Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

World War II: The German Kriegsmarine's surface fleet is far inferior to that of Great Britain but boasts the largest battleship ever built in Europe, the Tirpitz. A slightly larger ship than the Bismark, the Tirpitz spends the majority of the war docked in bases throughout Norway, and never fires a single shot against an enemy ship. The Tirpitz spent the war acting as a fleet in being.

What is this concept, and how do you apply it in 40k?

A Fleet in Being is originally a naval concept. It's based around the idea of area denial. A weaker navy can effectively deny an area of the sea to a stronger navy by refusing to engage the enemy, while remaining safely at port. If the enemy wants to use that area, they must bring enough power to defeat this fleet in being, otherwise the fleet can leave the port and engage the weaker targets. This effectively ties up as much of the stronger force as actually engaging them would, with the added benefit of not risking defeat. The stronger force cannot ignore the Fleet-in-Being, but cannot easily remove it either.

During World War II, the presence of the Tirpitz forced the Royal Navy to allocate their own warships to defend the Arctic conveys if they wanted use of the North Atlantic. The threat of this one ship was significant enough that many allied attacks were attempted just to disable her. She was eventually destroyed by Lancaster Bombers, having never engaged any naval opponent.


So, how do we do this in 40k? First, let's render the concept down to it's basic principle. You want a unit that you can (or need to) keep safe from harm, that projects enough of a threat radius to deter your opponent from casually moving into the area you're attempting to deny them - or that forces them to dedicate significant force to taking that area.

If you need to keep your unit safe, you pretty much need a board that has some sort of line-of-sight blocking terrain. Hiding behind this terrain will represent your port. As long as you keep your unit in the port, it's safe. Of course, just as air strikes eventually doomed most Fleets in Being in World War II, if your opponent has the means to kill your unit while it's in port, this tactic might not work so well. Things like barrage weapons or indirect-fire attacks pose an immediate threat, while outflanking units and/or deep striking units provide an opponent another way to disrupt your strategy. But, keeping it simple, let's assume that denying your opponent Line of Sight will suffice. Of course, if you're used to playing on tables without any LoS blocking terrain, you should probably find another hobby

Secondly, you need to make sure you can engage your opponent, and that will probably require moving out of the port, even if just a little, to take shots, or to set up your charge. As such, units without Move&Fire capabilities are probably not going to be sufficient unless the terrain is very favourable. While hiding an indirect fire platform, like a basilisk, might be a good tactic, it's not really the same approach. The basilisk would fire every turn, whether or not your opponent moved into the area that you're attempting to deny them, and so there's no additional deterrent to them from going there, they're going to have to weather that fire anyway.

Third, the threat must be credible. A single missile launcher is a risk, but it's not going to keep a good opponent terrified - it's not going to deny the area to your opponent. So, you need a unit (or units) that represent a credible threat of annihilating whatever your opponent moves into your denied area. Keeping this in mind, you also need to make sure that the threat is appropriate for what you're attempting to deny access to your chosen area of denial. A transport could rush past a serious anti-infantry threat, while a fast moving skimmer squadron may well risk the

Examples:
Space Marines:
Land Speeders (especially with Multi-melta/Heavy Flamer) can deter an opponent from moving up, as they present a credible threat to both tanks and infantry, and project a decent threat radius (24" threat with the multi, 20 with the flamer). Vindicators can also benefit from this tactic. As they're a high priority target if deployed aggressively, with a short range, they can often be neutralized early in a game by a canny opponent. Keeping them in port makes them a threat to any advancing enemy units.

Imperial Guard
Rough Riders are an ideal fleet-in-being unit. As a small unit, they can be hidden easily enough to avoid gunfire that would otherwise kill them. Their 19-24" threat range out-ranges many enemy assault units, and their lances mean that, at least on that first charge, their strike capability is potent enough to scare off many enemy assaults.

Leman Russes, especially Executioners, are another good option. With multiple plasma cannon shots and a 40" threat radius with them, the Executioner can address any target shy of a Land Raider, and can frequently remove entire enemy squads from the table with a single volley. Keeping a unit like this hidden from enemy fire means that it will be available when it's needed.

Others:
Crisis Suits, Obliterators, Dreadnoughts... these can all function in this manner. Crisis suits (and eldar bikes) can be even more effective if they can pop out of their port each movement phase and return to it again later... Some units even have built-in ports. Eldar harlequins, with a Shadowseer, come with a "port" that protects them from any shooting from outside 24".

Why do this:

Why not just deploy your Leman Russ to shoot forwards? Why not just charge your Rough Riders across the field? Or put your vindicator as far forwards as possible and hope for the best?

Well, this is why this is called a tactic. It's not 100% applicable to all games. It's not 100% applicable on all tables (it won't work if there's no 'port' for you to use). And, it really doesn't work if you have no reason to deny your opponent part of the board - it's more like hiding than anything else. It's just another tool to keep in mind, that may well be useful one day.

Part of any tactic is about forcing mismatches. Back to the Leman Russ Executioner. If I get to match up my Executioner against your squad of marines (in the open, bunched up, 30 inches away) even if they're about the same point cost, that's a mismatch in favour of the Executioner. If I have to match up my executioner against your broadsides (in cover, at 60 inches distance), that's a mismatch in favour of the broadsides.

I want to avoid the poor mismatches that I have going into the game (and there will be some). In order to avoid some of the worst mismatches, I may need to hide units, lest they be destroyed easily. But I still want them to have some impact on the game. If I can accomplish denying you the use of part of the table without ever risking my mismatched unit, I come out further ahead than if I just deploy it gamely for you to destroy. If I expose my unit for one turn, I might gain some small advantage, but will likely face the same mismatch in subsequent turns, and lose my unit. But, if I keep it hidden, you can never destroy it. And if I keep it hidden, covering some portion of the table where I don't want you, I keep exerting influence on that part of the table.

Furthermore, if I can deny you part of the table, based on the threat of my one unit that would otherwise be easily destroyed, I can focus more of my other forces elsewhere. In a capture&control mission, if I stick my objective out in the open, and put a credible threat in a port within threat radius, I can concentrate the rest of my forces attacking your objective, daring you to risk the denied area if you go for mine. I don't even need to try and hold my objective if I can deny it to you...

I think a key element here is being able to balance having a credible threat to your opponent with minimizing the amount of points invested in said unit.

In the case of the Battleship, it represents a credible threat to pretty much everything so that part is covered. For 40k, this means you either have to be using a very flexible unit/weapon or a weapon that has a significant advantage against the majority of your opponent's units.

I think the best example of this would be Missile Long Fangs as ML are a threat to almost anything on the board thanks to their two fire modes. They also have a significant advantage when it comes to the current meta-game of light AV spamming and 3+ save MCs.

As for the amount of points to invest, you have to remember that you are already on the losing side of a mismatch points set up with the rest of your army as the points you've spent on your Fleet in Being may have difficulties participating in the bulk of the battle. To counter this, you have to try and maximize the mismatch in your interest with your Fleet OR you create a Fleet that can easily change its role from distraction to direct support.

Keeping units "in port" seems luxurious. Is this a consideration primarily dependent upon the particular circumstances of each game or do you mean that units can be incorporated into lists as explicit "fleets in being"? I know redunancy is always a high priority when evaluating any unit that goes into your army but in some ways the principles discussed here seem antithetical to that.

minigun762 wrote:As for the amount of points to invest, you have to remember that you are already on the losing side of a mismatch points set up with the rest of your army as the points you've spent on your Fleet in Being may have difficulties participating in the bulk of the battle. To counter this, you have to try and maximize the mismatch in your interest with your Fleet OR you create a Fleet that can easily change its role from distraction to direct support.

To wit, could you please extrapolate?

I love doing this with my Fire dragons. Park them mid field with their serpent hidden and my opponent knows the first vehicle to go over to that side will be destroyed. Works very nicely to bunch up any armor for a multi assault with a Seer council.

A+ for putting this tactic into a clearer focus

Manchu wrote:To wit, could you please extrapolate?

I can try.

My concern is just how I gave the example of the Long Fang squad as a good starting point, that using a static/semi-static unit as a distraction runs the risk of the opponent ignoring your threat and instead making the most of their point advantage against the rest of your army.

You can mitigate this two ways I think.
1) Use a really cheap and/or really cost effective distraction so that you minimize the opponent's point advantage if they choose to ignore your distraction unit. Thunderfire Cannon would be an example of this, as you're only out 100 points if the opponent doesn't go after it.
2) Use a mobile unit that can rapidly redeploy from its distraction location to support the rest of your army. A Land Raider with Dozer Blades would be a good example of this as you can move through cover 12" and still provide some firepower on that turn.

In a perfect world, you would have units that would be both cheap and mobile as well as pack a significant threat to influence the opponent in the first place. Speeders and Attack Bikes would fit this bill in my mind. This gives you the option of trying to use this tactic to pull your opponent's army apart thereby weakening them as well as the backup option of consolidating your own army if the opponent doesn't take the bait.

minigun762 wrote:A Land Raider with Dozer Blades would be a good example of this as you can move through cover 12" and still provide some firepower on that turn.

Land raider with dozer blade? A black templar thing or something?

Illumini wrote:

minigun762 wrote:A Land Raider with Dozer Blades would be a good example of this as you can move through cover 12" and still provide some firepower on that turn.

Land raider with dozer blade? A black templar thing or something?

Chaos thing and I assumed all Raiders could take them.

I'm at work or I'd check my codex.

Manchu wrote:Keeping units "in port" seems luxurious. Is this a consideration primarily dependent upon the particular circumstances of each game or do you mean that units can be incorporated into lists as explicit "fleets in being"? I know redunancy is always a high priority when evaluating any unit that goes into your army but in some ways the principles discussed here seem antithetical to that.

No, this is very dependent on the circumstances of a game. Some, like rough riders, are more planned - it's a counter-assault unit, and they've got poor armour and saves, so you want to hide them - kinda makes sense there.

But others, like the Leman Russ... Obviously, if you pay 200 points for a main battle tank, you want it out there shooting stuff. You don't go into a game saying, where can I hide my tank. But, you're going to have games where it's spearhead deployment and your opponent has six broadsides. That tank, if deployed in the open, is going down hard. And, if you reserve it, it may not come in in a reasonable amount of time, and it might kill one thing, but then it's going to get shot apart anyway. That's not a good use of it.

So, when you see your opponent's list, and you see what the mission entails, it's time to think up how you'll use that tank - as a target, or for area denial? I think the latter is a better use.

I have used tactics like these many a time, and have brought some of my lesser opponents to hiding out of range of the fleet-in-being while the rest of their army moves in a different direction. Stuff like Plasma Cannons verus Space Marines forces them to stay out of range until one of the big guns takes it out. If they dont have big guns, they have to move in to what can only be called the "optimum space marine killing weapon"'s range.

Great and very original thinking Redbeard, good work man. Hopefully this can inspire some more original tactics.

I think the examples of the Vindicator and Landspeeder were good in particular, with the vindicator being something that people refuse to go near and the Land-Speeder an often under-valued threat.

I expect Carnifex's may be able to work towards a similar means?

I didn't realise about the Tirpitz battleship though, I never thought he did a particularly out-standing job in WW1, particularly as he was pushing for the war which they eventually lost, but oh-well...

Redbeard wrote:So, when you see your opponent's list, and you see what the mission entails, it's time to think up how you'll use that tank - as a target, or for area denial? I think the latter is a better use.

Yes, but - partially refering to your post in that other great topic - using that tank as area denial has merit in a reactive list and less in a pro-active list where hiding that one tank would weaken your shooting and reduce target saturation. But indeed, the way your army will have to fight is determined in the face of the opposing army.

The way I sometimes use this 'fleet in being' strategy (without previously having given it a name ;-) ) is to set-up a stage for a massive attack. Playing Daemons (or other reserves-reliant lists) you face the chance your army is not arriving in the order or at the moment you want it to. Facing your opponents army with the wrong combination of units or too early/with not enough units at once can be disastrous. When the opportunity arrises you can consider setting a stage for a later massive assault. Designate a port and gather some units there. These must be scary enough to deter you opponent from moving into your area but may not be scary enough yet for you to dare to move out of cover. When reinforcements arrive a later turn you can then move your 'fleet in being' out of cover and expose them together with the newly arrived reserves to confront your opponent with too many targets at once.

Nice article/topic again Redbeard. Thanks.

Cilithan

I think you can also apply this idea to units in hard to kill transports. Like Termies in a land raider used as a counter assault. If the enemy tries to move foward, you have that nasty package of CC ability ready to eat what he presents. A LR isn't impossible to kill, but it is really hard to kill past melta range. (which is its assault range.)

Great article! I just wanted to point out that the Ork codex has a number of units that can fulfill this role.

Stormboyz work incredibly well as area denial because with a 19-24" charge range and a hidden PK they can easily threaten any unit that wanders onto your half of the board.

A Trukk with Boarding Plank full of boyz is another great unit for this tactic, as it has a 13" range in which it can threaten a vehicle without exposing the boyz to incoming fire, and it has a 21-27" (+d6" on the Waaagh) assault range for any other target.

This is actually how they thought about fortified positions on land going into world war 1 as well.

There's something that's missing from the original analogy, though. The reason the atlantic convoy had destroyers wasn't because they were afraid of the tirpitz it was because they were afraid of submarines. The RAF knew that if the tirpitz ever left harbor, they could easily track it down and destroy it (a la the bismarck). The reason that they never needed to bother even attacking it at all was because they knew the the tirpitz wasn't a threat, so why bother attacking it?

The tirpitz wasn't in it's invincible fortress, waiting to spring out and attack, it was locked up in a norwegian prison the entire war and couldn't escape. Without the ability to ACT on its potential threat, it could be safely ignored.

Which brings me to the article. While you have some big, credible threat hiding behind cover out of LOS, then, well, it can be ignored. I would actually RATHER my opponent decided to hide their forces rather than actually use them. Especially because in order to be a sufficient threat, that means they're likely spending a lot of points on something that they're not using.

Also, this tactic is entirely a psychological one. It works by making your opponent afraid of what you COULD do instead of looking clear-headedly at what you're ACTUALLY doing. Against an opponent who doesn't fall to such ruses, you're not actually gaining anything, while simultaneously losing a part of your force due to non-committal.

As mentioned, this idea was prevalent on land, which gave us things like the battle of Verdun. It worked so long as the Germans were foolish enough to buy the bait and succumb to the psychology of the tactic. Once they figured out that they could just go AROUND fortresses because there was no way that the fortress could actually attack the troops (the forts were actually prisons), then fortifications became instantly obsolete.

Ailaros wrote:
There's something that's missing from the original analogy, though. The reason the atlantic convoy had destroyers wasn't because they were afraid of the tirpitz it was because they were afraid of submarines. The RAF knew that if the tirpitz ever left harbor, they could easily track it down and destroy it (a la the bismarck). The reason that they never needed to bother even attacking it at all was because they knew the the tirpitz wasn't a threat, so why bother attacking it?

The tirpitz wasn't in it's invincible fortress, waiting to spring out and attack, it was locked up in a norwegian prison the entire war and couldn't escape. Without the ability to ACT on its potential threat, it could be safely ignored.

I disagree. What I've read is not what you've written here. The Tirpitz was a threat, because she could leave port, engage an undefended target, and return to port before the Royal Navy could scramble to attack her. She wasn't safe to ignore it, as evidenced by the numerous RAF raids (12, at least) with the sole purpose of destroying her. You don't dedicate those resources to attacking something that's not a threat.

Which brings me to the article. While you have some big, credible threat hiding behind cover out of LOS, then, well, it can be ignored. I would actually RATHER my opponent decided to hide their forces rather than actually use them. Especially because in order to be a sufficient threat, that means they're likely spending a lot of points on something that they're not using.

Also, this tactic is entirely a psychological one. It works by making your opponent afraid of what you COULD do instead of looking clear-headedly at what you're ACTUALLY doing. Against an opponent who doesn't fall to such ruses, you're not actually gaining anything, while simultaneously losing a part of your force due to non-committal.

Something can be a big credible threat and still be vulnerable to specific attacks. If I put my rough riders out in the open, you can eliminate them quite easily before they have an opportunity to engage the target that they're best used against. I'm losing them just as much by putting them where they're exposed to your fire as I am by hiding them, the difference is that I buy myself an area of the table by hiding them.

As mentioned, this idea was prevalent on land, which gave us things like the battle of Verdun. It worked so long as the Germans were foolish enough to buy the bait and succumb to the psychology of the tactic. Once they figured out that they could just go AROUND fortresses because there was no way that the fortress could actually attack the troops (the forts were actually prisons), then fortifications became instantly obsolete.

You cannot go around in a wargame, as everyone knows that the table edge is the edge of the world. A unit with a threat radius of 24" can block off a large portion of the table, and your options are to either test the defenses, which if the tactic is employed correctly, will result in substantial loss of those forces, or to avoid the protected area, in which case the defender has succeeded. You say you can just ignore the unit that is in port, but that's not true. You cannot ignore it. You can avoid it, or you can force the issue. You either concede the space, or the material.

Redbeard wrote:I disagree. What I've read is not what you've written here. The Tirpitz was a threat, because she could leave port, engage an undefended target, and return to port before the Royal Navy could scramble to attack her. She wasn't safe to ignore it, as evidenced by the numerous RAF raids (12, at least) with the sole purpose of destroying her. You don't dedicate those resources to attacking something that's not a threat.

A few things to note:

- the "resources" dedicated to the attack of the battleship was never more than a handful of airplanes at a time.

- Of those several raids, most of them were called off.

- The raids didn't start in earnest until 1944, well after that battle of the atlantic had been decided.

- There's no way a couple of destroyers could have held off the Tirpitz. If they were genuinely afraid of a convoy being attacked by a battleship, they would have armed convoys in such a way so as to be able to fend off a battleship.

- This whole idea revolves around using psychology to hurt your enemies. Were people afraid of the Tirpits? Yes. Did it actually do anything to actually hurt the allied cause? Apart from a couple of downed aircraft, not. The transmission from fear to tactical advantage simply didn't materialize.

Redbeard wrote:Something can be a big credible threat and still be vulnerable to specific attacks. If I put my rough riders out in the open, you can eliminate them quite easily before they have an opportunity to engage the target that they're best used against. I'm losing them just as much by putting them where they're exposed to your fire as I am by hiding them, the difference is that I buy myself an area of the table by hiding them.

Right. Taking steps to preserve your forces before you have a chance to commit them is a good idea. Spending points just to hide forces in a corner in order to inflict psychological damage against your opponent sounds like a really bad idea.

Redbeard wrote:You cannot go around in a wargame, as everyone knows that the table edge is the edge of the world.

My point wasn't that you can outflank said dangerous hiding target (although, technically you can with things like scouts). My point was that once people started ignoring fortresses, fortresses themselves became obsolete.

I seem to have been using this without thinking.


i think Typhoon Speeders should be considered in this too.

they have good movement, but also an incredible range and can take on any target. you can move them out of cover just enough to snip the enemy, but remaining hidden from threats to themselves.