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.

There is a definite lack of tactics in 40k. I noticed this a few years after i had started playing, after most people i talked to considered "How do i equip my tactical squad?" a real tactical debate. Can tactical maneouvres really only be performed on a larger scale than what 40k is set in?

Any thoughts?

When there's no "fog of war", nothing to keep your opponent from knowing exactly what's coming at him, and not enough time to make complex tactical evolutions, tactics go by the wayside. Tactics for 40K boil down to choosing carefully which unit shoots what and when, sending a "scissors" unit against a "paper" target, and finding dice that roll the way you want most times.

I use to think that there is a lack of tactics in 40k, but in the recent games I've played tactics have been preeminent. Just the other day I played a game where good tactics won the game. Some small mistakes in deployment and movement cost my opponent the game.

Sure 40k will have the rock/paper/scissors effect, but so do most table top games. 40k might not have as much tactic as some other games out there, but there definitely is an element of tactics in 40k.

If you actually use tactics and maneuver to best effect, people whine about you being unsportsmanlike.

If you are referring to military tactics, then I agree, there aren't much. They don't translate well in 40K's game mechanics.

If you are referring to people developing a plan to win the game, then I think you are not correct. There are tactics from army list design, set up, movement, firing (who to fire first can become very important as well as lanes of fire), and assault has a whole underbelly of tactics involved.

Can a person, just move all his models foward, shoot, then try to get in assault? Sure. But, if you want to win the game, that probably isn't the best idea.

I think Sarigar is largely correct that most military tactics don't translate well. However and overall play to win the game would be your strategy. And it is usually beneficial to come up with one keeping in mind no plan survives completely once contact with the enemy is established. Depending on the mission played and the amount of terrain on the board there are varying amounts of tactics. Many armies play pretty straight forwardly, and tactics are only required when playing a veteran or someone who has played you many times.

My wn understaning of tactics is that they are largely the meneuvers a commander puts into effect on the battlefield in order to execute a larger strategic plan. While fire lanes and setup could be termed tactical, they are both done before the game starts. I'll mention a few of my own favoured tactics. Moving a large scaryish unit up the center of the board is useful to distract fire and attention from other threats. Does my enemy fire on my Death Company, Vindicator or attack bikes? Does he try to fire on them all and thus waste his concentration of firepower? Using cover while moving up the board is pretty standard. Tank shocking can also be quite useful. Drop podding Moriar is almost a given for me and is a great way to add a little fog of war to the game. Deep striking armies are neat, but add their own randomness which could be good or bad. Placing and infiltrating unit(s) at the beginning of the game is a good way of making your enemy react to that unit and making it seem like the battle initiative is already yours. Using a unit with the scout rule allows you to better deploy a unit before effective combat begins.

I think a lot of the problem is to do with the fact that most 40k gaming is sone on a small 4x6 board. Most movement is to get into optimal firing and/or assault range. Once this is achieved movement is largely redudant except to keep other enmy units in firing/assault range. Though clearly largely mobile armies have a much greater ability to use tactical movement and some depend on it. Though the new entanglement rules make many of these wind armies of mounted troops much less viable then in the 3rd edition.

Tactics in 40k mostly come down to who uses deployment and terrain best to achieve the mission objectives. If you don?t play missions, or with a well-terrained table, there will be no tactics. If you do, there will. It?s just that simple.

There are tactics in 40K but mostly in the movement phase when it comes to manuver. Other than that there are no REAL tactics, just strategies and plenty of meta-gaming and armylist building. 4th edition has been more army list intensive mainly due to the fact more armies are now relying on special rules or gimmicks to gain an upper hand: Lysander lists, Drop Pods, Infiltration armies, Demon Bombs, Fish of Fury, Mech Skimmer armies, Big Bugs, Stealthlords.

Also I almost forgot but adding onto what Mannahnin has said, terrain and deployment is the only other real tactical element in the game. Setting up your foces and then manuvering them to either the assault or to shoot.

Well, let's not forget that there are very few 'tactics' that one can employ in modern warfare, at least at the company level (the scale of 40k). At a larger level, when the commander is dealing with regiments or divisions, he can employ tactics like out manuvering the enemy, feint attacks, and so on.

At the company level, however, tactics are basically limited to supressing fire, and the occasional flanking manuver. Most small level engagements are a test of who has the most guns and the most guts; other than the positioning of your weapons very few tactics come into play. And doesn't that sound like 40k? Have more guns that the opponent, deploy well, and have your troops support each other?

Sure, if 40k had more detailed psychology rules then more tactics would be used, but I don't think 40k is substantially less tactical than the modern wargames I've played, like Battlefront or Crossfire.

There are all sorts of tactics that can be employed during the assault phase.   Placement of models within squads can really impact how much damage is done.  Likewise, removal of casualties can really mess with the initiative ordering when dealing with things like powerfists.    Hanging back in the movement phase to prevent too many of your models from getting engaged in the combat can mean the difference between slaughtering your opponent's unit and ending up sitting in the open during their turn, or remaining locked-in during their turn to avoid getting shot at.

Notice that we?re talking about two different things in this thread.

Tactics can be defined generally as ?the collective name for methods for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle?. Up to the nineteenth century this was primarily about how you run a military operation at the battlefield level. Maneuvering and fighting the soldiers in a given place. More recently in the real life military, tactics can often also refer to larger scale operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tactics

This differs from what Redbeard is talking about, which has nothing to do with real world tactics, but which IS smart play of the game by intelligent use of the rules. Casualty removal and positioning assaulting models to throw an advantageous number of attacks at the right times are smart play, but don?t have anything to do with how soldiers maneuver and fight in real life. Still, they do fall more generally into that first quoted definition above. They are methods used to help you defeat your opponent.

Note that the most common meaning for tactics in a battlefield sense IS pretty close to the main stuff we do in 40k. It?s all about how you maneuver your units on the field, making best use of terrain to engage the enemy on your terms (short ranged units manuevering under cover, long-ranged units making best use of open fields of fire) and achieve the mission objectives. What 40k lacks are 1) Limited information- the ?fog of war? which prevents commanders from having the perfect godlike view of the battlefield and communication with their units which we have in 40k, and 2) More sophisticated/important rules for morale and unit psychology, which would simulate things like the real panic and disorganization that result from a flank attack. Note that the latter two elements are much more present in WH Fantasy Battle, which is why it?s generally seen as a more tactical game with more depth of play. What it lacks, though, is the big focus on missions/scenarios which 40k has.

There are also 40K missions with hidden deployment that create a fog of war.

Escalation missions create a lack of knowledge on both sides about when reserves will arrive.

I have to disagree i use tactics all the time when i play with my DG and DE armies. The DG army i have too use my rhinos too be mobile walls or my army just stumble across the table and get shot up. My DE army well i use terrian and range as my allie in that army adding night shields too ravangers, and using my sniper squads too take out hard targets at fires and then use them too soften up tactical squads for the on coming assault.( had more then one play tell me my DE army has a lot of dakka in it compare too C/C) Plus when i feel like play the Red tide(world eaters) that has lot too do with tactic too. JUst cant charge out there and hope you get blood rage every turn. So i have too say a lot of Ppl use tactics even if they dont think they use tactics.. My two cents

There is not a lack of tactics from what I have seen,

Tactics though take much more to develope and discuss than army lists and basic army building. 
Tactics include such things as pushing a flank (very effective if using a mech army).
Hook manouvers (great for shooty armies with one or two assult elements)
Split army (good for any mobil army)
and others.

Part of the problem is that the rules and the predominant army type (marines) emphasize not moving.  IE. shoot or move, not both.  This hurts your options.  More mobile armies lack the firepower to compete with these armies but get the mobility to employ tactics to make up for that. 

I'd second most of what's been posted. In terms of real tactics, 40k is pretty bare. there are a few key tactical decisions:

Deployment: like breakfast, it's the most important meal of the day. What deployment does is set up your units for your gameplan: shoot, move, assault, feint, etc.

Manuever: every decision made is tactical, it's just that 90% of them are obvious. "should my hammerhead move into a firing position?" "should I advance the assault marines?" "should my anti-tank squad stay put?"

Firing: maybe you could classify target pioritization as a strategy than a tactic, but decided who to shoot with what is probobly the second most imporant part of 40k for shooty armies, after deployment.

Assault: this is where the salty vets win, and the newbs die. Positioning your troops in an assault, diviing attacks, and managing your casualties are incredbily tactical decisions.

I'd argue that 40k is roughly as tactical as a game such as Poker: there are good and bad decisions to be made at every juncture, and the key is to consistently make the decisions that help you win. Both games require a solid appreciation for statistics, and while 40k doesn't involve counting cards, you still have an opponent to read. You generally can't win with a bad hand, but good players win more than bad players, even if the bad player has the better hand/army.

I suppose it largely depends on your definition of tactics. I don't believe that every decision we make during a game is tactical, but thats me. I think the most important thing that restricts tactics in 40k is the small board size. I play on an 8x4 which is a bit better, but for the most part plays the same as most 40k games. The larger the board the more room to deploy, to maneuver and to use the space to your advantage in whatever form that takes. Heavily mechanized armies benefit the most from this sort of play. Though as StarGate pointed out, most of the time the transports are just ablative armour. The truly tactically fluid armies are Dark Eldar, Speed Freaks, and Tau and Eldar air forces. The fact that most of these armies are so difficult to play is a reflection on how much finesse is required to master them. The movement phase is what makes or breaks you and if you feth it up you've basically lost.

Qoute: I suppose it largely depends on your definition of tactics.

I agree or what are your comparisons. Making a blanket statement makes no sense unless you give some type of reference point. The game to me is pure tactics. Most losses can be traced to a wrong move, wrong troop match ups, not using terrain, assaulting instead of shooting, and just making poor decisions in general. Use of terrain is paramount and if you have ever played SAF IG dug in to hard cover I would definatley quantify that as tactics. Trying to figure out how to cross a killing zone against any SAF with a assault army with as few casualties as possible I usually consider tactics.

Here's the thing that I think a lot of people miss when they think about tactics and what makes a truly tactical game.

Tactics tend to be simple.

Think about it. Most of successful battlefield tactics were developed to be executed by tired soldiers (or sailors, or marines, etc) by tired leaders, operating with limited information (read: fog of war) in a short amount of time. Soldiers who execute battlefield tactics are nearly always tired, as are their leaders. Combat is a demanding business that drains the body and mind.

If you're looking for really complicated tactics, then you need to go do some research, because they really don't exist. You might be able to point to some historical battles and say that one or another general won because he had a truly impressive tactic, but I suspect that if you look more closely, you'll find that impressive tactic to be a combination of simple tactics, peformed very well. And for every such general, you'll find dozens of generals who use plain and simple tactics and won smashing victories.

Now, a bit of background. U.S. Army doctrine breaks things into three categories, most of which I have a difficult time understanding, because the grammar is complex. In my layman's terms, Strategy is choosing _who_ to fight and which country to fight them in, which is conducted at the national level (President, Congress, Pentagon, etc.); Tactics is everything that you do once you're "stuck in" combat with the enemy. The Operational Art is everything in between. 40k doesn't have an analog for strategy in these terms, because the answer is "everybody, everywhere." The operational art really boils down to list building and the metagame, at least to some extent. Tactics is everything that you do on the tabletop.

All of that being said, now we get to my meat (I've had to insert three paragraphs to make this make sense to me.) For the most part, I categorize tactics into two categories: fire, and maneuver. Fire the way you apply force (whether through ranged fire or close combat), and maneuver is the way that you gain an advantage over your opponent, making your fire more effective. (Note that you don't have to move, to be conducting maneuver. If you have an advantage that you gain (or maintain) by not moving, then that is also maneuver.)

This means that when you choose to shoot with one unit at another, that's tactics. Moving (or not moving) on the tabletop? Tactics. Focusing your fire on a unit or two? Tactics. Deploying in a certain way (castling, refusing a flank)? Tactics.

That being said, there's a lot to tactics in 40k, and many of them have applications in the real world. Big movements, like the big left hook in Desert Storm, don't have an analog in 40k, but those are operational movements, not tactical ones (at least, by my definition). The fights that occurred once that left hook was complete? All tactical.

There is a difference between tactics and strategies. I think 40K is 70% army building and planning and you got 30% tactics with deployment and movement. Redbeard had some good points as well as Stargate but most of 40K revolves around army building and having a said plan for the game depending on the mission.

here are the defenitions I got from dictionary.com

tac·tics ?noun
1. (usually used with a singular verb) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.

strat·e·gy ?noun, plural -gies.
1. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.

I find sufficient level three terrain is the key to tactics. Once you got it, the game becomes a lot more dependend on manouvers. Personally I prefeer woods.

Woods are great when you think about it because every army can make use of them by either closing in behind or gaining initiative and cover save, or delay and devert the opponent, no matter if they are shooty or assault based.