Anyone ever tried using real war menuvers???

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.

**DAaddict**

Yes, I based my best SM list on a US Armored Cavalry Squadron. Also the general philosopy that you follow a standard organisation chart. So you face one tactical, it is outfitted the same as the next. It worked wonders in that it focuses me on looking at what to do to affect my opponent not remember that squad A has a flamer and missile launcher and squad B has a melta gun and lascannon. Every squad has some multi-purpose capability but it is also definitely stronger in one area. AT, Anti-MEQ, Anti-Hoard...

Real-life: M2 Bradleys and Apache Helecopters

40k: Razorback w Las/TL Plas and Landspeeders w Bolter. (This was 3rd/4th Edition Dark Angels so patiently waiting 6 years or so until they un-emasculate the Dark Angels. Otherwise I could enhance it with the new SM codex.)

**dietrich**

I tried to use Italian WW2 tactics with my Tau, but since they can't drop their pulse rifles, it didn't work well.

**Lord Bingo**

dietrich wrote:I tried to use Italian WW2 tactics with my Tau, but since they can't drop their pulse rifles, it didn't work well.

I had a similer expirence, although i was basing my tactics on the French in world war two.

**Lordhat**

Asmodeus wrote:
Garuss Acine wrote:tatcis are fine, but just Blood Claw Spam my way to victory, i got a Unit of Blood Claws (yes they had a Wolf Guard with SS?TH termy armor) into close combat with Lysander, in the end it was numbers that did him in, i got my counter charge, and let me tell you 9PF and 3 Thunder Hammer Attacks pushed his invul save to its max it was a three turn combat i lost once but held my ld and ended up killing him, still having about 5-7 models in the pack left (they had been shot at from a LR crusader, a scout squad and a deva squad with a plasma cannon, losing 2-3 model to begin with* but in the end numbers won out, the Wolves can be very very simple, and i have yet to find an army that can mount an HQ unit that has the option of a twin linked las cannon on it, but that's just me, but yes i can see how real infantry tactics could work in game, and i will have to try this out some time, with some GH covering my BC as they run and normally if the other guy is eager and i get good rolls i can asault by turn 2, by the end of turn 1 i am already half way across the board (12" in to start with, then 6" for move and another 6" if i am lucky for running = 24" a 6x4 4feet = 48" so i already half the board covered) and with a 3+ save they tend to survive a lot of punishment, not to mention i can use a rune priest for mobile cover 5+ invul save in the middle of the open, and if they are assaulted its like assaulting into cover so they attack first, and if they get the counter attack, for the most part 4 attacks per model, even at WS3 against a normal marine they only need 4+ to hit, so a Blood Claw on the charge gets 4 attacks standard gear while a marine with a boltgun only has 2 for charging, well i went a lil over board lol, well as i said i can see how some tactics could work.

Your sentence structure makes my eyes bleed.

QFT. I stopped reading after I got to the third sentence with nary a period or capitalised letter to be seen. This might be the one time I use the ignore button.

**Milquetoast Thug**

Centurian99 wrote:
Dashofpepper wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:It's essentially suicide, unless by "real" you mean rubbing vaseline on your glasses and squinting real hard. Warhammer 40k is a beer and pretzels game with only a passing resemblance to reality. Not to say that there aren't strategies and tactics, just that they're local to the game system, and not generalizable from actual conflict.

I would dare say that this mentality is why I win more often than not in 40k, despite my relative newness to the hobby. I was in the Army for 9 years - first as an enlisted infantryman, and then as a commissioned armor officer. I'll use maneuvers right out of the infantry manual (7-8) and I consistently apply principles of warfare on the table.

Yep, if you understand the principles of modern military theory - especially things like maneuver warfare, MOOSE MUSS, OODA loops, and the like, applying them to any system of conflict - like 40K - makes playing the game almost ridiculously easy.

There are many times when I feel like I'm playing both sides of the table.

What are... MOOSE and OODA loops? and where could I learn about them?

**Gitzbitah**

Google-fu reveals wikipedia entries on both. As primers, I would imagine they'd serve well enough. If you want really reliable information, one of the more knowledgeable members can probably direct you to a field manual or tactics book.

**Aman**

Nurglitch wrote:13" Vehicle move with Red Paint, 2" Disembark, 6" Waaagh! movement, 6" Assault.

this isn't an example of using real-life tactics, this is an example of manipulating a broken game system and not reading the errata (apparently). Now if you want to pursue the theory that "life is like a broken game system" then OK.

40K isn't a real-life style game in that it doesn't even begin to portray basic modern combat principles, like firepower kicks butt. But it does an OK job of, say, portraying WWI and early WWII principles, I guess. The bottom line is that it is always better to know the _game_ and how things work in it than anything to do with reality. You might plan the greatest miliatry maneuver of the century, and have his critically important unit of Necron Warriors pinned to the wall and two wounds on his "oh-so-important" Lord, and wipe out half the unit...then he teleports out of there, gets a reroll for his WBB going thru the monolith and you're standing there holding your appendage inyour hand looking stupid.

Not exactly reality. If you want something closer to reality, try Mongoose Publishing's Battlefield Evolution, it's what Andy Chambers really wanted 4th ed. of 40K to be, I hear.

**Aman**

sexiest_hero wrote:Sure, I lure my foe into a false sense of over confidence, then surprise attack him. I also use deploy and fallback moves. I run a CSM bike unit through the woods detach my chaos lord and summon daemons and GD.the bikes are cover by the assault so they fall fall-back and add fire support. go tank hunting, or contest an objective with an turbo boost move.

Here Is a military rule that wins me a lot of games. Never strike an enemy in a vunerable spot when you can strike in an unexpected one. Why, your enemy may know his vuneralbilities and have a way of protecting it. worse an over apparent weakness my be a lure or bait to trap you. The enemy can never prepare for the unexpected by it's very nature. The puch you never see coming is more dangerous than any other.

yes, but by their very nature, how can you tell the difference btw a "vulnerable spot" and an "Ambush"? Remember, the only difference between "holding the advantage of the central position" and "being surrounded and cut to pieces" is the result later written about in history books.

**thehod**

I use basic principles to modern warfare: Superior firepower and divide & conquer.

**Fiendcrackar!**

I prefer WWII Russian tactics: grab as male citizens as we can with the draft, then give the people in front guns. The rest of you can have some ammo, and just pick up the gun of the guy in front of you when he dies!

But seriously, divide and conquer wins. With space marines, I prefer a sniper/whirlwind/droppod/terminator combo for maximum mind-desecration. Your opponent has to decide whether to rush across the board to kill the WW or the snipers, or sit back and wait for the drop pod and terminators. Usually they string out all of their units and make for easy kills.

**Garuss Acine**

Your sentence structure makes my eyes bleed.

**Xelkireth**

Garuss Acine wrote:
Your sentence structure makes my eyes bleed.

good, now roll your invulnerable save.

**Garuss Acine**

Lol. That was good. Almost got Cherry Dr. Pepper from QuickTrip to come outside my nose.

my jokes are like templates, they tend to drift but every now and then i get a dead on hit

**Centurian99**

Milquetoast Thug wrote:

What are... MOOSE and OODA loops? and where could I learn about them?

MOOSE MUSS - Mnemonic acronym for the Nine Principles of Warfare (US Army & Marine Corps, in particular)

Mass
Objective
Offensive
Security
Economy of Force
Maneuver
Unity of Command
Surprise
Simplicity

Blatantly ripped off from wiki:

* Objective – Direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive and attainable objective. The ultimate military purpose of war is the destruction of the enemy's ability to fight and will to fight.
* Offensive – Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative. Offensive action is the most effective and decisive way to attain a clearly defined common objective. Offensive operations are the means by which a military force seizes and holds the initiative while maintaining freedom of action and achieving decisive results. This is fundamentally true across all levels of war.
* Mass – Mass the effects of overwhelming combat power at the decisive place and time. Synchronizing all the elements of combat power where they will have decisive effect on an enemy force in a short period of time is to achieve mass. Massing effects, rather than concentrating forces, can enable numerically inferior forces to achieve decisive results, while limiting exposure to enemy fire.
* Economy of Force – Employ all combat power available in the most effective way possible; allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts. Economy of force is the judicious employment and distribution of forces. No part of the force should ever be left without purpose. The allocation of available combat power to such tasks as limited attacks, defense, delays, deception, or even retrograde operations is measured in order to achieve mass elsewhere at the decisive point and time on the battlefield. ...
* Maneuver – Place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through the flexible application of combat power. Maneuver is the movement of forces in relation to the enemy to gain positional advantage. Effective maneuver keeps the enemy off balance and protects the force. It is used to exploit successes, to preserve freedom of action, and to reduce vulnerability. It continually poses new problems for the enemy by rendering his actions ineffective, eventually leading to defeat. ...
* Unity of Command – For every objective, seek unity of command and unity of effort. At all levels of war, employment of military forces in a manner that masses combat power toward a common objective requires unity of command and unity of effort. Unity of command means that all the forces are under one responsible commander. It requires a single commander with the requisite authority to direct all forces in pursuit of a unified purpose.
* Security – Never permit the enemy to acquire unexpected advantage. Security enhances freedom of action by reducing vulnerability to hostile acts, influence, or surprise. Security results from the measures taken by a commander to protect his forces. Knowledge and understanding of enemy strategy, tactics, doctrine, and staff planning improve the detailed planning of adequate security measures.
* Surprise – Strike the enemy at a time or place or in a manner for which he is unprepared. Surprise can decisively shift the balance of combat power. By seeking surprise, forces can achieve success well out of proportion to the effort expended. Surprise can be in tempo, size of force, direction or location of main effort, and timing. Deception can aid the probability of achieving surprise. ...
* Simplicity – Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and concise orders to ensure thorough understanding. Everything in war is very simple, but the simple thing is difficult. To the uninitiated, military operations are not difficult. Simplicity contributes to successful operations. Simple plans and clear, concise orders minimize misunderstanding and confusion. Other factors being equal, parsimony is to be preferred.

OODA loops are essentially a way of looking at how people make decisions. Observe-->Orient-->Decide-->Act. First you observe the situation, then you orient yourself in relation to the situation, then you decide what to do, and then you act. Which of course changes the situation, so you need to to observe it again, re-orient yourself, etc. It's a continual, unending process.

It may not at first seem like something that has a great deal of applicability towards RW military tactics, but its power is two-fold. First, it helps you accurately predict enemy actions, counter-actions, counter-counter-actions, etc.

At higher levels, understanding how OODA loops work lets you look for ways to accelerate your own decision-making, and short-circuit your opponent's decision making process.

**jeffersonian000**

Democratus wrote:Not sure how you think attacking from different angles reduces the amount of return fire the enemy produces. There are no morale rules that reflect suppression or split fire. Displacement in the traditional sense is meaningless as the enemy always knows exactly where you are and won't fire into an empty position.

I think people use game tactics and then claim that they are military tactics simply because you can give them the same name. 40K bears very resemblence to real combat.

You can choose to attack an enemy unit from a side that puts that unit between the attacker and other enemy units, forcing the survivors to act as cove for the attacker. This works best versus vehicles that become immobilized, wrecked, or destroyed. Of course, your opponent can still move their units around during their movement phase; however, I can tarpit an enemy unit just to create a piece of coving "terrain" for my remaining forces.

As to refusing a flank, when an opponent strings out their force in a thin line in oder to cover their entire front, that allows me to place the bulk of my mobile units on one flank so that I can then push through his battleline and take each enemy unit on as an individual versus my greater numbers. Yes, you can drop pie plates. Big deal. By the time you are, you will be turning to face me on your flank were I have affectively crossed your "T". every unit you move to gain arc of fire not concealed by you our troops give me another target in my turn that I can engage with the weight of my entire army.

Like I said in my previous post, while rules don't support it specifically, the effect is still the same and still valid.

SJ

**ungulateman**

So OODA loops are stimulus-think-response then?

Not something I see at my FLGS.

**sebster**

Aman wrote:this isn't an example of using real-life tactics, this is an example of manipulating a broken game system and not reading the errata (apparently). Now if you want to pursue the theory that "life is like a broken game system" then OK.

Real life sucks. Codex: Iraqi is so underpowered it's like there was never any playtesting done at all.

**Democratus**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
Democratus wrote:Not sure how you think attacking from different angles reduces the amount of return fire the enemy produces. There are no morale rules that reflect suppression or split fire. Displacement in the traditional sense is meaningless as the enemy always knows exactly where you are and won't fire into an empty position.

I think people use game tactics and then claim that they are military tactics simply because you can give them the same name. 40K bears very resemblence to real combat.

You can choose to attack an enemy unit from a side that puts that unit between the attacker and other enemy units, forcing the survivors to act as cove for the attacker. This works best versus vehicles that become immobilized, wrecked, or destroyed. Of course, your opponent can still move their units around during their movement phase; however, I can tarpit an enemy unit just to create a piece of coving "terrain" for my remaining forces.

As to refusing a flank, when an opponent strings out their force in a thin line in oder to cover their entire front, that allows me to place the bulk of my mobile units on one flank so that I can then push through his battleline and take each enemy unit on as an individual versus my greater numbers. Yes, you can drop pie plates. Big deal. By the time you are, you will be turning to face me on your flank were I have affectively crossed your "T". every unit you move to gain arc of fire not concealed by you our troops give me another target in my turn that I can engage with the weight of my entire army.

Like I said in my previous post, while rules don't support it specifically, the effect is still the same and still valid.

SJ

Not the same at all. Attacking a position from a flank in RL compromises the position and causes confusion in a unit. This then results in reduced fire effectiveness and vlunerability unless that unit displaces.

In 40K the surviving men in a unit are fully combat effective until it is either Falling Back, Gone to Ground or destroyed to the last man. There are no rules for reduced fire effectiveness and no rules for suppression. Also, firing at an infantry unit from two opposite sides has the same effect as firing on that unit twice from the same side. Models are removed and a possible Morale check is made. The fact that the fire came in from different directions has no bearing on it.

What you describe above in the "thin line" vs. "attacking on one side" is not Refused Flank. Refused flank is where you put light forces on one flank to simply hold against the enemy while concentrating your greater power on the other. See Sparta vs. Thebes for a good example of a Refused Flank. Your example shows again how unrealistic 40K is. You are able to place all of your forces in a single location and ignore the whole rest of your side of the board allowing you to get local superiority against the enemy. This is because in 40K there is no disadvantage to leaving an entire flank unattended. There is no risk of an enemy breakthrough behind you into your rear areas and logistics support - thus you can leave entire portions of the battlefield undefended without fear. Very unrealistic.

**Carnuss**

Centurian99 wrote:

* Economy of Force – Employ all combat power available in the most effective way possible; allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts. Economy of force is the judicious employment and distribution of forces. No part of the force should ever be left without purpose. The allocation of available combat power to such tasks as limited attacks, defense, delays, deception, or even retrograde operations is measured in order to achieve mass elsewhere at the decisive point and time on the battlefield. ...

This one rule alone is enough to change your game if you heed it when you are building your army. It amazes me how many times I see units thrown on the board with no clear purpose. My 7 year old loves to field whatever he got that is new. I ask him what he wants to do with it, and he says "I don't know". While that's easy to laugh about with a 7 year old, I don't see much different behavior in adults.

"Ooooh, I just finished painting this model! Doesn't it look great on the battlefield?" does not = strategy. Every unit has a purpose, and every unit should be built to carry out its objective.

**jeffersonian000**

Democratus wrote:Not the same at all. Attacking a position from a flank in RL compromises the position and causes confusion in a unit. This then results in reduced fire effectiveness and vlunerability unless that unit displaces.

In 40K the surviving men in a unit are fully combat effective until it is either Falling Back, Gone to Ground or destroyed to the last man. There are no rules for reduced fire effectiveness and no rules for suppression. Also, firing at an infantry unit from two opposite sides has the same effect as firing on that unit twice from the same side. Models are removed and a possible Morale check is made. The fact that the fire came in from different directions has no bearing on it.

I agree with you 100%, yet you seem to be missing my point: By angling your attacks, you can reduce/control your opponent’s options. The mechanics of the game matter less than the ability to control the outcome of the game. Yes, the mechanics can be used to win; hell, without understanding the mechanics you can't win. Yet understanding strategy and how to use maneuver warfare to your advantage works with in any game system.

Democratus wrote:What you describe above in the "thin line" vs. "attacking on one side" is not Refused Flank. Refused flank is where you put light forces on one flank to simply hold against the enemy while concentrating your greater power on the other. See Sparta vs. Thebes for a good example of a Refused Flank. Your example shows again how unrealistic 40K is. You are able to place all of your forces in a single location and ignore the whole rest of your side of the board allowing you to get local superiority against the enemy. This is because in 40K there is no disadvantage to leaving an entire flank unattended. There is no risk of an enemy breakthrough behind you into your rear areas and logistics support - thus you can leave entire portions of the battlefield undefended without fear. Very unrealistic.

Well, I did say "bulk of my mobile forces", not "all of my force". As in, I use a firebase or two to anchor my exposed flank while maneuvering with my reinforced flank, which again reduces my opponents options while giving me covering "terrain" formed by my opponent's units, which become bottlenecked by actual terrain and his own units' deployment. My goal is to reduce my opponent’s options to ones that I can guide/anticipate. I'm not above deploying a heavy unit as bait, as my opponent will have a choice between dealing with a dangerous unit on his flank or ignoring said unit which can deal effective casualties if not engaged. And if he choose to engage all of my units? I weather out his defused fire and focus my attacks to eliminate his units one at a time. What if he uses my tactics against me? I turn within his maneuver, culling out a chunk of his units which I then isolate and destroy. If he focuses fire on my bait unit, he is not firing at my maneuver unit. Etc.

I don't try to out think my opponent; I simply react to his moves by reducing his options later in the game. Eventually, my opponent will be forced to give up a unit to save another, then another, then another.

SJ

**Democratus**

jeffersonian000 wrote:I agree with you 100%, yet you seem to be missing my point: By angling your attacks, you can reduce/control your opponent’s options. The mechanics of the game matter less than the ability to control the outcome of the game. Yes, the mechanics can be used to win; hell, without understanding the mechanics you can't win. Yet understanding strategy and how to use maneuver warfare to your advantage works with in any game system.

But that's the point. You don't reduce your opponent's options simply because one of the shooting units is at a different angle from another one. Even if the two units were right next to each other - the enemy unit can still only fire everything at a single unit. There is zero chance of having that "outflanked" unit split its fire and therefore reduce its effectiveness (one of the primary 'real world' reasons to outflank). There's also zero chance of reducing the fire effectiveness of the soldiers within (the other major 'real world' benefit to outflanking).

Every soldier in the target unit either fires at his full Ballistic Skill or doesn't fire at all. They have little motivation to displace because there is little penalty to having the enemy at several angles of attack. In a game that reflected real military tactics there would be supression rules that reduced the BS of soldiers that were under differentiated fire. In a way it is a lot like D&D (or other tabletop RPGs) where a fighter is at peak performance even when it has a single hit point left. Only at zero is there any real game effect.

40K is a fun game. But it's just that - a game. It is no more a simulation of combat than chess is. Some very broad strokes, of course, are common between them but little of any meaningful consequence.

Your milage, of course, varies.

**Avrik_Shasla**

I use real life tactics all the time with my Tau, hell if you don't with the Tau you'll find yourself in a pretty pickle.

**gameandwatch**

Ok well the easiest thing I can say is that there is one real advantage in 40k that is not completely available in modern warfare, and def not in historical warfare...God line of site...simply put, the ability to see all of the field and even what the enemy has at their command before the battle begins.

There is no fog of war, so gameplay can never be totally realistic. With that in mind, I constantly employ military tactics, theoretical tactics, blitz tactics, etc. BUT!!!! I always keep one principle objective in mind...: the player who controls the field controls the game.

**Lord Solar Plexus**

Democratus wrote:
But that's the point.

Sorry to interrupt you right there but I don't think it is.

You don't reduce your opponent's options simply because one of the shooting units is at a different angle from another one.

This is not what jeffersonian009 said. He did not talk about angling his units in relation to his units but in relation to the enemy formation. That is something entirely else than one's own unit or even a single enemy unit.

Yes, all is different, and it is all abstracted, and beer and pretzels surely come into play at one point or another but at the end of the day, it influences the opponent. Whether that means one single unit or the platoon or the formation is marginal.

Every soldier in the target unit either fires at his full Ballistic Skill or doesn't fire at all. They have little motivation to displace because there is little penalty to having the enemy at several angles of attack.

I see where you are coming from but I disagree. Of course we cannot transfer certain aspects 1:1. If your unit provides the enemy with cover or even blocks LoS completely because of such a maneouvre as jeffersonian009 described above, then there are incentives to move it out of the way (= displace it), or move around (= in the case of an immobilized tank blocking LoS) or something else - if your unit is in the way, it might mean you suddenly cannot charge anymore, or only with reduced firepower because some unit with heavies/rapid fire weapons must move. There are many ways how such maneouvres will influence the opposition, and I must say that in the light of the huge differences between toy and real soldiery, the similarities are there.

**Democratus**

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:Sorry to interrupt you right there but I don't think it is.

This is not what jeffersonian009 said. He did not talk about angling his units in relation to his units but in relation to the enemy formation. That is something entirely else than one's own unit or even a single enemy unit.

Two units next to each other are in a similar postition with relation to the enemy formation. Two units that are at different angles from the enemy unit are not in the same position with regards to each other. One isn't possible without the other.

Also, his was a response to my original assertion that 40K is unrealistic in that it does not properly model the effect of a unit taking fire from multiple angles. I had set the constraints on the situation as I had made the assertion. But feel free to interrupt if you like.

Yes, all is different, and it is all abstracted, and beer and pretzels surely come into play at one point or another but at the end of the day, it influences the opponent. Whether that means one single unit or the platoon or the formation is marginal.

I see where you are coming from but I disagree. Of course we cannot transfer certain aspects 1:1. If your unit provides the enemy with cover or even blocks LoS completely because of such a maneouvre as jeffersonian009 described above, then there are incentives to move it out of the way (= displace it), or move around (= in the case of an immobilized tank blocking LoS) or something else - if your unit is in the way, it might mean you suddenly cannot charge anymore, or only with reduced firepower because some unit with heavies/rapid fire weapons must move. There are many ways how such maneouvres will influence the opposition, and I must say that in the light of the huge differences between toy and real soldiery, the similarities are there.

Only in as much as you can reduce anything to "things do stuff". The differences between any real-world military tactics and the game of 40K are vast. Simply stating "you can't see something if it is out of sight" isn't the same as saying that tactical manuvers map from the real world to the tabletop.

In any meaningful way 40K does not express the manuver/morale/supression/displacement that is evident in modern squad-scale military tactics. Simply play a quick game of Flames of War, Squad Leader, or even the Company of Heroes computer game and you will see how tactically bereft 40K is. Don't mistake me for a hater, though. I really like the game but I have no illusions that it is anything but a casual way to spend an afternoon.

I play 40K regularly against military folks who have studied and successfully applied real-world tactics while under fire. This doesn't make them any better at 40K than the rest of us. If they learn how to play the game well, then they win. But their deep knowledge of the tactical circle means little in the i go/u go/suppressionless game that is WH40K.

**jeffersonian000**

Well, I can see that your milage varies from my own. I've explain what I do using the terms I use for the tactics I've learned. That's about it. I see others agree, so I don't need to convince you of anything. Have fun with your game!

SJ

**themandudeperson**

I think the situation jeffersonian is trying to describe is like this:
With your opponent deploying across a broad front and you deploying in a refused flank (O=opponent's units X=your units -=empty space)
O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O

XXXXX-----------------XXX
Your goal with this formation is to kill the far left unit and maneuver your 5 units into a formation similar to this:
X
X--O--O--O--O--O--O--O
X
X
X------------------------XXX

This now limits your opponent's far right units from engaging your far left units and allows you to easily concentrate fire from 5 units against his left most unit. Once this happens your opponent is severely limited in how to counter you as you'll continue to pour over half your force's firepower into one unit each turn while his force is limited in how to contain your 5 flanking units. In real life you have additional worries that the 40k ruleset cannot represent, like the panic and disorder of your troops having to reorient their fields of fire and displace to cover that offers protection from both the south and west, just not the south. In addition, other units can't effectively contribute supporting fire as they have to worry about friendly fire.

When used against an experienced player something more akin to this happens as your opponent tries to wheel his forces into formation to protect his flanks and to open new fields of fire for his supporting units:
X----O
X------O--O
X--------------O--O--O--O
X
---X
-------X--------------------XX

**themandudeperson**

As far as tactics I think along the lines of these quotes:
"The nail that stands up gets hammered"
If one unit performs admirably, expect it to get splattered next turn or in future games. Additionally, never deploy an important unit in a fashion that it "sticks out" as a target. Although, this can be used to great effect to draw fire away from other units.
"Don't interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake"
Sometimes this is harder than it sounds, but keeping your piehole shut and keeping a good poker face can sometimes bag you a win.
"Professionals are predictable. Too bad we keep running into so many amateurs"
Seasoned players expect certain responses and typically counter with predictable responses or set up traps with these responses in mind. Try to avoid this mindset as well as use this mindset against your opponent. This is much easier to exploit when you can outmaneuver your opponent. It also goes along with the OODA loops mentioned above.
"You can't hurt what you can't hit"
Using large terrain pieces to block LOS and attempting to outrange your opponent is another way to establish an advantage over your opponent.

**halonachos**

Personally I adapt to my enemy. If he has terminators that love to deepstrike I will keep most of my heavy hitters in reserve and then deploy them to counter the terminators.

Otherwise I try to get heavy hitting infantry into the rear of the enemy or to the rear of enemy vehicles. A chimera unloading two meltas behind a battlewagon=one toasted battle wagon.

**halonachos**

I also use my heavy support for that, keeping better infantry from slaughtering my guardsmen while my guardsmen use lascannons to take out heavy targets or their autocannons to hit infantry.