Opinion of the Game (read post)

[blurrymadness]

[This seems to be a general topic as it's *about* the meta-tactics but not about tactics themselves]
Alright, so I've noticed this in a couple of threads recently and have to address it: 40k is mostly about list building and not about tactics.

Now, I wish to make an argument on why this is an exaggeration and also why it is incorrect.
Evidence:
-In any 40k forum tactics end up talking specifically about your list and how to improve it; seldom does it actually go into the tactics side of things.
Counterpoints:
-This is not because Lists are the only determinant, but because of a set of reasons:
*Lists are the most common culprit as they'll have inefficient choices or units that simply don't go together; further internal balance issues makes Lists a good start
*One must assume best-play by both sides, and thus tactics during gameplay are irrelevant if we expect good players to be operating the armies; so we look to the Lists to see whether this assumption holds. Note that not using this assumption means you talk down to potentially quite intelligent people.
*One must also assume that the players know and follow all the rules pre-game, such as reasonable terrain and such
*Most importantly those who critique have to consider that there are -so many armies in 40k- that they have to put ideas in the vacuum of knowledge that they can affect; I.E. they can't really know your meta-game or what exactly all the problems on the OPs side is so they revert to a controlled section of knowledge that is quite important

Evidence:
-Tactics in 40k are unrealistic and thus most tactics or advice from books, elders, actual battles, etc are not applicable.
Counterpoints:
-This could be said about many RTS; let's use Starcraft. There's nothing realistic about battles in Starcraft and almost the entire game is actually about army building and macro. Now you'll point out this is a similar conclusion about 40k! But this is because the only way for tactics in 40k or Starcraft (in a battle sense) to matter is to get to the same level of play. Starcraft pros get to play a minimalist's RTS by having reached the ability to macro and build balanced armies well. Since most 40k players struggle to get a list that is not flawed in some specific and important way (durability, offensive output, mobility, scoring units, etc..) they cannot easily reach that point where it is *only* the tactics that matter and no longer the army lists fault.
-It is also a useful crutch to blame a book's power level (I.E. list building power) rather than attempt to improve your list/game. While we may assume people use tactics perfectly and be unable to admit our own flaws in battles we likely *frequently* make obvious mistakes (however minor) in games that can be the difference between a win and a loss (or draw.) Players make a huge difference in the game; if you're a skilled player (particularly WAAC) you should play a new player with 10-20% points less or so and just notice how easy the game goes. This itself is a counterpoint to the entire argument and can't really be blamed on books (save dramatic comparisons like SW vs. Tau)

Evidence:
-Single dice rolls have gigantic in game effects and the higher the level of randomness make many tactics irrelevant; this means we point to lists to mitigate such risks.
Counterpoint"
-This is *somewhat* true; but is a crutch and further it is an exaggeration. While lists are built to mitigate these risks and the point stands that randomness decreases the value of tactical decisions (as a perfect tactic can fail due to extreme rolling) I would argue that those who truly understand the value of tactical decisions in the game must mitigate the risk *in game* by having backup plans and so forth. This means that while truly abysmal rolling can still screw you, you can literally double your chances at success by simply formulating a backup plan.
E.G. splitting off an independent character when charging from a transport to charge the same squad anyway (in order to mitigate bad fleet or difficult terrain rolls.) With double the chances of making it to assault it makes the difference between needing one impossible crappy roll vs. needing two impossible crappy rolls to screw your tactic. Further, proper positioning and utilizing this principle can allow one to charge a different squad instead.


The point of this thread is to get across the notion that the game is somewhat tactically deep; order of operations is *extremely* important for many armies, positioning (E.G. the difference of utilizing cover properly vs. putting yourself in range of more weapons), mitigation of risks (both in lists and gameplay), etc..

Personally I think that while people are learning to build lists properly they are often also learning the tactics they need to understand how to play properly; I'd argue however that because the list building portion is purposeful learning and that the tactics portion is intrinsic/intuitive (usually) that those who say that the tactics in this game are simple are merely exaggerating the ease of tactics due to being good at other games (and thus applying previous knowledge to this game) or simply not noticing the learning process.

I will not say 40k requires the utmost of tactical genius but I would say that the difference between an experienced player and a newb is extreme, and similarly a good player vs. a great player is similarly extreme; however list building can water this down enough to be unnoticable. IMO the list-building portion comes down to a difference of objectives for players (some WAAC, some fluffy, etc..) and thus is also an easy focus. Some players may have tactical acumen but lack the will to change a list for what others see as archaic reasons; I'd still argue however that for someone to be tactically relevant in this game they should have the ability to perfectly utilize a power-list of sorts. There is careful balancing in a 40k list that must be done much like in a MTG deck; while randomness exists in both so does perfect play. The difference between a good player with a good deck and a bad player with a good deck is akin to the difference in a similar situation in 40k.


I pose this argument to:
-Potentially change the opinion of some/add knowledge to the pool
-Receive critiques that so that I might see it's weaknesses, flaws, or otherwise be able to improve the argument. (Worst case scenario is actually that the argument is incorrect, but I don't believe that.)
-See if any others are like minded

[Stonerhino]

The Army List vs Tactics debate will never end.

Army List are discussed more often because they can be looked at in a vaccuum. Where as Tactics can vary so much to make them next to pointless to discuss. At least beyond the very basics.

That being said Tactics are often viewed as "Simple" because people are playing against people who don't use them. Not to insult players but it's the truth.

[Lord Damocles]

That being said Tactics are often viewed as "Simple" because people are playing against people who don't use them. Not to insult players but it's the truth.

This is something which has annoyed me for ages about many Fantasy players who make the switch to 40K*.

Before the game, you'll get a little speech along the lines of, '40K requires no skill to play. It's all about list building. There are no tactics besides banzai charging. Fantasy is for pros'.
Then said Fantasy player will mindlessly banzai charge across the board, get outmanoeuvred, lack redundancy, place too much/too little emphasis on the mission objectives, and generally get mullered.
When they lose, they'll then proclaim that this 'proves' that their pre-game denunciation of 40K was justified because they lost despite being a tactical genius


*It's not exclusive to Fantasy players, and this isn't a criticism of Fantasy players generally - just those who I've observed etc. ect.. Please put the pitchforks away...

[Chapters Unwritten]

This is something which has annoyed me for ages about many Fantasy players who make the switch to 40K*.

Before the game, you'll get a little speech along the lines of, '40K requires no skill to play. It's all about list building. There are no tactics besides banzai charging. Fantasy is for pros'.
Then said Fantasy player will mindlessly banzai charge across the board, get outmanoeuvred, lack redundancy, place too much/too little emphasis on the mission objectives, and generally get mullered.
When they lose, they'll then proclaim that this 'proves' that their pre-game denunciation of 40K was justified because they lost despite being a tactical genius


*It's not exclusive to Fantasy players, and this isn't a criticism of Fantasy players generally - just those who I've observed etc. ect.. Please put the pitchforks away...

I want to nominate this post for some form of greatness. Where is the Greatness +1 button?

[The bearded one]

This is something which has annoyed me for ages about many Fantasy players who make the switch to 40K*.

Before the game, you'll get a little speech along the lines of, '40K requires no skill to play. It's all about list building. There are no tactics besides banzai charging. Fantasy is for pros'.
Then said Fantasy player will mindlessly banzai charge across the board, get outmanoeuvred, lack redundancy, place too much/too little emphasis on the mission objectives, and generally get mullered.
When they lose, they'll then proclaim that this 'proves' that their pre-game denunciation of 40K was justified because they lost despite being a tactical genius


*It's not exclusive to Fantasy players, and this isn't a criticism of Fantasy players generally - just those who I've observed etc. ect.. Please put the pitchforks away...

Merely as an anecdote, I remember one of my very first games of 40K, with Tau, against a very experienced tournamentplayer, with a firm grasp on all the subtleties of the rules, with salamanders, and I won. Quite badly.

[Vipoid]

This is something which has annoyed me for ages about many Fantasy players who make the switch to 40K*.

Before the game, you'll get a little speech along the lines of, '40K requires no skill to play. It's all about list building. There are no tactics besides banzai charging. Fantasy is for pros'.
Then said Fantasy player will mindlessly banzai charge across the board, get outmanoeuvred, lack redundancy, place too much/too little emphasis on the mission objectives, and generally get mullered.
When they lose, they'll then proclaim that this 'proves' that their pre-game denunciation of 40K was justified because they lost despite being a tactical genius


*It's not exclusive to Fantasy players, and this isn't a criticism of Fantasy players generally - just those who I've observed etc. ect.. Please put the pitchforks away...

One of my friends, who recently switched to fantasy, proclaimed that "Unlike 40k, fantasy required brains to win."

The player in question plays Ogres, and I'm not lying when I say that his "tactic" is literally 'cast buff spells and charge headlong at the enemy'

As someone who actually plays fantasy (since my friends now play nothing else), I find the idea that it's more tactical than 40k laughable. Random charge distance means assaults randomly fail, leaving you not only exposed, but also just close enough to your enemy that their charge is gaurenteed. Magic is also random, and a 4th level (very powerful) wizard can miscast and insta-kill himself, whilst trying to cast the most basic of spells. The missions are frankly pathetic, with one requiring that units be placed randomly on your side of the board (God forbid any strategical thinking goes into deployment).

Now, to clarify, I'm not trying to say that no tactics are involved in Fantasy - I just think that the people who say that it requires far more tactical/strategical skill than 40k are deluding themselves.



Anyway, going back on topic, I agree with what others have said - it's a lot easier to discuss lists, because they can be discussed in a vacuum (more or less). On the other hand, tactics are dependant on a number of factors - the mission, the table, your opponent's army, how your opponent deploys, etc. Furthermore, tactics have to be fluid - things don't always go to plan, and often you'll have to completely change your strategy mid-game - either for a last chance at a win, or just to scrape a draw. You might have a perfectly prapared startegy of how a CC unit will get to your opponent's backline... only to realise that it's best use is actually camping on an objective in your deployment zone.

Essentially, it's very difficult to properly discuss tactics, becuase there are so many outside influences, and because they have to be fluid.

Perhaps it could be summed up with this quote: "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy"

[datalink7]

One of my friends, who recently switched to fantasy, proclaimed that "Unlike 40k, fantasy required brains to win."

The player in question plays Ogres, and I'm not lying when I say that his "tactic" is literally 'cast buff spells and charge headlong at the enemy'

As someone who actually plays fantasy (since my friends now play nothing else), I find the idea that it's more tactical than 40k laughable. Random charge distance means assaults randomly fail, leaving you not only exposed, but also just close enough to your enemy that their charge is gaurenteed. Magic is also random, and a 4th level (very powerful) wizard can miscast and insta-kill himself, whilst trying to cast the most basic of spells. The missions are frankly pathetic, with one requiring that units be placed randomly on your side of the board (God forbid any strategical thinking goes into deployment).

Now, to clarify, I'm not trying to say that no tactics are involved in Fantasy - I just think that the people who say that it requires far more tactical/strategical skill than 40k are deluding themselves.



Anyway, going back on topic, I agree with what others have said - it's a lot easier to discuss lists, because they can be discussed in a vacuum (more or less). On the other hand, tactics are dependant on a number of factors - the mission, the table, your opponent's army, how your opponent deploys, etc. Furthermore, tactics have to be fluid - things don't always go to plan, and often you'll have to completely change your strategy mid-game - either for a last chance at a win, or just to scrape a draw. You might have a perfectly prapared startegy of how a CC unit will get to your opponent's backline... only to realise that it's best use is actually camping on an objective in your deployment zone.

Essentially, it's very difficult to properly discuss tactics, becuase there are so many outside influences, and because they have to be fluid.

Perhaps it could be summed up with this quote: "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy"

As a counter point, it can be argued that random charge distances require greater tactical flexibility and depth. You not only need to think ahead and calculate what will happen if you are successful, but also what happens if you fail, in addition to calculating the odds that each individual unit will make it (critical when setting up multiple charges), and factoring risk vs reward for evey action. This necessitates building in redundancies and contingencies into your planning process. With a known charge distance where you auto fail or auto make it, there are far fewer decision points to make within the process.

Now I know that there are counter points to the counter point, such as too much randomness negates any strategy, but I think there is some validaty to the argument that some random elements actually enhances the tacitcal element of the game.

[Vipoid]

As a counter point, it can be argued that random charge distances require greater tactical flexibility and depth. You not only need to think ahead and calculate what will happen if you are successful, but also what happens if you fail

That's true, but there's no real way to counteract the chance of failure.

To elaborate, consider this: shooting a unit and attacking it in CC both involve an element of chance. However, there are many ways to make sure that the odds are in your favour - you can use large amounts of firepower, or units with many models/attacks, in order to minimise the effect of random chance. For example, if you fire 2 shots, even with decent BS, it isn't hard to miss with both. However, if you're firing 20 shots, then it's likely at least osme of them will hit their mark.

With movement though, you just can't do that. Yes, you can try to get into a good position to favour a charge, whilst denying your opponent the charge, but that's still no gaurentee you'll get the charge off. Basically, you could make excellent strategical decisions, then have them crushed by rolling snake-eyes.

Consider this - in fantasy, some armies have no shooting to speak of - they have to assault. However, whilst shooting armies can play the numbers and throw out pleanty of shots, armies that rely on assaults have no such options. That's my problem - there's no way to mitigate the random effect - all you can do is throw the dice and hope for the best.

That's not tactics. You're allowed to premeasure everything, so how much skill is really involved in moving a unit into its average charge range, and hoping for the best?

With a known charge distance where you auto fail or auto make it, there are far fewer decision points to make within the process.

Generals should be allowed certainties. There's also a different type of skill in that 40k, unlike fantasy, doesn't allow distances to be premeasured. So you have to precisely judge the range from your unit to the enemy unit - especially if you plan to move into an exposed position in the movement phase, in preparation for the charge.

Now I know that there are counter points to the counter point, such as too much randomness negates any strategy, but I think there is some validaty to the argument that some random elements actually enhances the tacitcal element of the game.

I think though that you can have too much randomness in a game - certain aspects should remain consistant, and with fantasy I firmly believe that charging distance should have been one of them.

[Chaos and Evil]

40k is mostly about list building and not about tactics.

In comparison to a lot of other wargames out there, this is basically true. It's down to the target audience the game is designed for (casual play or children).

[The Marshel]

in a hyper competitive environment, you're probably right, but in the casual environment i mostly play in I've seen armies fall apart due to bad deployment, poor target priority and poor application of assets in various phases of the game.

I think the main problem is that it's currently possible in this meta to make sure you have the exact tools you need to beat the other armies ahead of time. You know you'll likely face some variation of mech and most armies are capable of bringing enough AT to counteract said mech, but because they are also mech, they fall victim to the same tactics, so it boils down to who bought the more efficient list.

When you pull that hyper efficiency back a bit and relax the setting a little more you see a bit more variety in what hits the field, and as such can alter your list to be less efficient but (potentially, depends on the player) more interesting in its application.

So basically, I agree with you, but the game wasn't really designed with hyper competitive play as a main focus point and until it is it will always suffer for it. tactics aren't so important simply because list are too efficient at their task. Less efficient list require more use of tactics, but less efficient list are a death wish in a tourney.

Either way, i still enjoy the game as it is

[Stonerhino]

I have a slanted view on the subject but I think it's actually the opposite. It's the Hyper Competitive environment that shows the best use of tactics. There is a reason that you see the same people winning tournies. And it's not because they found some super secret best list ever army list. It's because they consistantly make the best use of their list. As in the tactics they use allow them to defeat other players who are also playing hyper competitvie lists.

When you dumb the lists down, you can force bad matchups that you wouldn't see otherwise.

[samiens]

I just wrote a really long response to this which I then lost- darn tapatalk!

Basically, the game is inherently tactical (I.e there is a suitably wide variety of possible board situations between the mix of units and terrain that there are a staggering amount of potential- chess also has this, tic tac toe with its limited number of combinations does not) but the meta game and knowledge thereof limits how many of these possibilities actually appear hence making the game more biased towards list building than in game choices. One or both player taking non-meta or anti-meta lists helps mitigate this because the illusion of a lack of tactics with meta-lists is because people are playing out well established tactics. Any game starts to lose tactical depth if you have played it enough.

On the 'its a kids/casual game' point which always comes up- its irrelevant. Once the game is in the public domain the whims and wills of the designers have no bearing on how it is played- to believe otherwise would be terribly conceited on their part. (Just as laws are interpreted by the judiciary more on what they actually say than what is meant- which is why law makers often have to redraft or make amendments because precedent has made different rulings than those they wished to reach).

But the ultimate factor is whether the game is decided by skill or not. 40K is not the most complex game ever made but I believe that skill is most often the primary determining factor in victory, followed by list building and then luck- which to me makes the game worthwhile.
Sent from my 7 Mozart using Board Express

[DEADMARSH]

Tactics in 40k are going to depend largely on who you play against.

An analogy that comes to mind is a lob wedge in golf. If you only play on flat courses with flat greens and no trees or bunkers around the green, you'd probably wonder why anyone would ever bother to carry a lob wedge as it's a very specialized club. That doesn't mean the lob wedge doesn't have its place, just maybe its not got a place in your bag for that particular course. This is of course assuming you can even hit a lob wedge...

I read a post on here a week or two ago where a poster was talking about math is the ultimate truth and all this, then made a statement to the effect of why would he assault rather than shoot then assault. I can think of instances where that would come up- namely because of the rule stating you can't shoot into an assault. There are times I might be better off losing a guy or two in an assault than weather an entire round of shooting because I shot, then assaulted, wiped the target unit out, then consolidated. Is it something I automatically do every time? No, of course not, but there are times that decision comes up. Just like there are times I deploy a little short of my actual forward deployment edge, don't move a unit it's full 6", or whatever. It just depends on the context.

Point is, yes, listbuilding is an important facet of playing 40k, just as mathammer is, just as employing good critical thinking (which I would call tactics) during your game is. Additionally, if you only ever play against people who do the same exact thing every time, regardless of situation or context, then listbuilding and mathammer will be more influential in your matches than tactics. Doesn't mean the game isn't tactical.

Of course, if you play an opponent who plays that "max" way, your tactics probably aren't going to change much either because they don't need to. It's a two-player game. If one of you has decided you're basically going to act out a mathammer exercise, there probably isn't a whole lot you can really do about it.

[megatrons2nd]

There is a difference in some armies when it comes to skill vs codex. I place well when I play my new Dark Eldar. I do slightly worse with my Craftworld Eldar, which I admittedly am still learning. My Tau on the other hand die horribly to almost every army. When Tau were new, I never lost a game to Dark Eldar, and did well in local tournaments. I have heard many times that this is more of a ranged game than previous editions and that Tau do well. I often wonder at the tables terrain coverage used for those games. We play with 25% coverage as suggested which make getting LOS very difficult, or hinders what damage I do with plentiful cover saves. Assault dominates our area because of the faster transit within the safety of vehicles and/or cover. The benefit of extra range on the Tau is limited due to this, and their horrible ability in CC accentuates this.

Army build, in my opinion is setting a Strategy, and the actual terrain and opponent will set the Tactics needed. Telling people to change a list is telling them that their Strategy is flawed, telling them that placing a unit in a certain location is a bad idea is telling them they are making a bad tactical decision.

[DEADMARSH]

There is a difference in some armies when it comes to skill vs codex. I place well when I play my new Dark Eldar. I do slightly worse with my Craftworld Eldar, which I admittedly am still learning. My Tau on the other hand die horribly to almost every army. When Tau were new, I never lost a game to Dark Eldar, and did well in local tournaments. I have heard many times that this is more of a ranged game than previous editions and that Tau do well. I often wonder at the tables terrain coverage used for those games. We play with 25% coverage as suggested which make getting LOS very difficult, or hinders what damage I do with plentiful cover saves. Assault dominates our area because of the faster transit within the safety of vehicles and/or cover. The benefit of extra range on the Tau is limited due to this, and their horrible ability in CC accentuates this.

Army build, in my opinion is setting a Strategy, and the actual terrain and opponent will set the Tactics needed. Telling people to change a list is telling them that their Strategy is flawed, telling them that placing a unit in a certain location is a bad idea is telling them they are making a bad tactical decision.

This is an excellent point.

Many of the list criticizers look at a player's list, see units that don't match their own strategy or the strategy of the collective "group" (i.e. gaming group, internet forum, whatever), then tell them to change it. Sometimes that's because the player's list doesn't contain any strategy, but sometimes it just doesn't match the so-called cookie cutter idea of what's supposed to be "best" for that particular army. The problem is if the player doesn't recognize the strategy of using the "best" units that have been suggested, he probably also doesn't understand the tactics of using the army in the game. If he did, he probably would have selected them to begin with (or simply lacks the experience necessary to realize his decision), so listbuilding is really sort of relative because it assumes you know what you're doing with the list.

Case in point, when I started everyone who played Space Marines in 4th ed. LOVED missle launcher Devastators. The first game I played with them was only the third game I'd ever played. I set them too far back in cover (i.e. greater than 6") and as such, they couldn't fire first turn. Second turn, I'm left with the decision of moving them and being able to fire 3rd turn or leaving them in place hoping my opponent would move a unit to one side or the other so they could fire (as the building they were hiding in wasn't as wide as it was deep).

That doesn't mean the unit was bad- they were quite good for the points cost, but because I didn't understand the finer points of shooting out of cover, they didn't do anything for me that game. I learned later how to use them more effectively, but to me, this illustrates the above point- it was a good unit in a good list- a sound strategy, if you will. My tactics though, were flawed so they didn't reach their potential.

A game doesn't have to have 1,001 rules for every situation under the sun to be tactical. It just needs to put its players in situations where they have to make decisions that aren't completely black-and-white. 40k does that.

[Easy E]

Army build, in my opinion is setting a Strategy, and the actual terrain and opponent will set the Tactics needed. Telling people to change a list is telling them that their Strategy is flawed, telling them that placing a unit in a certain location is a bad idea is telling them they are making a bad tactical decision.

This it the truth.

What 40K calls "List Building" is actually strategy.

Due to unset and variable nature of the game, tactics are a bit harder to discuss. There are some general things you can talk about, like overlapping firepower, right tools on the right target, etc, but the tactics ont eh board are much more minute and specific.

The focus on strategic choices is much easier since we all have the same army lists to work from.

[blurrymadness]

Yay for meaningful discussion! I was mildly disheartened when a day later there were still zero replies :P


Some of you have touched upon some of what I was trying to say:
________________
-Having a good list, reasonable terrain, etc.. are requisites for good tactical play to *really* show through. You can have good tactical play with a bad list but such games are (I believe) the culprit of why the tactics vs. army list debate exists; you have to have... your macro down in order for your micro to matter (to say it in an RTS way.)

@TheMarshel, this point is actually where I'm saying the opposite I think; having ultra-competitive lists should *allow* for pure tactical value. Once both sides can see two turns ahead, have the tools for the job, know what the averages look like, etc.. you should see "top level play" where sides make the occasional move that is unrecognizable (similar to facing a computer opponent in a chess game; some moves don't make any sense until later.) At casual tables you'll likely not see top-level play because it will be more basic tactical elements of how these imperfect armies deal with eachother. Both have tactical value, my argument is merely that you're likely to see excellent play when people have all the counters to eachother and are dancing at the edge of ranges, edge of cover/los, etc to gain their advantages (or what have you.)
________________
-@DEADMARSH, this is also what I'm saying. If you play poor players all the time then you'll no longer recognize the tactical value in the game (you'll be outplaying them easily with mild use of obvious tactics and cease to notice their existence)

________________
-@megatrons, Some armies are decidedly meh; I hate to say it, but certain codices are non-starters in a.. hyper competitive environment. That said, I'd imagine with your friends in a tourny setting you could still do just fine. Tau are a weird army who's rules were based on 4th ed rules that 5th screwed up. Same with Eldar.

Eldar can still do well because they have a wider variety of units, probably were built with 5th in the back of the mind, and have a very nice set of generalist weapons that work well between editions. Tau have some really good things (missile pods, railguns, disruption pods, fusion blasters) some OK things (most of the S5 AP5 weapons, Kroot), and a lot of deprecated things (sniper teams, those missiles, pricing on certain upgrades (shield drones, ASS, etc..))

When it comes to 5th, Tau have old prices and old rules in a meta where AT prices are increasing, AP prices are increasing, statlines and saves are decreasing in price. You pay 30 points for a 4+ invul with 1 wound, others pay 40 for a 2+/3++ with wargear, or 15 to change to a 3++; etc. What I'd imagine happens with the dex is that weapons go up in price, bodies come down in price (bringing some builds down in price) and that general units like Firewarriors, Shield Drones, and Kroot and such come down a bit. Any imbalanced units you have relative to 5th are likely amidst deprecated units or units that are over-costed that need to support them.

[totgeboren]

When this comes up I'm always reminded of my friend who started playing Eldar a few years ago. He lost every single game, like ten times in a row, and then he started reading eldar tactics. He didn't really change his list, but suddenly he started winning lots of games. The only thing that changed was the way he used his units. Ok, Eldar is an extreme example of an army the really shines in the hand of a man with a plan, but still.

Tactics are important, but as megatron2ed said, you need tactics that match your strategy.

[agurus1]

I think tactics are definitely a part of the game, and agree with the above statements of how list-building = strategy (your concepts about how your army will potentially perform, and how if might mitigate your opponents advantages, or discrepancies in terrain, or adjust to victory conditions.

Personally the best way to test your tactical acumen is to play a % of points down from your opponent. during a recent campaign at my LGS, the player whose team controlled more hex's awarded 50 or 100 (can't remember which) to their opponent per hex their team was winning by. This led to games where I was sometimes 200-300 points down and tactics really became a big part of the game, and made victories even more rewarding! This was good because it also gave more accomplished players a challenge while also enhancing the less experienced players chances. (note I am not a WAAC player, I play Vostroyan's combined arms IG, but I do have a near unbroken string of victories under my belt, and attempt to always make it an enjoyable game for both sides).

[Friedrich von Offenbach]

i too think tactics are necessary, although often i find its a matter of what not to do, rather than what to do. So in other words one needs to know not to charge devastators in to combat or use Khorne bezerkers as a shooty unit. I also find people often also make the mistake of having a unit that they think is unkillable (because of their great army list selection) and charge it wildly across the field. A more tactical person would know not to do that and rather be 'stealthy'.