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.

Thanks for posting the link to the articles! Keep it coming - this is one of a very short list of posts Ive subscribed to - love it.

I havent retired yet

Omega_Warlord wrote:Combined Arms

This is the idea of using multiple forms of attack to place the enemy in a no-win situation. In chess, this type of situation is called Zu Zwang, placing your opponent in a position so that no matter what they do, it hurts their position. This works well in real life, combining air support, artillery strikes, and infantry arms, but how do we use this in 40k?

One example comes from the Eldar. Lets say a squad of marines seeks cover in some ruins. The eldar have 3 units providing influence to that area, a Dark Reaper Exarch, a squad of Howling Banshees, and a Wave serpent with Fire Dragons. No matter what the marine player does, it is bad for the squad. If the squad stays within cover, the Reaper Exarch can use Crack Shot to cause casualties. If the squad charges out, they will be caught by the Banshees bearing down on them. If the squad retreats back out of cover, the Fire Dragons will catch and destroy them. This is an example of Zu Zwang, and it provides the Eldar player an advantage.

Combined arms and zugzwang are really two different concepts, although it's definitely thought provoking the way you've linked them like that.

At the most basic level, combined arms is simply using complementary weapons systems or units to make them more devastating in combination. The classic real world example would be using tanks and infantry in concert. One of the weaknesses of tanks is that they are vulnerable to enemy infantry, especially up close (in 40K, this is represented by assault attacks that are always resolved against rear armor, krak grenades, and highly portable but short range meltaguns) or dug in with anti-tank weapons at longer range (represented by things like krak missile launchers, multi-meltas, lascannons, etc.). On the other hand, infantry are vulnerable to the heavy weapons on tanks. Combining tanks and infantry balances out the weaknesses of each type of unit -- the tank can chew up infantry in the open, crack transports, or engage other tanks (which would chew up the infantry), while the infantry can keep enemy infantry away from the tank, maneuver to engage fortified infantry, move closer to enemy tanks that are engaged with the friendly tank, or even hunker down to provide additional long-range firepower (if armed with the proper weapons).

In most cases, a combined arms strategy isn't going to lead to zugzwang, although zugzwang in 40K is most often going to be achieved through the effective use of combined arms. I'm making the distinction because I think it's very important for players to think about combined arms even if they don't understand how to achieve zugzwang, or the opportunity to do so never presents itself during the course of a game.

Technically, combined arms is more "strategy" than "tactics", but in this case the two are closely linked -- a player's strategy determines how the units that he selects are going to be employed tactically.

Aaaaaaand, subscribed. Keep up the good work!

@Yongblood13: That is a really good discription of Combined Arms from a strategical viewpoint. I tried to apply the concept to a more tactical situation, so I hope it came across as such.

Tactics 101: Reserves

Reserves is a very intergral part of 40k. It even has it's own deployment rules and arrival areas. The reserves of a battle are some of the most important aspects of victory. There are some times when reserves are not needed or not wanted in 40k, but the more and more I play, the more and more I use reserves.

Reserves are an increadible weapon. They allow us as generals to do a great number of things:

-Reserves allow commanders to reinforce and/or exploit gained advantages
-Reserves also allow us to prevent an advantage being gained against us.
-Reserves can also allow us to influence the battle without ever placing figures on the table

I find many players that simply do not like the idea of reserves. They would perfer to have the whole army shooting at you the entire time. There are some armies and playstyles that greatly benifit from this, but for the rest of us, reserves are definately something worth looking at.

There are some drawbacks to reserves in 40k however. The most crippling is the somewhat random nature of the time of arrival. The other is the lack of precision durring some types of placments. These can be mitigated somewhat, but they can be a real pain in the you-know-what.

Using Reserves

A true reserve is a unit that has no specific task and is not engaged current in the battle. This is possible to replicate in 40k without actually placing the unit in reserve. Parking that 9th Chimera behind that big building is one way to achieve this. A unit such as this is valued because it can have any assignment at anytime. That type of flexibility is what makes reserves so powerful.

Once our reserves become available, it is up to you to decide what to use them for and where. There are several questions you can ask yourself when deciding this:

-Does my enemy have momentum? What can my unit do to halt that momentum?
-Do I need to reinforce any areas of attack? What can my unit do to aid my current forces?
-Does my enemy have a reserve of thier own? Can I eleminate the enemy reserves from contributing?
-Is my enemy relying on a key unit/terrain? How can my unit destroy/deny that key?

These are the basic question to ask yourself once your reserves become available. Applying these ideas will aid in getting the most out of your reserves.

I have purposely left out the ideas of Deepstriking and Outflanking. These, in my opinion, are more of ways to utilize deployment then utilize reserves. It is very important to note that Deploying via Reserves is NOT the same as Utilizing a Reserve.

Next post...Review and Application of discussed techniques

*Note: This next post will be awhile in the making. I plan on preparing an abreviated battle report to accompany the next post that detailes and explifies the ideas and techniques discussed so far. Be patients, as it will take me awhile to complete. In the mean time, if you have any questions, feel free to ask and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability.

Its great to see discussion of reserves - in the infantry, great effort is given to getting the enemy to commit his reserves before launching the primary assault.

Ok, in regards for reserves and how people deploy from them.
Benefits of Deep striking. As far as tactics go, it seems to me that unless you are deep striking very far away from your opponent, it would be suicide. While it could make for an excellent distraction for your opponent to have some crisis suits appear behind him, those crisis suits probably won't survive the incoming volley. And what of outflanking deployment? Or even just deploying normally from reserves? With outflanking you have a 33% chance of coming from the completely wrong table edge, and with deploying normally I guess you just get a slightly less reliable unit, but that unit comes later after you have gained some momentum? I suppose just practical applications is my main concern from all these tactics. It is quite helpful as far as ideas for moving and deploying, but without specific examples I find myself a bit at a loss...

Let me see if I can be of some assistance.

You mentioned Crisis Suits, which leads me to believe you primarily play Tau, so I will be more specific with them, but also give some more detailed examples of other armies.

Deepstriking

For Tau, choosing to deepstrike is more strategy based than tactics, as it require premeditation during list building. An excellent example of a good deepstrike unit is a Crisis Team armed with twin-linked fusion blasters and a missile pod. This unit can pop in, destroy a tank squad, and if they live to tell the tale, all the better. If not that is a risk that the general has to be willing to assume. Choosing targets can also help to ensure the squad survives. Sometimes it's not the juiciest target you should attack, but the one of opportunity. That landraider may be a great target, but the flanking skimmer squad can not only be destroyed, but allow the unit to survive past the next turn.

Deploy from normal Reserve

As a Tau player, I almost always keep a Devilfish with Firewarriors in reserve. No matter what turn they come in, there is a purpose for them. Early turns, such as 2 and 3, they can reinforce your lines or push ahead to apply pressure. Later turns, 4-5, they are great for jumping on that random lightly defended objective.

Outflanking

This is a maneuver that Tau probably don't use very much. Pathfinders should start on the table, kroot usually infiltrate as speedbumps or counter infiltration, and stealth suits, they might use it. This is were I will use another army as an example. Tyranids can use outflank to a great advantage. Genestealers can come in and eat almost any unit they can reach, with fleet, they have a rather long threat radius. 33% of the time, the come in on the other board edge (Unless you have the Swarmlord) and they will just either capture an objective, or eat a unit on that side.


I hope some of these examples help. If there is anything else that is still unclear, please don't hesitate to ask. Now, I'm not saying that these are end-all beat-all tactics, just ideas and examples that anyone can either use, or not. I'm just trying to be helpful to the community at large.

On a side note... the battle report for the Review is coming along nicely. It will be Tau vs Nids. I got a buddy of mine to play as nids against me on Vassal (as my table is currently in pieces being redone.) Shouldn't be to long now.

I just had a 1500 point test game with my friend, and I wish I had thought of keeping a unit of firewarriors in reserve. It ended with a tie in 5 objectives(he had 6 capturing units oh god Why won't farsight let me bring more hammerheads)
But in complete seriousness, after he stole the initiative I was expecting a losing battle after getting my hammerhead immobilized, a pirahnna destroyed, a devilfish destroyed, and a wound on a fireknife. I really tried to apply your tactics when playing the battle, and I have to say I owe all credit to my tie(I was assuming I would lose after his first turn) to your tactics and amazing armor saves.
So here is a mini report on how your tactics
He fielded all troops hiding behind empty waveserpents. His plan was to use the wave serpents to block line of sight.
Strengths: Ability to move his scoring units far without me being able to threaten them, lots of anti armour(bright lances and missile launchers)
Vulnerabilities:without his armor, his army falls short in range and survivability. he also loses much of his tank killing power.
Shortfalls: Not really, seemed like a very solid list
Predictability: I was caught off guard seeing his wave serpents empty, but as I watched him move I had a general idea of his plan.
Killing my crisis suits and troops was critical to his success, He accomplished neither due to crisis suit survivability and my firewarriors sitting back. He did get one unit down though, and tied the other up in close combat, so we only had 1 objective each and were each contesting 2.

My army:Highly mobile with lots of shots that prevent armor saves. My army has a tougher time clearing out hordes with only 1 hammerhead, but flamers on many suits helps mitigate it, even though the flamers didn't come into play very much. I took 1 major risk attempting to tank shock his waveserpent with my devilfish. This was a major miscalculation that resulted in me losing a squad of firewarriors. He relied on cover saves and blocking line of sight, both of which I denied him via markerlights and anti armor

The decisive point was once I got rid of his wave serpents. This would have been even more decisive had my Hammerhead not been immobilized first turn. While I didn't win, I learned better how to deny my opponent his goals of success(swamp the objectives with men until I drown in his blood). My mobility of JSJ kept me out of the meatgrinder long enough to whittle him down

From another advice, my opponent divided his forces(a couple footslogers and warwalkers to the left, the rest of his army on the right. I didn't fire a single shot at his warwalkers I don't think. It was pretty much just take out the waveserpents and begin mowing down his infantry.(asymmetry with target choices I suppose. I did deploy further away from them besides my pathfinders who he ignored)
While I didn't really keep anything in reserves technically, having a single unit of firewarriors to be near an objective really helped put my mind at ease. He was so busy dealing with my crisis suits he hardly even noticed them until turn 4. So I think that is like your example of keeping the 9th chimera hidden?
Overall this has been incredibly helpful, sorry for the long post, I just wanted to really show my appreciation and enthusiasm to your cause/lesson.
With my superior armor save, I denied him cover saves giving me a terrain advantage.

Great game, I'm really glad to hear that you have been able to learn and improve from my posts. I do want to say that I will never claim these to be my tactics. Most of the information is from the United States Infantry Officers and the United State Marine Corps Doctrine. My only addition is the direct application to 40k.

Keeping a unit of firewarriors is close to the idea of "on table reserves" but a true reserve would have no assigned task from the beginning, while that unit of firewarriors had been assigned, consciously or subconsciously, to holding that objective. Mech-eldar is a tough matchup for tau as they do what mech tau do, only better; maneuver and deny kills.

Warning, big warning, long post... very long post. (You've been warned)

Tactics 101: Reveiw and Demonstration

So here it is, a battle report dedicated to tactical usage. In here I will detail the way I emplore the

techniques and ideals being discussed so far. The battle in 1850, Tau (me) vs Nids (buddy Seth). So here goes

Lists for reference:

Tau------

2x Sashel w/ Plasma, missile, Targeting Array, HW multitracker and body guard with same loadout

2x Crisis team w/ TL missile pods, Flamer

3x 6 man firewarriors in Devilfish w/ SMS, multitracker, targeting array

1x 6 man firewarriors walking

1x 5 man pathfinders w/ Devilfish same as Firewarriors

2x Hammerhead w/ Railgun

1x 2 man broadsides w/ shields, 2 shield drones, leader with target lock

All vehicles have disruption pods

Nids-------

Swarmlord w/ guard

2 Zoens in spod

2 hiveguard

2x Tervigon w/ toxin sacs, adrenal glands, Catalyst

2x 10 man termagant

2x 8 man genestealers w/ toxin sacs (one squad has 9)

Tyrannofex w/ rupture cannon

Trygon

Mission: Capture and control, Deployment: Spearhead (corners)

Now, onto the board



Step 1: Mission Analysis

We haven't chosen sides or placed objectives, but I'm already analyzing the mission. The first thing I look at is all the non-variables, the things that can't change. In other words, the terrain and the lists.

Terrain

Lets begin with OAKOC used in my terrain post and given by <insert name here>.

Obstacles--

Where are the obstacles? The building we agree to classify as impassible and closed. A very good point for me as my crisis teams can use it while the nids cannot. The woods offer movement restrictions while the hills are minor. The ruins realy won't impact movement due to their placement in the corner. How will the obstacles influence maneuvers? Obviously, the building will have to be moved around, but the nids can really use the woods as they have move through cover, so movement will be near or around those.

Avenues of approach--

I can really control the pace of I can get the upper right hand corner. Other than that, the avenues are rather open.

Key Terrain--

The building, that is what must be key due to it's usage by me. My opponent will want the trees for cover, but I need that building.

Observation and Field of Fire--

Anything outside those trees is a death-zone. Holding the high ground will also aid in LOS for reduced cover against those big bugs

Cover--

Trees. Hills for infantry, building for MC. The sand bags, ruins, and crates will aid him more than me, so they cannot be ignored.

Lists

I know my list. I'm mobile, I have a good amount of firepower, and I can take a beating and keep kicking.

My opponent's list, is another story. There are no units that I'm unfamilar with (helps that I play nids as well, and this is just like a list I run). The inclusion of the Swarmlord with genestealers, Zoans, and Tyrgon tells me he will be outflanking and deepstriking. As much as I hate to admit it, this will affect my deployment. The meat of this list is two fold; Tervigons, and genestealers. Kill those and the list will lose a lot of core. Deal the trygon when he arrives, and keep those genestealers at bay and I should do fine.

Contest one, hold one, I win.

Now, at this point, it is deployment time. Tau=2 Nids=5

Nids decide to go first and use the cover of the trees, taking the bottom right deployment zone. So I have top left. We place our objectives and deploy like thus:



He as stealers, trygon, spod in reserve. I have a unit of firewarriors in fish in reserve. My plan to to actually circumvent his forces, which are looking to advance, and capture his objective while contesting my own. With my mobility, I can hold out in place for a turn or two, then spring forward for an agressive push.

Decisive Point: If I can draw in the enemy toward my position, I can out maneuver him for the win. I know I've got him if he commits to my position.

Turn 1:

-Nids advance, covering ground to attack from multiple fronts. Shooting ensues and does nothing. No assaults.
-I don't have a lot of good targets, but I still need to hold that building to make it effective. I saturate the tyrannofex and it dies. I manuever to block the coming genestealers from my broadsides and hold the key terrain. Here I am using ideas from Asymmetry, Combined arms, and maneuver. I also used my combat multipliers (Jump-shoot-jump, jetpack infantry, markerlights, tanks) to aid in my position and have my uncommited reserves ready to help in any fasion. After this turn, though I have only killed one model, I have created many advantages for myself. Winning turn by turn is one way to approach a game, but never lose sight of the big picture.

End of turn 1:



Turn 2:

-Nids just one squad of stealers comes in on the wrong side. He spawns some gants to screen the new stealers (great use of his combat multipliers). Shooting again, again he kills nothing (hive guard at crisis suits [which is a good target] tervigon and swarmlord do nothing, nothing else in range.
-My reserve arrives. At this point I think it's great time to put some pressure on his flank with a squad of firewarriors hopefully removing that genestealer squad from the universe. Here I've decide to try to rid myself of those troublesome hive guard, as well as gain some momentum by really crippling his forward motion. The results of which you can see here.

End of turn 2:



Turn 3:

-All nids' rerseves come in, with some risk and good positioning, he has really helped to relive some pressure I've put on him. I lose a Hammerhead, and the dismounted Firewarrior squad along with one pathfinder.
-I'm going to used my combined arms to destroy as much as possible on this turn. The main advantage I can gain here is in position and material. Now that all the reserves are commited, I can also begin my motion toward his objective. After some shooting and jumping, here is the result.

End of Turn 3:



Turn 4:

-At this point, Seth is losing too much material, and is now just trying to hold his own objective. It's too little to late, has he as alread commited to my position. I have achieved my desicive point!
-I move, I shoot some, at this point the game plays itself.

End of Turn 4:



-He calls it. There is no point now on proceeding has he can't come back and get his objective or force enough of my stuff off mine. Tau win by forfit.


So, here I tried to show you examples of all the different ideas and tactics that can be used. Please remember that this thred is not about this battle or the lists used. Feel free to discuss the tactics used by either player as we both made some mistakes.

Edits: Typos, readability, and image sizes

Next session... I'm thinking about doing some posts on Attacking

Do you have links to larger images?

I think I updated them with an edit... hope it's better now.

This thread is what I'm all about... too bad I can never do any of this stuff because I'm forgetful and caught up in the heat of battle. Keep this up I must learn moar!!!

Generally these articles are pretty good but you messed up on terrain the correct order is

O-obstacle
C-Cover and Concealment
O-Observation and fields of Fire
K-Key terrain
A-Avenues of Approach


Easier to remember if you can actually pronounce the acronym. INF lead the way!

Hi Omega_Warlord

First off i'd like to say i've really enjoyed this thread so far, I know you didn't come up with this stuff but you did put it all in one place and made it easily digestable for the average war gamer, so deserve praise for that.

Like Punisher91090 most of the stuff you've spoke about I already knew, well the basic principal anyway , but forget to use them.

Last night I had a game against Space Wolves and won two objectives to Nil by the end of turn 4, and a lot of that is thanks to your articles. They made me think about what Iwas doing, I deployed two hellhounds with MM in reserve and didn't give them a job, I used cover to set fields up fields of fire with my LRBT's and hide my basilisk, I analyzed the strengths of my force vs his and deployed accordingly. At one point had a choice of firing my basilisk at Njarl, who is a monster, or a lone grey hunter holding an objective. I went with the grey hunter because Njarl isn't a troop choice.

Sorry for the ramble but thanks man for reminding me to think about tactics rather than just stratergy.

I know this was posted about 4 months ago but I must disagree with some input that has been given within this thread.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:tactics 101.
if you have a choice between rapid firing and charging, charging is the right thing to do 95% of the time.

This statement is grossly out of context. In a vacuum, when two units or relatively equal strength are squaring off you will usually want to charge instead of rapid fire. This flies out the window when you consider what support units you have within range of where your units are – or could be with a run move, what support units your opponent has within range of where his unit will be charged, and potential disparities in unit strength.

I don’t see this statement as having any practical value in a tactics 101 thread.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:don't divide your forces. if your opponent divides his, concentrate everything you have on an isolated element of his army and destroy it before moving on to the rest of his force.

Again, this statement simply does not hold water in 40k. In SOME army builds it is ideal to concentrate your force but in many it doesn’t make much sense. Some builds, particularly Eldar and likely the new Dark Eldar, function quite well – in many cases BETTER by utilizing adjunct forces – hammer/anvil style strategy. Some force like Shroud/Monolith Necrons improve efficiency by breaking components off the body to deal with isolated targets.

I’m guising this statement is coming from a Space Marine perspective which makes it even more ludicrous when you consider the viability of drop pod builds.

This statement simply isn’t valid in a tactics 101 thread.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:build your army to be super shooty or super assaulty. If you try to make a generalist list you're going to super lose.

And this is the statement I disagree with most of all. Most successful army builds succeed by balancing close combat and shooting. While it is true that Imperial guard is successful largely though commitment to firepower, most would argue that’s because of how imbalanced and overwhelming Imperial Guard firepower can be.

Most armies require some shooting and some close combat with the bulk of the army falling somewhere along that spectrum. This is, in my view, the principle reason why Tau are unsuccessful (outside their woefully out of date codex) – their only viable close combat unit is essentially a speed bump to an average close combat unit from almost any other army. This is largely why Space Wolves are so very competitive – they can bite HARD at either range or in close combat and, whichever build they focus on, they’re still supported by being decent at the other.

The most competitive armies I’ve seen and built have made a commitment to balance and anticipating the threats that exist in the wide variety of 40k. An all close combat army will likely fold horrifically to a mobile army that can disable opposing transports. An all shooty army will likely fold horrifically to a mobile army that can deliver CC early.

Going to add some input on strategy.

In standard 40k games there are only 2 stategic goals: capture objectives 2/3 times and kp 1/3 of the time.

To meet those strategic goals one must maximize scoring and contesting units, and minimalize kp.

That's it, strategy in 40k is that simple, end of story period. Everything else is tactics, not strategy.

Excellent work! I have always enjoyed reading tactics.

schadenfreude wrote:Going to add some input on strategy.

In standard 40k games there are only 2 stategic goals: capture objectives 2/3 times and kp 1/3 of the time.

To meet those strategic goals one must maximize scoring and contesting units, and minimalize kp.

That's it, strategy in 40k is that simple, end of story period. Everything else is tactics, not strategy.

Hee hee, which means that for me, as an IG player, the decisive point is typically when the mission is rolled. If it is KPs, I know I've lost! Even with minmizing KPs by blobbing squads and the like, there doesn't seem like a lot a Guard player can do to alleviate the KP problem.

Sorry for the long delay between new tactics...

Tactics 101: Attacking

Most military engagements constist of two types of forces, attacking forces and defending forces. In the land of 40k, this can hold true as well. However, 40k is a unique setting in that both forces are trying to eliminate the other and even on objective based missions, the majority of the games require offensive tactics. There will be a later post discussing defending and when it may be appropriate in 40k. Just know that for now, attacking it what you primarily do.

In military doctirine there are different types of attacks. Not all of these can be aplied to 40k, but each one is important to know in it's own right.

Hasty Attack:

This can also be known as an attack of opportunity. This attack usually comes with some balance of risk vs reward. In 40k, this could be shooting or charging a possible failing flank trying to gain an advantage. It could also be an attack used by an arriving reserve.

Deliberate:

This is an attack that is usually planned. This could mean that during your mission analysis, you know your assault marines will want to attack the opponent's static shooting unit. Deliberate attacks will usually also use some form of combined arms to increase the chance of success.

Raid:

This is a type of deliberate attack that involves the forces withdrawing from the combat zone. These attacks usually are needed to acomplish some type of goal other than the destruction of the enemy. In 40k, this could be assaulting to draw an enemy off an objective with a hit and run unit. It could also be dropping in with some firedragons to pop a transport and then flying away.

Feint

This is an attack that is ment to decieve the enemy. Feints ususally involve some sort of contact with the enemy, so be prepared to actually commit to some sort of combat. The most difficult part of the feint is selling the attack to the enemy. You have to commit enough forces to be an actual attack. This is particularly difficult to pull off in 40k, as there is full disclosure. Something to remember is that a feint does not have to be sending a unit up a flank pretending to attack there. It could be deploying very spread out, causing the opponent to do the same, then reforming to exploit the now over-extended army.

Shock

This attack is usually more psycological than anything else. In this attack, the commander demonstrates some sort of combat capability that is ment to scare the enemy commander, or create a change of target priority for the enemy. Imperial Guard are the masters of this type of attack. Placing a lot of template creating tanks on the board will quickly cause a change of enemy mindset.

Spoiling attack

This is a form of counter attack but is executed before the enemy attack. This could be thought of as a type of preemptive strike. This attack greatly reduces the abilities and success chance of the coming enemy. Usually these attacks target the main supporting units in 40k. Attacking a Tyranid Tervigon or Hive Tyrant just before a mass of little bugs hit your lines is a great spoiling attack, just be sure you can successfully remove the supporting unit.

Exploitation

This is a follow up attack after successfully completing some other form of attack. In 40k, this is best represented by a sweeping advance. However, for those times will the rules don't help you win, you will need to follow up your attack. A great example of this type of attack is when one unit destroys a transport, then the another unit mows down the now disembarked infantry. The second unit is performing a exploitation attack.


Some of you may notice I have left out some types of doctrine attacks, and added or amended others. This is purely from a 40k viewpoint as to what types of attacks can be aplied or not. These are the more advanced tactics that the majority of 40k games are composed of. Whether conciously or not, generals continue to use these in every game. The use of single attacks, or a combination of several is what makes commanders different. If you are not having success with your current play style, try switching your attack methods.

Next post: Attacking Maneuvers

Nice thread!

Exactly the kind of wording I like for 40k tactical analysis. Not too 40k specific but more general with intentions and without dice and math and drawer-thinking. But with examples. Very nice. Keep on.
I also found that I support your estimation about the decisive point being mostly turn 3 to 4.

this is the turn where most likely many reserves arrive, where the forces reach the enemy territory and where short range shooting and assaults are initiated (most decisive manoeuvres, most decisive damage -> decisive point^^)
Exceptions are destroying key targets and achieving superiority due to a better deployment earlier and snatching victory later.

This all seems like strategy to me, in other words what you want to achieve, not how to do it with the specific tools at hand.

To me, strategy is list-building because in list-building you have to choose how you're going to achieve your objectives via the material and thus the tactics you will have available.

An example of a tactic would be the "Conga-Line" where a unit is spread out in a long line so it minimizes the effect of markers and templates, doesn't overwhelm its opponent on the first turn of an assault, and minimizes the effect of an assault upon it. A conga-line is best accomplished using a large mob that is intended to grind the enemy down over multiple turns of combat, such as Ork Boyz Mobs, Imperial Guard Infantry Platoons, Termagant and Hormagaunt Broods, and so on.

No strategy is not list building.
Yes, you build a list around a strategy. But the listbuilding itself is not a strategy. The strategy is what you want to do with the list.

Strategy is how you win the specific mission.
It can be:
-Waiting for the enemy to move up, concentrate on one flank and roll over him in a great outflanking move.
-Rush forward and destroy key units early in the game and reinforce soon to divide him in two parts
-staying well covered and shoot him down one by one

but you must decide it again each game. It does not only depend on your list. It depends on the combination of your list, your opponents list and the mission goals.

To be precise this analysis should be called operational in a greater scenario I think.

Uh, yeah, if strategy is what you want to do with a list, then list-building is by definition strategy...

This would be too simple.

List building is above strategy.
You build your list around an idea of a strategy, but still you can execute a very different strategy in a game.

Normally I hate Stand and Shoot, and my list surely isnt designed for it, but I had a game recently where I had to do this. So the strategy was against the initial plan about the army. But still key to success. I would have lost if I did a different one.

To be precise, I would call list building "economy".

I think you're making a mistake in thinking of strategy and tactics hierarchically, when the relation is simple: What do you want, and how are you going to do it? When you build a list, you have a strategy in mind, whether its a rigid paint-by-numbers plan, or a set of sub-strategies depending on the circumstances. Even when you're engaging in small unit tactics on the table, you should should be doing what fits with each level of strategy, what best satisfies what you want.

An example:

Strategy:
So you want to win the game. To win the game you need to kill x number of units, to kill x number of units you need to focus your fire on type y units, to focus fire on a type y unit you need to shoot Units A and B at Unit C.

Tactics:
If unit A and unit B both stand still and shoot at unit C, C will get cover saves from B standing in front of A. If unit B moves out of the way, they will be out of range. But unit D is a Tervigon with Onslaught, and it is in range of unit unit B. So the tactical order of operations goes: Unit B moves out of the way and out of range, unit A shoots at unit C, unit D shoots unit B with Onslaught, unit B runs back into range and shoots. On average the mission should be accomplished, and each level of strategy should click.

To employ a cliche, you have to think of strategies and tactics as the rims and axles (respectively - if rim needs to be in x position, then axle needs to rotate some degrees, goal and process, strategy and tactics) on wheels, and then think of them as wheels within wheels. Ultimately the outermost wheel will be will be centered on the axle of list-building.

I usually go for the tried and true:

"Close combatty the Shooty tings.
Shooty the Close combatty tings."

Tactics 101: Attacking Maneuvers

If you remember from earlier, a maneuver is a type of positioning that is supposed to gain some type of advantage. There are several types of maneuvers that are benificial specifically to attacking. Please remember that there is a big difference between maneuvering and moving. In a maneuver, the commander is employing his forces (actually engaging the enemy) while with movement, the comander is simply getting from point A to point B.

Envelopment

This is the conerstone of attacking maneuvers. This is a maneuver that uses the idea of fix-and-flank. The main idea is to cirumvent the enemy so that you can attack from multiple fronts. This movement is oriented on causing casualties. In 40k, this is best demonstrated by the "Trapped" rule. In actual combat, this could be used to escort falling back units off the board, or place some weapons in position for side and rear armor vehicle shots.

Turn

This is very similar to the envelopment, but where the envelopment is based on casualties, the turn is pased on positioning. The turn can be used to pull an enemy force back from the front to try to reinforce his flank, leaving the front of the line exposed to attack. It can also be used to set up a spoiling attack or raiding attack on the enemy. Tau and Eldar are both very adept at using turns. This maneuver, like chess, requires planning beyond the current turn and looking at least one move ahead.

Frontal Attack

Yes, this is what the name says. This is the most basic type of attack. In layman's terms, you attack the front of the enemy. This should only be used when you have an overwhelming advantage or a low consideration for the risk involved. Mech Orks are the manifestation of this type of attack. Charge the front, don't look back, crump 'em good!

Penetration

Ehem....an attacking maneuver... This is similar to a frontal attack except the commander focuses all forces at single points in the enemy. The idea is to punch a hole in the enemy's lines. This attack is also very risky. A landraider full of TH/SS termies plowing into the enemy forces followed by some rinos or razorbacks is a good example of a penetration attack. Mech orks with deathrollas can also be successful with this.


Overal Keys to Success

Here are 10 things commanders use to be successful on the battlefield. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it is very nice to have just the same:

1. Sycronize your forces (usually at the descive point.)

2. You do not have to table your opponent to win. The true art of tactics is to beat your opponent mentally

3. Understand and avoid your opponent's strenghts

4. Exploit your opponent's weaknesses

5. Know and exploit your own strenghts

6. Identify your main units and use them to accomplish your decisive point. Remember, these main units may change.

7. Give all your units (except reserves) a task or purpose that aids in achieve the decisive point.

8. You need to have a reserve to use in any situation.

9. Strive to understand the terrain and enemy as quickly as possible. This takes study and practice.

10. Make your plan flexible. Once you lose options, you become predictable and beatable.



Never forget that the best way to learn tactics is to try them out on the tabel top and sometimes, accept the inevitable face beating....


Next series of posts will be about Defense and when it actually might be a good idea to play defensively.

I'm looking forward to the article that will follow this thread

PanzerLeader wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:tactics 101.
if you have a choice between rapid firing and charging, charging is the right thing to do 95% of the time.

don't divide your forces. if your opponent divides his, concentrate everything you have on an isolated element of his army and destroy it before moving on to the rest of his force.

build your army to be super shooty or super assaulty. If you try to make a generalist list you're going to super lose.

AF,

Wuestenfux already gave the analysis of why point #1 is wrong.

#2 is wrong based on list design and mission. If you can out maneuver an opponent, you benefit by dividing forces and then converging firepower on units that have become isolated as he tries to catch you.

#3 is a point of strategy, not a tactic. The OP already stated clearly that the article is about tactics. If you don't understand the difference after rereading the OP, PM me and I'll explain it at length. But your current post does not contribute anything except bad generalizations to the thread.

Take care.

I'm not going to speak to #1, it is situational.

#2 is a perfect example of why there are sooooo darn many books written for centuries on strategic and tactics. AF correctly stated the basics of defeating an enemy in detail. You disagreed based on other factors. The general principle AF stated is 100% correct. The other factors you used to disagree about it are details that are critical in achieving the objective of the general principle, but do not make the general principle incorrect. In fact, one of those critical factors is how well both armies can maneuver. If your opponent can outmaneuver you OR has better firepower projection (actually, the combined term "force projection" covers both), then you will look like an absolute fool if you divide forces then converge firepower because you will be the one isolated and stomped.

#3 As defined by the OP. Among those soooo darn many books are differing definitions of where strategy ends and tactics begin, including the concept of a level between those two called the "operational" or "grand tactics" level. The OP's definition of those terms make them useful for clearly grasping his posts, but not as a put down. For lining up your troops off your list and fighting a battle, there isn't a whole heck of a lot of what most of the real world (including I'll bet the OP's sources) would consider "strategy" at this scale. Even big 2000 point games don't get over the level of command exercised by a real world captain of a real world support company, let alone a combat company. Heh, "strategy" consisting of deciding which of your troops to issue grenades to?

The funny bit? I actually disagree with AF on supershooty/assaulty to a certain extent, but I'd have to know more about his position on that. I would agree that a "pure" army is probably a more capable one, but mainly because it cuts down on the options and allows even a lesser tactician to stay more focused on the mission rather than worrying about complex details. Anyone can (as have many military leaders before them) get bogged down in details.

Even then, lists must be flexible (unless you can somehow get to tailor a list before each battle with a fixed opponent) enough so that your "pure" X army (X = maneuver, shoot, assault) can swap out to performing a different way in case you have to fight an opponent to is even more X than you are.

Can your opponent outmaneuver you? Out shoot and/or assault them.
Out shoot you? Use maneuver and/or assault.
Out assault? Move and shoot.

The OP is bringing up good points, so I'll let an actual critique go, but I've probably read many of the source books that his sources are drawing from. Care must be taken that an individual source isn't overly relied on, because it might be a specialist (or "tactical") source that is applying the rules of war to a specific era or style of fighting. Lots of good soldiers have died in wars because the generals tried to apply general principles in an outdated fashion.