Talk:Warhammer 40,000/7th Edition Tactics

Organization?

The page could do with a big cleanup for 8e, anyone up to the task? I'd do it myself but not familiar enough yet :) Arahknxs (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I would really like a 7th and 8th page split, for the nostalgiacs--Arenuphis (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Some 8e edits are bleeding into the page and it's pretty confusing to read atm. You're probably right that a new page would be better. Arahknxs (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

New page at Warhammer 40,000/Tactics(8e) please put all new edits there!! Arahknxs (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd propose moving this page to Warhammer_40,000/Tactics(7E), leaving a redirect behind at Warhammer_40,000/Tactics that can then be edited to point to the current edition as necessary. I'll leave this here for a bit in case anyone with more experience has a better idea how to handle this, but it seems sensible to me to have edition-bound information on edition-specific pages, with the core page being a redirect to whatever is current (so all links can point there and the redirect itself can simply be repointed in the event of a new edition release)--PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Having looked around at this some more it seems like most of what's needed here is actually adding all the links to the 8E tactics pages, which are mostly in place. Should probably just do that and leave this page as-is, as most of the armies already have a spread of 5th to 7th edition links going on.--PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

---

I think this project has a lot of potential. We dump stuff here, then create a subpage for each topic when it becomes big enough, no? MagicJuggler 02:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

MagicJuggler, you have consistently demonstrated yourself to be the least knowledgable tactitian on /tg/. Although this project may have some potential if good players took the time investment to work on it, your input would only hinder the project. Unfortunatley, the current look of the "tactics" are amateurish, poorly organized, and ineloquently written. 16 May 2010

That's some harsh words to say, 24.124.98.226. I am sure you are worthy to be a judge on such matters, and can present us with undeniable proof of that, right? Fatum 19:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Just look at anything he's written for any of the armies. For one thing, he's not really providing unit overviews, he's telling people what to use in their armies. Here's an example: "Mad Doc Grotsnik. Crazed Bad Doc that can cybork anything from a squig to Weridboy. Use him." This kind of information is patently useless! If I were trying to get a feel for a game and came to MagicJuggler for advice, he'd just spit this bullshit at me and it would mean nothing! But this is what he does on /tg/ every time a tactics thread gets started and he gets wind of it. He tells everybody what he thinks is useful, designs absurd "'Ard Boyz quality lists" that don't demonstrate any understanding of how the armies work, and never actually explains why he thinks his favorite units are useful. That's especially problematic when you're looking at unit overviews; a unit overview should explain what a unit is, what its role is to the army, and why players prefer to use it or avoid it. He's writing this shit like he thinks his opinion means something - like "I like Grotsnik so you should too" is somehow helpful advice. 26 May 2010

Hi there. I think there was some confusion, for I did not write that segment on Mad Doc Grotsnik, though I did rewrite it:

• Mad Doc Grotsnik: Grotsnik is an interesting character. On one hand, he makes a unit Fearless, and grants it Feel No Pain, provided he remains a part of that unit (he's not allowed to leave units by default). On the other hand, his One Scapel Short of a Medpack rule makes the unit he's with prone to being led about in circles, meaning mobile opponents can throw speedy units to divert Grotsnik's mob from the main battleline. This said and done, he does have his other uses. The ability for any other Ork unit to take Cybork bodies is useful, and can do a lot to lengthen the lifespan of other Ork units; however, in practice this becomes mostly useful for upgrading Meganobz, on account of their normal inability to acquire Cybork Bodies, and the fixed price for the upgrade making it prohibitive expensive to upgrade regular Orks in this manner. The other popular trick is to take him in Snikrot's Mob (see the Kommando Entry).

Likewise, the current entry on Nobz is not mine, and frankly I am glad it isn't. If there's anything I messed up on, it's not having worked more on setting up general-purpose articles. What makes an army good, how to properly defend against alphastrikes, etc. MagicJuggler 21:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

First, you two learn basic wiki formatting. Second, 24.124.98.226, the wiki is open for editing, if you don't like something, feel free to make it better by any means. Fatum 22:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest rule sources

Being a noob about supplements, erratas, FAQs, expansions and WD/FW stuff, I've recently realized that it's quite a mess sometimes to browse through all those IA books, not knowing where I should look for rules of that unit X mentioned by someone, somewhere, and then not even being sure if those rules are latest version or were they invalidated by, say, later issue of IA (well, at least you can always find latest FAQs/erratas and those are usually cumulative, so browsing latest should be enough - as long as they are there at all, which may not be the case). Considering that creating database (like, on this wiki) of latest rules on all them units may be risky (I don't know, GW may be against blatant reposting of statlines and rules on all the units in their game), do you think that we should include references to original rules and erratas for every unit description? For example, unit entry may begin with: Unit B (Forgeworld), Imperial Armor № N, official FAQ *date* - this text in italic is what I suggest to add, and it can (and probably should) be hidden under cut/note/whatever tags for clarity. I've seen people on more than one forum/community agreeing on that just how much of a headache the issue with rules being spread out among 40000 different books can be. If it's ok to do what I suggest, I wouldn't mind starting to do this for C:SM page, hopefully with support of 1d4chan tactitians we can actually make it happen. A lot of people would be grateful. --Barrogh (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Kill Team?

Do people want me to begin maiing some tacticae for Kill Team? If so, do you want both the Official Kill Team and the awesome Heralds of Ruin Kill Team?

• I'm just gonna do that then

List building

Can i suggest we move it to its own page, mainly to stop this page becoming a massive clusterfuck -anon

Changing the Name of the page to Wargaming Tactics

Upon request, I've added tactics pages for Drop Zone Commander to the category at large, which means that the Tactics Project now includes non-canon sources. Previously it was just Warhammer 40k contents, but was then expanded to include the /tg/ Codexes. Then it was expanded by me to include the Fandexes such as Angry Marines and Knights Inductor.

Now it's about time to change the page name to Wargaming Tactics, which would better suit the project

WHFB, WM/H, and AOS have their own separate Tactics categories. I'd advise that the same logic be applied here. If we wanna make a bigger topic for general Wargaming Tactics, and then link to all games, that'd be fine. Also, the fandexes technically shouldn't be with the legit stuff. We have another category for that. ThatOneBruvva (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Fandexes are still part of the Warhammer 40k category, so while I'm going to make a Hub page for all of the different tactics sections, I do think that the 40k fandexes should stick to the 40k Category. And for fandexes of other systems should stick with the categories of their respective systems. So for example when people start making Fandexes for Age of Sigmar, they should be added in to the tactics pages for AOS. And when hell freezes over and Warmahordes gets fandexes, then they need to be added to the Warmahordes section.Evilexecutive (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ehh there's nothing particularly wrong with the fandexes being here, tbh. It looks fine. Besides, it's good publicity for people who have worked hard and that's a good enough reason for me

Shooting phase

Am I missing reading this: "Unless otherwise stated, each model in the units attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with." (BRB 8th edition p.179 1. Choose unit to shoot with) So lets say I have a squad of tactical marine within 12" of it target, I can shoot all my boltgun and bolt pistol at said target?

see the Pistol weapon type, a model has to either fire all non-pistols, or all pistols

Thanks

no prob, I live to aid--Arenuphis (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)