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.

Have any of you hardcore dakkites pulled together sets of tactics you'd like to share with the rest of us. I play and take notes on what works and what doesn't. I've begun to use basic statistical analysis of common unit on unit combat scenarios (melee and shooting only). And I've even taken notes from historical battles (Thermopylae, Pegasus Bridge(WWII), Alexander v. Xerxes, etc.). What I've found is that a good general or player has learned to calculate the odds and often comes into battle with at least one plan after getting some idea as to the forces opposing them, the battlefield they will fight on, and the objectives they must accomplish.

That being said, when given the set of standard missions, an opposing force with an optimal to near-optimal standard pattern TO&E (i.e. HMBC guard list, Mauleed demon bomb, Mauleed Droppod Marines) and one of the four common table layouts: light scattered woods, light scattered rocks, sparse building wrecks, and medley what general battle tactics do you employ (refused flank, pincer, custom)? and what criteria do you use to judge when that tactic is warranted?

Tks

Well sorry to change the subject a bit, but what is the HMBC guard list?

And against most forces I attempt to use a pincer heavy one one side with my bikes and land speeders, while my dreadnaughts and basic marines fall back a couple inches so they rush forward and then the trap tries to close, it works well enough except some of the time, I have major issues with Deathwing or GK unit, because they can ignore the pincer because of the deepstriking, and are pretty damn hard to kill on a model by model basis. . .

Your question is a good one, I think, and certainly a welcome change from the standard 40k forum argument about why any particular army/unit/player sucks. Unfortunately, any moderately complex situation like a wargame does not lend itself easily to ironclad dos and do nots. Therefore, any list of '10 Commandments' or such is nothing more than someone's random opinions. So we can't give any answer like 'against shooty Marines, with light cover, use Pincer Variation A'.

It is also important to understand that 40k is too different from real world situations to apply the same tactics. You can flawlessly execute Leonidas' defence at Thermopylae, Alexander's charge at the Granicus, or the paratroop assault on Pegasus Bridge, and it still won't win you any games in and of itself. However, the theory behind why those tactics work is still applicable, as long as you can bridge the gap mentally to how it works within the conventions of a wargame.

For instance, one of the primary principles of the Art of War is to know your enemy's strengths and weaknesses, and to know your own strengths and weaknesses. This always applies in a wargame. All things, even the most ub3r r0xx0r gun/unit/army, have weaknesses, and it is one skill to identify them, and another again to exploit them. Similarly, all your units have strengths and weaknesses, and to get maximum value from them, you must be aware of those strengths and weaknesses, and how to emphasise strengths and minimise weaknesses. Furthermore, it is important to consider not only the unit as a discrete entity, and its value therein, but also consider the unit as a part of your army as a whole, and its value therein. Any chimp with a calculator can figure out the numerical value and strength of a unit in and of itself. What most gamers fail to do, from what I see, is consider the value of that unit as part of an army.

This all sounds nebulous and general, because it is. So let's try to illustrate with an example. Consider one of the most popular units, the 6-man lascannon/plasma Marine squad. This unit has the following strengths:
- two resilient heavy/special weapons
- ability to contest objectives
- strong anti-armour and anti-heavy infantry punch
- reasonable anti-light infantry capability

It also has the following weaknesses:
- must remain stationary to be most effective
- comparatively low mobility
- comparatively weak in melee against specialised troops

That much is obvious. So, as everyone can see, in order for this unit to be most effective, it should be in a good firing position from the start of the game, with plentiful fire lanes, and far from enemy specialised melee units. What is not obvious is the value of this unit to the army as a whole, and that can only be considered when looking at the rest of the army, and asking - what capabilities does this unit add to my army? What can I rely on it to do? Each unit in your army, and each unit in your opponent's army, can have similar questions asked of it, and you should do so before formulating tactics.

I realise that this is not answering your question yet, so I will come more to the point, which is that in order to decide the particular tactic that will work against a certain enemy, you must understand what the enemy is weak against. The easiest way to get a start on that is to read their army list. Most tournament players make it easier on you by designing lists that are highly specialised, usually based entirely around one or two tactics. This means that a quick perusal of their list will tell you what tactics they plan on using in the game, and you can thus plan accordingly even before the first unit is down.

The primary purpose of tactics in a wargame is to allow your units to do what they do best, while denying your enemy the ability to do what he does best. If you can do this, you can win any game against any army, no matter what you bring to the table. Of course, it is easier said than done, particularly with some matchups, but the principle remains the same - deny your enemy what he wants, and make sure you get to do what you do best. All tactics come down to this, and only the methods of execution differ.

Upon looking at your opponent's army, then, you can see what tactics he wants to employ. If you see 10-15 assault cannons, you know he wants to get into a firefight with you at 18-30" or so, where he will win. If you see a few infiltrating units and a mess of daemons, you know he wants to get within 12-18" or so, summon daemons, and carve you up in melee. If you see a sea of squishy bodies bristling with lascannons, you know he wants to outshoot you at extreme range and rely on the fact that he can lose more men than you. If you see a mess of pods, you know he wants to drop within 12" and crush you in one or two turns of short range, unanswered fire. Most tournament armies are happily predictable and non-diverse in this fashion. All that remains for you is to decide how to deny your opponent the battle he wants, and to fight the battle you want.

How then to do this? For that, there are less hard and fast answers, because so much is dependent on variables. But with a look at the principles behind certain tried and true tactics, we can then understand how to apply them to 40k.

The refused flank, for instance. The idea behind a refused flank is to mitigate an enemy's numerical superiority by ensuring that you only fight a portion of his army at a time with close to your entire force. In essence, all sorts of target limiting tactics fall under the idea of the refused flank - drop pods employ a similar strategy of refusing targets until they can choose the fight where they want.

This idea of limiting targets applies in any situation where the enemy can bring more numbers to bear than you, and also to an extent in any situation where the enemy is stronger than you. For instance, facing an endless Guard line of lascannons and tanks, most armies cannot hope to outshoot them at long range. Therefore you must limit the number of targets they have, while engaging a portion of their force with as much of yours as you can. Deploying solely on one flank, the classic refused flank, will not work in this, since their range is so great. What you must do is find a way to deny them targets despite that range. Terrain is one obvious way. Another might be to use one sacrificial forward unit on the 'refused' flank, or in the centre, to engage an enemy unit in melee even for just a turn, to create your own terrain to hide behind - I've seen this done very effectively with an infiltrating character and with units like Warp Spiders. Against an army that can outshoot you, but only at closer range, like an assault cannon army, a refused flank can still work, if you can take advantage of the shorter range to deny them targets for a turn or two until they move to range.

Similarly, the pincer movement. A pincer relies on the idea that you engage an enemy's flanks, or multiple sides at once, to confuse him and force him to fight on two flanks, which real combatants cannot do. 40k models are not so weak, however, and can fight two meleeing units at once just fine if they are tooled for it, no matter what direction they come from. They can also shoot one side, then the other without worrying about redeploying weapons or any of that rubbish. So again, a classic pincer is not useful.

However, the idea behind the pincer still is. The idea is that the enemy cannot fight to two sides at once, and in many cases in 40k, this is still true - you can only shoot one unit a turn. The idea behind the pincer, then, is almost the opposite of the refused flank - instead of presenting a portion of the enemy with no targets, you present the enemy with multiple targets that he must then choose between.

Clearly, this can only work if a) the enemy chooses wrong, or b) no matter which he chooses, the other can then bring him down. If you present two targets, but only one can damage him next turn, then his target selection is easy. An effective variation on a 'pincer' is to use squads with different engagement ranges, for instance, a fast moving melee squad and a mid-range shooting squad. Force the fast elements of the army forward, and the enemy must then choose to eliminate the closer target which will engage him next turn in melee, or eliminate the further targets which will march to a shooting range next turn and fire. Ultimately, the idea of the pincer movement is to present an enemy with more targets than he can engage, all at once. Present them piecemeal, and he can engage them piecemeal.

In the end, as I said earlier, tactics are how you deny your opponent the ability to do what he wants. Refused flanks, pincers, and the theory behind them are merely the nuts and bolts of how this is done. I haven't said anything startlingly new in these posts, just reiterating stuff many 40k players do without thinking about it. Where I will differ from the majority is here. Most players, even if they don't articulate it, play as if the most important thing is to do what you want with your army, and the enemy be damned. As in, I will outshoot you/drop on you/infiltrate on you and summon/whatever. That's what this army is designed to do, that's what I'll do. There is merit in that approach - certainly it beats designing a list to do one thing and then not doing it. It is also way easier than modifying your plans to fit your enemy's tactics. However, I say that the most important thing is to prevent your opponent using the tactics he wants. That approach is harder, yes, and much easier said than done against some opponents. But it is also the approach that is applied in real tactics, whether on the battlefield or in the sporting arena, and it applies just as effectively on the gaming board, if you can identify your opponent's weaknesses and find ways to exploit them.

The main problem with your idea Base are the choice of battlefield. In 40k you really don't have a choice of battlefield.
I have played alot of people and thier "best" armies, and here are some points that I think you need to consider.

First and formost is flexibility. Your army must have a tactical flexibility to take a) objectives, b) respond to an enemy armies strengths and c) take advantage of it's weaknesses. How do you accomplish this...

Well the best way is to play as many games as possible and try every mission out. Many people tool thier lists on the pretext that they are going to be fighting pitched battles all of the time. This is the biggest mistake you can make in 40k. 40k, and FB, for that matter all come down to points, you could have the most solid, tactically competent army out there and still lose every game. You seem to be looking more for a strategic plan then for a tactical plan, tactics is what happens on the battlefield, strategy is what wins you the war.

For example, I play a modified drop pod army, 4 of my units are in drop pods, 3 deep strike and 4 deploy as infilitrators or scouts. Tactically I can decide against deep striking, say against another pod army. But strategically I have already set objectives that I think my list must accomplish to win every match, before I even set a piece on the table.

Also, don't study Alexander, Hannibal, Scipiio, Ceasar or even Robert E. Lee. Thier armies had solid strategy, and great tactical flexibilty, but the major advantage of all of your, and my, examples is they were fighting highly inflexible, immobile troops. You won't see that too often in 40k. Study Patton, Rommel, Bradley...these are the pioneers of mobile warfare as we know it today. Beware the trap your falling into.

Hope that doesnt sound like rambling

Only when the Persians decided to darken the skies with arrows did they finish off the Spartans.

Actually, it was their betrayal by a fellow Greek, allowing the Persians to get behind them, that defeated the Spartans. Just a slight nitpick...

While this is very interesting and I would love to see more of it, I have a slighly different opinion on 40K tactics. Unfortunatly they fall along the lines of this game is really not that complex. There are only a few things you need to think about to help you win.

1 - Target selection. In short, shoot the assaulty bits and assault the shooty bits. This is simple. Take away your oppoents advantage. If you can remove most of his assault models with guns before they hit your lines, his assault impact will be much less than if you tried to remove just his shooting elements with your guns.
2 - Take out mobility first. Since a lot of VPs can be earned by table quarters or objective grabbing this is a priority. Since infantry has a set movement rate, the more turns they have to spend walking to get to an objective is less time they have to concentrate on the enemy. If the enemy is forced to walk at a slow pace, you can keep them from earning more VPs because they happen to be in the right place at the right time.
3 - The less dice your opponent rolls the better for you. - This has to do with assaults and armor saves. Using weapons that remove your opponents chances to save will give you an edge. Ie shooting krack missiles at marines is a better option than shooting frag missiles. Using your heavy bolters to take out eldar guardians is a better idea than shooting them at warp spiders. As for assaults, the fewer of your enemies models that can react to an assault the better it is for you. Also the fewer models that the other guy has to contrubute to assault is good. Ie. Things like getting the charge +1 attack for your guys, better you than him. Making him assault into cover. Any chance you have to kill his models before he attempts to kill you is good for you. The fewer attacks he makes, the less chance you have of loosing the fight.
4 - The more dice you roll, the better for you. There is one cavet though, on weapons that auto hit. Like ordnace and flamer templates, zzap guns. These we are more than willing to sacrifice the "to hit" roll as you are guarenteed to move on to the to wound roll. Anyway, the person who rolls to most armor/cover/inv saves greatly improves his chances of winning. If your going to get shot at with guns that beat your armor save, get you butt into some cover. A 5+ chance is better than no chance. Try to line up your guys so the only avalible targets to your enemy are guys who are going to get their armor save.

I know a lot of this is obvious, but I am always amazed at how people just don't get these basic tenants. I've seen guys just try to have a shoot out with their heavy weapons, even though if he sacrificed one turn of heavy bolter shooting and move forward he could get all of the bolters into double tap range and the flamer. Instead he choose to hang back hoping for his three heavy bolter shots and 6 bolter shots to win. I've seen a different guys refuse to assault a unit of blood claws because he was afraid of their counter charge ability. This changed with I explained to him that if you can charge him this round and don't he will charge you next round. Giving each of those models 4 attacks. Needless to say, he charged them and won because of the bloodclaws lower WS. I've seen other guys play the shooting game and just hang out in the open getting chewed to death by krack missiles when there was a nice piece of 4+ cover just to the left.

Anyway, what you other guys were saying is much more interesting than these ramblings. I just don't thing 40K has the tactical depth to use real world wargames and try to get a win out of it. You have to play to the strengths of the game rules and there are tactics there to be used and developed. Just not that deep of ones.

Anyway, what you other guys were saying is much more interesting than these ramblings. I just don't thing 40K has the tactical depth to use real world wargames and try to get a win out of it. You have to play to the strengths of the game rules and there are tactics there to be used and developed. Just not that deep of ones.

They can be surprisingly deep, but they often do not look like real world tactics. What is important to understand is why a particular tactic in 40k succeeds or fails, and often this can be reduced to factors that impact tactics and strategy as a whole.

Drop pod armies, for instance. Why are they successful? They are successful because they use principles that can be applied to tactics as a whole, not just drop pod armies. They are successful because they deny an opponent targets, because they allow you to pick the battle of your choice, and because they allow you to take the initiative and keep your opponent reacting to you. These are all overriding principles of success. You can apply these ideas to any army you play, and try to keep your opponents from doing the same.

Lord Sutekh.. yep it was a betrayal that led to their downfall. my bad.

Jayden63... you've brought up some good points.

Target prioritization and fire allocation are a little more complicated than you've alluded to. As I understand it, you evaluate enemy units based on how much of a threat they represent to your ability to accomplish mission goals and how long until that threat materializes. This would vary based on the type of list you are fielding and what you considered an impending high threat unit. Fire allocation should begin with the lowest strength weapons available to deal with a threat and escalating as necessary. In other words it makes more sense to try taking out the assault troop laden transports with your autocannons before opening up with your lascannons. Fire allocation should begin with highest threats working down the line until targets of opportunity remain. Care should be taken to fire weapons with limited fire opportunities prior to firing weapons with broad high value targets available in order to maximize the return on your investment in firepower.

Rather than simply taking out mobility first, how about taking the initiative by denying effective use of your opponent's mobile units. The difference is to force his units to move into less beneficial positions by threatening them with fire lanes or assault. This may lead to their destruction but it forces your opponent to react rather than to act.

 

 

Continuing from my previous post...

Jayden63 as to your third point "the less dice your opponent rolls the better for you," This smacks of attrition warfare to me. This should be tied to some sort of tactical aim rather than simply attriting your enemy's units. Critical enemy units should definitely be softened up, if possible, prior to assault in order to improve the likelyhood of a success. But target prioritization will deal with prime threats by rank and time. Combine that with tactical deceptions (like facing models (non-vehicle) at a different target than intended) and a plan to achieve mission aims and you just might have a successful battle.

As to your fourth point "the more dice you roll the better for you," This argument is better based on statistical analysis of successful attacks. More dice may mean more hits, wounds, and fewer armor saves but only in the case of a good weapon/weapon delivery system to target match. 8 Lasguns on rapidfire is rarely more effective than a heavy bolter against a T4 opponent with armor 5+, but more dice are rolled.

The second point you make in this topic is more revealing. The less exposed your forces are to enemy fire the more likely they are to survive. This comes at a price, though.

Compromise mobility for security and your units will weather like a rock, and move nowhere. 

Compromise LOS for security and most units will become just want your opponent wants: battle ineffective.

Compromise security for mobility and your units become clay pigeons, easy targets for a good marksman.

Compromise security for firepower and your units become tracers, and tracers work both ways.

Thanks for your response Jayden63  

Thanks for your response Jayden63

Your welcome. However, I should thank you instead. You extrapolated very nicely on the points that I was trying to make. I think the real trick is know what your army can and cannot do. No single army can do everything. Play to your strengths. But you can only do that when you know what your opponents army can and cannot do. This is something that has to happen early in the game (mostly before it actually begins), so you can adequatly try to get the match ups that will favor you best on the above points that I listed. However, this really only comes with experance, and this is why those first few games with a new army are a little rough. It takes a while to learn just what your best matchups are.