Tactica 3

let's backtrack a bit.

before the game starts, there are considerations you need to account for.

40K TACTICA Part III: the list

When M:tG became enough of a presence in geekdom that it had an effect and example on other games, it created a certain amount of pollution into wargaming.  there had always been a bit of the competitive nature within the field, but there has gradually grown a sentiment of optimization pre-game -- an idea that the list, and not how it is played, that wins the game.

this is foolish.

don't get me wrong, an unsuspecting player playing a well-built optimized list might not be able to beat a power-combo the first time around.  but a bad player playing a good list is often worse than a good player playing a non-optimized list.

In M:tG, the list (rather, the deck) wins you the game.  play is not so much a skill as a knowledge of cards.  there are fewer tactical decisions during play, because your action options are so limited because of what cards you have on hand.  in comparison, a game of 40k that is not optimized might still involve tactical/strategic play if you figure out appropriate uses for your given units and react accordingly.  thus, an attitude that the list is the most important, and the search for the "infinite squirrel combo" parallel in 40k begins.

i used to play Magic.  but i didn't have a ton of spare money, so i played for fun and not in any way optimized -- in fact, i had theme decks that might rely heavily on common cards, like my all-zombie/ghost undead black/blue deck.  but a friend of mine had a first-turn-kill deck (nothing but mountain, channel, fireball, lotus -- a first turn 20-point fireball that leaves you with one life), and later others built the infinite-whatever decks.  i had a 3-card combo that was a group-game ender (dingus egg, armageddon, reverse damage... 2 damage for every land out, for everyone but me, played midgame is a real dealbreaker).  it was all fun.

but games could be over in 20 minutes.

in 40k, i usually schedule a half-hour per 1000 points on the board if the players know what they are doing.  a 2000-point game with 2 players should take around 2 hours.

if someone uses an obnoxious combo in that game, that's much more of an investment of time than just throwing down some cards.

as a result, there's a rift in the community as to how much this is accepted.

some areas, a competitive game and a competitive list is THE ONLY way to play.  you learn how to cheez it up because it's either that or drown.  in others, you'll find people with fun, interesting-looking armies, but they are really in it for the fun or the painting and not to dominate the playing field... so they may not win all the time or field the units everyone else does.  they all have their place.

LESSON 3: build a list that you like, and that your partner will like.

on one hand, you are playing an adversarial game.  you need to be a challenge.  on the other hand, if you come to a boxing match with a shotgun you're the jerk.  if the other person wants a game that is a challenge, and you take a carefree experimental list that they flatten by round 2, they leave the table unfulfilled.  if you show up with a good list well-grounded in the lore, but your opponent takes the flavor-of-the-month power build without telling you that that's the kind of battle they expect, you're going to leave in annoyance.

there are really three ways of building a list.

* style one: i take it because i like it

i knew a guy in college who was a chess genius.  two, actually.  one was a master of speed-chess, who had once beaten a grandmaster playing out of his element.  he forced the endgame, blitzing through the early and mid portions by attrition -- he would guard a handful of his pieces, then set fast traps to try to take more of your pieces than his own (and leave certain ones for his end plans).  the other was not as skilled... except for with knights.

the knight guy was interesting.  he loved the ell-shape attack, the jumping, and the manner in which they fit into an 8x8 board.  with two knights active, he could wreck your lines.  he was actually not terribly great at the part of the game that comes after you lose your favorite pieces, but he was amazing early on when he could whittle an opponent down to nothing with his two favorites careening left and right down the board.

so too will you find certain units "speak" to you.  you might like the speed of a Jetbike, or the implacability of a Landraider, or the resistance of a Terminator, or the strength of a pack of Bloodletters.  you might do well with a long-range army or an assault army or a set of mechanized infantry.

including these, even if they are not "optimized," is important sometimes.  playing how and what you want to play with make you happier and more comfortable.  it should be part of the game, even though often it gets left behind.  if you repeatedly find that there are elements of your work that do not feel right, there might be something to that... and maybe you might want to look at an army whose style more matches with yours.


* style 2: i take it because it's better

mathhammer is prevalent.  you can assess the hits and wounds in a theoretical pattern, and see if it's a higher total than another unit.  by taking only those units that are more worth their points, you have a better-functioning list.  if you only take weapons that have consistent use, you will not have any useless moments.  by taking units that are harder to kill, you will have better units on the table.  this works until others start creating more difficulty by reacting to your brought units and bringing tools to kill them...

this is what we call "the meta"

you should plan a bit for your meta.  still, depending on how competitive your game is, meta might not matter much.

* style three:  i take it because it's all i have

eventually this is not a problem.  but to start with, your options might be limited.  in some ways, this is a good thing: you need to teach yourself how to play.

overall, there are basics to remember too.

1. you have two primary worries: anti-troop and anti-armor.  each weapon is better at one or the other, or is a middle between the two.  taking a balanced span of these things allows for your choices of unit-functionality and dedicated role.  some weapons are great in many cases, and are often taken at a higher rate.

having a couple units dedicated to punching armor will give you the ability to deal with a balanced list.  having many units that are good at a variety of ranges (such as three tac squads that combat-squadded into two, who have a melta or a multimelta in each squad) give you the ability to deal with a lot of armor.

having units that are focused on higher-rate fire of less strength can be useful in whittling away troops.  mid-strength, or low-ap are better, but more costly.  the standard armament of an average trooper can be useful in taking down the troops of the opponent.  same with blasts.

a range of weapons minimizes the specific effect you can have.  but it also means that you can meet a certain type of foe well.  too many meltas or lascannons can take out a Knight, but get swamped by a horde of conscripts.  too many high-rof/standard weapons might chew through wave after wave of termagants, but can not even scratch the paint on a Leman Russ.  bringing a choice variance can really do you well.

2. Flyers are less common now, but still a problem.  they don't come in until later, are not that effective at keeping one target in their line of fire, but can fire four weapons per turn.  they can be super-effective on the turn they are used.  anti-air weapons, or flyers of your own, can affect their utility and change how they are used.  taking a unit or two that has utility and multi-use and can target flyers is never a problem.

Being a primary Darkangels player, i have a couple flyers i can take, but i don't.  the Nephilim wasn't useful, and the Darktalon is a little silly (though was great in a Bolterwing army in 6th).  on the other hand, i rarely jump into a game without bringing a Mortis Dreadnought.  the Forgeworld rules for a Mortis, or a Contemptor-Mortis give the unit the options of Skyfire and Interceptor if it does not move.    it's a great possibility, and a unit that is still effective if there are no flyers, since a dual-TL-autocannon dread has four rerollable S7 shots that can take out light vehicles.

3. if the model that carries the weapon dies, it goes away.

big killers are big targets.  artillery, moving giants of death, flying doombringers -- they are going to be the first on the target priority list, if they are possible to kill.  sometimes, they are actually low on the list due to other factors -- the old (pre-5th) Necron Monolith was a next-to-impossible kill that would wreak havoc on your battle line... but if you killed a certain number of the basic troops they whole army disappeared and you auto-won.  meaning that each attempt to kill the monolith was a wasted attempt to get the number of models down.

if you have a great machine of death that you want to bring to the table, remember that they might not last too long.

similarly, if the troop unit holding all the good guns gets caught in a crossfire, now you have no good guns.

in addition to the points-cost being a factor in whether you take an option, the survivability of the weapon should factor into your thinking.  a light, fast, easily-killable unit that will not last past turn 3 really should not have too many