Warhammer 40k -II- Tactics for the Tactics God

[Erloas]

Cheese for the Cheese Throne?

Well I've got a topic for a new thread:
How does everyone feel about taking lists tailored to specific enemies (or game types) compared to taking general purpose lists?

Personally even from Fantasy I've never been a fan of tailored lists and have always been in favor of general purpose lists. I think that all units have their uses in any situation, its just a matter of recognizing what that situation might be and putting them to use, even if that use is completely different then what the same unit would be doing against a different opponent.

So far of my 4 games, two have been with a general list and the other two have been somewhat tailored (though generally not more then 1-2 units and a few weapon selections) to the enemies. As of right now I don't see a huge need to tailor a list. In fact I'm thinking I'm going to come up with about 3 lists for 1000 and 1500 and just roll a dice before each game to decide which list I use. I don't think I have the models to make different lists for 2000 points right now (and even the 1000/1500 point lists can't be drastically different) and no one around here plays less then 1000 points. I feel that while it might cause me to loose more games early on it will give me a much better feel for what each unit is capable of against every opponent and make me a better player overall. It should also help if I start playing in any tournements, which doesn't seem highly likely (since there are none close to where I live) but maybe, since some of the other players seem to take a few trips for tournements.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Link back to the original thread.

On Tailored Lists
As an Eldar player, I'm surprised to hear your (Erloas) opinion on this matter. Of all the armies, Eldar benefit most from tailoring.

For heavy infantry armies you want more fusion guns and star cannons. Banshees look nice, as do Reapers.

For light infantry armies you want more scatterlasers and shuriken cannons. Scorpions over Banshees, Shadowweavers are also nice.

For melee forces, invest in vehicles. For shooty forces, keep them to a minimum.

Now, this is less pressing than in previous editions, but you can get huge power boosts by cutting out improper specializations and focusing on the goo ones.

[Ghal Marak]

Thank you very much for the help Erloas.

Well I'm not positive on the abilities of the Grey Knights, but I believe they are close combat oriented SMs with a few very strong attacks. I'm not sure on your options so I'll go with that general idea.

Yeah, a Grey Knight has WS5, counts as Str6 in close combat, and they have True Grit. They also have The Shrouding, which is kinda like a weaker stealth suit, and they all can resist psyker powers.

The problem against tyrnids is of course that you just don't have the attacks to kill them in CC. Against some things you could probably do pretty good, probably the monsters with a fewer attacks, though they would be unsavable. Against most things in the army you aren't going to be going first and they are throwing enough dice (or ignoring armor) that you are going to have people die.

Yeah, from what I've seen Genestealers obliterate anything they can get into CC with. Next time I just need to make sure my guys get the charge. The Tyranid players here never skip taking the 'stealers.

The one thing about all space marines though, is that while they specialize in one thing, they are better at their weak point then are other armies. Specialized marines also aren't as good at their specialization as other armies that are specialized in the same thing. Shoot marines aren't going to out-shoot Tau and CC marines aren't going to out CC Orks or Tyrnids. In some cases it comes down to stats/weapons, but in most cases it simply comes down to not having enough models, 50 pretty good attacks are better then 10 really good attacks.

Yeah, I understand that. In one 1000 point game, I only had 35 models!

So even with a CC oriented SM army, against an opponent like tyrnids you are still going to have to do a lot of fighting at range and try to avoid CC until you have the upper hand. The other option is of course cover, stay in cover as much as possible and force them to assault through cover giving you the chance to attack first. With the difficult terrain test they are less likely to get everyone into combat and it will take fewer wounds to make it so they don't get any attacks back.

Unless they take flesh hooks. But yeah, cover is kinda important I guess. I haven't exactly been utilizing it as well as I could have.

The other main thing about being outnumbered is that it is much easier for your opponent to focus several units on one of yours at a time. And if you don't have your units close together to help support eachother then they can focus one unit down and suffer little damage in return. You might make a couple cheap-as-you-can-get-them units for bait to die your opponent up a turn or two and to make sure you get an extra round of concentrated fire or several of your units against a few of his in CC.

Huh... yeah, that could work. A squad of 5 Inquisitorial Stormtroopers costs only 50 points, and would act as a good screen for Grey Knights. It would be perfect to set up a charge.

And of course when you have weapon upgrade choices you should be focusing more on mass damage and less on the big hits. You still need a few things to take out the mosterous creatures, but with psyker and force weapons along with a reasonable str you should be able to handle them fairly well. A 20 point monster killer doesnt do much good if there are 40 grunts between you and that monster and you can only kill a few at a time.

The problem is that Grey Knight's don't have many weapon upgrades. The Psycannon seems to excell at a variable role (with Str6, AP4, and either Heavy 3 or assult 3, ignores invuln saves). The Incinerator is alright (a heavy flamer that ignores invuln saves), though I prefer to keep the enemy at range. Though I do see how that would help with the Dreadnought. I've been taking a Twin-Linked Autocannon and Missile Launcher, and was debating taking the Lascannon instead.

The same concepts, but in some cases reversed (ie shooty marines vs shooty opponents) is true for all marines. Fight to your opponnets weakness, not necessarily to your str, because being a general purpose army SMs are out specilized but can still do a bit of everything. And don't let your opponent focus too many of their units on one of yours without making sure you have some way to make them pay for it afterwords. Which should kind of answer JMobius's question as well.

Thanks again. I think I know what to do now.

EDIT: Oh, and I've been playing tailored lists. I think I'll try a general list next.

EDIT 2: Dang, I about missed this one. Thanks grinner.

Spoiler

Show

From what I can see you can either play Daemonhunters as a Space Marine army, or as an Imperial Guard army with superior HQ, Elites and Fast Attack choices. In either case, against Tyranids I'd take some ordnance-type Heavy Support choices ... Whirlwinds or Leman Russ tanks ... in order to thin out the ranks of the Tyranid horde before it gets into assault range.

Well, that's if I use the Allied SM or Inducted IG lists. So far I've only been playing a pure Deamonhunters force, which does not have access to many different tanks (only Land Raiders). Hmm... perhaps I'll try an Allied Space Marine list next.

In any case I'd probably avoid mixing IG troops with Grey Knights in the Troops section ... the high cost of the Grey Knights will attenuate the big advantage of IG - numbers, and the lack of BS, WS and heavy armor on the part of IG will likewise attenuate the strengths of the Grey Knights.

Alright, so if I go Inducted IG, stick with Stormtroopers.

Since it seems the psycannon and incinerator would be particularly effective against Tyranids, I'd suggest playing your army as Space Marines. I would, however, mix up Grey Knights squads with normal Space Marine tac squads ... that way you'll have some more standard heavy weapons available against those high-Toughness monsters.

Yeah, so far I am loving the Psycannon, but it does not quite make up for the other heavy weapons.

Of course, this is mostly theoretical knowledge as I've never actually played or fought against a Daemonhunter army ...

Well, it all sounds correct, so you can't be far off.

[Erloas]

Sorry about not linking to the other thread, I had to redo this one twice because the site wasn't loading (probably on my end, our internet at work is fairly unreliable) and forgot about that sort of thing.


As for specializing lists, that came more from a few years of fantasy then just a few games of 40k. It might change with more experience, but as of right now that is still how I feel. When I specilized my list against SMs at 1000 points it almost didn't seem fair, I lost maybe 6 models total and wiped him out the the last marine.

Although I still believe it probably leads to being a better player if you can use what you have to the best of its ability rather then having to have something exactly made for it. The fact that I did that a lot in fantasy and still managed to get good with Dark Elves (another specilized sort of army) is one of the reasons I believe I was able to get victories in my first 4 games with the Eldar, at notably difficult race to play (according to everything I've read). 3 of them were very massive victories and the other was also a solid victory and 3 of the 4 players have been playing 40k for quite a while, the other has been playing longer then me, but probably not longer then about 6 months to a year.

None of the games so far had super powerful single units or really tooled up characters, so things might change if I start facing those sorts of things. I don't think that sort of thing is common practice for the local players here though.


I think some of it comes down to MSU though, (many small units) a tactic I picked up and now live by since playing the Dark Elves. Its built around the fact that nothing in the army is overly powerful and expensive, so anything can be lost without it being a huge loss. It also means if you don't have a single unit taking up 30-40% of your points that is tailored for a specific type of enemy that has to be changed because your opponent changes. Since I have a minimal investment in a decidedly anti-horde or anti-MEQ chioces then facing the other type means a minimal amount of points going to something I can't do anything with.

I'll see how things go this weekend when I expect I'll have a fight with a tyrnid playing looking for revenge (after the aformentioned wasting of his SMs) and I'm going to be fielding a general purpose list.

[Winterwind]

Now I have the picture of two guys in my mind, each with a four foot high pile of lists, who keep yelling at each other:
"So you focus on vehicles, eh? Sucks to be you, I'm gonna use my speedy vehicle killer list!"
- "Oh yeah? Well, in that case, I'm going to use my supremely shooty infantery list!"
- "My close combat horde list is going to wipe out your supremely shooty infantery!"
- "Your close combat horde list? Ha! My mass explosive shooting heavy weapon list will make you eat your close combat horde list!"
- "Oh yeah? Well, my..."



More seriously though, I figure I would adjust my list to what the opponent was likely to field (amongst other... I would also adjust according to what I'd feel like fielding the most, and whether there'd be any fluff motivations to use some units over the others), if I had a sufficiently big and flexible army for that.
Since, however, I need an army at all in the first place, for now it's going to be a general purpose one.

Speaking of which, while I don't want to interrupt the current discussion, I have a minor question: I was reading a German WH40k forum, and somebody there posted that he would not recommend using the Games Workshop glue. The one reason he stated explicitly was price, whether he was referring to quality as well or not was unclear from that statement. Now, what I was wondering about was whether the GW glue was of decent quality or whether you too would recommend using a different one (I'm not going to waste time by looking through a dozen of shops in search of a different glue only to save a few cents; if, on the other hand, the GW glue does not hold stuff together at all, that's an entirely different matter).

Yeah, from what I've seen Genestealers obliterate anything they can get into CC with. Next time I just need to make sure my guys get the charge. The Tyranid players here never skip taking the 'stealers.

Seeing how Genestealers have superior initiative either way, and likely won't leave much of whatever is assaulting them, I'm not sure if whether you have one attack more or less which hardly anything is going to live long enough for to use is going to make all that much of a difference...

Yeah, I understand that. In one 1000 point game, I only had 35 models!

Okay, now I'm scared. My 1000 point list counts only 35 models too (and that only if I count the Rhino!), and from what I hear Gray Knights are a more elite army than CSM, aren't they?

[onasuma]

Okay, now I'm scared. My 1000 point list counts only 35 models too (and that only if I count the Rhino!), and from what I hear Gray Knights are a more elite army than CSM, aren't they?

Rankings in terms of all marines as i see them:

Regular (chaos or imperium, both work differently. Probably chaos, as they're cheaper
Chosen
noise marines
Thousand sons (- sorceror)
space marine vets (stern/van guard)
Grey knights
Bezerkers
Plague marines

Thats how I see them in terms of gameplay usefulness.

Grey knights are basic marines with Ws5 and power weapons and with S6 sergents. A squad of bezerkers hits with alot more attacks, so many more i feel it easily makes up for the lack of power, but due to the point costs, they're even better.

As Im sure all of you are aware, i really rate plague marines. The suvivability of them, the fact you can grab two plamas in a 5 man squad, the awesome conversions that can be done easily makes them the best basic marine unit in the game in my opinion.

Edit: ok, grey knights also have storm bolters... They're probably better than bezerkers then...

[Winterwind]

Well, I guess it's okay then... my army has roughly as many entries above as below the Gray Knights on your list. Phew.

[grinner666]

Seeing how Genestealers have superior initiative either way, and likely won't leave much of whatever is assaulting them, I'm not sure if whether you have one attack more or less which hardly anything is going to live long enough for to use is going to make all that much of a difference...

Genestealers are nowhere near as scary as they used to be in 3E, when their attacks were all considered to be power weapons. Rending's got nothing on that. Any heavily-armored squad should be able to do fairly well against Genestealers. In fact I could easily see a Striking Scorpion squad backed up by a Farseer's Doom and Fortune powers kicking the living snot out of a Genestealer brood.

Unless I'm missing something?



Oh, well ... that's what ordnance weapons are there for.

[Bryn]

Standard Grey Knights have, compared to regular Marines...
S6
WS 5
Storm bolters
Fearless
True Grit
The Aegis (an anti-psychic-power effect)
The Shrouding (they can only be shot if they're within 3d6*3")
A couple of rules which only affect Daemons.

They also have the chance to Deep Strike if taken as Fast Attack instead of Troops.

Advice for dealing with Genestealers:
Don't charge them. Genestealers, particularly with upgrades, are terrifying in close combat, and against all but some Eldar they will strike first and they will decimate your unit before you can do a thing against them (especially with defenders piling in under 5e).

Get into terrain - this will let you get some hits in when they charge you, hopefully killing enough to save your unit. Thankfully, Genestealers don't get any sort of frag-grenade equivalent as far as I can tell.

Templates, especially AP4 templates like the Inferno Cannon and Heavy Flamer, are your best friends. Most armies can't get Hellhounds, but multiple heavy flamers work just as well. If the Stealers are foolish enough to run across open ground don't hesitate to drop blast markers on them.

Edit: I should add that I'm speaking here as an Imperial Guard player. It might be that you have better odds as an army with lots of close combat weapons.

The Genestealers will be hitting on a 3+ all the time - Feeder Tendrils costs an entire 1 point to add its effect (favoured enemy) to the entire brood. Though Rending has been nerfed, it's still nasty - no armour in the game will protect you against every six they roll to wound. If the Stealer player spends 4 points (not per model, just 4 points) they'll also be re-rolling to wound.

Perhaps not as bad as all power weapons (), but still very good and definitely not something you want to be in combat with.

[grinner666]

Thankfully, Genestealers don't get any sort of frag-grenade equivalent as far as I can tell.

Flesh Hooks.

[Winterwind]

Unless I'm missing something?

I don't know, I'm the newbie here.

All I know is that in one of my few games, when I was facing Tyranids, those gaunts managed to cause quite a few losses... and when I heard the 'stealers profile, even more impressive, I panicked a bit... (fortunately, none of them managed to get into CC )
That might have traumatized me a bit with regards to Tyranid CC forces.

[Bryn]

Flesh Hooks.

Ah, snap. Apparently, I skipped over that sentence.

Right, fear them even more now. Getting into cover will at least let you strike at the same time as the Stealers, but it's of questionable value when they all get the extra charging attack.

It depends if you think you can have a reasonable amount of units survive a whole load of 3+ to hit, reroll to wound, rending close combat attacks. If you don't think so, get into cover and try to take some with you! If you do think you can survive the initial attack, then go ahead and deny them an extra 6-12 attacks.

[onasuma]

I don't know, I'm the newbie here.

All I know is that in one of my few games, when I was facing Tyranids, those gaunts managed to cause quite a few losses... and when I heard the 'stealers profile, even more impressive, I panicked a bit... (fortunately, none of them managed to get into CC )
That might have traumatized me a bit with regards to Tyranid CC forces.

A little advise for dealing with those massed tyranid swarms:

Get as many really, really cheap dreadnoughts as you can. have each charge a different swarmy troop choice (not stealers though). That squad is now effectivly out of the game unless your opponent decides to give a larger creature to the cause, giving you alot more guns at the other targets.

[grinner666]

The Genestealers will be hitting on a 3+ all the time - Feeder Tendrils costs an entire 1 point to add its effect (favoured enemy) to the entire brood. Though Rending has been nerfed, it's still nasty - no armour in the game will protect you against every six they roll to wound.

Then why aren't players as terrified of Eldar Rangers as everybody seems to be of Genestealers? Again, a one-in-six chance of no armor save beats the hell out of no armor save, period.

If the Stealer player spends 4 points (not per model, just 4 points) they'll also be re-rolling to wound.

Sorry, no. Dead wrong. The codex specifically says,

... the whole brood may be equipped with weapon-symbiotes or biomorph enhancements chosen from the following list at the points cost indicated per model.

(Codex: Tyranids p. 39)

That means a Genestealer brood that wants the Acid Maw upgrade costs 20 points per model ... and still has a lousy 5+ armor save. They can turn that to a 4+ save, sure ... but that means they cost 24 points per model. They can quickly become far, far more expensive than space marines ... in fact, more expensive than Wraithguard ... with only a so-so armor save and no chance to wound really tough targets. Again, they're just not that scary any more. And if a brood that costs 36 points per model survives long enough to wipe out a Space Marine tactical squad, more power to 'em. They deserve to.

Right, fear them even more now. Getting into cover will at least let you strike at the same time as the Stealers, but it's of questionable value when they all get the extra charging attack.

Again, nope. Assault (frag and plasma) grenades let everybody attack as normal (i.e on his usual initiative), not simultaneously.

It depends if you think you can have a reasonable amount of units survive a whole load of 3+ to hit, reroll to wound, rending close combat attacks. If you don't think so, get into cover and try to take some with you! If you do think you can survive the initial attack, then go ahead and deny them an extra 6-12 attacks.

See above on the whole re-rolling to wound thing. What I don't understand is why anybody worries that much about them. Sure they can (sort of) move fast (I distrust movement based on a die roll), but they need to; one good shot with any ordnance weapon ... or a decent turn's shooting by most Troops squads ... will turn the "terrifying" Genestealer brood into chopped meat.

Get as many really, really cheap dreadnoughts as you can. have each charge a different swarmy troop choice (not stealers though). That squad is now effectivly out of the game unless your opponent decides to give a larger creature to the cause, giving you alot more guns at the other targets.

Why not against Genestealers? Is it because of the 10 AV at the rear?

First, even if the brood has spent the points to get the Acid Maw upgrade, rolling to wound is not the same as rolling for armor penetration. That's why every other weapon with special "to wound" rules has completely separate rules on penetrating armor. As far as I'm concerned, no special rules in this case means no advantage to the Tyranid player.

But even if the 'Nid player whines and you decide to allow it (the rule is everybody's supposed to have fun, right?), so what? He STILL needs a 6 to get a glancing hit against the dreadnought's weakest armor.

In fact, slide a Dark Eldar Raider squad up on 'em and let 'em chop the 'Nids into tiny bitz with gunfire while they ride their Raider, safe as can be.

Good Gawd, I never thot I'd say that about anybody inside a Raider ...

[Ash08]

I too have a great fear of genestealers... in one of my more recent games a broodlord and a squad of genestealers smashed through my tactical line and into my 4 heavy bolter devastator squad... it was carnage... in the first assualt phase 7 out of the 10 marines in the devastator squad were killed... the only thing that made the situation any better was the termies near by... but of course, they got slaughtered by the rending claws, their low initative and my bad luck on the invanurable save... needless to say I lost the game deprived of 2 of my best units and surrounded by tyranids is not the best way to go... and the fact that the lictors came the next turn...*shiver* that was my least favorite battle so far...

[DranWork]

As a nid player i really dont understand why people are so scared of Genes anymore. They have become far to over priced for something that can be cut down by gun fire well before it ever becomes useful. Yes re-rolls to wounds and ignoreing armor is great and dandy but for the simple fact that they can be wiped out by a noob with a flashlight they really arnt all that great anymore. The basic Gene costs a butt load then adding anythign extra to the brood just brings them up in points so quickly. That said i always play with a squad of them just for the attempted backline smash that they can be capable of and the fact that everyone sinks so much fire power into getting rid of them. Personaly my Winged tyrant has always outdone its self where the gene's couldnt. Being able to better pick the weak targets and quickly dispactching them whilst giveing synap coverage around the enemy's frount line is always a bonus imo. Gene's do a great job at getting my opponant to forget about the 2 units of 20 horm's i have rushing over the board.. cant tell you how many time people forget them hahah brilliant.

Personaly with Gray Knights ive always thought that they are better served as a gun line, Storm bolters are great and if people are stupid enough to actualy get into close combat with them then its their own fault for comeing up against the w6 slayers of demons. An entire Gray knight Army however.. hrm.. difficult as they are hampered by having such an old codex. They need an upgrade but not as much as DE.

[Da King]

Speaking of which, while I don't want to interrupt the current discussion, I have a minor question: I was reading a German WH40k forum, and somebody there posted that he would not recommend using the Games Workshop glue. The one reason he stated explicitly was price, whether he was referring to quality as well or not was unclear from that statement. Now, what I was wondering about was whether the GW glue was of decent quality or whether you too would recommend using a different one (I'm not going to waste time by looking through a dozen of shops in search of a different glue only to save a few cents; if, on the other hand, the GW glue does not hold stuff together at all, that's an entirely different matter).

I've used GW glue to build all of my models, and I have never had any issues with quality. Many of my miniatures have survived a large fall perfectly intact!
It is kind of expensive though, and I'm sure its possible to get a glue just as good at a lower price. Perhaps try here?

On the topic of Tyranids, I have had absolutely no luck against them at all. A friend recently started playing them, and out of about 7 games, I won one, and only because it was a 3-way and he spilt his forces badly.

Anyway, I've been doing horribly with my Imperial Guard army ever since I started playing them, and I really don't know what I'm doing wrong. Anyone want to help me make a good 1500 pt army list?

[grinner666]

Games Workshop products are idiotically expensive ... eight bucks for a bottle of modeling cement??!!? Come on ... you can get a tube of Testors for three.

I frankly have quit using anything from GW except their models ... which are also ridiculously overpriced, but what the #@$%^& are you gonna do? There are loads of other paint manufacturers out there, "green stuff" is just plumber's epoxy in a fancy package, you can get flock and other terrain-building materials at a miniature railroad store, other terrain materials can be had at Homeowner Hell, fer gosh sakes ... cheaper alternatives that are just as good, or even better, than Games Workshop abound.

BTW shouldn't this conversation be in the Warhammer Models thread?

[Bryn]

Grinner, please would you reduce the amount of bold text... just a little? It's hard to read so much bold without imagining /tg/'s rage smily - emphasis generally indicates ANGER on the Internet, and I would rather hope you aren't getting angry about the Tyranid rules.

It may well be the case that I've misunderstood the rules for Genestealers. I'm away from books right now, but certain upgrades, Acid Maw among them (IIRC), were marked with a footnote saying that only one Genestealer was allowed to take them (these items having special rules that affected the whole unit - again, IIRC). To me, that seemed to imply that you didn't have to pay that cost per model but rather pay for it only once to go on one Stealer (why else bother to state that the brood can only take one?); according to you, that was wrong. If so, MA BAD GUYS

Anyway, my terror of Genestealers probably comes from the previous edition, before Rending got nerféd. Even now, though, I find that stuff that gets charged by Stealers will die. Of course, my Guard die if anything more than a fly charges them, but I vaguely remember my Marines faring similarly.

It's probably a subjective thing, but I've had units survive, say, Ork charges but never Genestealer charges (admittedly mostly under 4e). This is perhaps because the slower-moving Orks have time to be decimated by various templates before they get close, while the Genestealers are very fast.

By the way, Genestealers would be very unlikely to hit the rear armour of a Dreadnought in close combat, because Walkers are the exception to the rule that hits are resolved against rear armour under 5e. The Stealers would hit the front of the 'Nought, not the rear.

Old-style Rending meant Genestealers had a reasonable chance at killing lightly armoured vehicles. The new version means that they still have a small chance to damage a lightly armoured vehicle. Because they get quite a lot of attacks, there is a fair chance that there will be at least a few vehicle-wrecking hits on a charge.

[Winterwind]

As a nid player i really dont understand why people are so scared of Genes anymore.

Might have to do with the looks.

I've used GW glue to build all of my models, and I have never had any issues with quality. Many of my miniatures have survived a large fall perfectly intact!
It is kind of expensive though, and I'm sure its possible to get a glue just as good at a lower price. Perhaps try here?

Thank you very much. I'll be going to the GW store today or (more likely) tomorrow, so it's good to know that now.

[Eldan]

Heh. I saw that very interesting game once, were a tyranid army, heavy on the genestealers, fought against an eldar army, heavy on harlequin. The guts were flying everywhere.

[Zorg]

Why not against Genestealers? Is it because of the 10 AV at the rear?

Probably due to rending. Besides, dreads are walkers so all hits are to the front armour now. The stealers would need to rend on a 6 to 'wound', and still get a 3,4 to glance and 5,6 to penetrate.

Or get an Ironclad - better armour, more hand to hand goodness and can take twin heavy flamers.

[Winterwind]

And now for a discussion that, I think, might cause some controversy.

In that German WH40k forum, there was an old discussion (from an older edition, I think) where somebody criticized that in Warhammer 40k
1. whoever gets the first turn wins,
2. whoever has the better army list wins,
3. WH40k lacks tactical depth.
To my great amazement, quite a few people agreed with him. Not exactly something I would have expected on a WH40k site.

Now, what do you think about this? Myself, while I lack decisive experience, don't think he was right; sure, other tabletop wargames might offer more movement possibilities and greater importance of terrain, but WH40k still requires just as much foresight and thinking ahead so that every unit ends up where it is needed the most, and due to the lethality of the system, where entire units can be eradicated in a single turn weighing one's options and choosing the right targets and movements is all the more important (BattleTech, for example, is far more forgiving of single mistakes). Getting the first turn might allow a few shots at valuable targets before they can act, but with proper placement shouldn't do all that much damage either. And the army list is only as good as its usage.

[grinner666]

Probably due to rending. Besides, dreads are walkers so all hits are to the front armour now. The stealers would need to rend on a 6 to 'wound', and still get a 3,4 to glance and 5,6 to penetrate.

Or get an Ironclad - better armour, more hand to hand goodness and can take twin heavy flamers.

Good Gawd. I wonder, does he also never take a Land Raider if the force he's facing might have multi-meltas? When you've got to roll a 6 for AP, followed by another 5 or 6, again for AP, then followed by yet another 5 or 6 on the damage table, all in the same turn, to destroy the thing, I think the standard Dreadnought can be considered fairly safe from Genestealers.

[Pronounceable]

^^^^That'd be Athena, I think.

Go on, go on. Just mindless trolling. Nothing to see here.

[Zenos]

And now for a discussion that, I think, might cause some controversy.

In that German WH40k forum, there was an old discussion (from an older edition, I think) where somebody criticized that in Warhammer 40k
1. whoever gets the first turn wins,
2. whoever has the better army list wins,
3. WH40k lacks tactical depth.
To my great amazement, quite a few people agreed with him. Not exactly something I would have expected on a WH40k site.

Now, what do you think about this? Myself, while I lack decisive experience, don't think he was right; sure, other tabletop wargames might offer more movement possibilities and greater importance of terrain, but WH40k still requires just as much foresight and thinking ahead so that every unit ends up where it is needed the most, and due to the lethality of the system, where entire units can be eradicated in a single turn weighing one's options and choosing the right targets and movements is all the more important (BattleTech, for example, is far more forgiving of single mistakes). Getting the first turn might allow a few shots at valuable targets before they can act, but with proper placement shouldn't do all that much damage either. And the army list is only as good as its usage.

1. On the other hand, going second is considered rather nice in capture missions, where you can make a last minute dash to gain control of a piece or destroy a squad holding a capture point.

2. Whie I agree that newer army lists with more support will be stronger, it is by no means a guarantee that the player will use the pieces the right way (Termies charging Leman Russ Demos as exaggerated example), or have the right priorities.

3. I don't have so much to comment on I have not played often enough. However, I do know I've been able to demolish a Tau kill-team whilst playing IG by good use of cover. That, however, is not the standart way of fighting battles, so not all that applicable.

[Erloas]

And now for a discussion that, I think, might cause some controversy.

In that German WH40k forum, there was an old discussion (from an older edition, I think) where somebody criticized that in Warhammer 40k
1. whoever gets the first turn wins,
2. whoever has the better army list wins,
3. WH40k lacks tactical depth.
To my great amazement, quite a few people agreed with him. Not exactly something I would have expected on a WH40k site.

I've heard a fair amount between fantasy and 40k saying that fantasy has a lot more tactical depth, and at first glance it seems a fair statement, but I'll have to play more to say for sure. The movement in fantasy is a lot more important and combined charges have a lot more importance. However the huge range of diversity between 40k units' cababilities introduces new challenges and the importance of gear doing something other then just adding str or attacks makes those sorts of things more important. How that compares to other game systems I couldn't say much about.

The addition of kill points rather then just unit cost simplifies some aspects of tactics and army list building, but it makes other aspects of them more complex. Also the fact that there are 3 completely different deployment types and mission adds a lot of tactical depth and makes it so that over a few games no single army list is always going to have the advantage.

The first turn gets the win is not something I agree with at all, especially not now given the fact that the person with the first turn deploys first and the defender knows they are going second before anything of theirs is on the table means any reasonably competent player shouldn't fair too poorly in the first turn. The second player might be able to sieze the initiative, but they can't deploy to take advantage of that because its not likely to happen.

The better amy list wins I think more comes down to how good a particular player is with their army list. There are ways of skewing things to your favor with an army list, but with the different mission types (rolled after you pick your list) no army list is going to be best in all situations. On a game-by-game basis army lists will have a noticable impact, but over a series of games with different deployement types, mission types, and a random set of enemies then the balance of the army list becomes more important then being set up to win in a specific situation. That sort of thing isn't as likely to come up in casual gaming as it is in tournements when you are required to have a single army list and no idea what type of army you are going to be facing.

Also in terms of tactical depth, it also depends on the armies, some armies require more then others. MEQ armies are less dependant on terrain and are more versatile and survivable then anyone else so their tactics in the movement phase is less vital then some other armies. Seeing as how there are a lot of MEQ armies around, if thats all you are facing or playing as then some of the tactical depth is lost.


Once you get into a highly competative environement with a lot of players of very good skill levels, then a few little advantages such as army list or first turn will seem more important.

[Zorg]

In that German WH40k forum, there was an old discussion (from an older edition, I think) where somebody criticized that in Warhammer 40k
1. whoever gets the first turn wins,
2. whoever has the better army list wins,
3. WH40k lacks tactical depth.
To my great amazement, quite a few people agreed with him. Not exactly something I would have expected on a WH40k site.

Now, what do you think about this? Myself, while I lack decisive experience, don't think he was right; sure, other tabletop wargames might offer more movement possibilities and greater importance of terrain, but WH40k still requires just as much foresight and thinking ahead so that every unit ends up where it is needed the most, and due to the lethality of the system, where entire units can be eradicated in a single turn weighing one's options and choosing the right targets and movements is all the more important (BattleTech, for example, is far more forgiving of single mistakes). Getting the first turn might allow a few shots at valuable targets before they can act, but with proper placement shouldn't do all that much damage either. And the army list is only as good as its usage.

1. Blatantly not true - I've lost plenty of games going first ;)

2. Well if I took a marine list of minimum troops and all devestators with multi-meltas against a swarm tyranid force then, yeah of course a better written list will win. A better list is, by defenition, better, so I would agree one with more thought put in to it has a higher chance of winning. The only weaker codexes are those left behind by rules changes (DE, Necrons and Daemonhunters).

3. I would agree partially - it does when compared to some other games, but it does have depth, albeit very unrealistic depth.

For insance the Stargrunt rules are sci-fi platoon based combat. They have detailed rules for morale, communications and whatnot, attempting to simulate a "real world", where soldiers actually act like people (for example if a squad member gets wounded the squad either has to lug him around or abandon them and risk a drop in morale and effectiveness). it is possible to win simply by pouring suppressive fire onto the enemy until they break and retreat without sustaining casualties. Hugely different playstyle to 40k, where you throw troops into the meatgrinder and whoever is left standing at the end wins.

But that's what it is - a big, over the top sci-fi explosionfest. It is more a board game than a realistic depiction of combat, but chess is a board game and few would say it lacks tactical depth. i like 40K, I think it's fun, entertaining and, yes, playing against a good opponent is a challenge more than the luck of the dice.

I think that playing against 'random' opponents would lead to lack of tactical depth, insofar as you may be less likely to experiment or try a crazy army list at a tournament. For instance my best friend plays Tau, I play marines. last game he threw me a curveball by not taking a single vehicle - he had two squad of kroot and a heap of fire warriors. He'd never fielded an infantry heavy list like that before, so my army had to do some compensating and wasn't as effective as it could have been (multi-meltas not too good against a wall of fire warriors).

I in turn suprised him by eschewing the wall of rhinos and drop podded in, resulting in massive carnage as we both had to grapple with this new situation. I found it quite a tricky situation as I essentially landed in the centre of his army, so deciding who to shoot at, who to charge with and even where to try and land the drop pods (landed one right infront of his broadsides, totally blocking their LoS).

Had it been a tournament situation both armies would probably have been of a more balanced composition, and more 'standard' tactics.

So yeah, long rambling reply to that one

[Bryn]

Disagreed on 1, insufficient data for comparison on 3.

Regarding 2.
It is probably the case that the players' army lists have a large effect in how the game goes. Since I don't have any plasma available (thanks to GW/FW prices), my Guard have lots of trouble dealing with Marine armies, but because they have a number of templates and blast markers, they are very cruel on horde armies (particularly Orks). Army list seems to be a big factor in how

I definitely wouldn't say it's everything though. While it's possible for one player to have an army totally unsuited to what's going on, it seems that most of the time the games are fairly balanced.

As for the actual codices themselves... there is a fair bit of codex creep, but to such a huge degree that the new list is guaranteed to beat the old one, at least by my reckoning.

Really, though, I'm not one to talk about tactics and balance and such. I never play in tournaments, nor do I get a decent game frequently enough to say with any reliability about what wins and what doesn't. In my subjective experience, the Tyranid player almost always wipes the floor with the rest of us, but that doesn't tell us anything reallly.


As for #3...
40k is the only miniatures wargame that I play anywhere near enough to say how it compares in terms of tactical depth.

Still, in my experience, it has not always been too simple. This is probably for a few reasons...

• Never playing 'kill everyone' slugfests. Though sometimes my enemies are just there for the killing, I always play with objectives. Much more interesting...
• Adding enough terrain that the table is near breaking point. Since I got those buildings, I'm pretty sure I've never played without 'em. I generally try to put my entire terrain collection on the board, and preferably in an interesting configuration. Line of sight prevents the game from being too straightforward. Naturally, it does give the 'nids more things to hide behind...
• Not following conventional tactics. Apparently, a Guard player will normally set up a gunline, with a heavy weapon team in every infantry squad, and pretty much skip the movement phase. I generally run all my squads out into the middle of the board, playing Guard rather like Orks. It's probably ineffective, but it's entertaining, and leads to some interesting situations...

I couldn't actually say whether that adds the nebulous 'tactical depth' to 40k. It makes it fun, though.

Uncharitable tl;dr version: I play 40k wrong, so I know nuffin'!

[Erloas]

Still, in my experience, it has not always been too simple. This is probably for a few reasons...

• Never playing 'kill everyone' slugfests. Though sometimes my enemies are just there for the killing, I always play with objectives. Much more interesting...
• Adding enough terrain that the table is near breaking point. Since I got those buildings, I'm pretty sure I've never played without 'em. I generally try to put my entire terrain collection on the board, and preferably in an interesting configuration. Line of sight prevents the game from being too straightforward. Naturally, it does give the 'nids more things to hide behind...
• Not following conventional tactics. Apparently, a Guard player will normally set up a gunline, with a heavy weapon team in every infantry squad, and pretty much skip the movement phase. I generally run all my squads out into the middle of the board, playing Guard rather like Orks. It's probably ineffective, but it's entertaining, and leads to some interesting situations...

As for the first point, I would say go with the deployment and mission types out of the books sometimes, they make things interesting, and 2/3 of them are objective based, though differently. And while anihilation does get old if thats all you do it does also change a fair number of things from objective based games too.

As for terrain, I've seen some people that believe it also doesn't matter and have played games without any, which is just bad. Of course the trick to terrain is finding a good balance of it, if the board is so full that you have to take terrain tests every time you move no matter what and everything is always in cover without even trying then you have a bit too much. Its as true for other games as well, such as Fantasy and Battletech. Types of terrain have varying degrees of impact on each army and having too much could just as easily skew a fight towards some armies as having too little.
I think in general locally we play with about 6-8 pieces on a 4'x6' board, most of the terrain being about 8-12" across. It seems to be a pretty good balance. It also makes a big difference in fantasy (where most of my experience comes from) but they generally run a few less objects because movement is done a lot differently.

Not following conventional tactics can help a lot, especially if your opponents are used to a very set way of facing your army. One thing I've noticed, which was especially bad on Druchii.net, was that once a forum community settles on an idea they tend to believe nothing else is even practical. Which is one of the reasons why I'm spending (too much) time here discussing 40k rather then going to a site like Warseer or 40konline. Just today I was checking 40konline and they had 3-4 people looking over someones list and said their unit of 3 jetbikes was too small and vulnerable to be of any use. The same configuration of jetbikes that where probably some of my most useful units in the games I've played so far. I know from fantasy that there are a lot of armies that people insisted had to be played one specific way that I knew could be played substantially differently and still be effective.

(*I really should find something else to do at work... something a bit more work related perhaps*)