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"