"Tactics or Techniques?" Topic

Both.

BTW, the pre-poll suggestion link points to the Terry Pratchett thread.

Both equally. Looks like there's an option missing on this poll.

Both.

I have to go with the "both" non-option. Pure tactics would argue for doing nothing but Roman civil wars while pure technique argues for gladiators.

I would argue that technique drives tactics, which is why Romans vs Gauls is so much fun (and one day my Gauls will beat the Romans – damn them!)

Yes. Something more then aimlessly pushing figures around and relying on luck. Given equal forces the leader with the better tactics should win.

Also voted "both" (actually "other").

Jim

P.S. Sent a PM to Bill about the link.

I'm opting out until we get a link to the right thread. I may be misunderstanding the question. But to the degree I think I do, I'd go with "it depends." Some armies and periods have a serious range of tactical options. Others do not. Down at the 1:1 skirmish/RPG level, you can make a good game out of almost any period by stressing individual strengths and weaknesses--but it takes a really good set of rules and scenario, where all you need is competence for a good tactical game.

I like both – for a lot of my gaming (ACW, SYW) the forces are very similar so "tactics" – but for the sci-fi, colonial and Mexican stuff I also do you could argue "technique"

BOTH

While most of the games I play are "equal points", all armies have different compositions.

BOTH.

BTW, the pre-poll suggestion link points to the Terry Pratchett thread.

That was a clever tactic of mine.

Link fixed.