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.

A large amount of discussion is about certain armies, unit types, or combinations in 40k. I'm interested in looking at things from a slightly different point of view - how some of the fundamental options in the game can impact a player's choices and tactics. So I thought I'd throw this out and see how it goes - if there's enough interest than other game effects can be looked at as well.

The Deployment Map - recap

When playing 40k, there are three different deployment (usually randomly chosen) choices available:

- Dawn of War - long edges are deployment zones, wide but shallow

- Hammer and Anvil - corners are deployment zones, deep in the middle but shallow at the edges

- Vanguard strike - short edges are the deployment zones, narrow and deep

The tactics

How do people find that the different deployment maps affect their tactics? Are there choices that work on some maps but not others?

The armies

Do certain maps favour some army types or playing styles over others? How do hordes, gunlines, mechanised forces or glyers handle different maps?

Other stuff

What about special options, such as deep-strikers, outflankers, scouts or infiltrators? Do the different maps have an effect on their use? Is there anything else to consider when looking at the maps?


I've got some ideas of my own but I'm guessing other people also have different approaches, etc - what do you think?

1. You got vanguard and hammmerandanvil mixed up.
2. Terrain is almost as important as the opposing force. Choosing the wrong type and side might loose an army the game even without the opposing army.

Interesting post! There's a debate to be had on whether you keep things in cover / hidden / reserve or try and command fire lanes. I'm going to be trying Dark Reapers soon so it's a tricky one.

I think it depends on what you play.

I typically play Maelstrom battles right now, because they're new, I find them fun, and they allow for some really interesting and close games.


For these I typically try to set up more static LR holding units (I play SM, so tac squads with a relevant heavy weapon, devestators or something, etc.) and then Land Raider/Rhino/Razorback movement forward.

For typical dawn of war this means the strategy is largely unchanged, it's mostly about determining which side is better to be the "strong flank" and have the majority of the armor. I try to evenly spread out the objectives (and then I make sure I have static units on them). Typically a few units don't board their dedicated transports.

For Hammer and Anvil, deployment changes a lot. It's much harder to stay static, so I try to keep as many units mobile (or in armor) as possible. Most if not all units deploy in a dedicated transport (only one or two sitting on an objective).

For Vanguard Strike, deployment stays similar to Dawn of War. The formation typically makes it easier to get transports toward the enemy, but I'm always torn about where to put more long range units (whether to take a central position, or aim to control a specific table half, and then use the armor to threaten the other side).

I find my chaos lord leading outflanking bikers can be very useful on a Vanguard map. Due to the allocation of board edges it is very easy to bring them on in a vulnerable spot. I usually have melts armed squads to blow up something vital and then charge and tie up at least one squad.