The internet list paradigm.

[Niiai]

It seems to be that when you se I am having problems vs something on the net, the solution is always to change up the list.

 

That is because it is mutch easier to compare lists then to compare tactics. But it should be posible to have and all comers list and being abel to take on all oponents based on skill. Anyway, how is it psoible to encurage people to focus on tactical tips vs army list tips?

[nurglez]

its rather difficult, because you need to basically watch them fight in order to judge their tactics. even a battle report with pictures doesn't tell us as much as we'd like about the game.

 

with a superior list vs a worse list, the superior list should win, based on similar level of skill and luck, however, skill and luck are 2 things we can't judge on the interwebs.

 

So it comes down to list judging.

[Wysten]

A great list should have duelity built into most units, so that it is easily capable of taking on Armour or Infantry. of what list is put onto the table, the list being wielded is capable of dealing with it. Though there are some exceptions to that rule, Broadsides in Tau are so good at handling armor that they are good for that role

 

Of course, it may not always be a 100% matchup, but thats where the tactican comes in to ensure that the balienced list can react approately vs the other list.

 

Land Speeders, Long Fangs, Preditors, Thunder Wolf are examples of units with good duelity, they can pretty much handle armor and infantry with even effectiveness. Razorbacks with Grey Hunters also has good duelity, though it depends what turret is mounted. Whirlwinds meanwhile can only handle infantry effectively, though that costs little enough that the pure anti infantry may be benifical.

 

 

A balienced list should be able to fight any list and be capable of winning because it can be adaptable. Though given a well rounded list means that the tactician himself has to learn how to properly wield it. You can't teach a good tactican, but you can give him the tools nessiary to fight any list and let him learn in the forge of battle.

[Rider-75]

you need to first assume that there is an equal level of skill - both tactically and in list building.

 

if someone is losing due to poor army selection, then yes, the fix is to rebuild the list.

 

i also believe that very few armies are true 1-list-cookie-cutter-wonders. each person will have a different theme/style/tactic with the same army and one persons list may be the same as anothers but have successes or failures due to the way it is played, rather than the way it is written.

 

for example, a mate and i both run mech'd BTs. at the same point base our armies are close, but nowhere near the same. but if we swap lists, i just can't seem to make his list work for me. we just play different.

 

point is: list tweaking works a lot of the time. but no amount of tweaking will work if the player using it doesn't understand it.

 

i've seen me play against people pulling out "a list i got of the interwebz - it won XXX tournament" and soundly beating them. it's not the list at fault, but the use. only when the player sits downa nd thinks about what they have, how it works and the synergy between the aspects fo the composition will they be at the point of thinking about tactics.

 

can we teach it? yes.

how? good question.

 

the club i run at the school i teach in i try to get the kids thinking about tactics from the get-go. before list building. before model buying.

 

we use small fixed armies for each game, designed to make them think about things, while teaching the rules. when to move up and rapid fire. when to hang back and shoot once. do we stay still and shoot the ML or get closer and open up with the extra bolter shots? how can you stop the dread wiping your squad out when shot at before it assualts? do you combat tactics out of there or stay put? how to hold objectives. ablative wounds. all these little things and more.

 

for next term i am developing some homework too. little scenario cards with "what next?" questions on them.

 

whether this is a good idea or not, i don't know. still, i hope it's a step in the right direction.

[nurglez]

I myself am trying out a terminator only logan wing army, I've played with it 3 times and lost twice, I've made a few changes but am keeping it the same after the 3rd game and learning how to use it, sure adding long fangs would help me out a bunch, but I need to learn to play with a pure terminator force, I know how to use long fangs. I also know that I learn best from making mistakes, I've been playing for a fair while now and with my "pure" deathguard army I played 8 games and have won 7, so am bored of them, I'm not learning anything when I put them on the table any more.

[Wysten]

Rider: Just cutting in to say that it is a fantastic contribution your making. Teaching tactics is one thing I always think is great as it gives them the frame of mind not only to have fun, but to think for themselves. Sounds a good start to me. ^__^

[Spacefrisian]

I myself am on the tactic side. I've played many lists that most peeps (Jeske being 1 of them) would advise me against using it, but i ended up winning most of my games with them (a Weird Marine list being my latest)

[breng77]

The quote I have heard is that Luck > Skill > List. If you are more skilled than your opponent, in tactics then you can beat them even if your list is not as good on paper. One of the main reasons that people advise list changes is that it is assumed that opponents are of equal skill, or should I say a high level of skill. If Skill and Luck are equal the player with the better list will win.

 

I also think that it is hard to advise on tactics on the internet. So many important tactics are things you have to see to understand. Small nuances of movement etc. It is also not very helpful to tell someone, "You need to be able to judge your distances accurately so that you don't get charged by X". Things like knowing when to charge and when to stand and shoot are things you can really only learn through experience.

 

THe last problem with tactics is that so much is situational. Recently I read a thread about how to beat a particular ork list. Plently of people gave advice, and the ork player came on and basically said "Well if you did x, I would do y." Tactics are not the same from game to game or even turn to turn. I won a game once by charging 8 Lootas with a single Attack bike on turn 5. I won combat and sweeping advanced the squad to win on VP. This is not something I would come onto the internet and say, if you see lootas you should charge them with an attackbike, this is generally a bad idea, but at that point in the game it was the right decision b/c I needed to do it. Tactical advice on the internet really comes down to what are you going to do on the first turn (maybe 2) of the game. Past that what your opponent does is going to effect your choices, as will the dice.