Thursday, September 17, 2015
Are tactics a thing of the past ?
I read this over on Dakka Dakka:
"These days, the only skill required in 40k is list building. All you need to do is look at your list and see if it'll be able to defeat scatbikes and wraiths. The match was over the moment you decided on your list. The tactics forums are full of nothing but armylists and unit comparisons. There is nothing relating to movement, deployments, flanks, distance, cover, etc. There is no glory in winning a 40k tournament. You had the most meta list, that's all."
I don't agree with this line of thinking for primarily the following reason... Suppose there are two gamers of equivalent skill both playing top tier lists taken from the Internet and assuming it's not a mirror match. The two army lists versus each other have their own strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited. You can simply watch video battle reports to learn all the tricks but I think the following holds true:
The player who has played the most games versus a wide variety of different armies stands to have the best odds of winning barring bad dice. This is because that player will be the most intimately familiar with their army and have developed solid tactics to counter other top builds. The other player that solely relies upon their army list to win will be hard pressed to adapt to the game at hand. Some people will still claim there are no tactics involved but in truth they are wrong and simply don't want to admit it for whatever reason.
Claiming there are no tactics is a cop out plain and simple.