Ell'ran wrote: If you don't like the way I play then I'm truly sorry, but I can't help it and no amount of convincing arguments will get me to change who I am. I do listen to my elders, and advice from sources outside of my own experience, but just because I listen doesn't mean I'm required to apply anything.
Then what is the point in posting here? The whole point of a forum is two-way discussion, so if you are not going to change your mind no matter how convincingly the point is argued, where is the productive discussion?
Peregrine wrote:40k as in real life, is also part math, and part art. You can know all the science behind the game and you can mathhammer things to death if you so desire. I, however, don't have the patience for that kind of extensive point-mongering.
Unfortunately, this means you are going to lose more often. Like it or not, 40k is a game of dice, and people who don't understand how the dice behave tend to lose games of dice.
Peregrine wrote:The Tau to you are an offensive army. We are all, of course, allowed to come to our own conclusions though.
The Tau to anyone who wants to win are an offensive army. The tournament results speak for themselves, against skilled opponents with good lists, Tau win by playing offensively. It's the natural conclusion of having the ability to bring a lot of focused, efficient firepower, but lacking any good long-term defensive units (our suicide screens can't defend for long, so unless they're buying time for a primarily offensive strategy they just die uselessly).
hownowbrowntau wrote:It sounds like you two are examples of two fundamentally different theories, the back loading and front loading approaches to list design. Peregrine is extoling the concept of hitting your opponent so hard that he hasn't got anything to chew you up with, whereas the original poster's apporach is to concentrate more on defensive capacity, so he can't chew on you as much.
I understand perfectly well what his approach is, my point is that his approach simply does not work. He won this game because his opponent was terrible at 40k, not because his strategy was a good one in general.
And yes, Peregrine, I agree: offense provides a form of defense all of its own, and no, the original poster hasn't optimised for either approach. Not all players are interested in min/max'ing out their lists. It's hard to get your head around that sometimes, but they still have fun.
If you aren't trying to improve your skills/list and win more games (and yes, optimizing your list is mandatory if you want to win), what is the point of posting on a forum about tactics? I concede that some people just don't care how much they lose, but those people don't usually post about it.