View Full Version: Seizing the Initative

The Great Crusade > Welcome to the Great Crusade: News and Events > Seizing the Initative

Title: Seizing the Initative
Description: An idea I've had

Lord Commander Solus - November 18, 2012 03:58 PM (GMT)

Let's have some threads for tactics! :D

Damn good idea! :lol:

Vinnie - November 18, 2012 04:19 PM (GMT)
True enough there isn't a dedicated sub forum and very few threads (dotted here and there) about 30k specific tactics. If I had to guess I'd say that it's because the thematic content of our collective interest here is perhaps a little more centred upon the visual and contextual differences of the HH era from standard Forty Kay, rather than a competitively driven focus on game-winning.

Not to say that members here aren't competitive, its just that this is traditionally a more modelling- and canon-based forum.

As to the idea that the forum as an entity has missed an opportunity and that you find this disappointing... I can only say that as with all internet forums, everything on here is driven by members. User generated content is a very descriptive title for a very simple process. In short, if you want to see it, start a thread about it!

As an aside regarding the tone of your opening post, may I suggest that in future you don't ask members "not to get defensive" and then immediately take them to task and assert that they are all purposely avoiding something obvious just to aggravate you personally. This may not have been your intent at all, and if it wasn't then I apologise, but at the moment it seems to me your last paragraph was entirely unneccessary and divisive. I guarantee that if members don't look favourably on this thread then it will have nothing to do with the content and everything to do with the delivery.

Wolf Lord Mjolnir - November 18, 2012 04:42 PM (GMT)
Sorry, but isn't there a thread solely for army lists? Yes, there is. I know because I've used it and received comments on my list to make it better...

Brother Handro - November 18, 2012 04:51 PM (GMT)
Strong words, Solus.

You have a point, we are probably missing a trick by not having an obvious area for the discussion of tactics. And I may even go so far as to agree that it may be costing us membership growth.

I agree with Vinnie tho' that the nature of the forum means that frankly that side of the hobby is of little or certainly less interest to our audience than in mainstream 40k. Some of our members may well be part of a tournament scene somewhere with their 40k or other system armies, but if they're here, it's with their 30k hat on, and that means primarily background, and creative modelling. The game to many of us is almost incidental.

So whilst a tactics/list area may bring more traffic (and Shroud would be able to tell exactly how much of that we get), there is no proof to suggest that would be a certainty, and it could be that it would turn our quiet corner of the aether into a generic 40k forum, populated by WAAC merchants and people linking to us from Google merely in search of competitve lists, etc. without really contributing anything other than an increase in hits.
I don't seek to speak for everyone, but I'm fairly certain that would be unpopular amongst the majority of our current membership.

Wolf Lord Mjolnir makes a compelling point too! :P

Ilmarinen - November 18, 2012 11:46 PM (GMT)
I'm not sure where to begin with this.

...I guess I'll start by saying thanks to Vinnie, Wolf Lord Mjolnir and Brother Handro - who have all made calm, rational and useful replies to the OP.

Ok, I'll add my 2p:

1. As has been mentioned, there is an appropriate subforum where tactics threads can be posted;
2. You'd be very welcome to start one, or do a series of tactica articles;
3. Your implication that the aim of the board should be 'growth' is erroneous - that may well be true for those forums who have a financial incentive to get ever higher hit counts, to boost their advertising revenue, but this forum is for people who have an interest in the Heresy - if more people have that interest, the board will grow;
4. Again, as has been mentioned, the 'powergaming' mentality is not heavily prevalent here - there is nothing wrong with assessing units for usefulness, but the fact that the painting and hobbying sections of the board are more densely populated shows the primary interests of the people who come here;
5. Stating that the board has 'taken our eye off the ball' and 'spat in opportunity's eye' - I'm really not sure what goal you think we're meant to be aiming for? I come here (and have come here for many years) for the amazing modelling and painting talent of many of the members, detailed discussion of the Heresy setting, and a generally much more pleasant and mature level of chat than most internet forums - people who are looking for the same things are likely to return;

[Mod mode on]6. There is a difference between speaking 'harshly' and/or 'frankly' and coming across as a troll (or worse). Speaking frankly, your post reads to me as unpleasant, arrogant and condescending. If this was your intention, congratulations - if not, then you may want to have someone read your posts before you publish them in future, to better gauge their tone. [Mod mode off]

Oh, and incidentally, you don't need to 'sign' your posts - I'm perfectly capable of looking a little to the left to see your username. :rolleyes:

Pacific - November 19, 2012 12:14 AM (GMT)
Seriously mate, without wanting to sound rude please take a moment to read through your post before you make it. Think how it's going to sound to people who don't know you well, and might not share your viewpoint. This isn't the kind of forum where you need to scream in other people's faces, or tell them to 'f*** off', to get some kind of response to the point you want to make. Catchy catchy, sneaky monkey, so to speak, rather than chasing after that monkey yelling while clutching a house brick in your hand. The former will get you a much better response.

Or, possible don't make a post when in need of a coffee or after being sat in traffic on the way home for 3 hours! ;)

I don't want to really get into the nitty gritty of the subject you've brought up, suffice to say that generally within the FW books (and the Horus Heresy one especially) there is much more of an onus on the background narrative, modelling and painting generally than there is on the 'competitive' elements of the book (whatever that may mean? Or rather an undue emphasis on something that was obviously not the intent of the rule writers). I think the balance of the forum discussion, which focuses on these most of the time, and the users that come here probably reflect that.

Otherwise I'll second what the guys have spelled out here; of course there is nothing at all to stop you making posts about army lists and no doubt they will receive replies. But, the onus is on you and others who think in a like manner to build up the discussion - not to simply come in strutting with your hands on your hips, pouting because you think something about the forum is 'wrong'.

This forum has a history of adapting to its users; the epic section, expansion of the modelling/painting section and others are all examples of that. But, there has to be a demand for it from the user base, beyond wanting TGC to fall into line behind other, certain (and IMO rather unsavoury) forums and blogs that are out there.

lord_caldera - November 19, 2012 05:38 AM (GMT)
I think the board has grown, and continues to grow, at a reasonable pace for what has until recently been a niche of the hobby background. The focus of TGC has generally been narrative and modelling, especially since there was never any official support of Heresy-era models until last year. It was a community brought together to share ideas, speculation, and conversions, and to get feedback on such. Games were and are played to a theme (I've participated in them!) instead of just to win, and are generally very friendly affairs.

With the release of "Betrayal" I think more people might want to play Heresy-era games and come to the forum, but hopefully they would be attracted to the atmosphere and enchantment of a truly devoted group of people instead of seeking the ONE LIST for the book. The sheer number of options presented in "Betrayal" shows that it was written for narrative-style play and for people to design their own type of list conforming to their particular loves in the background and history, instead of to find the mot competitive options.

And as for gathering members who never come back, I disagree entirely. I'm a notorious lurker myself, and I know many other members are active but just rarely post. Some people just like to look around for inspiration; some, like me, simply have little constructive to add to most discussions.

But I think most of all that you have missed the point of this forum: not to win games alone, but to win together the advancement of Warhammer 30,000 in the community.

Ilmarinen - November 19, 2012 07:22 AM (GMT)
Oh, and...
7. We are planning to organise a narrative event for March 2013 (the day after BL Live) and I have already proposed that everyone attending takes all of the wargear options they want - so I expect to see artificer armour on sergeants, nuncio-voxes, melta-bombs, reinforced ceramite, flare shields, etc - and the points values will be set accordingly (probably quite a bit higher than normal). (I'm not suggesting that every character takes everything they could possibly have btw, as there are some ridiculous combos and the model would probably look very silly!).

This is to ensure that people don't feel constrained by the 'everything must have maximum points efficiency' tournament mantra, which results in bland and uninteresting armies. But... this only works if everyone does it - it would be no fun using a fluffily inefficient list against a hardcore powergamer list. (I also want to see people taking rhinos (which are now 'known' to be 'poor' in 6th ed) if they want to!)

Apologist - November 19, 2012 01:14 PM (GMT)
I wouldn't be averse to a tactics subforum, and that's because of, rather than in spite of, the general atmosphere of the forum.

Given that the members and visitors here tend to have a rather anti-competitive stance or at least are less interested in tournament-style games, I think this is actually a good place to have a tactics forum, simply because the discussion will have a space to go beyond the 'but this is better' style of a lot of other places.

The reason a lot of tactics fora become awful slanging matches/sarcasm pits seems to be that people aren't interested in discussing actual tactics so much as 'min-maxing' or 'spamming' the 'optimal choices'. Given that we have a 'generally much more pleasant and mature level of chat', as Ilmarinen puts it, I can't see any reason why a 'detailed discussion of the Heresy setting' couldn't incorporate tips on achieving, for example, the Sons of Horus' Decapitation style on the tabletop.

If we could add a subforum that benefitted from actual experience, where discussion was as image-supported as the rest of our forum, we'd get some fantastic results, I think; and far from 'letting in the barbarians', I think this would open our forum up to those thoughtful people who have input on tactics, which would complement, no threaten, those who concentrate on the modelling side of the hobby.

How about we each pop something together over the next few days and see how our tactics go down? :)

Here are some tactics threads that I'd like to see and will benefit from the lovely photography and experience this forum wants to showcase so if you're stuck for inspiration, you could use one of these titles for inspiration.
  • My army, and how I win with a heavily-themed list
  • Making best use of sparse terrain
  • Holding your home objective how to keep your head down
  • The narrative playstyle, and how to have a good fun game against a power list.
  • 30k vs 40k: how do the Astartes armies differ?
  • Using scoring units effectively and keeping them alive until the end of the game
  • Deployment: the refused flank
  • Deployment: flooding the board
  • Identifying high-reward targets
  • First Blood how to ensure you achieve this objective
  • Slay the Warlord how to ensure you achieve this objective
  • First Blood how to deny your opponent this objective
  • Basic strategies of war: getting the best use of reserves
  • Making use of the models you have: best use of intentionally 'uncompetitive' armies
  • Unusual battlefields: a Zona Mortalis masterclass
  • Death Guard infantry wall using an army with no vehicles
  • Show me a fortress and I'll show you a ruin: what units help when holding or breaking Fortifications?
  • 'Guilliman was right' how Heresy-era marines are affected by the loss of ATSKNF.
  • A guide to GW's common terrain elements. Who can hide where?
  • Crossing the battlefield and getting stuck in: how can your assault troops make the best impact?
  • Hammer and Anvil deployment: which Legions benefit?
  • Psychological warfare how to make sure that you and your opponent are on the same page when you play.
I'll throw down the gauntlet and say that anyone who completes a tactics article by the end of the week, complete with at least one new picture that helps illustrate the article's point, will get a miniature prize from me :)

Whitehorn - November 19, 2012 02:45 PM (GMT)
When it comes to forum categories, I think reaction beats expectation.

If users wanted a tactics area, then the wrong forum would be full of tactics topics, which would prompt a new sub-forum being created.

Too many forums add extensive lists of sub-forums and they sit there with 0-1 topics for eternity, which is just ugly and uninviting.

So, align your kettle with your mettle and get posting. If people bite, then maybe a new forum will appear...

Lord Commander Solus - November 19, 2012 07:35 PM (GMT)
I feel rather foolish. I deliberately wrote my post with the intention to be erring on the side of "this guy's a dick" because I was frustrated, I suppose. I've lurked here for quite a while (I know I can't prove it, but I've always loved the paintlogs) and I really, really like this forum. I love it because it doesn't have that horrible WAAC hyper-competitive fluff-devoid attitude of other forums. I love it for its expert painting and conversions. I somehow love the feel of it being smaller than other forums, too. But I was frustrated because I don't want the forum to be "beaten to it", as it were, by another.

I know many of you will be even angrier (and with good reason) that my initial post was purposefully, well, dickish. I just wanted to try and shock y'all a little, I guess. I've gone about this completely the wrong way, and I've made an impression that will likely never leave anybody who reads that OP. I again think it's a testament to this forum that the replies have all been, without exception, calm and well-mannered. I'm almost disgusted in myself for muddying this page with dakka-dakka-style trolling (a forum which I wouldn't touch with the end of a nuclear warhead), and I'm truly sorry for it. It would be naive of me to think that you will believe this post, and you have every right to be sceptical of anything I post now; it looks a little too "born-again-Christian", like some weird epiphany. Heck, if you're reading this you're again proving the quality of this forum, and I'm probably even further sullying your (correctly) already-negative opinion of me with all this sycophancy.

tl ; dr: I'm deeply sorry for my outrageous OP, and hopefully we can move forward!

Now, as for some of the ideas brought forward earlier in the thread; I absolutely agree. When I rather coarsely discussed a tactics section in the OP, I never meant for it to be a dakka-dakka WAAC min-maxing no-fun-or-fluff sort of section. I meant it to be the tactics section that suits dedicated 30k gamers; who are, as you've pointed out, usually more concerned with the fluff and painting. The tactics would be, as a result, fluffy, and geared towards making nicely-themed lists work better on the battlefield, not creating the ultimate abuse-list. I fact, everything Apologist brought up in their post. A perfect, Great-Crusade styled tactics section. Perhaps some nice unit-overviews and general guides to usage, etc etc.

Again, I do apologise for my horrible OP. I would edit it out but that would be cowardly, and I think the shame of it will do me some good.

Ilmarinen - November 19, 2012 08:34 PM (GMT)
Apology accepted!

Right, tactics...

(because everyone here who knows me at all knows I need ALL THE HELP I CAN GET!!!) :lol:

I am loving all of Apologist's discussion ideas but, for those of us who are rather tactically deficient, I'd also like to see a unit-by-unit discussion thread. (I still can't figure out what to do with Breachers, apart from try and make sure they get shot first!).

I'll head over to the army lists subforum and start things off in just a sec.

Vinnie - November 19, 2012 09:02 PM (GMT)
Solus gets +1 man point for humility :P

Given the comprehensive and (to me) satisfying scaling of this first hurdle, I would now like to provide a topic-related post and discuss a well-worn and utterly dependable tactic of mine...


Apologist as usual makes a salient point, and after browsing his list of possibilties there was one that stood out to me, vis:

"The narrative playstyle, and how to have a good fun game against a power list."

I have never been, nor ever intend to be a hardcore tourny gamer, and this is for one very good reason. I'm rubbish at gaming. I don't have the chess-playing head for seeing several turns ahead, and I suffer from chronic 'up-the-centre' syndrome, making it an extreme rarity that I actually pass up the offer of assault even if it means certain death for a unit, the loss of an objective, gleefully throwing armfuls of victory points to my opponent, or all of the above!
That said, I have long been a fan of knowing you've lost the battle before you've even started it.

Just to iterate: I am not suggesting this as a game-winning tactic, but it's a game-enjoying tactic beyond compare for those of us who are dice-rollingly deficient!

The HH setting is all about failure to me. The Loyalists fail at the outset of Heresy, and the Traitors fail at its end. Everybody loses at some point, with some Legions such as the Loyalist three on Isstvan V losing a great deal! Indeed in the books and the canon at large it is seldom the manner of victory that provides the drama of individual characters, but the manner of their defeat and the difficulties that rise from that, and the personal vindications sought after acceptance of defeat but before the moment of death. To a romantic soul such as I this is one of the most heroic aspects of the superheroic Adeptus Astartes in whatever millennium they are portrayed.
This somewhat obscure perspective means every single individual I lose on the tabletop hammers home the reality of "an eternity of war" and distils the victories into tiny yet dramatic pieces occurring all over the place.
The 6th Ed rules featuring challenges and widening the scope for the use of characters in armies really suits my microcosmic attitude to games, so I find throwing my heroes into improbable odds, or leaving my tactical squads without reinforcement to fend off advancing enemy units from capturing objectives really enlivens the gaming experience for me, rather than the 'gaming by numbers' approach.

Furthermore to this, the proverb 'Be bold, and mighty forces shall come to your aid' springs to mind, as I have found without exception that trying to be strategic has a detrimental effect on my dice rolls, and ballsing it out like a mother[I'M ILLITERATE]er tends to land me some cheeky winning rolls! I don't know how it works, but it sure as hell works for me!

A glorious last stand or headlong charge into insurmountable odds is NEVER out of the question for Space Marines, and I think the desperation of the HH era would bring this trait very much to the fore.

In summary, never be afraid of losing. It's not like the mean man is going to take away your toys if you fall flat on your face! Instead enjoy the drama of each assault, each round of shooting and each unexpected victory (they're all unexpected to me!) in turn as they come, and the narrative significance of the battle will assert itself. For example the heavy stubber gunner in my 40k Chaos army has SNAP SHOT the last wound off four Space Marine characters in the last two months! He is now a hero amongst my army, and his is the first unit to hoon it to the nearest objective and give hell from cover! Of course that made the time he got butchered in the first turn by Heroically Intervening Vanguard Vets all the more cruel! But dramatically so!

Lord Commander Solus - November 19, 2012 09:15 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Vinnie @ Nov 19 2012, 09:02 PM)
Solus gets +1 man point for humility :P

Not sure I deserve it, but my thanks all the same. :P

As for Losing, it sounds like a great tactic to me. I can count on my fingers the number of times I've ever actually won a game of warhammer (fantasy or 40k!), and I don't need to use two hands. I've lost several times due to objectives (curse my refusal to do the sane thing and hold steady!), and my favourite games have to be those hard-fought draws. Most of the time it's a gentle pat on the head from my opponent as they sweep me from the table, though!

Going in with that sort of mindset is definitely very important. But that's why it's also important, I feel, for us to be forearmed against the powergamer. They won't expect a clever little tactic here or there, and what better way to win a game than to win fluffily? I can't think any reasonable person could *ever* complain if they were beaten by a heroic charge, rather than a last-turn jetbike swoop to grab an objective.

And on the plus side, a fluffy gamer winning over a powergamer has actually proven powergaming doesn't necessarily work. (Either that or they've used loaded dice!). That shows real generalship, in my opinion.

EDIT: My most recent posts were made with Wagner in the background. My OP was made with Stravinsky... related perhaps?

Brother Handro - November 19, 2012 09:26 PM (GMT)
Solus; Although I'm not sure how I feel about you deliberately writing a 'dickish' post to provoke a reaction (although we have no resident trolls on this board to rise to it anyway), I feel you had and have genuine concerns and thoughts about improving our humble forum.

(I feel I must state for the record that these concerns were legitimate enough that had you worded them as you did in your second post we wouldn't have had half the scripture in this thread, but you live and learn, eh?)

Apologist; wonderful ideas there. I hope we can little by little begin to build on them as we experience 30k battles and add our own little take on subjects such as you have mentioned.

Vinnie; woah, that's....deep, bro. :P Seriously, I never saw it like that, but you're right; it's all about losing. That's the whole tragedy. That mankind would have ruled the stars if not for it's own hubris, and propensity to turn on its own brothers. I too am to some extent a 'happy loser'. I don't feel a strong enough drive to want to win the game and so I let it flow naturally. At the end of the day, the dice have as great a say in the outcome as you do!

Mortarion - November 19, 2012 09:42 PM (GMT)
I too like the sound of having a fluffy tactics section especially now that we have betrayal to give us an almost "standard list" to work from.

In a sort of round about way I can understand Solus making the dickish post to spur us into action, even when someone suggests a great idea its all to easy for us to go "Yes thats a wonderful idea, I'd love to see X on here" and then everyone waits for somebody else to start it. It may not necessarily have been the best way to go about it but it has got us all discussing it! And I agree with Vinnie on the +1 man point for being willing stand up and say he was wrong.

I've played a few games and so far am getting about 50/50 win loose, although my list isnt quite as I'd like it at this stage but thats as much to do with the fact that I need more models to represent the stuff I want. I only loose consistently to my guard playing friend but he's a WAAC player so it doesn't over bother me if I loose, coincidently he plays Skaven in fantasy and I cant beat them either!

It will be good to see what everyone else is doing with the lists as well, and it will be interesting to see if there common themes in the lists we all build.

Ilmarinen - November 19, 2012 10:12 PM (GMT)
Well put Vinnie. I am also firmly in the likely-to-get-tabled camp, so I'm a big fan of making that narrative appealing! (I still cannot beat Shroud - he always wins by a narrow margin, like that last damn scout that just won't die!)

And it is true that going balls-out for glory does seem to work - like my White Scars bike Captain who solo charged an Iron Warriors assault squad and won (causing them to flee off the table) and was then shot by a squadron of medusas ...and survived!

Gagoc TheAncient - November 19, 2012 11:44 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Ilmarinen @ Nov 19 2012, 09:34 PM)
Apology accepted!

Right, tactics...

(because everyone here who knows me at all knows I need ALL THE HELP I CAN GET!!!) :lol:

I am loving all of Apologist's discussion ideas but, for those of us who are rather tactically deficient, I'd also like to see a unit-by-unit discussion thread. (I still can't figure out what to do with Breachers, apart from try and make sure they get shot first!).

I'll head over to the army lists subforum and start things off in just a sec.

This, and the whole Betrayal Tactics idea, is why I started the Interesting Betrayal Builds thread.

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to 40K tactics and tend to rely on luck and well-thought-out units. Doesn't help though when they die in the first turn!

So having a list of units and character builds for examples helps someone in my position. And having ones like the Forge Lord I posted not only helps but makes me chuckle, usually in a wicked manner.

Lord_Mortirion - December 12, 2012 07:08 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Vinnie @ Nov 19 2012, 09:02 PM)


I have never been, nor ever intend to be a hardcore tourny gamer, and this is for one very good reason. I'm rubbish at gaming. I don't have the chess-playing head for seeing several turns ahead, and I suffer from chronic 'up-the-centre' syndrome, making it an extreme rarity that I actually pass up the offer of assault even if it means certain death for a unit, the loss of an objective, gleefully throwing armfuls of victory points to my opponent, or all of the above!
That said, I have long been a fan of knowing you've lost the battle before you've even started it.

we should pay, i might actually draw ( i wouldnt say win, i have sucked badly the past few years)... @Ilmarinen this goes for you too haha. wish some of you guys lived in liverpool, im the only person i know interested in 30k gaming, it sucks :/

Hosted for free by zIFBoards