Do you want to start a tactics blog?

[Hazzini]

Main thread
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/524406.page

[OrksOrksOrks]

Main thread
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/524406.page

So lets get this straight, you don't know much about tactics, so you want other people to write articles and then different people to check through the articles (written by others) to check if its accurate?

Why are you starting a tactics blog?

[Power Klawz]

No I don't want to start a tactics blog because I think such things are ultimately bad for the hobby. It inevitably devolves into number crunching and pontificating on what units are acceptable and what units you should point and laugh at, while deriding the slovenly aspect and churlish nature of those whom purchased them.

I'd love to see more hobby related articles, painting and converting, scratch building terrain and interesting narrative campaigns however.

[Caitsidhe]

I don't have the gut-check reaction to the idea the other two did, but you would really have to clarify what you mean. Far too many wargamers confuse tactics with list-building (which is closer to strategy). The are two distinctly different, but equally important skills. Army design is usually done with a particular mindset and style of play in mind. The army has a standard method of operating, a strategy for success which must, as need demands, adapt when the original plan does not survive contact with the enemy. Tactics, by contrast, are merely a series of actions you can take (most with a specific name) to accomplish more immediate goals. Stacking a flank is a tactic, for example, but isn't enough in and of itself to be a strategy.

Power Klawz above has a negative reaction to optimal list building. Sadly that is also part of the game, although it isn't one that really requires talking about. Someone either has or doesn't have a logistical sense. The numbers change based on personal combat style and intent. There is no absolute right or wrong answer. It is my opinion that the most dangerous opponents have a strategy, i.e. they have build their list to specifications that highlight both the armies strengths and their own personal play style, COMBINED with a solid understanding and training in tactics. It is the tactics that allows them to adapt their strategy when things go in unexpected directions.

[Power Klawz]

I can appreciate that distinction. I actually used to enjoy some of the more tactical articles in White Dwarf back in the day where they discussed such topics as deployment and proper utilization of particular unit types such as fast cavalry or heavy infantry.

Unfortunately the majority of fan generated "tactical discussion" I see on the internet these days amounts to nothing more interesting than a summation of which units will statistically cause the most damage to the most things in a complete vacuum.

Most people who make mention of tactics stalwartly refuse to even discuss particular unit types. They write them off as not tactically viable because basic algebra dictates they can't kill an arbitrary number of MEQ per turn and therefore should be ignored in favor of more statistically appropriate options, as opposed to exploring the infinitely more intriguing aspect of tactics which involved making the most out of what you have in any number of situations. Its easy to be effective with 37 psycannons pointed at an enemy, its not quite so easy to use statistically lackluster units effectively.

I'd much rather see an article that explored, say, the tactical applications of Vespid Stingwings than yet another droll prattling off of how witty so and so is for cramming 87 missiles into his 500 point list.

[Caitsidhe]

I can appreciate that distinction. I actually used to enjoy some of the more tactical articles in White Dwarf back in the day where they discussed such topics as deployment and proper utilization of particular unit types such as fast cavalry or heavy infantry.

You and me both. I liked it when they had actual content. :)


Unfortunately the majority of fan generated "tactical discussion" I see on the internet these days amounts to nothing more interesting than a summation of which units will statistically cause the most damage to the most things in a complete vacuum.

I think this is because most people are lazy. Math and probability are somewhat reliable. The Bell Curve becomes more and more reliable the more dice are rolled. I'm kind of in the middle. I make my own appraisal of the units in relation to my own play style. They either work, i.e. do the job I want them to do in a reliable way or they don't. If I have something else that does the job I want better, I'm going to go with that unit. That is the logistical pragmatism I'm talking about. It should be stated that "the job" isn't necessarily to do the most damage. My current all comer list for the GT includes a five man basic, unmodified CSM unit. It does the job I want it to do at the right price. I agree with you that thinking in the grander scheme, or what Chess players refer to as three to six moves ahead, is not a typical skill. Most people crunch the numbers and see only that Plague Marines are great (they are) and that basic CSM are bad. They say something like, "if I want cheap I might as well take Cultists." For them it is either buy the best or buy the cheapest, without considering all the facets. All that being said, I think that army construction is an important skill and part of the game. The logistics required involve research, psychology, and a clear understanding of one's own limitations. When I build a list for tournament, I have to know what am I most likely facing. What is the state of the META. I'm going to build for as many options as I can while still be competitive, but if I am aware that nobody in town plays Dark Eldar (for example) I am far more willing to bring certain units than I would be otherwise. Tournament scenarios are important too. For whatever reason, most tournaments have one objective scenario, the relic, and a killpoints scenario. Again, this allowing me to be far more cavalier about how many scoring units I take than if the number of objective base scenarios tilted toward the number in the normal set. I'm on a tangent so I'll try to get back on track. I agree with you that most people miss the forest for the trees when designing their lists. They want the sledgehammer, not the precision ballpin hammer. I take it with a grain of salt and use it against them. I read people's lists on the internet as part of my research into what is "hot," not because my lists will look anything like it. :)


Most people who make mention of tactics stalwartly refuse to even discuss particular unit types. They write them off as not tactically viable because basic algebra dictates they can't kill an arbitrary number of MEQ per turn and therefore should be ignored in favor of more statistically appropriate options, as opposed to exploring the infinitely more intriguing aspect of tactics which involved making the most out of what you have in any number of situations. Its easy to be effective with 37 psycannons pointed at an enemy, its not quite so easy to use statistically lackluster units effectively.

I'm willing to talk about specific units, although I'm naturally going to gravitate to those I find best at the job I've selected them for. I'll even talk about Warp Talons or Mutilators if someone asks me, "how do I make these work?" I'm going to be honest and tell them that they are NOT "all comer" units but there are ways to get a return on them. I will proceed to explain how/why/when I would actually take them. I will ask the person what specific job does he want them to do. Nine times out of ten people talking strategy and tactics with me haven't even considered jobs/roles of their units. They just kind of wing it as they go.


I'd much rather see an article that explored, say, the tactical applications of Vespid Stingwings than yet another droll prattling off of how witty so and so is for cramming 87 missiles into his 500 point list.

You and me both, if for no other reason than I can do the math myself.

[Power Klawz]

I think we can agree that the lion's share of fan generated tactical discussion is a byproduct of laziness and people just wanting to have something to say. "Mathhammer" as it were, is not a terribly involved science. I would assume that anyone with a high school diploma has the requisite knowledge level to hammer out the probability of 10 space marines killing 5 orks in short order, but it does tend to drain the fun from the game and the product you get isn't even terribly useful due to the wide statistical variance inherent to just rolling a bunch of 6 sided dice.

[Caitsidhe]

I think we can agree that the lion's share of fan generated tactical discussion is a byproduct of laziness and people just wanting to have something to say. "Mathhammer" as it were, is not a terribly involved science. I would assume that anyone with a high school diploma has the requisite knowledge level to hammer out the probability of 10 space marines killing 5 orks in short order, but it does tend to drain the fun from the game and the product you get isn't even terribly useful due to the wide statistical variance inherent to just rolling a bunch of 6 sided dice.

Well the problem is actually alleviated at tournaments over pick up games. :) Tournaments are the great equalizer in that you must be prepared (if you want that fat, free prize support) to face a wider variety of things. Many people condemn tournaments but in their own way they tend to produce (at least these days) a wider variety of lists, particularly as people continue to expand on allies. Straightforward mathhammer simply isn't reliable anymore. It will give you simple equations in regards to blunt damage, but is next to worthless in figuring out the paramutations of different types of lists you are likely to encounter.

[DarkLink]

I would assume that anyone with a high school diploma has the requisite knowledge level to hammer out the probability of 10 space marines killing 5 orks in short order, but it does tend to drain the fun from the game and the product you get isn't even terribly useful due to the wide statistical variance inherent to just rolling a bunch of 6 sided dice.

That math isn't actually that much more complicated, in case you didn't know. It is more of a pain in the neck, though. As the number of dice involved increases, you have to exponentially increase the iterations of the basic binomial probability formula. Regardless, mathhammer is still an excellent way of measuring raw offensive output, or defensive ability. Allies doesn't have as much of an affect on this as much as some people seem to think. Mathhammer just doesn't take into account some things like mobility, so you can't limit your considerations to straight mathhammer, but that's nothing new to the competitive crowd despite the image of nerds punching numbers into a calculator.

Incidentally, that's not to say you couldn't also calculate the approximate worth in points of, say, a Rhino. You'd just need a large statistical controlled study, or a computer with a well-designed algorithm. You can do it, it's just not very practical.