Army List building = Tactics? Why?

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

Greetings!

I have observed that, despite the separate sub-forums, that sometimes army list building is considered as tactics. I wonder why. For me, tactics is totally different from army list building. Have a look at the excellent article our own Jimmy has written recently on the use of Sabertusks: Sabertusk Tactica - Ogre Stronghold

It has it all, not only a list and explanation of strengths and weaknesses but what is more important, the use in battles supported by the real game examples. You can see there not only how Jimmy suggests using them but you have the big picture too. You see the armies, the relative positioning of the regiments and the way Jimmy wanted to execute his plan. He is not talking the units in the vacuum. He talks about them in the context.

Army List building is of course important. But it is more about choosing tools for your toolbox. How you use them is totally different story and that is what tactics should all be about. Comparing different toolboxes does not tell you how to use the tools they contain.

Is there any particular reason army list building is mistakenly treated as tactics?

Cheers!

[NexS]

I suppose that there is a level of "tactical" analysis that goes into building a list. Things that work well together, and things that work not-so-well. I suppose the word "tactics" can be applied to both aspects of the game...

[Iluvatar]

It's just a lack of understanding of what tactics is. Just like tactics is different from strategy, but most people don't know that difference because they never had it explained.

Basically, if you want to be successful you need to choose a general strategy you want for your army. That will direct you towards unit choices, depending on your focus - mobility, shooting, points denial, magic heavy... Of course, you need some elements of most of things to have the most success (flexibility!), but you need to keep your mind of what you want your army to be able to do and make your list accordingly.

And then, you apply tactics to enforce your strategy in each game.
Playing shooting heavy? You need to plan lanes of fire, what enemy units you need to destroy or weaken at range, which ones you have to block/delay.
Playing mobility/force concentration? Then the questions are where are you going to apply your main strength.

This is the how, the tactics. Clearly different from list building, if you know what those words mean.

[Ferny]

There's only so far you can take list design before you need battlefield experience, but it does matter - you need to have the tools to enact the plan you intend to take. See below which I just wrote in another thread.

However, to a certain extent roles do need to be considered in list design phase: that's not to say banner-free reavers can't or shouldn't rear charge, but if their 'primary' role is to flee or eat charges then you're only giving away an extra 35pts/unit/game where they do this, for the extra +1 to res when they do charge (and the rear charge might be combined with a fellow banner-bearing unit, in which case the second banner is wasted). It's similar with champions - they add an attack, can absorb characters for a turn, offer a challenge alternative for our characters and in the case of lions they can block out the front rank. And all for 10pts - bargain! But you multiply it up by say 4 infantry and 2 cav in your list or 6+ infantry and 2 cav in mine and suddenly you're looking at a Lv1 mage or a kick ass magic sword, or a whole unit of swordmasters/shadow warriors...or, or, or. Obviously that's the trade-off in list building, but the question then has to be how much do you need champs in every unit or in each unit case by case?

Equally, I recently read Curu giving feedback on Gandalf's blog (I think) first critiquing lore of life in that list and suggesting alternatives and then critiquing the batrep, partly in the context of list design holding the army back. This seems a fair synthesis of the two.

Also, I know I'm fighting lizardmen skink spam tonight. I'm not tailoring my list for it, but I do have to think how my 'all comers' list will cope. Given my list structure, I think I will put my swordmaster units directly behind my lion cubes to force -2 hard cover on soft swordmasters or 3+AS vs their posoned shooting, and I should still be able to charge with both as once the lions are declared the SM path becomes potentially cleared. I could do something similar with reavers and dragon princes. But if I didn't have a way to protect my vulnerable elements then I'd need to consider the impacts of a poor match up on my list design, like thinking about adding more champs to counter WoC flying characters, or my suggestions in Curu's blog to switch one RBT for 5 sisters. In that instance he counted the list change and has come up with a gameplay solution, but the principle still stands .

[Curu Olannon]

I don`t really understand this topic I think. Swordmaster could you perhaps link a few topics to help clarify your position?

On a general basis, I think Iluvatar is right on the money here: people intermixing strategy and tactics (i.e. the what and the how) is commonplace as the terms appear very similar when you don`t understand them.

Also as Ferny referred to here, an army blog is an excellent place to put tactical discussion in the right context: If the list isn`t evaluated based on actual in-game events you will always be lacking something. This is also a big reason why we wanted a dedicated forum for army blogs - you can`t really claim that they`re army lists, tactics threads or battle reports - they`ve everything at once

[Teledor]

On a general basis, I think Iluvatar is right on the money here: people intermixing strategy and tactics (i.e. the what and the how) is commonplace as the terms appear very similar when you don`t understand them.

Also as Ferny referred to here, an army blog is an excellent place to put tactical discussion in the right context: If the list isn`t evaluated based on actual in-game events you will always be lacking something. This is also a big reason why we wanted a dedicated forum for army blogs - you can`t really claim that they`re army lists, tactics threads or battle reports - they`ve everything at once

I think Curu is right on point here. Strategy is an over arching or "big picture" theme - the reasons you take specific choices in your army list vs. other choices you could make. Examples - 3 reavers v. no GEs or 2 reavers & 1 GE, or SMs v. WLs, PG v. SMs/WLs. These are all decisions based on the overall strategy or concept around which your list is built.

Tactics on the other hand are specific decisions in specific situations. It's very difficult to find the "big picture" to come up with a generalized tactical guide and reference. It makes Tacticas like Jimmy's and our GE Tips and Tricks so helpful but also so difficult to produce. (BTW bravo Jimmy on the Sabretusk article!) The author needs to be able to boil down a multitude of specific situations and find a common theme through out to give a generalized playlist or check list on how and when to employ specific tactics at a specific time.

Perhaps that's why Army Blogs are as great as they are. We can discuss (or read) the big picture strategy to a list, point out projected strengths and weaknesses and argue over how to spend the last few points to optimize lists for whatever purpose the author has - whether it's tourneys, leagues, etc.

At the same time though, Army Blogs can be used to discuss specific tactical decisions made in the heat of the battle through hindsight and attempt to find a generalized application for said tactic or decision. I don't know if trying to make a specific "tactics" section would necessarily split what should be kept together. The marriage between strategic and tactical thinking is one that can't really be discussed without one or the other. They give context to one another.

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

I am a little surprised that my question appears to be unclear.

I didn't say army list building is not important. It is. You choose the units for particular reason, you pick the equipment for characters so they can perform their assigned roles etc. Such discussion is very important as a player needs to know precisely why he has the elements of the army he has and what he expects from them. However, and I believe I read it in Seredain's topic, it is one thing to create cavalry hammer unit and totally different to deliver that hammer where it can smash the enemy.

Army List building --> making sure you can fit the units and characters to have that cavalry hammer

Tactics --> executing the plan of delivering cavalry hammer into desired combat and winning it

But why people mix these things up? Lack of understanding may be a consequence rather than a reason.

Game experience helps in setting up plans for sure. But even without it you can do so. Say, you played a game and lost. You can identify why unit A didn't get to the target X or why it failed to prevail against it. You may conclude that it may have been better to use unit A and B against the very same target X. Very often, however, the conclusion they draw or advice they have is - change the army list. Is that a reason that army list is confused with tactics.

Army blogs are completely separate thing. Everything can go there and that is not the subject of this topic.

I posted a link to Jimmy's excellent article on tactics. What made my post so unclear then?

Cheers!

[Curu Olannon]

The way I see it, this is the gist of your posts thus far:

I have observed that, despite the separate sub-forums, that sometimes army list building is considered as tactics.
Is there any particular reason army list building is mistakenly treated as tactics?

But why people mix these things up?

...

I posted a link to Jimmy's excellent article on tactics. What made my post so unclear then?

My confusion stems from the fact that I have not seen anyone considering army lists as tactics. Hence I asked for reference to threads where this is an issue. Pointing to a tactics article does not help clarify where this problem exists nor how it appears.

I mean we all seem to agree here, as far as I can tell: Strategy and tactics differ and, while related, are two different concepts that can be treated individually. Thus, I don`t understand the topic because I don`t see the problem.

[Bashtrigger]

Maybe Swordmaster is worried some people think that the way to win a game is to have the 'best list possible', instead of the best understanding of tactics?

Personally, if this is indeed the case, where better for them to end up than on this tactics thread. While they're busy with their list, they can learn the true ways of war!

And then again, the only army lists I've seen so far were in topics like: How do I beat my Ogre friend?
In which case, we sort of have to have an understanding of the units involved to help them with some tactics on how to effectively neutralize his opponent.

Game experience helps in setting up plans for sure. But even without it you can do so. Say, you played a game and lost. You can identify why unit A didn't get to the target X or why it failed to prevail against it. You may conclude that it may have been better to use unit A and B against the very same target X. Very often, however, the conclusion they draw or advice they have is - change the army list. Is that a reason that army list is confused with tactics.

This is something I would find more worrying, folks should respect the list the original person came up with and instead help him play that list to the best of his abilities, instead of saying: Wy u have 1 Frosthearth Phoenix? Play 2 or play none

I will however always point out when I think a list is inherently flawed (for instance, it consists of half very fast moving vulnerable units (which you want to get into combat asap) and the other half of very slow footsloggers, in that instance you'll always be advancing in two waves and "shooting yourself in the foot" as it were)

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

Who said it's a problem? if people like talking about army lists as tactics so be it! Whatever makes them happy.

I didn't say I would discuss army list change in the first place. Quite the contrary, I believe one can learn more if trying to come up with a better use of the units/characters/items he already has before even considering any adjustments.

[Curu Olannon]

I called it a problem. What you describe is inherently a problem in our forum because if people mix these it is harder to understand eachother. Thus I would like to know where and how this phenomenon of 'army lists = tactics' appears. As I have not seen anyone myself, I was asking you to link a couple in this thread. Can you please do so?

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

There is no problem. People are happy with discussing things in various places and forum works just fine without any further interference. What you seem to fail to understand is:

1. I don't want to risk offending people by pointing at their topics. It is not my intention (and not my right either) to tell them where they should post. I was simply curious why they mix things up.

2. Given past experience, I am not interested in discussing things with you.

[Eltherion]

I think that the way you build your army list determines the Tactics you can employ, but the list itself is not Tactics.

[Rabidnid]

I think that the way you build your army list determines the Tactics you can employ, but the list itself is not Tactics.

Yep. An MSU list will go about things differently to a more conventional list. List design and deployment are both part of the strategy the army will be employing, while tactics are the expression of that strategy.

[Jimmy]

I think that the way you build your army list determines the Tactics you can employ, but the list itself is not Tactics.

+1.

I like to link it to historic battles. Two armies turn up and regardless of what is in it's arsenal they're laying the smack down. In a nut shell how they employed each unit determines victory/defeat.

[~Milliardo~]

I think you and I talked about this in Skype a long time ago mate, haha. :3

For a lot of people, they seem to be one and the same thing... I think, most of the time for most people, that tactics and list building are completely synonymous because a lot of people like to play the game as organically as possible and don't like to overthink things or plan it to death - they may go in with a set strategy for how they want to achieve their victory (for example, shooting things off the board), but the tactics they use are dictated by the units they've picked. Archers shoot off the chaff, RBT target high armor creatures, etc. If something isn't working, they change the unit out for something else in an attempt to find balance (or unbalance, and hinge their battleplan around a particular phase or style) rather than finding tactical ways of making better use of existing troops. The strategy is chosen (shooting), and so the units that best achieve that plan are chosen to support it (archers and RBT), and so the tactical phase is merely how those are put into play (roll better).

I think though what you're thinking of is more in the details of it - how something goes about achieving its goal, and how it ties into the army and the overarching goal. The act of choosing units to fit the strategy dictates the tactics you use, but it isn't tactics itself... I think we agree here if I'm understanding you. Instead, tactics is how those pieces are put into play and the tricks and techniques you use.

I think one of the main reasons people are reluctant to talk about it is because they're afraid to give up their 'edge' - the list design is apparent enough to anyone who has played the army or seen it posted online, but the methods on how to use it well aren't always as obvious. I honestly think some people horde this knowledge, or give a glib, quick answer instead of an in-depth one, so they don't have to reveal their lists' ability and are really reluctant to talk about it. I feel like many podcasters do this, but it might also be because of the difficulty of describing what they're doing over the air without visual aids.

The other answer is that I'm sure a lot of people look at the units and go 'it does this and this' and so a units use is dictated by its stats and abilities - its not worth talking about because its obvious, or they feel it is, so they don't talk about it much and instead they emphasize list design. I've seen a lot of blogs where the people just talk about list design and never once talk about how to execute a double-flee, or mention that this unit here is used for congalines, or this unit is designed for taking out warmachines, and if it is its just in passing. Even rarer, is someone who talks about how this unit fits into the greater scheme and works with the army to achieve that end, and even rarer than that is talking about set-piece, pre-arranged deployments and the variations you can make around those.

Most people just use a kind of point and click, plug and play kind of style where the units don't work in concert, or very little, and little thought is put into how a battle will evolve and where things will end up. There's nothing really wrong with that, but its one of the reasons why the super hard, possibly flying, units that move like a bishop or a queen are easier to get use out of than the slow, trudging infantry units that move like pawns. While its not always a sure bet, you can sometimes look at an army and tell how many turns ahead the person is looking by the amount of units with great mobility. They may also just be hyper aggressive, or both.

This leads to a 'pick the best units and win' approach though unfortunately in a lot of folks and leads to netlists, where the end goal is ease of use and victory rather than challenge or potential skill growth. The problem with going in the opposite direction though is tactical conceit, where you do everything as complicated as possible for the sheer sake of arrogance and self-aggrandizement - IE, me. If taking out that unit of Mournefang doesn't involve advanced ballistics calculations on your dice and Seaguard, you're clearly just a scrub using noob tactics. :3

Personally, I'm probably more of the former than the latter - I horde my precious tactics about games to myself and no one must know about them, under pain of death, and am definitely tactically conceited. Its one of the reasons I don't post as much. That, and I'm a filthy round-baser at the moment. If you do get me talking, I can't shut up and I ramble on about boring, pedantic garbage until I run out of things to talk about and then I start talking about psychology or using the force to nudge units around the board when no one is looking. ಠ_ಠ

[Curu Olannon]

There is no problem. People are happy with discussing things in various places and forum works just fine without any further interference. What you seem to fail to understand is:

1. I don't want to risk offending people by pointing at their topics. It is not my intention (and not my right either) to tell them where they should post. I was simply curious why they mix things up.

2. Given past experience, I am not interested in discussing things with you.

You don`t think semantics are important when discussing the intricacies of Warhammer? As for your points, 1) have you tried PM`ing the members in question and asking them for permission to use their topics/posts to clarify your position in this? 2) I won`t let random insults and arrogance spread throughout a forum like that without saying anything. If you don`t want to discuss that`s fine but don`t expect everyone to accept everything you say at face value without asking critical questions. A public forum doesn`t work like that: Ulthuan surely does not.

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

Hi guys,

Thanks a lot for feedback! Very much appreciated!

@ Eltherion

They are definitely connected. Maybe the reason why it is mixed is related to which side you start from? If you start from the point of view of the army list, because you like certain models etc. then naturally you will try to fit them into the army and then you start to think how to use them. If, however, you are more interested in adapting certain style of play, say cavalry hammer, then that determines your tactics and you will search for the units to fulfil required roles?

@ Rabidnid

I would agree with this for sure. I think Milliardo touched that already but maybe discussing army list and possible deployment is something more solid as you can theoretically consider different options, all is clear what and where it fits etc. While tactics is not that well defined because it depends on the scenario (if any), terrain and enemy army too. Could that be a reason for the posts where the lists are the starting point but more detailed advice is simply not that easy to give?

@ Jimmy

History is always a good inspiration. In fact it shows that sometimes (if not always) the general does not have access to all the things he would like to have. That may be reflected to some extend in the composition in the army books as we have core, special and rare units and point allowance as well as percentage is different for these.

There are many examples in the history where the genius of the general was shown in the face of adversities and when he had to improvise to achieve victory with the units he had and not with those he wanted to bring. Think Hannibal and Cannae. I am sure he wanted his elephants there anyway

@ Milliardo

Yes, we definitely talked a lot of stuff, good old days!

I think you might be spot on with the comment that people don't necessary need to distinguish between each other. Because, of course, they are connected. It matters less if the army list is built to suit particular tactical approach or tactics is chosen to get the best of the army list.

I also agree that not everybody even likes analysing their own games with great detail. They'd rather use that time for another game and come up with new ideas on the fly.

Yes, I also heard about the situation where a player, in particular before some important event is ok with sharing the list but not how is he going to use it. Some may even keep their cards close to their chest and don't reveal the army list itself.

It seems as we all like playing with army lists anyway, trying to tweak them endlessly as we have more tools in the army book that a single army list can have.

Maybe there is no need to distinguish so sharply between army list building and tactics. I guess I just like the articles like the one Jimmy wrote, because it shows real situations with all the context there. They require much more effort to write, of course, which may be another discouraging reason.

@ Curu

Please, don't patronize, you don't have a right to do so.

There were no insults in my posts. In fact, being persistent when I clearly didn't want to engage in any discussion with you is impolite.

You are not Ulthuan. Please, stop hiding behind the backs of forum members and speak for yourself. You are not the spokesman for that community.

It is not about criticism (which I like, provided it is well based). It is about you. Which part of "I don't want to talk with you" you don't understand?

The choice you are given is really simple. You either withdraw or we can have another silly and pointless flame war. Or are you going to lock the topic? And show "lesser" forum member where is his place in the rank?

[Curu Olannon]

Patronize? Where did I patronize you? I`ve simply called out your behaviour and why it led to my replies, there`s nothing patronizing about this.

I called it a problem.

There is no problem.

This is arrogance and implicitly, an insult. Besides, I wasn`t just referring to your posts here in this topic.

As for hiding behind the community I don`t understand what you`re talking about. I was explaining to you that in a public forum, I`ll defend myself and my views, replying when I feel that it is necessary. This is doubly true for Ulthuan, the forum I`ve been a member for the longest. It has nothing to do with hiding behind a community. It is how I view this forum and how I will act here. And regarding this point, the thing is that you don`t get to come out and post stuff without getting a reply. Nowhere does it say that I can`t reply to your posts. If you don`t want to discuss with me that`s fine, but don`t expect me to be the one to stop posting. If you don`t want to discuss then you have to be the one to stop posting. I`ll continue to reply when and where I feel like, because that`s my right.

Lastly:

Or are you going to lock the topic? And show "lesser" forum member where is his place in the rank?

Please, don`t patronize, you don`t have a right to do so.

[Grenic]

Hmmm, are lists tactics or are they a tool box that you bring to the game board?

Like Swordmaster, I tend to see tactics as driving list design as the list needs to be crafted in such a way that it gives the player the option to successful use a particular tactic.

I would think that why people may confuse list building with tactics likely results from how players were introduced to the game. For me when I started playing I built lists around the models I owned; no real consideration or understanding of the tactics (also back then in 3rd was there an internet?) and only really knew the game dynamics based on a small group.

As my collection grew and my understanding of the game improved, I moved to building lists that were focused on, at most, a couple of tactics. At this level of play, I tended to define my list by its primary tactic, basically making them interchangeable (the list = tactic stage).

Later, as my knowledge of tactics further improved (and thanks to improved access to information via the internet), I moved to building lists that could support the use of several different tactics that I liked, read about, and/or found to be successful. At this level of play, I tended to see my lists as enabling me to select from a series of tactical options that I could use in a game when required (the tool box stage).

I guess for me, the OP’s question could have easily been “Where on the continuum of play development do we think most of our players are currently at?” I would guess that if we are seeing an influx of newer players, the posts should be drifting toward "lists = tactics" stage (which may be the case and if so, good for the hobby), but if we are all long in the tooth (WHFB experience wise) the posts should gravitate more toward the "tool box" stage.

[Brother Dimetrius]

Agreed Swordmaster.

Army list building is choosing your tools. Tactics is how you use them. (Strategy is how you get them where you want them, but that's not in scope of Warhammer ). There are dependencies of course, but they are indeed different things.

[Ferny]

Hmmm, are lists tactics or are they a tool box that you bring to the game board?

Like Swordmaster, I tend to see tactics as driving list design as the list needs to be crafted in such a way that it gives the player the option to successful use a particular tactic.

I would think that why people may confuse list building with tactics likely results from how players were introduced to the game. For me when I started playing I built lists around the models I owned; no real consideration or understanding of the tactics (also back then in 3rd was there an internet?) and only really knew the game dynamics based on a small group.

As my collection grew and my understanding of the game improved, I moved to building lists that were focused on, at most, a couple of tactics. At this level of play, I tended to define my list by its primary tactic, basically making them interchangeable (the list = tactic stage).

Later, as my knowledge of tactics further improved (and thanks to improved access to information via the internet), I moved to building lists that could support the use of several different tactics that I liked, read about, and/or found to be successful. At this level of play, I tended to see my lists as enabling me to select from a series of tactical options that I could use in a game when required (the tool box stage).

I guess for me, the OP’s question could have easily been “Where on the continuum of play development do we think most of our players are currently at?” I would guess that if we are seeing an influx of newer players, the posts should be drifting toward "lists = tactics" stage (which may be the case and if so, good for the hobby), but if we are all long in the tooth (WHFB experience wise) the posts should gravitate more toward the "tool box" stage.

Love this - nailed it I think.

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

Hi guys,

@ Grenic

As Ferny I think you nailed it. Experience definitely have a lot to do with how the game and particular elements are perceived. Thanks a lot for your post, I think you summed up that in a great way and that it is indeed the main reason why some of the players may confuse army list building with tactics.

@ Brother Demetrius

Hopefully some players will evolve in the way Grenic described! I find it more inspiring to read about proper tactics rather than another iteration of an army list. Although building one is of course important part too!


@ Curu

Keep spamming then. You will be ignored.

[Lord Anathir]

I disagree a bit with opening post. Often lists are built with tactics in mind. They really go hand in hand. For example, the dwarf list I ran last book took about 9 months from first draft to a tournament win. I remember distinctly talking about dealing with skink clouds with my current list in a tactics forum. Lots of good suggestions... anvil ding them (I had anvil back then), anvil + miners, rune of challenge, ignore them, etc. Great suggestions and all, but in the end inadequate. Then someone suggested to get some xbows. First I got 10, then 20, and over time evolved the list into a core of 2x23 xbows with great weapons which I kept until the end.

Some lists employ the use of tactics that are insufficient or unrealistic. Sometimes a list just doesn't have whats needed to get the job done and its a travesty if someone doesn't tell the player if he genuinely wants to help, regardless in which sub-forum the conversation takes place in.

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

Hi LA,

I am aware that army list building and the way you use it are things that are strongly merged. After all the army list is built in order to win games and that is a starting point for sure. One can and should tweak the army list with more games played. The initial ideas are confronted with real games situations where one can identify how useful they are. Or in case if they didn't work, was it due to wrong assumption in the first place or to simple mistakes and lack of experience in the use of the new army. As you say, that is a slow process and there are many factors that contribute to the evolution of the army. If in addition to the game experience you also tend to play in tournaments with very different players packs or against wide selection of opponents (UB is great for that) then the same army may actually need some tweaks as well.

Having said that it is still different to what "pure" tactical discussion can look like. For example, in our discussion in the Army Blog subforum we discussed various options such as 3 characters vs 4 characters, to have musicians or not etc. While they are going to have an impact on the use of the army and may even have some tactical advice they are mainly army list musings.

On the other hand, in the same topic, an advice from Nicene regarding BoH is a tactical one. He didn't only provide a chart with percentage of success for spell casting but also suggested that casting 2 d6S4 spells in a row has better chance of success than casting one 2d6 S4 spell. That may be further used for some magic phase planning and as such is definitely tactics.

I think that what I wanted to emphasize is that army list is a starting point, not the end. And while you pick up the army to win with you may need some time to learn how to use it to the fullest potential. And that is where tactics can and should help.

Cheers!

[Lord Anathir]

I'm not sure I understand the point of this topic then. What do you hope to achieve in this thread?

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

I wanted to understand why people start but stop at army list building and then call it tactics.

[Eltherion2]

There seem to be 2 things here for competitive players (Tournament Players).

1. Optimizing your army list for the particular Composition scoring system used e.g: ETC, Swedish, etc.....

So within a particular system players can either make softer armies to get bonuses from the Comp Scoring or use harder lists and simply smash opponents to try and get maximum battle points.

Good players will look at the system being used and optimize their army build accordingly.

Optimizing your army according to the comp being used maximizes your chances of doing well in said Tournament. However there are no guarantees, there is a degree of random chance as to which armies you will face, some match ups being better than others. However a well rounded army should be able to deal with most of the 16 armies he/she is likely to face.

So a less experienced player can download a Net List which has won Adepticon, or USA Masters for example but may not understand A. How the list works and B. The Comp system the list was designed for.

2. Tactics
There is no point in having a good army list if you don't know how to use the various elements (Units) in the list.

Some army list styles such as MSU, MMU, Death stars, Shooty Lists, Gun lines, etc.. suite different players.

"Know your enemy", a saying derived from Sun Tzu's The Art of War.

A good Army General will not only know how each unit works but also the good and bad match ups for each unit.

A good Army general will also look at the opponents army and work out how to take points of it and win the game.

So the Tactics get employed when an Army General is trying to follow a particular Strategy to win a game. For example if you have a shooty WE army your Strategy might be to avoid combats as much as possible while you take points shooting and Magicking the softer more expensive enemy units. Your Tree men are largely in the list to help prevent the opponent getting to your shooty squishy troops.

A good Tactician will also know how the various units synergise with each other. For example a HE Eagle re-directs a Frenzied WoC unit so that the HE Cavalry can hit the unit in the flank when it is forced to overrun (due to Frenzy).

Furion goes in to depth analysing 2 of his games using HE's vs. WoC and VC's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3DfuHAB ... nLH8lT3TMw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9lzTS-O ... nLH8lT3TMw

[~Milliardo~]

I think that's the main point for new gamers to take from this thread - if you do download a netlist, understand which comp system it was designed for and have a working knowledge of how it works.

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

Hi guys!

Thanks for more feedback!

@ Eltherion

That is great summary! It shows that army list building and creating a battle plan are obviously tied together. But you need both to win your games and as you pointed out you need to take into account many other factors.

I listened to one of the most recent bad dice podcasts where the OK army list of the SCGT 2014 winner was presented. I recommend that episode because the winning player sent that list to Ben Curry with some notes why he picked particular units and what he had in mind when choosing them.

At the army list building stage he needed to take into account the fact that the tournament is going to use W/D/L system, that there are secret missions to fulfil and that there is also composition score that may affect the overall standings. It was also mentioned that due to the fact there was a possibility to play Battle for the Pass quite often, he wanted to use that to his advantage.

According to my understanding he tweaked his chosen army list to accommodate these factors and then used his tools to accomplish tactical goals:

1. To win his games with appropriate margin to claim victory. (Interestingly, his victories were by huge margin so he would have won big with 20-0 system too).

2. He fulfilled all 6 missions.

What I like about his approach is that he didn't consider his list in a vacuum. He had particular goals in mind and made sure he had tools for the job. But also he used these tools to great effect. For example, it was mentioned that he took Hunter with his list. On the surface it looked as if he included him purely for the composition score. However, it was also revealed that the Hunter played a very important role in messing up with enemy movement phase, in particular in the Battle for the Pass.

The difference between army list building and tactics might be more subtle than I initially thought but it is still there. I guess it would be great to see the following cycle. Army list --> Plan --> Game --> Discussion --> Army List ... It is good then, that more and more players start their army blogs as it is probably the best place to have all aspects in one place.

@ Milliardo

I agree. I would also add that players who wish to advice others should also take that into account. There might be some options that are good in many different environments but it does not mean they are going to perfectly suit the army another gamer wants to use, in his area (no matter how big or small) and in line with his chosen style. Especially, that it seems there is no one HE army list to rule them all now!

Cheers!