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.

Hello Dakka community, I have a new strategy for all you guard players (or any player in general) that enjoy fielding lots of troops: kill them all. Okay, not all of them, but my point is not to be afraid of losing troops. If the game is objective based, then there is no bonus points for having extra troops or tanks on the table and I have had a lot of success by remembering this. I treat each squad as a tool to acheive the objective, if that means running a platoon of twenty soldiers, my command squad, and a lord commissar at Abbadon and a squad of Chaos Marines so my Ultramarine ally can contest an objective it will be done. Don't think this is just for infantry, using battle tanks as shields also can be very useful.

Most players seem to hide extra soldiers at objectives, but leaving a few as possible means that the rest of your lads get to preform other tasks. Leaving a mortar team on a objective in cover, as my infantry squad moves up to hold off a squad of beserkers. This may seem odd, but by letting the beserkers charge my infantry squad I had slowed them down more. The trick it to move up to them, and make sure there is little distance between the units. Because there was only four or five beserkers left, I was able to out number them, and surround them so they had to charge me. That way they move an inch closer (just for charging) and then d6 inches afterwards, if they had move it would have been 6 plus d6. So, the point is to consider using your troops in sacrificial ways, but plan before you do so, don't just throw them away. As General Castor said: "I send my men to places where they can die, but I never waste lives." Something like that. Hope this helps.

I care too much about my army. I feel too attached to them, they are my army. No one else but mine. So I actually feel bad when I throw my guardsmen into a meat grinder. That and the time it took me to paint each one warrents my concern.

Mordian Army- not a chance in the warp I'll throw them away

My Cadian/ catachan- Oh this tactic has been employed most definately.

Ignatius wrote:I care too much about my army. I feel too attached to them, they are my army. No one else but mine. So I actually feel bad when I throw my guardsmen into a meat grinder. That and the time it took me to paint each one warrents my concern.

Mordian Army- not a chance in the warp I'll throw them away

My Cadian/ catachan- Oh this tactic has been employed most definately.

I know the feeling, I felt (still feel) the sameway. In the end I just like winning by extreme sacrifice more then digging in a letting things unfold. Not doubt the latter works, but it can more of a risk to the overall objective. Plus my opponents have fun.

General_Marshall wrote:I have a new strategy...

Ahahahahahabhaha

Ignatius wrote:I care too much about my army. I feel too attached to them, they are my army. No one else but mine. So I actually feel bad when I throw my guardsmen into a meat grinder.

I concur but the Xenos threat is too great and the heretics must pay for their... Heresy! A few good men must die to save the lives of countless billions.

Peace!

Just play a few games with Commander Chenkov. Or at least just build a fluff list around him and try it out for a few fun games.

I could never have become the cold hearted butcher err... I mean commander I am today without him!

It also helps if everyone was wearing gas masks. It's less personal that way *wink*

It's the only strategy that makes foot guard viable. If you're afraid of losing minis, don't play a foot list, don't play guard, and don't play foot guard. I mean, if you can't stomach going for a draw like this then don't bother.

I've won games with little more than just keeping on going regardless of casualties.

As a DKoK, infantery and artillery player, I do agree with that strategy - finest guardmen are willing to die for the Imperium.

If it is logical to do so, I will sacrifice troops.
Coming to a battle with the specific aim of killing your troops seems...strange.

Yes, but if you start with this, and then start getting concerned and peel back a bit, you wind up in the right place, whereas if you start with something more rational, you'll wind up jerking too far towards being conservative once the game begins.

It's basically the same principle of carpet bombing. The first bomber overshoots the target because they know that the bombers behind him will see the fires and drop their bombs a little too early.

Blood is the coinage of victory, one must spend lavishly to receive extraordinarily.

Ailaros wrote:Yes, but if you start with this, and then start getting concerned and peel back a bit, you wind up in the right place, whereas if you start with something more rational, you'll wind up jerking too far towards being conservative once the game begins.

It's basically the same principle of carpet bombing. The first bomber overshoots the target because they know that the bombers behind him will see the fires and drop their bombs a little too early.

Blood is the coinage of victory, one must spend lavishly to receive extraordinarily.

Said like a true Imperial Commander. I don't try and kill my men, but I spend as needed.

Ailaros makes good points. On a related note, I've known many newer players who give up when the chips are down. In reality they've often just reached the enemy's rapid fire and were one final push from victory.

DarkHound wrote:Ailaros makes good points. On a related note, I've known many newer players who give up when the chips are down. In reality they've often just reached the enemy's rapid fire and were one final push from victory.

Morale in the player is more important then morale in the model. A commissar (which I love very dearly by the way) will solve retreating troops, but when it comes to the players themselves they need to know that wars are won by fighting.

I've been largely successful with my conservative playing style over the years. I guess its really not a bad thing with me becoming an actual US army officer in a couple years and having the lives of real people to be concerned about

General_Marshall wrote:Morale in the player is more important then morale in the model.

Yeah, I've found this true on more than one occasion.

Along with proper deployment and target priotitization, morale seems to be one of those cornerstones of player skill in 40k. It doesn't even need to be as severe as making a player "give up". If you can make your opponent concerned that he is taking unsustainable casualties, this may make him play more cautious, or some other more minor thing that can still wind up making an impact on the game.

Especially when one of the players plays an army that likes rushing upfield (but even when not), it sometimes feels to me that 40k sometimes just boils down to a complicated game of chicken.

Ignatius wrote:I've been largely successful with my conservative playing style over the years. I guess its really not a bad thing with me becoming an actual US army officer in a couple years and having the lives of real people to be concerned about

And yet your signature's quote.

Ailaros wrote:

General_Marshall wrote:Morale in the player is more important then morale in the model.

Yeah, I've found this true on more than one occasion.

Along with proper deployment and target priotitization, morale seems to be one of those cornerstones of player skill in 40k. It doesn't even need to be as severe as making a player "give up". If you can make your opponent concerned that he is taking unsustainable casualties, this may make him play more cautious, or some other more minor thing that can still wind up making an impact on the game.

Especially when one of the players plays an army that likes rushing upfield (but even when not), it sometimes feels to me that 40k sometimes just boils down to a complicated game of chicken.

Don't they all?

DarkHound wrote:

Ignatius wrote:I've been largely successful with my conservative playing style over the years. I guess its really not a bad thing with me becoming an actual US army officer in a couple years and having the lives of real people to be concerned about

And yet your signature's quote.

I quote it for its hilarity and rediculousness

Ignatius wrote:

DarkHound wrote:

Ignatius wrote:I've been largely successful with my conservative playing style over the years. I guess its really not a bad thing with me becoming an actual US army officer in a couple years and having the lives of real people to be concerned about

And yet your signature's quote.

I quote it for its hilarity and rediculousness

I think its rather practical.

I have the same problem as Ignatius, I simply care too much about my troops to use them so frivilously.

My problem tends to be my recklessness, darting forward to sieze and objective too early in the game, or throwing guardsmen into combat against an enemy I probably should have softened up first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although sometimes it works, and when it does it's quite easily the most brilliant part of the game. Who wouldn't be a little bit awestruck by the men of the Imperium that fought tooth and claw with Guant swarms and came out on top, or held their own against a Trygon?

Grenat wrote:As a DKoK, infantery and artillery player, I do agree with that strategy - finest guardmen are willing to die for the Imperium.

Death Korps brofist.

Bobthehero wrote:

Grenat wrote:As a DKoK, infantery and artillery player, I do agree with that strategy - finest guardmen are willing to die for the Imperium.

Death Korps brofist.

Gotta make up for that Rebellion somehow

Hazardous Harry wrote:I have the same problem as Ignatius, I simply care too much about my troops to use them so frivilously.

My problem tends to be my recklessness, darting forward to sieze and objective too early in the game, or throwing guardsmen into combat against an enemy I probably should have softened up first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although sometimes it works, and when it does it's quite easily the most brilliant part of the game. Who wouldn't be a little bit awestruck by the men of the Imperium that fought tooth and claw with Guant swarms and came out on top, or held their own against a Trygon?

I'd be lying if I said I've never seen it happen. The good thing is that by doing so a 150 unit of guardsmen (two squads, plus a commissar to ensure that stay) can hold back a elite units for a couple of turns. The enemies do not need to be dead to be rendered unless.

On the whole "morale of the player vs. the morale of the models" thing, I find it amazing just how effectively you can demoralize your enemy with a horde IG list. Most players treat loosing 20 models as a horrible loss (which they should, that's probably a good chunk of their army) An IG player looks at 20 guys lost in a turn and goes "Wow, I only lost 20? Things are starting good this game!"

Watching your opponent pour his entire army's firepower to kill a 20 man platoon in cover, and think he's won when he gets it down to 2 guys, only for you to point at the other 100 guardsmen and laugh, is just downright cruel. It's also hilariously effective.

Me: "good job, I think you finally got them..."

Opponent: "hah, suck it guardsmen!"

me: "so... what are you going to do about the other 100 guys coming towards you?"

Opponent: "........crap...."

The key I've learned is to just keep going, like everyone else has said. You never know if you'll come back. I've only given up when there was literally no way to win (Like, all troops gone, and he's got 4 of the 5 objectives) My last game, I kept going because if I could kill a skimmer, break the squad inside, and make them run far enough, I had a chance of MAYBE tying the game. Keeping that attitude is tough, but man it's worth it when you come back at the last moment by the skin of your teeth!

I employ the age old imperial proverb " no retreat, no surrender" i play this way with my IG Valhallans who are always ready to die for there duty is to die and there good at it

commissars are the back bone of the IG blobs after all.

also I do play the same way with my DA. and there stubbon ability makes them fight to the last if need be.

Ignatius wrote:I've been largely successful with my conservative playing style over the years. I guess its really not a bad thing with me becoming an actual US army officer in a couple years and having the lives of real people to be concerned about

You'll eventually learn that it's a bit more complicated than that in RL. However, this is not real life...this is warhams. So let's adopt a warhams example:

I have a squad that I absolutely need next turn. They're about to be charged by something nastier than they are. If they are charged, they cannot do what they need to do and I may not win. So I slide a less important unit in between the two. That unit's going to die, but by dying, the more important unit will live, which may win me the game, which (fluffwise) will make things go better during the rest of the campaign and will save other "lives" later. I sacrificed a few for the many. Is that wrong?

As I said, it becomes more complicated when real lives are involved but that basic equation doesn't change. Fortunately for us wargamers, it's rather easier on a tabletop. In both arenas, there probably won't be as many units left at the end as there were at the beginning. Some will need to be "spent" in order to secure a victory, as in any job resources must be expended to achieve the desired result. The ultimate job of any leader/commander/officer/manager is to determine how to achieve the best results with the minimal expenditure of resources, but make no mistake - resources will always be expended. There have been very few wars, and wargames, where nothing was removed from play.

Warhammer has a potential advantage in that there's no penalty (usually) for using those resources. You can burn your entire army except for a few units, just enough to hold objectives, and you're good to go next game. That's obviously not normally acceptable in RL, but there have been times when it has been. Sucks to be one of those "resources" but hey, we all volunteered, right?

I had one game where I parked a Leman Russ between Logan Grimnar and a squad of Guardsmen holding the winning objective, delayed him long enough for the game to end with a win. In the Guard, everything is expendable, victory is the goal, and whatever must be sacrificed will find a honored position by The Emperor.

The Mad Tanker wrote:I had one game where I parked a Leman Russ between Logan Grimnar and a squad of Guardsmen holding the winning objective, delayed him long enough for the game to end with a win. In the Guard, everything is expendable, victory is the goal, and whatever must be sacrificed will find a honored position by The Emperor.

Irony!

I usually kill enough of my own guys as they act as artillery spotters and bubble wrap for my tanks that I can't afford to throw away the rest. Although, I guess my "spotters" could be considered to do this, getting close enough to lure the enemy out of cover, then calling for danger close artillery barrages. I have great faith in my scatter die, and usually when my troops are around, it doesn't fail me often, much to my opponents' consternation.

LumenPraebeo wrote:

The Mad Tanker wrote:I had one game where I parked a Leman Russ between Logan Grimnar and a squad of Guardsmen holding the winning objective, delayed him long enough for the game to end with a win. In the Guard, everything is expendable, victory is the goal, and whatever must be sacrificed will find a honored position by The Emperor.

Irony!

I think that was the best part of the whole thing

Some armies lack the capacity to deal with huge numbers of units.
Others, do not. Try running blobs against an SM player with a couple dozen twin-linked flamers.
Also try being good at maths. If your opponent kils 20 men a turn and you have 100 men, protip-you will be wiped out.
It's honestly depressing how many IG players think DERP DERP SO MANY MEN and they get away with it because their opponent is equally as stupid.