What would you like to see in a DE tactica?

Might be better top come up with the top tier tournament lists and do tactics, deployment and army composition around that.
Sadly, Eldar allies would have to creep into some of the lists to be truly competitive.

So you have:
Eldar Wave Serpent Spam (5+ serpents at 1850)
Tyranid Flying MC Spam
3 Knight Adamantium lance w/ Marine allies
Space Marine White Scar Bike Star
Necron Flyer spam w/ wraith support

Quote :

Would that be useful still?

With a broad strokes, yeah, why not. I guess you face some good players of all armies and specific positive experience can be very valuable, if not absolutely covering 100% of all situations.

It is a good platform to formulate requirements for Take All Comers lists, because it will define "all".

Target priority is a thing but, as with so many other things, 'it depends' starts cropping up more often than not.

I have a different priority of targets with my Raider Rush list than I do with my Razorwing reserve list, for instance.

I kind of feel the important thing is to understand your *own* army's strengths and weaknesses and then to understand what the units in the opposing army can do - that's how you figure out target priority. At least that's how I do it. Like, if I'm running a bunch of mech and trying to outshoot my opponent - I want to shoot things that will enable him to kill my mech. Which means I focus fire on units with decent ability to fire multiple mid-to-high strength shots, as those are most likely to wreck a Raider/Venom and/or I target things that will help him do that (like anything that generates markerlights or maybe psychic or order support).

Maybe when I'm describing the different basic army types I could outline what each army type's strengths and weaknesses are and list a few specific enemy units to beware?

This might sound stupid, but I'd love a shortlist of the things in other people's armies which we should beware of but aren't immediately obvious.

E.g. I can tell by looking at it that a Hydra is going to be a threat to my skimmers. But I don't have much of a clue which Tau units have markerlights. I don't even know what they look like. And which bits of wargear other armies might take which present a particular problem (or opportunity).

Also something on psychic powers we should most watch out for (as we don't have any, I guess DE players know less than many other armies).

Thor665 wrote:

I kind of feel the important thing is to understand your *own* army's strengths and weaknesses and then to understand what the units in the opposing army can do - that's how you figure out target priority.

I think that's probably the thing I struggle most with, knowing what opposing armies do.  Obviously it has to be broad, because there are so many possibilities, but even something as simple as this would be a great starting point:

High Priority targets: X (because...), Y (because...) and Z (because...) and how to deal with these targets.

e.g. Tau: Broadsides (smart missile system ignores cover and doesn't need LOS).  Dark Lances and Blasters for S8 insta-kill and AP2.

For me, when people go over their list at the start of a game, I maybe pick up a fraction...It's just too much info if you are not familiar with a particular codex.

Obviously for those who are experienced, this is less helpful, but based on responses to this thread, it seems like there is enough of a segment of players who would like to see this type of information.

I don't disagree - it's just the task starts looking like a 'reverse tactica' for every other codice out there. And I'm assuredly not going to do that. So I'm just asking questions to try to understand the issue so I can see if I can puzzle out a workable solution that isn't too work intensive.

It looks like the several common themes I saw were:

What is he best way to kit/use each unit?
What unit is best in class?
What are the enemy armies capable of?
What is our army capable of?

More so than the best load out, what is the best use for a given load out?

Thor, you mentioned knowing your own army (I don't know how to quote). That is really what I'd like to see. Knowing the best of each unit is great, but I don't think three squads of ten grotesques would really be great. So what components should be in the army? What are the basic builds? What are the obvious and subtle pitfalls? What are the obvious and subtle advantages? How do you mitigate the weaknesses and leverage the advantages?

Even the short discussion on aggressive Venoms got me rethinking their use. I typically tried to take advantage of the range of splinter cannons, but ended up losing out on blasters for too many turns. Even a few nuggets like that would be great.

Anyway, I'd like to read it all. Should be helpful :-)

Hey Thor I'd love to read a tactica by you. I think if you were to do a DE tactica vs each of the armies, perhaps you could just outline the tools you think are necessary to deal with each of the armies instead of addressing it from the POV of specific DE builds. Just a thought!

I think a turbo boost section would be pretty useful. Like where to go, when to go, what to aim for and how to boost up when there's only a not so favourable place to go (like getting additional throw away units in the way). I'm still having a little trouble with this, but I'm getting there.

What I would like to see

Army level strategy: deployment, objective placement, maelstrom style mission tactics (i.e games where you score objectives every turn not just at the end), null deployment, reserves etc.

Squad level tactics: screening, blocking, tank shock, deepstrike, etc.

What I would not like to see

Best load out for X unit is Y. Best unit in category X is Y. Best list is Z. These sort of things just cause endless circular debates and in my opinion don't help people become better players, only make better list that still fall short as they don't understand how or why the list works. In fact I'm generally against such loadout/list advice (giving a man a fish).  

Not to say I'm not against high level list building advice: redundancy, target saturation, efficiency, role, etc (teaching a man how to fish).

Mushkilla wrote:

What I would like to see

Army level strategy: deployment, objective placement, maelstrom style mission tactics (i.e games where you score objectives every turn not just at the end), null deployment, reserves etc.

Squad level tactics: screening, blocking, tank shock, deepstrike, etc.

What I would not like to see

Best load out for X unit is Y. Best unit in category X is Y. Best list is Z. These sort of things just cause endless circular debates and in my opinion don't help people become better players, only make better list that still fall short as they don't understand how or why the list works. In fact I'm generally against such loadout/list advice (giving a man a fish).  

Not to say I'm not against high level list building advice: redundancy, target saturation, efficiency, role, etc (teaching a man how to fish).

Quote!

I think Mushkilla hit the nail on the head here. I think also that you need to identify what type of player you want to write a tactica for: Are you looking to educate folks new to the army or folks looking to secure top table at NOVA? There'll be a big difference in the level of tactica required

I think the core purpose of a tactica is to educate people how not to be narf at army design and play.

At least that was the concept of why I wrote my first one.

I'd definitely like to see you cover our various formations and detachment options as well as how they work with allies. I'd also like to see some discussion of deep strike tactics, using the new WWP, and reserve manipulation. I'd also really like some discussion of warlord traits, tactical objectives, and manipulating our PFP.

I've gotta concur with Mush on basically everything. I would say, though, that rather than talking at length about 'ideal' kit, a discussion of our wargear in general terms and some special attention paid to the bear traps GW left lying around in there (c'mon man, I was still *using* those toes).

Almost every time I do a postgame rundown, I find half a dozen small errors here and there, mostly related to target priority and at least one *big* error in my deployment. So... all the advice on those topics may be placed into my learning receptacle.

Now I have to address something that's been sticking in my head and begging to be brought up... This is an awesome community, and there are an incredible number of very smart kin here. I think it would be really cool if we (as a community) put together a massive living 'state of the army' document/comprehensive tactica. So, Thor, if that's interesting to you maybe it's something that can be explored. I know there can be some disagreement on things, but there's no reason that both sides of an argument couldn't be laid out in case like that. Anyway, I'm gonna shut up now, because I've got tons of ideas about how that could work and I'm sure you folks would like to rest your eyes.

Back on track now. If there are things that need doing for the tactica and Thor feels like delegating so he can focus on other stuff... my time, powers of logic, and skills (insofar as each has been allotted to me) are his to command. (If my pie in the sky dream can't come true, at least I can try to make myself useful!)

All good points on dark eldar capabilities/limitations. My 2 cents on meta game inputs and knowing what your opponents units can do; imo knowing how NOT to deal with something can be just as useful an interpretation as removing that something. I've seen new tyranid players kick and scream during games with unkillable aka very durable things like great unclean ones and chapter Masters when there's a mob of thirty fearless gaunts sitting right over there. If you have the power to marginalize enemy power go ahead and abuse it instead of beat your head against the wall, you know? Obviously we don't do the efficient tarpit thing, but I'm sure some of the more experienced players have some good thoughts on mobility and rules of thumb for threat ranges, things like that.

Also a lot of tactics talks happen in a vacuum, not taking into account the actual situation. For example incubi not having assault grenades. Vehicle wrecks happen, and sometimes vehicles are used to actually get places, and sometimes wrecks happen in places without cover. It's a tall order, but anecdotal examples in the vein of bat rep excerpts are so much more valuable than theoryhammer when it comes to synergy, and arguably more valuable than mathhammer when it comes to finding out the average amount of resources you'll need to make that synergy possible.

Knowing what your units will need to do when/why, what your odds are roughly, and positioning and deploying with contingencies (dice) in mind is, in my opinion, the difference between higher level play and net list regurgitation.

Less wordy: I definitely think broad strokes would be valuable. Advice on or against specific armies and builds with lists, iterative list design, that sort of thing should be seperate threads.

I do think there is something to be said about facing other armies. I think the reason this request pops up a lot is for some people, including myself, we generally see and play the same opponents because unless you live in a large city, least here in the states, there's only one local gamestore. That being said the first time I played Eldar and Tau, and mind you I win more games than I lose. My mind exploded. If you don't know about the capabilities of a Wave Serpent or the devastating effects of smart missiles, you're not gonna have a good time. So I definitely think there should be a section on the other armies and what to look out for. I mean wave serpents and knights are pretty obvious for everyone, but you know, like how to deploy to minimize the damage from a furioso dreadnaught, or why not to engage in CC with those I6 ID causing paladins. I was used to my Incubi chewing through terminators like a knife through hot butter. How was I supposed to know?

For example I haven't played against orks in like two and a half years. If I were to face an Ork player in a random pick up game I have no idea what's most threatening. I remember bikes were so I'd probably shoot at bikes.

Maybe even a little section on how to play against a Tyranid player without hurting their feelings.

I think a Tactica for beating Tau or Eldar would just be a list of suitable sacrifices to the Dice God.

honethedroll wrote:

I've gotta concur with Mush on basically everything.

Another one joins the club

I also agree with Mush and all the people who said the same sort of thing. Talk about the high level of how to build DE armies and then how to use them on a board. I don't think there is much value in trying to discuss how to deal with particular enemie armies (much less particular units!) because there is just too much variety out there, and it becomes too situational in what sort of list the opponent brings and how they use it. You could talk about the best way to deal with a few broad list/target types - what works vs hordes / flyers / MCs / Mech...

I think a lot of this depends on your target audience, and obviously you can't appeal to everyone because your tactica would be Britannica-sized, but unit analysis is a concept, complicated or simplified, equally as important as any other.

In the end, battles aren't won with fighting, but with knowledge, and ultimately, knowing yourself is equally as important as knowing the enemy.

An understanding of our army is necessary, but you have to know which tools to bring before you know how to use them. A surgeon doesn't bring a chainsaw to an operation, no matter how skilled with it he may be. That's why unit analysis is so important. It's not something to be dismissed because newcomers will say, "He said X is best, always take X." A newcomer will apply that reasoning to any tactic given, "He said deploy like X, always deploy like X."

And while it's impossible to numericize the worth of every unit composition against the infinite variations of opponents you may face on the field, a commander still needs to know which situations his troops are going to excel most in. I'm not saying you should rank our units from best to worst, or say "this is better than that in most situations," but instead teach a player to understand the nuances of what makes a unit excel over another. This is a fundamental concept of playing the game, and it's not the same thing as saying "X is better than Y."

The game begins as soon as you agree to play with your opponent. Building your list is part of the game, and every conscious decision to include one unit over another is an example of unit analysis, yet it's so rarely touched upon because people are afraid of sounding absolute. But the absolute truth is that every player can benefit from learning how to optimize his army for what he intends to use it for. Unit analysis is a core part of the game, not unique to the DE army, everyone should have some semblance of it.

Khordajj wrote:

But the absolute truth is that every player can benefit from learning how to optimize his army for what he intends to use it for. Unit analysis is a core part of the game, not unique to the DE army, everyone should have some semblance of it.

That goes without saying. My point though, is that there is already an entire internet worth of unit analysis out there. Will yet another army/unit/list break down really be that useful? Not to mention they expire every time GW releases a new version of the codex.

This is the style of tactica that I think would really benefit the community here. Just bigger, better, and spikier.

@Mush - thought; what you linked to is not a Tau tactica, it is simply a tactica on using units to block up the board and is applicable to any army, really, as unit blocking is a core foundation of gameplay.

Do we need a DE tactica for that, or do we just need a 40k tactica for that?

I would be inclined to say there is an entire internet worth of 40k tactica. Things like deployment, LOS , list building, unit blocking/screening are things you can find anywhere.

What you can't find anywhere but the Dark City is a unit analysis inspired by thousands of passionate Dark Eldar players, who will tell you wyches are useless, but tell you how to play them anyway.

Mushkilla wrote:

My point though, is that there is already an entire internet worth of unit analysis out there.

Wouldn't this apply to everything?

Mushkilla wrote:

Not to mention they expire every time GW releases a new version of the codex.

True, because point costs change, though rules do too, and I'd say rules don't change any more drastically than point costs -- at least with the recent pattern of codexes.

I understand what you're saying, and I in no way believe a good tactica would only be unit analysis, but how many times have you seen somebody just write a bad list? Of course being able to play well is important, but knowing which tool to bring is just as important as knowing how to use it.

In the end, if you could only have one or the other, I would rather have tactics, but if you feel the same way, perhaps consider it's because you're already good at writing lists  

Thor665 wrote:

@Mush - thought; what you linked to is not a Tau tactica, it is simply a tactica on using units to block up the board and is applicable to any army, really, as unit blocking is a core foundation of gameplay.

Do we need a DE tactica for that, or do we just need a 40k tactica for that?

Not that this comment was directed towards me, but again wouldn't it depend on your target audience? By this reasoning, if you redacted every tactic that had a relation to any part of 40k, and wrote a tactica that solely applied to DE, it would be slim, and while it would be beneficial for someone REALLY good at the game, it would be far less helpful for pretty much everyone else.