them to reduce their numbers and effectively, after that, ignore them as they trundled around the board after I just moved my ridgerunners to the complete opposite corner behind some obscuring terrain. The eradicators' second shot was against like jackal bikes or something.
The fact that my opponent played with a fixed, pre-planned strategy based on killing that was built out from the list phase and just took the 3 general use secondaries everyone chooses meant I could probably have won with even more of a joke of a list than you just have by default by nature of playing GSC in 9th.
I have acknowledged that tactics exist during the list building part of the game. Where you'd decide whether a barebones HQ or a decked out smash captain be suits your army list. Or in the situation where you take 10 man intercessor squad instead of 5 man tactical squads with multi meltas and storm bolters for more board coverage. His plan was already made at the list building phase he just miss played his list and shot a weapon inefficiently which I've already covered - that is the only tactic on the table after deployment - the order you shoot things in and what you shoot them with. You can claim that is tactical. Id argue that it is done at the list building level.
I see people trying to use "tactics" all the time. Getting smashed.
"I'm going to deploy this unit - in this transport - while this unit buffs that trasnport - and this unit lays cover fire!"
Then the storm raven gets one shot because it is a terrible unit that costs too much and you just lost the game.
Don't include terrible unit. It is the best tactic in the game.
The things you described on the last page are all tactics. Boxing someone in, overwhelming with threats are tactics. What you call strategy is just planning. That planning employs and visualizes tactics. Some of what you describe could be called a Concept of Operations.
If your argument is that planning is important to victory in 40k then great. But your planning involved the understanding and employment of tactics. If you can truly effortlessly visualize victory then it is likely due to a deep understanding of the tactics of 40k. I look forward to your Tactics articles!
Perhaps we are trying to pass the deep understanding down. Ignore all that other BS. Bring the best units. Kill their best units. For shooting units...try to maintain maximum range and deploy within range of your desired target. For melee units try to exploit first turn charge...if you can't and can deploy in reserve...do that instead. The game is so incredibly simple. Overthinking will actually lose you the game. The point I am trying to make is that the choices in your game are already made for you for the most part based on the unts you brought to the table. The dice do the rest.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/02 17:34:04
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2021/03/02 17:54:02
Subject: Table-Level Tactics vs Army List Tactics in 40K
I definitely agree that due to how the game is currently structured, a large amount of the decision making involved in 40k comes down to things that happen prior to the first movement phase.
The selection of your list, the decisions you make while setting up for a game, and the placement of units you set up during the deployment phase do probably decide some 60-70% of the outcome of the game.
But your advice about 'always killing things the most efficiently" is just absolute crap. I'm sorry. Starting your units hidden from the thing that can most optimally kill them in your opponent's list is a MILLION times better than always starting them in position to always attempt to use their optimal offense immediately. If you're finding that the game is always seeming to be decided by who goes first, that's probably a contributing factor right there.
I could have started my jackal bikes in position to advance up the board and attack the most optimal target for them in my opponent's army - the T5 3+ or T4 3+ marines - but doing so would have allowed my opponent to kill a ridgerunner with his dread and snipers and the two jackal squads with his anti-infantry units. Instead, he had to choose between trying to get through the extra toughness and wounds of one of my goliaths to open up a viable target for the intercessors, or killing an achilles and then probably not having quite enough in the tank to kill a second one.
For that matter, based on the internet's grand wisdom, the achilles is the GSC's best unit - never leave home without 3 or 4 of 'em! but against my opponent's army, besides the dreadnought there wasn't much for them to really sink their teeth into. I was also able to use terrain and movement speed to make the Eradicators irrelevant after their initial drop, meaning I didn't really have to worry about targeting them, despite them being two of my opponent's "best units" - I left them alone in favor of beating up on my opponent's troop squads so I could keep bullying them out of objectives.
I also had multiple melee squads in transports around the board that I could have put into reserves but chose not to, even though those melee squads could not reliably turn 1 charge should I go first. Everything you take off the board and put in reserves cedes board presence to your opponent and every additional squad you want to put down turn 2 is going to have diminishing returns just by nature of you only having so many optimal deep striking spots.
If you're going to brainlessly default to deploying units to maximise casualties should you go first, you'll lose more games than someone who brainlessly defaults to deploying units to minimize casualties should you go second.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
