PDA

View Full Version : Advanced Fantasy Tactics?



SteelTitan
02-08-2011, 08:33
Hey guys,

After having played mainly 40k, the time has come to focus more on Fantasy.
However, Fantasy very much feels like a game without advanced strategies.

It feels like the most important thing is putting the right unit opposite to the enemy unit, walk forward and beat that enemy unit.

As most units have less mobility than in 40k, combats become predictable fast as you're usually capable of predicting how things are gonna go (aka a bit boring). Magic and shooting can change the course of the game but luck is an important factor there too.

I've been looking at Malorian's youtube channel and did find some more indepth tactics.

However, i still have the feeling that deployment determines 95% of the game, that games are generally rather predictable after that, and that you don't have a lot of tactical options (units move slowly so lots of manouvering is out, units do one thing well so variety of tasks is out, etc).

If someone could provide me with links to blogs (like 3++ is the new black, way of saimhann, yes the truth hurts, but then obviously for fantasy) and things like that where they discuss more fantasy tactics, that would be great!

Feel free to convince me of the tactical depth of Fantasy.


PS: let me also make clear that the reason that i want to play more fantasy is to change the idea i have of fantasy so i'm all up for changing my perception.

Countblah
02-08-2011, 10:22
Booohoooo!!!
Grab your pitchforks and torches lads!!!! Leds burn the witch!!!!

The same I think about 40k. Its all about what the models can "see" and what not.

I think you should start reading the forums here on warseer, its full with tactics, tips and tricks.

The trick is to outflank the opponent and manouver units in a way you can obliterate an opponents unit in the first round of combat. Trampling them after they flee the battle field. After that you can make alot of ground when your free to roam across the entire gaming board. Picking a fight were its needed.

Deployment is important, but doesn't win you the game. Its not game changing.

Luck is game changing, and this comes from a Night Goblins player who only uses low LD Night Goblins. So no cheating with a high LD single Black Orc Bigboss.


Just keep reading, make an armylist, start painting and do some playtesting.

Jinxies
02-08-2011, 10:42
Commonly fromwhat I've seen the complaint is that 40K games are won in list creation combined with lucky rolls. :P

There are a lot of games with more strategical and tactical depth than WHFB but 40K? I really really really wanted to get into it for quite a While because of the fluff but the game is so... Easy and predictable... I played some games with a friend who prefers 40K but never plays Fantasy and really I was surprised how simple it was... The only thing you really need to know is where to allocate your fire and then you can do some sneaky stuff with assassins :3 We've won about the same amount of times. And then we played a bit of Fantasy... I took bad lists to compensate and didn't lose a unit... And I'm not very good at strategy games at all he just had no idea how to maneuver properly, couldn't deal with fliers, no idea how to effctively work the magic phase or counter mine... Some games were over by turn three while most of my other fantasy games are still undecided by turn 5-6.

In summary.
Movement and formation matters more in Fantasy and games are often won in the movement phase, while these lists are less common than in 7th there are list tailored around the movement phase with little focus elsewhere (Sethayla list in particular). There are more supporting units from. What I can tell (I've never heard of feigned flight reactions or bait & die in 40K so itcan't be that common.
Less sitting back and just rolling dice for shooting.
More customization (lore, items etc)
Etc etc

A far as blogs go I do not know I follow battle reports mostly myself but there are some good podcasts around that I'm sure someone can direct you to.

There are also a lot of tactical articles over at the army specifc forums such as the herstone, asrai.org and the round table.

Spiney Norman
02-08-2011, 11:22
Hey guys,

After having played mainly 40k, the time has come to focus more on Fantasy.
However, Fantasy very much feels like a game without advanced strategies.

It feels like the most important thing is putting the right unit opposite to the enemy unit, walk forward and beat that enemy unit.

As most units have less mobility than in 40k, combats become predictable fast as you're usually capable of predicting how things are gonna go (aka a bit boring). Magic and shooting can change the course of the game but luck is an important factor there too.

I've been looking at Malorian's youtube channel and did find some more indepth tactics.

However, i still have the feeling that deployment determines 95% of the game, that games are generally rather predictable after that, and that you don't have a lot of tactical options (units move slowly so lots of manouvering is out, units do one thing well so variety of tasks is out, etc).

If someone could provide me with links to blogs (like 3++ is the new black, way of saimhann, yes the truth hurts, but then obviously for fantasy) and things like that where they discuss more fantasy tactics, that would be great!

Feel free to convince me of the tactical depth of Fantasy.


PS: let me also make clear that the reason that i want to play more fantasy is to change the idea i have of fantasy so i'm all up for changing my perception.

Thats an interesting perspective, as regular player of both systems I find Fantasy far more tactically complex than 40K, where the only question you really need to answer is "which guns should I shoot at which targets".

Deployment and movement ARE the more tactically important phases in Fantasy (unless you're playing the storm of magic expansion, then its more to do with who can get the most cataclysm spells off), out manouvreing your enemy is everything in fantasy so a good deployment certainly helps.

40K is very tactically forgiving by comparison, you can get around a poor deployment in 40K very easily, not so in Fantasy, poor tactical decisions at the start can really hamper you.

In Fantasy you can draw your opponent out of position by fleeing charges, leaving your enemy out of position and vulnerable to a flank charge next turn, that depth of tactical play is totally absent in 40K. To be good at Fantasy you really want to be thinking 2-3 turns ahead, to be good at 40K you just have to be able to match the AP value of your weapons to the AS value of your opponent's troops.

Y'he Sha'is
02-08-2011, 11:38
I would disagree with some of the comments on here, and I would say that WFB doesn't really have advanced tactics, but I would really say the same thing for 40K (probably to a higher degree), when compared to other, more in-depth gaming systems. They are, however, rather fun to play over an afternoon/evening, which I believe is why they were created.

I tend to think of WFB & 40K as more strategic games, where overall strategy (i.e. the idea of the list coupled with how it is played on the table) tends to overcome specific tactics (i.e. on a more unit by unit, small view basis). Yes, tactics are important, but with such a short game I think the overall plan tends to determine the outcome.

Deployment, while not 95% of the game, is extremely important (maybe 50% of the game). A bad deployment can mean that your unit that meant to take on the enemies juggernaut (or whatever) can't get there in time, and that enemy unit rampages through your lines. But this is the same for 40K (but with a variety of ways to come in late in different places on the table to help this problem). WFB tries to overcome this with scouts and flying units (and tunnelers/miners/etc), which works to some degree. But deployment is still important.

Magic is also important, and can be potentially game-changing if things go wrong. However, in general I find that it really doesn't do tons unless the dice work in your favor. An irresistable forced purple sun, however, is nasty.

I believe the issue stems from the (primarily) 6-turn game length in both games. This really limits the amount of time you can actually move to gain tactical advantages, instead relying on a bit more brute force to 'force things along'. And once your units are in CC, they are there until the end (or one flees). With the new steadfast rules, choosing that CC is more important than ever. Couple that with random charge distances, and it can be an interesting game when a charge fails.

But all my points above tend to be directed towards one idea. I tend to find two good generals in WFB can have a rather boring game if the dice fall properly (i.e. as expected). However, the games get good when the dice don't fall as expected, and there is tons of crazy moving/hoping/dieing/high risk ideas/etc. I think the 'advanced tactics' that you are refering to might fall into this area, where you need to fix the battle plan that you had so carefully developed that has just gone the way of the dodo bird. The rest of the stuff is just the basic game.

But the generalizations from myself and other people aren't very accurate. People who say 40K is just 'sit back and shoot' are way off. Yeah, it's part of the game, but so is movement and close combat. If shooting were everything, tau would win every game easily. The same for WFB, people saying 'deployment is everything' are wrong. Yes it's part of a game, but so is movement, magic, close combat, etc. Any one of those areas can cost you the game if you aren't careful. There are little tricks to the game. I do not see them as anywhere near 'advanced tactics', just proper movement and support (similar in many ways to chess and checkers).

Just my $0.02.

Mercules
02-08-2011, 12:51
One of the things I've notice about 8th Edition WHFB is that the "advanced tactics" tend to be more ephemeral. It's not "Move A to engage with B over there. C Stays back to support." but more, "If my A doesn't manage to do X will I be able to compensate by having B and C here, or should I commit them to course Y and hope A can do it?" You just can't be sure things are going to happen as you envision them so the more "advanced tactics" are really what a person does when thing don't go right.

That type of thing you can't plan out. You don't know what part of your plan is going to fail so you need to respond to things as they happen and it looks like good general's can switch gears mid game and pull victory out of a bad series of rolls. I'm not claiming to be one of those people. :)

IcedCrow
02-08-2011, 13:01
I find that there are three main pieces to playing and winning a WHFB game. This is all my opinion but this is based on four editions of play now:

1) army composition.

2) deployment

3) dice luck and knowing how to stack the odds in your favor

In 40k there are two main pieces of the game that enable you to win:

1) army composition

2) dice luck and knowing how to stack the odds in your favor

Basic WHFB tactics to me are knowing how to create an army (composition), knowing how to construct your battle line (deployment), and then knowing to look for numerically advantagous combats and learning how to focus fire.

Advanced tactics are not many (the game I find is a lot of fun but as far as a tactical exercise, the basic premise is pretty easy compared with historical games or games that are more of a simulation), but to me involve how to bait and flee properly, how to maneuver for an advantagous position, when to charge and when not to charge, and ensuring that your bubble of command is as useful as it can be.

In 40k, I find the games are equally fun (i love the game) but tactically its really a matter of loading up AP2/3 guns and power weapons, and then rolling forward and chucking a lot of dice and negating armor saves. I have never found 40k to be very tactically engaging other than getting good at target acquisition.

The best games of 40k, IMO, are ones where resources are restricted and you don' thave a ton of power weapons floating around and you have to rely more on your troop choices as opposed to your big bad elites. Few players like to play like this though unfortunately (for me).

BBWags
02-08-2011, 22:16
Let's also remember that a lot if it depends on who you are playing and the meta-game of your group. If you have a bunch of people who assume there are no tactics and so they line up corresponding units across the battlefield and then run straight at each other, of course it's going to be boring and simplistic. I think there is a whole lot of depth that can easily be overlooked if you aren't paying attention.

Charge reactions are one such aspect of the game that is totally absent from 40k and what the chargee decides to do can have a huge impact on the game.

I started playing warhammer in 40k. Two things led to me selling every last bit of 40k merchandise that I had: 1) movement hardly ever felt like it meant squat from a tactical standpoint (compounded by the almost mandatory transports involved) and 2) as a resulting point, since units aside from vehicles have no front, side and backs, you could totally get the drop on someone, yet it had no in game value whatsoever. These and a lot of other smaller things have been rectified by switching to FB. And now I already have three 1500+ point armies :-)

GodlessM
02-08-2011, 22:25
As a player of both games I cannot fathom how a 40k player can think Fantasy is not tactical. If lining up and charging was all there was to Fantasy then I'd be winning every tournament easy with Chaos, but that just simply isn't true.

russellmoo
03-08-2011, 04:52
WFB has some very advanced tactics that are used in game- they are generally not discussed online because 1)the advanced tactics are army list specific. 30 arrer boyz requires a very different approach than using 30 blorcs and since WFB players tend to try and always run unique armies, units, lists- tactical discussions are kept relatively general as discussing in depth tactics requires knowledge of the opponent's list, and the player's list- plus what spells are available- most of which you can't provide on a forum. 2) maintaining an edge- while most of us are happy to dole out advice and general tactics- some of us retain our best tactical tricks to ourselves. 3) Variance- WFB features more situations where the end result of a combat, round of shooting, charge- are difficult, or almost impossible to calculate in your head (now you could keep a calculator handy, take your sweet time, crunch some numbers, then make your decision- good luck getting games in after the word gets out that you do this) this is especially true in 8th ed. it becomes very hard to have a discussion about advanced tactics because you can't say that unit X will always beat unit Y- in 40k there is more certainty (if a marine fires a twin linked lascannon at a model, not in cover the model has almost no chance of survival) such situations are less common in WFB- I've had a unit of weak night goblins survive 3 turns against a group of dragon knights and a star dragon-WTF-

rocdocta
03-08-2011, 06:04
Advanced tactics in 8th ed could be easily summarised "with roll dice". The devastation from flanking/rear charging is gone, suckering units into terrain to remove them from the board gone, luring frenzy units out of position is gone, no realistic march blocking, no abstract LOS, just simple concepts. move forwards, roll dice till one side loses.

Compared to 7th or all before thats as far as it goes. OP hit it on the head.

Akrilyk
03-08-2011, 06:24
This may not be a tactic, but it is an idea that sets you up to think about them. Play scenarios! Custom or ones that other people made. If the rules are always "line up and fight" then the outcome may be more and more predictable. Try some imbalanced games, or unusual deployments, and you will probably see unusual situations prop up which require you to think on your feet. I suppose this is equally true for both 40k and Fantasy, but it lends depth to the game.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
03-08-2011, 06:42
I would disagree with some of the comments on here, and I would say that WFB doesn't really have advanced tactics, but I would really say the same thing for 40K (probably to a higher degree), when compared to other, more in-depth gaming systems. They are, however, rather fun to play over an afternoon/evening, which I believe is why they were created.

You're so very wrong.

The games were created to give you something to do with your toy dolls after you'd assembled and painted them, and give you an outlet where you could showcase your little works of art, thus keeping you interested in adding to your collection.

some_scrub
03-08-2011, 07:27
In response to the OP: There are definitely "advanced tactics" in WFB, at least ones more advanced than simply lining up the right units across from each other and moving forward.

The thing I've noticed most new players to the game overlook is the fact that units, while they have to move forward, don't have to move straight. Units don't have to charge the unit they are lined up across from, units don't have to stand there when they get charged, and when units do accept charges they can also sit at an angle.

I think part of the reason you might not see much discussion of in-game tactics is that so much depends on the units' positioning and facing. This means many of the more interesting tactical situations in a game of fantasy are also very difficult to describe in words.

SteelTitan
03-08-2011, 07:32
I'm very happy with all the responses and it's also interesting to see that many people think differently about both systems.

In general, I think that some gamers give 40k too little credit when it comes to tactics. I've played and seen enough games to know that it's definitely not
its really a matter of loading up AP2/3 guns and power weapons, and then rolling forward and chucking a lot of dice and negating armor saves. and go to town. If that were true I certainly wouldn't get my ass handed to me every time I play against my brother's Tyranids.

Also, the fact that movement in 40k is 'less precise' than in Fantasy doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact. Sure, a unit can move around all game without it (the movement) mattering much. However, the movement value differences in 40k are definitely a source of tactics and can make a world of difference if a player knows how to exploit it well (not me yet). I started playing a jetbike eldar army (Saimhann) and only the fact that the entire army can move between zero and 18"-24" provides you with many many tactical options in all phases of the game.

Despite the fact that the shooting phase is more important than in Fantasy, target priority in itself is all about tactical decisions or can be part of a strategy (just like deepstriking, outflanking, infiltrating, etc.) I wouldn't say it's advanced but it's definitely something one can improve on with experience. Additionally, there are many more more specific or smaller tactics (e.g. bubblewrapping, breaking bubblewrapping, blocking, tankshocking tactics, etc.) that many people don't take into account when they judge 40k...things that you would never see or understand if you just played a few games.


Anyway, my post was not about justifying playing 40k if you want to have a strategic game but where the advanced strategies are in Fantasy.

I do recognise things in
Advanced tactics in 8th ed could be easily summarised "with roll dice". The devastation from flanking/rear charging is gone, suckering units into terrain to remove them from the board gone, luring frenzy units out of position is gone, no realistic march blocking, no abstract LOS, just simple concepts. move forwards, roll dice till one side loses.

I've played way more 6th and 7th than I have 8th and just the fact that steadfast is there already seems to make the game less strategic (no matter what you throw at a unit, now matter how you outmanouvered it, it will test on its unmodified Ld). The tactics described above were clear to me but are now gone. 8th seemed to have it made simpler and less strategic.

I admit that I might lack the experience in 8th (played 10-15 games) so far to see all the tactics that I COULD use. But that's the main reason why I (seriously) pick up the game now. I have all these models that I bought and painted, and there are so many people playing this game, so there MUST be more strategy involved than what I see.

I guess calling something is an advanced strategy is always subjective so I won't try to make a distinction there. But maybe we can discuss 8th edition tactics? Things you use often, little non-army specific tricks and tips? How do you still use baiting effectively? Etc.

m1acca1551
03-08-2011, 07:57
There are many advanced tactics used in WFB, and dare i say more than 40k... 40k is more luck than tactics as your armies will generally just shoot each other to death and the only real tactic is "lets move these guys into heavy cover".

Fantasy is "lets move this great sword unit forward 3" and put at an angle that will mean if he charges me he will reveal his flank to my halberdiers and i can counter charge in my turn"

Y'he Sha'is
03-08-2011, 10:48
Fantasy is "lets move this great sword unit forward 3" and put at an angle that will mean if he charges me he will reveal his flank to my halberdiers and i can counter charge in my turn"

That's how I feel, and this is in no way 'advanced'.

Toe Cutter
03-08-2011, 12:15
These threads tend to amuse me. Not necessarily for the question put forward by the authors as they are often seeking genuine answers but by some of the people who reply. Both those who play almost solely 40k and those who play almost solely fantasy.

For some fairly tactical warhammer games I would take a look at the wood elf battle reports. Particularly those that aren't based around large units of treekin. Basically if you find a person who can regularly win reports without resorting to the use of a large combat unit then they are usually using a fair amount of tactical play. There's a cavalry heavy high elf list that is also played well thats worth looking at.

BBWags
03-08-2011, 12:54
Advanced tactics in 8th ed could be easily summarised "with roll dice". The devastation from flanking/rear charging is gone, suckering units into terrain to remove them from the board gone, luring frenzy units out of position is gone, no realistic march blocking, no abstract LOS, just simple concepts. move forwards, roll dice till one side loses.

Compared to 7th or all before thats as far as it goes. OP hit it on the head.

I would just like to note that all of these things still impact the game, just not at the same level as in past editions. Flanking / rear charges are still vastly better than frontal charges. Are they as good as in 7th? No, but it's still worth the effort to maneuver inorder to get a charge in the flank rather than the front.

Suckering a unit into a piece of terrain, say a forest, is still very useful in a bunch of cases, say if you have skirmishers in that forest (like dryads) which will completely reverse the rolls of steadfast if you can get someone to charge you.

I've only played half a dozen games, but I've NEVER had a game where it was simply move your units straight forward and roll dice. I really don't see where people get this from unless that's simply what they DECIDE to do...

In any case, the only change I would wish for would be to make flank / rear charging units with at least two full ranks negate steadfast. That would jack up the strategy even higher, but even as it is, I'm very happy with the system.

N1AK
03-08-2011, 13:10
PS: let me also make clear that the reason that i want to play more fantasy is to change the idea i have of fantasy so i'm all up for changing my perception.

I think you make a lot of valid points. Although I believe Fantasy is a deeper game than 40k, I still think 40k is a system that benefits from good play. Generally it is harder to recover from mistakes in fantasy, which could be said to make more strategic elements (deployment, list combinations etc) more important vs tactical elements.

In my opinion (virtually the definition) good fantasy players start a game with a sound strategy for defeating their opponent. Deployment and early movement are very important parts of implementing that strategy well.

I actually find the limited ability of units to support virtually anywhere else on the table to be a strength vs 40k. If you've ended up positioned in a bad match up on one flank, you have to work with the units nearby instead of bombing it with a unit on the other side of the table.

Finding guides that teach this will be pretty difficult. It is knowledge, experience and practice that help you learn how to combat specific match ups etc. A guide can tell you what to do in certain circumstances, with certain units, but you'll rarely see that exact situation in game.

N1AK
03-08-2011, 13:24
3) Variance- WFB features more situations where the end result of a combat, round of shooting, charge- are difficult, or almost impossible to calculate in your head (now you could keep a calculator handy, take your sweet time, crunch some numbers, then make your decision- good luck getting games in after the word gets out that you do this) this is especially true in 8th ed. it becomes very hard to have a discussion about advanced tactics because you can't say that unit X will always beat unit Y- in 40k there is more certainty (if a marine fires a twin linked lascannon at a model, not in cover the model has almost no chance of survival) such situations are less common in WFB- I've had a unit of weak night goblins survive 3 turns against a group of dragon knights and a star dragon-WTF-

I agree with most of your points but I don't believe this is accurate. Calculating roughly odds of winning in combats, and breaking, is pretty easy. In fact I would say I charge, or position to be charged with a pretty accurate idea of whether I am likely to win, roughly how likely they are to break and how likely I am to lose & break. In the end doing 30 x 2/3 x 2/3 is a very quick calc, and you only have to do two like it to get the numbers you need for kills both ways.

If anything shooting a tl-lascannon in 40k is much less reliable than combat in fantasy. 1/9 miss & 8/54 fail to wound = 26% survival.

The odds a breaking a much poorer opponent in combat in warhammer will be considerably higher than this. 30 Chaos Warriors (xHW & Frenzy) = 22.2 dead goblins. The odds of you killing less than 6 (the number you'd need to kill for the Goblins to have more than a 10% of sticking around are very low.

drear
03-08-2011, 13:37
tbh 40k deployment has alot to do with the outcome of the game aswell.
did you deploy your manticore inside cover or out on its own? did your assault troops start the game in difficult terrain? etc etc

fantasy does have an aspect where deployment has an effect on the game. but thast how it works. we deploy alternatly so you have to think well this will take that out, but this will protect here etc.

but then things dont always go as planned.

the game is what you make of it, fi yuo and your opponent just line up and run foweard..sure its going to seem tacticless.

if you settup so you can do multiple thigns with multiple units, take advantages of movment mistakes or things in/outside arcs etc, its going to be an interesting game.

N810
03-08-2011, 14:47
Sounds like you are still playing a lot of 7th edition type fights,
you know with no scenerio and just a few pieces of terrain near the sides of the table.
Try some of the more interesting scenarios and deployment setups with some more
terrain, yea you can even put in in the middle of the table in 8th edition.

See if this makes for a more chalenging and tactics filled game.

Malorian
03-08-2011, 17:30
Sounds like you are still playing a lot of 7th edition type fights,
you know with no scenerio and just a few pieces of terrain near the sides of the table.
Try some of the more interesting scenarios and deployment setups with some more
terrain, yea you can even put in in the middle of the table in 8th edition.

See if this makes for a more chalenging and tactics filled game.

Absolutely.

I have found that many people that see no tactical challenge in fantasy are just playing pitched battles with little to no terrain.

Mercules
03-08-2011, 18:18
The devastation from flanking/rear charging is gone, I think you will find that Flank/Rear charges are still pretty devastating. Not if you do so with a Monster or small unit, but something like 7 Ogre Bulls with a Character hitting your flank will quickly remove stead fast while your 4-5 attacks back will hardly make a dent in them. Before you do the, "I'll just reform to face you." line, that only works if there isn't another unit waiting to charge your front already or if you are not double charged by something. Gnoblars in the flank and Ogres in the front breaks a lot of units.


suckering units into terrain to remove them from the board gone, Ok, it's not as easy to do in 8th and now doesn't matter. It was a stupid rule that units in terrain were basically out of the game and while a tactic it was taking advantage of poorly written rules.


luring frenzy units out of position is gone, Still very possible. Read the rules for frenzy again to figure out how to do so.


no realistic march blocking, True, but I think it is much more interesting this way. Instead of a single 50 point figure locking enemy forces to a crawl people have to engage a unit to slow it down. I see that as a good thing. No more Eagles out of my charge arc slowing me down while the archers shoot me. Now they are going to loose the Eagle if the want it to stop me.


move forwards, roll dice till one side loses. Well, if this is how you decide to play, that is exactly how it plays. Old tactics gone... imagine that, new edition and old tactics that sometimes exploited poor rules are gone. :eek: New tactics await to be discovered only some "tacticians" don't come up with ideas, just perfect ones already presented to them. ;)

SteelTitan
04-08-2011, 07:52
Absolutely.

I have found that many people that see no tactical challenge in fantasy are just playing pitched battles with little to no terrain.

I certainly agree that it takes time before the 7th edition mindset changes to an 8th edition one, and that it is hard to judge the game before this change has happened. I see and hear people quit Fantasy because of 8th edition while even I see that they don't even understand all the rules.

I do hope and believe that with experience (with 8th) more strategies and tactics will reveal themselves to me.

However, until now I've played scenarios (we always roll on the table in the book) and had terrain aplenty (as you can see from my Fantasy battle reports in my signature) so I don't really see that as a factor. I must add that I am not a fan of the mysterious terrain. Sure, in a fun casual game it can add another dimension. But if I look at it from a tactical point of view (where winning or losing should be determined by skill), I don't want to be screwed over because of randomness.

Djekar
04-08-2011, 10:52
But if I look at it from a tactical point of view (where winning or losing should be determined by skill), I don't want to be screwed over because of randomness.

Isn't this antithetical to the idea of a dice based war-game though? Since randomness helps govern every aspect of warhammer play, does that mean then that all games are casual in your eyes?

SteelTitan
04-08-2011, 20:36
Well, ok, you got a point when it comes to dice. I guess we have to accept some degree of randomness, be it cards or dice or whatever said game uses. In this case dice.

Using mysterious terrain however adds yet ANOTHER random factor to the game, something which you're not forced to use (luckily).

Malorian
04-08-2011, 22:03
Randomness is key to being a good general.

If everything was certain then you might as well play chess. The game would be just a set routine of moves with a perfect counter given for every situation.

Randomness is just another word for risk, and a good general not only needs to understand the risk but also generate backup plans as required. Apart from this a good general will avoid high risk situations while at the same time try and force their opponent into one.

SteelTitan
05-08-2011, 07:23
You speak wisdom, as usual ;)

All I can say to you is, that I hope you make many more general tactic videos like your latest one and offset charges, etc!

I do listen to some other fantasy podcasts every now and then, but it's a lot of talking about the hobby but little practical tactic talk. 40k seems to have more tactic related podcasts (like the 11th company).

Lord Solar Plexus
05-08-2011, 10:37
I've played way more 6th and 7th than I have 8th and just the fact that steadfast is there already seems to make the game less strategic (no matter what you throw at a unit, now matter how you outmanouvered it, it will test on its unmodified Ld)


Uh...not even close, SteelTitan. No offense intended but these notions are just absurd.


There are many advanced tactics used in WFB, and dare i say more than 40k... 40k is more luck than tactics as your armies will generally just shoot each other to death and the only real tactic is "lets move these guys into heavy cover".


Why would shooting someone be more luck dependant than hitting them with a sword? Why would you move SM into hard cover when faced with AP - - 4 guns? How are you going to get to an objective with this simplistic approach? How are your Orks or Blood Claws or Bloodletters or Stealers or Blood Angels or any one of the hundreds of close combat units going to get into combat?

I don't think you have played a lot of 40k I'm afraid.



Fantasy is "lets move this great sword unit forward 3" and put at an angle that will mean if he charges me he will reveal his flank to my halberdiers and i can counter charge in my turn"

Putting your unit at an angle already reveals your flank when your opponent is a little tactically minded.

SteelTitan
06-08-2011, 07:46
@ Lord Solar Plexus:

I appreciate your feedback on my thoughts on steadfast but just stating that my notion is absurd does not change my mind or teach me anything. Could you maybe explain why you think that steadfast is such a strategic thing?

RanaldLoec
07-08-2011, 22:37
I think this thread has lost its ways its turned into that "is warhammer still tactical debate" or "i miss my seventh ed blank".

If your talking advanced tactics then

1) The list
2) Deployment
3) Game control
4) Advanced planning
5) Odds calculation

1) Plain and simple writing a list to suit the game be it a one off friendly, an all comers for a tournament or a real I'm going to go all out grudge match.

2) So so important to my style of play is my deployment, I try to envisage a plan and stick to it.
I try to avoid changing my deployment because of my opponents deployment due to game control.

3) Game control. Making my opponent react to my moves and actions so I gain the initiative.
If I'm maneuvering units in reaction to my opponents then he's essentially dictating my movements some what which can mean I'm more than likely to be conforming to his plan or expectations. I don't want that.

Some situations you can't help but react to your opponents actions eg an irresistible purple sun sitting in a charge lane.

A good general gets his opponent to react to his plan. A great general does this and plans for if his opponent doesn't.

4) Advanced planning, simply put plan B, C and D. Meaning you have a plan in case things don't go your way. It gets really complex when your planning what to do two turns after the charge your about to declare. Planning for both a successfull or failed charge, your opponents reaction next turn and what strategy you plan to execute the turn after that based on the success it failure of the charge.

5) knowing the probability of winning a combat and understanding your dice don't give a flying frog what the laws of probability say they should roll.

Liber
08-08-2011, 05:46
Me and my friends played 40k exclusively for a few years...after a while we decided to dabble in fantasy.

I remember the first "battle" we had (1 unit of skinks with a lv 2 priest allied with a unit of dwarf warriors and a dwarf cannon vs equally few points of high elves) it became immediately obvious how much more in depth and tactically flexible fantasy was as compared to 40k.

I vividly recall us all practically shouting at eachother as the astounding complexity of the magic phase alone started to dawn on us:

which spell will you cast first? the small one, then the big one? but what if you fail to cast the small one first, then you won't get the oppurtunity to cast the big spell you really need to get off. but wait, its simple, just use enough dice to guarantee you cast the first small spell...oh no! that increases the likleyhood of a miscast! We don't want that...ok, cast the big spell first, and use lots of dice to ensure it is successful. oh ****, we are completely ignoring the variable of the dispeller aren't we? he might just throw all of his dispell dice at the big spell, and just willingly take the small spell won't he? so maybe we should throw ALL of our power dice at the first big spell...and hope for irresistable force? and then hope further that we get lucky with the miscast result? oh bother, that can't be right, how about --- and this balancing act can continue to infinity (especially when you start to mess with the huge combinations of items that assist in casting/dispelling)

in fantasy you have to very carefully position units, and when you move them its an artform, as where you place them (even the angle they are facing) has huge consequences for the rest of the game.

i was 14 when i started playing 40k, and i knew what was going on almost as soon as my first 500 point battle (with my beloved tau) was over.

fantasy took hours and hours (i recall a 1,200 point battle that took 4 hours for me and a freind to complete - we kept having to look up rules, and had to take forever to move units as the implications were so large, and we could foresee so little) to understand and readily know the basic gameplay mechanics, much less delve into how to actually be good at the game.

i mean, in 40k, you point and shoot a weapon.

in fantasy, you point and shoot a weapon - and it explodes in your face. great, now you have to act to completely revise how you thought that battle was gonna play out, and how you are going to win.

things actually go wrong in fantasy. warmachines misfire, wizards miscast, orcs squabble...giants trip and fall over. not only is it realistic and add a deeper tactical level to the game, its fun.


I will tell you OP that you will not find tactical resources the like of which are available for 40k - as it is impossible for them to exist. armies are so radically different from one another, and the compositions so endless that there is no point to "general" tactics.

what the hell can an experienced whfb player who plays skaven, high elves, and WoC tell me about dwarf tactics? just consider that dwarfs move 3 inches, that in itself makes the learning curve completely unique to that army.

there are 60+ spells in this game. almost all of them completely unique....and many even containing secondary effects.

not to mention that the terrain is variable...often alive or magical, granting different effects other than the basic fact of cover.

i have tried to revisit 40k since playing fantasy, but the experience seems stale and predictable now...which makes me sad, as i love the 40k universe...the lore, the imagery, all of it.

honestly i am waiting for 6th edition, and hoping that it spices things up a bit...i really would like a dark eldar army :P

Lord Solar Plexus
08-08-2011, 07:12
@ Lord Solar Plexus:

I appreciate your feedback on my thoughts on steadfast but just stating that my notion is absurd does not change my mind or teach me anything.


I'm afraid I cannot help you then. You're notion that "steadfast is always" is wrong in so many ways as to be beyond debate.



Could you maybe explain why you think that steadfast is such a strategic thing?

No idea why it would or not. :confused:

Lord Solar Plexus
08-08-2011, 07:19
2) So so important to my style of play is my deployment, I try to envisage a plan and stick to it.
I try to avoid changing my deployment because of my opponents deployment due to game control.

3) Game control. Making my opponent react to my moves and actions so I gain the initiative.
If I'm maneuvering units in reaction to my opponents then he's essentially dictating my movements some what which can mean I'm more than likely to be conforming to his plan or expectations. I don't want that.


Not quite, Ranald. Why would players make use of cheap decoys if your assessment was true? They employ such units so that the opponent cannot react to the placement of their deathstar, Wizard, cavalry flankers or monster because he's already committed.

Knowing where units will be is worth much more than not knowing because I can react adequately instead of blindly placing my own forces. I want my STank opposite that horde of 'letters or whatever it is that would rip my troops apart. Reaction IS control because reaction is knowledge.

Trains_Get_Robbed
08-08-2011, 07:42
Advanced tactics in 8th ed could be easily summarised "with roll dice". The devastation from flanking/rear charging is gone, suckering units into terrain to remove them from the board gone, luring frenzy units out of position is gone, no realistic march blocking, no abstract LOS, just simple concepts. move forwards, roll dice till one side loses.

Compared to 7th or all before thats as far as it goes. OP hit it on the head.

This made me laugh. :rolleyes:

As Russelmo eloquently stated, advanced tactics are kind of hard to discuss, because so much of it is game dependant.

For example, in the last game I mentioned above; I could try and explain our lists and deployment etc. . . but that would be more of a battle report -which just so happen to be the best place to learn tactics and manvouers.

In the last game I played, stopping a Chaos Lord-Wizard on a Manticore so he can't 6 dice Phantasmagoria/Chaos T-test on my Elves was crucial, outside of killing him which wasn't an option at the time -due to deloyment and movement on his part. The next best thing was to charge a Tiranoic Chariot in thus, limiting the spells he could cast (can't M.M while in combat) and then flying a G.E to the flank of the Chariot to redirect a Warshirne nearbye in case it charged. . . .

See how this it can be hard to dicuss advanced tactics outside of B.R?

b4z
08-08-2011, 18:43
the idea that 40k is more tactical than fantasy is frankly ridiculous.

i played 40k for a long time before before fantasy.

intelligent players seem to excel at fantasy.

i wonder why that is. ;)

SteelTitan
08-08-2011, 18:50
I cant say that 40k is more tactical than fantasy, but the fact that some people make 40k sound like it's THAT straightforward is rediculous too.

But that wasn't really the topic of this thread.


So, if in fantasy movement is so important, do you often not move the full movement allowance as your setting up for specific things in early turns?

I often see myself rushing forward until i'm close to the enemy. Then I start thinking about how much I should move in order to get the charge. This usually isn't combined with a possible flank from one of my other units. So, regularly straightforward and simplistic.

RanaldLoec
08-08-2011, 20:36
the idea that 40k is more tactical than fantasy is frankly ridiculous.

i played 40k for a long time before before fantasy.

intelligent players seem to excel at fantasy.

i wonder why that is. ;)

So when I loose does that make me a simpleton:(

Even though I put allot of thought into my games.

I can plan and scheme for ages but really the dice seem to always decide the ultimate fate of my armies.

My greatest victorys I can only partially claim credit for, my dice get the rest of the glory, treacherous little blighters that they are.

Awilla the Hun
09-08-2011, 21:49
Advanced fantasy tactics are really difficult to define, in large part because I only play as one army, which has limited access to some of 8th ed's toys (death stars with mass attacks), plentiful access to others (mass infantry), and generally neglects the more 'fantastic' parts of Fantasy (little magic, mobility, or super soldiers.)

Deployment is important, positioning is important (for those of you who think that flank charges are unimportant... try seeing what happens when you accidentally expose your Men at Arms' flank to a large unit of Chaos Warriors), charges are interesting gambles. The presence of a general isn't as important as in some games where you can only move a few units at a time due to his proximity, but it's definitely critical for my Red Guards; without the presence of Glorious Comrade Von Stahl and his Commissars, the army simply ceases to function properly. (This isn't the case in some other armies, though, where everyone has more leadership.) This makes an interesting balancing act, as they are also often my hardest hitters; ride forth and smite the enemy, or lead the men onward to glorious victory?

Finally, the age old challenge for both my army and the enemy: numbers vs. quality. For the Red Guards- how to counter massively superior enemy close combat capabilities, magic, monsters and individual combat characters? For the enemy-how to march through walls of men, missile weapons, and massed counter attacks, and emerge with an army left over? Avoiding combat, holding the foe up with numbers/march blockers, shooting and charging at his fragile points, against crushing my army piecemeal with masses of attacks.

One battle I fought (for example-I could probably dredge up examples of intelligence from my opponents) featured a large unit of Grave Guard led by a Vampire, the sort of thing one would have thought did well in 8th ed, simply sitting still in front of my lines so as not to be flank charged by Men at Arms, surely an example of tactical skill holding up massively superior enemy blocks. Another, although dice played an important part, involved deployment overwhelming enemy gunlines; massed, concentrated infantry and cavalry attacks drowned the enemy Knights (their main counter attack unit) and overwhelmed small parts of their artillery line, allowing elements of my force to break through.

As for 40K, anyone who says it isn't tactical clearly hasn't played on a board with terrain attached. For example-should my infantry unit hold its position to fire heavy weapons at that advancing enemy tank? Pull back to cover? Move up to rapid fire, or even charge at, the approaching enemy infantry? What orders should I issue to it, or psychic buffs, or whatever? Should I direct my ordnance at the enemy, even though they've cleverly infiltrated into my lines, meaning that it could easily scatter onto my own men? All sorts of decisions, which make me wonder: what is Warseer's definition of "a tactical game"?

Mercules
10-08-2011, 13:11
So when I lose does that make me a simpleton even though I put a lot of thought into my games? I can plan and scheme for ages but really the dice seem to always decide the ultimate fate of my armies. I can only partially claim credit for my greatest victories my dice get the rest of the glory, treacherous little blighters that they are.

Losing does not make you a simpleton. Alternately, putting a lot of thought into something does not mean that the right conclusions were made during that thought. If the dice are still deciding your fate to a strong degree, then you are not considering alternate plans for when the dice do not fall in the way you would wish. Your comments show that you understand you can not count on dice, so why are they deciding your fate still?

Oh, and I edited your post to turn it into English.

popisdead
10-08-2011, 16:27
The devastation from flanking/rear charging is gone,

Have you charged Frenzied Chosen into the flank of a unit and not seen it devastated? Flank charges tend to end the game as the unit will often get a magic buff and chew threw the target unit.

Hex/Augment have made frontal charges easier to do more damage but lacking support attacks on the flank means you are drastically reducing wounds back.

I think 40k players are used to seeing the game from a different point of view and 6th/7th ed was by far the more tactical game, however 8th ed has brought the two more in line. The edge still going to Fantasy (but not just an edge either).

RanaldLoec
10-08-2011, 18:19
[QUOTE=Mercules;5702797]Losing does not make you a simpleton. Alternately, putting a lot of thought into something does not mean that the right conclusions were made during that thought. If the dice are still deciding your fate to a strong degree, then you are not considering alternate plans for when the dice do not fall in the way you would wish. Your comments show that you understand you can not count on dice, so why are they deciding your fate still?

Oh, and I edited your post to turn it into English


Thanks I'll turn my spell check off you can do it all for me:D

Just kidding. I wasn't being literal with that last post.

See my post previous to that one, I plan, scheme and plot to my hearts content. The point I was making is that primary, secondary and even tertiary plans can be brought low by poor dice.

The majority of the time my plans work to a reasonable degree. I feel like this would be a good point for an evil laugh. Muw ha ha ha ha ha.

I play with model soldiers I find it difficult to be grown up and serious.