Isn't this the Tactica forum?

[Jackelope King]

A rant in E-minor. Don't take it personally: it's addressed to the board, not to an individual, and it's meant to encourage better discussion.

 

Why is it that whenever anyone asks a question, our first response is to pile on and say, "Add this unit to your list because it's always good in my army"?

 

There's a place for that, but this is the Tactica forum. Shouldn't our first response be more along the lines of, "I find that concentrating fire works well in that situation" or "Holding in reserve at the first turn is a good way to beat Drop Pods"?

 

The reason we should be focusing on that is twofold. First and foremost, making changes to someone's list willy-nilly, without a really firm grasp on how each unit is used, is usually going to be more detrimental than beneficial, simply because of lack of experience with that unit. And we are all guilty of this, myself doubly-so. My first response when I see a Thunderfire Cannon, for instance, is to question the listbuilder's sanity. (*rimshot*) And then I start suggesting very loudly that a Dakka Predator fills a similar role with better survivability and maneuverability. And yet, I'll do this without even considering the fact that the original poster is asking, for instance, how he can beat Eldar.

 

I say this because one of the worst mistakes I see people make time and time again is that they change their lists every week. You ever wonder why some players can win with seemingly awful armies? Because they play them over and over again, week in and week out. They know ever nook and cranny and trick their army is capable of. (That said, the level above that is being able to apply these sorts of skills to any army. But that's for another rant, and you only get to that level by going through this and master your list first.)

 

Reason two is that the "substitution" suggestions we get are all at once too specific and not specific enough. By too specific, I mean that it's tailoring. Tailoring, in my mind, is a whole 'nother rant, but in general, tailoring really denies you the ability to hone your skills with your army. You don't get to swap your Devastators' weapons to Missile Launchers when you find out your next opponent is playing a Tyranid army in a tournament. Holding yourself to a higher standard forces you to improve your list-building skills and your skills with your army, and we're short-changing ourselves. And by "not specific enough", I'll again go back to not fully understanding the original poster's army and playstyle. When I shudder at two Thunderfire Cannons, I might not realize that the poster relies on bolstering the cover save of a set of ruins to 2+ to protect their Firebase, and that it will require a significant shift in that poster's playstyle. Remember, there's more to using a unit than just adding it to your list: a player has to know how to use that unit, and I really think that's what this forum should be focused on.

 

This is the Tactica Forum. Shouldn't our focus be on how to use the units in someone's army, or a general approach to beating certain armies? Doesn't it help many, many more people to suggest not that "replace your captain with a chaplain to beat Dark Eldar", and instead say "castle up and refuse to break apart, forcing the Dark Eldar skimmers to be in range of more of your firepower when they try to move in and Dark Lance your vehicles to death"? Should our first focus be on, well, Tactics, and worry about list-building after that?

 

If you got through all of that, thanks.

[Sparhawk]

I agree with Jack here for the most part. I think unit suggestions can have a place here but all too often I find I'm told to basically overhaul my unit selection and then I'm not given either A. A reason or B. Advice on how to use the new unit.

 

I feel that the place for a complete list overhaul is the Army List forums. This should be the place where I can ask how to make a unit that may be sub-optimal work or learn new interesting ways of using old classics.

 

That having been said I still think this is one of the best message boards out there :lol:

[tahrikmili]

Agreed to some extent, but sometimes people ask about ways out of a situation that the unit in question should not have been in. The reasonable response then is to advise another unit that handles the situation better. Otherwise, we should remember that changing armies costs money and time, and can't be done on a whim, most of the time.

[Mysticaria]

Good point. To be fair though, army composition and army employment are both important tactical considerations. Focussing more on tactics would still be a good thing though.

 

-Myst

[Bannus]

Good points are brought up by all.

 

However, let me devil's advocate and point out that while this is the Tactica subforum, there isn't a subforum for every question or every idea. Sometimes a thread gets moved from one subforum to another simply because it "fits better" in that one than this one - but doesn't necessarily fit well.

 

Another thing to consider is that people will want to share their positive (and negative) experiences - so it is natural for a person to suggest adding/removing a unit from an army based on their own experiences. it is human nature.

 

For the most part, this subforum does focus on tactics, but it does allow for variations on a common theme.

 

You may have noticed the sticky at the top of the forum - where we will be compiling information on tactics and army fighting styles. These threads will be great places for people to expound on their knowledge of certain tactics.

[Jackelope King]

I'll not disagree that army composition is incredibly important. However, I think in the absence of a request for advice on units to include/exclude, our first step with a topic asking for help should be "Tactical consideration X, Y, Z" followed only then by, "And I find this unit is really good at that." We have a whole army-building forum.

[Captain Idaho]

Whilst I'm sure I have suggested unit swaps, most of the time this is refinement to a players list as that is obviously what they are interested.

 

I think what you have brought up though is actually an observation that most people who give advice can't conceive there are any ways to play competetively with that aren't on a check list on the internet as a recognised competetive build.

 

I spend much of my time as nay-sayer on these boards, promoting the virtues of units, weapons and methods that are not thought highly of. Of course I don't do this if I genuinely don't believe what I am saying, so I'm not just saying it.

 

After all how many times have we read "melta is king" when discussing the option of anti-tank firepower or "Thunder Hammer Terminators are the best choice in every Space Marine army" when comparing hammer units in 40K and the like? There are other ways to play 40K and in 5th edition, especially against other 5th edition Codex books, the name of the game is balance rather than niche (in a swiss GT setting anyway).

[Warprat]

I'm playing with an all foot army, 4 Tacs, 2 Tac Terms + HQ just to learn good basic tactics. After a short learning period, I have been holding my own quite well. Frankly, it is surprising to me what even the most basic of forces can do, whithout souping up. Learning how to setup, and when to rapid fire, assault, stand put, run and how it all relates to cover and whatnot is very interesting.

 

I have plenty of other stuff to use, rhinos, assault squads, land speeders, ete... but I am learning to walk, before I try flying. Previously, I would try to power my games with tricked out optimized lists. Now, I am forcing myself to learn the tactics of the game. But I am having even more fun now, than I ever had before.

 

When I have re-mastered walking, I am going to add in transports and one or two other elements, whithout overdoing it.

 

 

Having a great time!

 

Warprat ;)

[Koremu]

Because of two things;

 

Firstly, most threads tend towards all-comers list rather than specific-race (all-comers is the "default" list style under consideration, if you will).

 

Secondly, because there genuinely isn't ever a bad time or a bad target when you're driving a Vindicator.

 

 

 

Otherwise I agree, but there's only so many times I can say "dakka the choppa and choppa the dakka" or "kill the transports and leave the Troops stranded in no-mans land".

[Marshal Wilhelm]

I do agree and understand what you are saying Jackelope King,

 

However.... :D We probably need a team of people writing articles on how to; Reserves, Deep strike, Infiltrate, Scout move, Mech, Foot, Pod, Jump pack, Concentrate fire, Play as a large force, Play as a small force, Move block, Move block counter, etc.

 

Once these articles have been written, people can peruse them and build lists and even build a play style, after having a certain level of education. I have been around the hobby for quite a time and things which seem so obvious as to not need mentioning are like discovering chocolate for other people.

 

With the articles written, the whole spiel doesn't have to be drummed out each time....

 

+++

 

Now my second point; the list. "A bad tradesman always blames his tools" ~ have you heard that saying? What a complete load of rot. If you have rubbish tools, unless you are a maestro, you will produce rubbish work. Sure, with a lot of practice the Brain-surgeon might remove tumours well with a butter knife, but why not use that scalpel?

 

Why not be average with a good list than good with a poor list? They both score the same result, yet the good list has more potential than the poor list. The poor list has already squeezed all its potential out.

 

There were three little pigs; and I would be far more confident being the brick-house pig. I would also rather invest my time and effort into a brick-house pig's list with that central heating, open fire place and shower unit; than pretending that much good can come out of the straw-house pig's list.

 

That is my take on the way it is, for what it is worth.

[Giga]

I disagree with the OP.

 

I, myself, have given indepth replies and opinions on just about every facet of the vanilla marine gameplay. I've written long posts on why I think devastator squads aren't worth it, why I feel mm/hf speeders are the best speeders around and basically mandatory in most vanilla armies, why I find th/ss termies in a LR to be the best counter-assault/assault specialist in the codex, etc.

 

However, when nowadays someone posts questions like "dev squad loadout?" or "what antitank should I use?" I normally reply with things like "dev squads aren't worth it, get a combipred instead", or "mm/hf speeders, mm attack bikes, rifleman dreadnoughts, typhoon speeders, godhammer land raider".

 

This might sound like I'm not really telling them anything, but the point is that we've already discussed tactics on all those units a lot. Those discussions are saved on the tactica forum, and all one needs to do is check if their questions have already been answered, rather then immediately opening new topics about them.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

I, myself, have given indepth replies and opinions on just about every facet of the vanilla marine gameplay. I've written long posts on why I think devastator squads aren't worth it, why I feel mm/hf speeders are the best speeders around and basically mandatory in most vanilla armies, why I find th/ss termies in a LR to be the best counter-assault/assault specialist in the codex, etc.

 

This might sound like I'm not really telling them anything, but the point is that we've already discussed tactics on all those units a lot. Those discussions are saved on the tactica forum, and all one needs to do is check if their questions have already been answered, rather then immediately opening new topics about them.

 

This is why I think we need a stickied thread with unit analysis. Dudes read it and some questions that get asked a lot are already taken care of.

 

This is what I have done so far for Templars; BT ANALYSIS ^_^

 

These are from Advanced Tau Tactica; ATT Academy articles

 

Something like this would be the full cowabunga. :)

 

+++

 

On our search function; I have started threads and know what the title roughly includes, and yet when I 'search' it, it is not even close. It just doesn't do what we need it to :tu:

So if something has a funky title or is one of many 'Devastator' posts, that do not satisfy, it wont help the inquirer.... :ermm:

[mowglie]

I like the sound of a sticky summarising the very high-level accepted wisdom of the forum (We like Riflemen & Typhoons, we don't like Devastators...)

 

It'll have to be very very high-level though, otherwise we'll start disagreeing...

[Giga]

The sad thing is, people rarely read stickies.

[Captain Idaho]

The sad thing is, people rarely read stickies.

 

True, but at least we can post a link when someone asks why we haven't given them more detail ;)

 

As always you make valid points Giga. I think the main problem is the generic nature of tactical questions. People ask for advice and since they aren't talking about their list or what ever, inevitably people end up talking about optimisng a list to perform the tactical suggestions. If people have a specific style of playing and list building and specify so at the beginning of a thread then we can assume that they don't want to be told to change their list into a different style of list. If they don't then we will get a broad spectrum of ideas and suggestions.

[Brother Xeones]

I agree that I'd like to see less on what unit to use and more on how to use the units we've got. I think one of the basic things that holds us back is that tactics are much more complex and situational than are unit suggestions and load-outs. Tactics can vary by not only what units you are facing, but also things like where units are in relation to each other on the table, what turn it is, and what other objectives still need to be accomplished by said unit. These things can be very difficult to explain in a forum setting because there are an infinite number of variables that could change your final decision. So it is somewhat natural for people to resort to giving unit suggestions and general guidelines as to how to use those units instead of discussing the vagaries of actual tactics.

 

Personally, I don't consider choosing units to be a tactical decision. I consider it to be a strategic decision. Some people may dismiss the distinction as inconsequential, but I believe it to be worth mentioning. Tactics are what you use when your models are already on the table and the dice are rolling. Unit analysis and wargear selection have their place, but I agree with JK that I'd love to see more well-thought out discussions about tabletop tactics and fewer threads like "Ven. Dreads: are they worth it?"

[Jackelope King]

As I said, unit selection obviously matters, and if someone brings a crippled list up and asks how to win with it, commenting on the benefits and drawbacks of different units is critical. Obviously that sort of discussion shouldn't be banned or frowned upon or whatever. It's still helpful.

 

But it pales in comparison for many posts. "I'm going to be playing someone with Army X this weekend. Never played them before. What should I do?"

 

"Bring a pair of Thunderfire Cannons!" is not a good answer.

 

"This army can effectively bring a lot of foot infantry with decent mobility. You want to pound them with templates. For my money, that's the Thunderfire Cannon." is much better.

[Brother Xeones]

Yeah, I agree that unit selection is still important. I'd just like to see more tactics and less "TH/SS termieeeeees!!!!!!1" sort of replies.

Your example above about T-fire Cannons is a good example as to how both of these things can be discussed in a balanced manner.

 

The way I look at it, Army List forums and Tactica Forums are both trying to do the same things, but from different angles.

Ideally, I'd say the army list subforum (should) look at units and army lists primarily, and how to use those units as a logical progression, while the Tactica Forum should focus on tactics primarily and unit promotion and list tailoring secondarily. Right now, mostly it seems like the Army Lists subforum is for general army lists, and the tactica section is often the same sort of thing--just without the list.

[ImperialReaper]

The problem is in my opinion that we do not have just tactics to take into account. Since we all have a pointlimit we also have to consider “value for points” and we also have to pay respect to the rock, paper, scissor element of the game.

 

So I often find myself answering in the aforementioned way by recommending to use another unit instead. Most of the time because a unit is just not point effective (like Sgt. Chronus – for his points you can but a complete new predator tank) or the unit just does not suit the task in mind.

[Race Bannon]

I tend to agree with the OP. The problem I'm perceiving comes from the idea that "all-comers" or competitive lists are the default. With that, you get default answers: "Devastators are not worth it", "TH/SS Terminators are best", "don't use X, use Y". Is it irrational to think that a game is designed to provide fun where winning is a byproduct to that goal? Competition makes winning the priority with fun being had along the way.

 

I do understand that optimization is best ... it's an axiom to get the best bargain from the money spent. But this produces the same results: some units are simply the BEST for the points you spend no matter what and these are thrown out as answers to problems.

 

So I agree, we as a community, should be looking at the question like a ship in a bottle and focus on it's merits or faults. I learn more from posters who tell me about those then using their own experience to justify as response. Mileage varies and chance cubes are the variable that can not be accounted for.