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.

Democratus wrote:
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.

I have no clue what you are talking about. What and why two units? We're talking about the bulk of one's forces attacking the enemy where he cannot speedily react, or has to react in ways he doesn't want to, or where some other ability of his is impeded. What does their relative position to each other or the enemy matter? The point is that by carrying out a flank attack one can gain an advantage - and a flank attack is a real tactic, no matter the niceties of actual combat.

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.

I realize that, and I think you're both right. Attacking from multiple angles has no psychological effect on that particular unit/squad as it would have in real life. Nevertheless, attacking from a certain angle - or multiple angles - can have negative effects on the enemy, including suppression and including the need to "displace" (for various reasons). Those statements aren't mutually exclusive.

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.

Without a doubt. Do you think anyone here disagrees with that? Saying that there is no in-game application of real-world tactics however is the other extreme. It's also something entirely else than to say one game is more or less tactical than the other - which I don't doubt but which doesn't say much about real tactics being useful in 40k. Some are, some aren't..

Perhaps such expressions are too general or too...modified to fit the game for your taste, and that's cool. I think that in both the (a) game and in real-life military action, the important thing is to force the enemy to do something he'd rather not do, and cripple his ability to successfully act, and in several respects, one can apply real-world ideas to 40k.