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.

I notice there isn't a thread for General 40k Strategy, irrespective of army. I know why this is, of course, (many tactics and list building options are army-specific,) but I wonder if a lot of players - myself included - wouldn't benefit from a discussion of basic principles that can be applied across the board, and explained as simply as possible.

For example, despite playing Warhammer since 2008, I only recently started thinking about list building with the concept of target saturation in mind - IE, denying your opponent good targets for its weapons by relying heavily on one type of unit. (To put it another way: If you have mostly infantry with one or two tanks, those tanks are going to get blown up right away by any TAC list. If you have no tanks at all, then your opponents anti-tank guns will have nothing worthwhile to shoot at.) I'd written plenty of lists that only run one kind of unit - tank focused lists, infantry focused lists, etc - but I never thought about it in terms of 'denying my opponent things to shoot at'.

There's also things like focusing fire. I've won plenty of games because my opponent failed to concentrate fire on a smaller number of units, instead dealing chip damage across the board which allowed me to preserve my map control or damage output. (If I've got one heavy weapon in a squad, and you kill four models - I don't care. My heavy weapon survived, and that one model deals half the unit's damage.) 90% of the time, your games will be better served if you accept a bit of overkill and roast your targets all the way.

I'd like to hear everyone's 'general advice', whether it be for listbuilding or play over the table.

Keep an eye on the victory conditions. While murdering your opponent will normally do well to win games, sometimes having a boot on the right place will bring victory.

Think of options. Which is more important: 5 long range bolter shots, or advancing d6 inches down the field? It’s not always the same answer.

Be willing to change plans if the situation does.

• Know when to fallback out of melee.
Even if the unit could shoot/fight. Sometimes it's better for squad A to step out & let squad B do the shooting/charging.

• Answer this question as you build your lists:
"How will I deal with those units that can stay out of LoS & still shoot/affect me?"

• if the rules your playing under permit it, do not overlook units from Legends, FW, Blackstone Fortress, fortifications, WD, "Unaligned units", & various other publications.
Go refresh your memory of some of these things on that waghpedia site.

• do not take seriously anyone who tells you that they are denying your AT weapons targets by not taking vehicles.
They arent.
AT weapons kill infantry just fine.
All that's happening is that your skipping ahead to what happens anyways once you've killed of the enemy vehicles - shooting infantry with every gun you've got available.

-Build your army list with specific secondary objectives in mind. For example, Deathwing should probably plan around the Stubborn Defiance secondary (from Codex: Dark Angels). Having a plan when building your list means your list should be well-optimized to execute that plan, plus you won't have to spend as much time pre-game hmm-ing and haw-ing about which secondaries to pick.

-During a game, WATCH THE ENTIRE BOARD. I've been caught out before because I wasn't paying attention and so moved a unit the wrong way (in one case it actually lost me a game because I went for a charge instead of moving to an objective). You can always ask your opponent to tell you where a certain unit is if you can't see it inside a building or something and you forgot where it was.

-Ask questions before the game. While your opponent isn't going to tell you his game plan, he does have to tell you what his units do as far as special rules (like for example if you didn't know about Deathwing being permanently Transhuman'd), as long as you ask. Most players are pretty good about this, leading to fewer feels-bad "gotcha" moments. But, it's on you to remember to ask the right questions, so if you don't know, ask.

-Pre-measure everything. This is one I'm still trying to do better at. I tend to just eyeball it too often and end up being just out of range of stuff sometimes (or within charge/shooting distance of opposing units), which has cost me games.

-Don't forget your reserve units. I've had more than one game where I forgot to bring in a unit from reserves and so it was auto-destroyed without even getting to participate in the game. Made me feel pretty stupid, I can tell you that, so don't do it.

ccs wrote:


• do not take seriously anyone who tells you that they are denying your AT weapons targets by not taking vehicles.
They arent.
AT weapons kill infantry just fine.
All that's happening is that your skipping ahead to what happens anyways once you've killed of the enemy vehicles - shooting infantry with every gun you've got available.

Okay, *effective* targets.

If you're shooting at Ork Boyz, it doesn't matter whether it's an Assault Cannon, a Meltagun, or a Lascannon - no matter what you're wounding on 3s and denying armor.

(And of course, this goes both ways - though most tanks are underpowered right now, so you'll suffer less if you need to shoot anti-infantry fire into a tank.)

Waaaghpower wrote:

ccs wrote:


• do not take seriously anyone who tells you that they are denying your AT weapons targets by not taking vehicles.
They arent.
AT weapons kill infantry just fine.
All that's happening is that your skipping ahead to what happens anyways once you've killed of the enemy vehicles - shooting infantry with every gun you've got available.

Okay, *effective* targets.

If you're shooting at Ork Boyz, it doesn't matter whether it's an Assault Cannon, a Meltagun, or a Lascannon - no matter what you're wounding on 3s and denying armor.

(And of course, this goes both ways - though most tanks are underpowered right now, so you'll suffer less if you need to shoot anti-infantry fire into a tank.)

Oh no, they're quite effective at it. As you've pointed out you're wounding on 2s/3+ & (often) completely denying armor. And generally doling out multiple wounds. Overkill on an ork? Sure. But that Custode player doesn't really enjoy it when he's put on to his ++ & losing a model for each one he fails.

ccs wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

ccs wrote:


• do not take seriously anyone who tells you that they are denying your AT weapons targets by not taking vehicles.
They arent.
AT weapons kill infantry just fine.
All that's happening is that your skipping ahead to what happens anyways once you've killed of the enemy vehicles - shooting infantry with every gun you've got available.

Okay, *effective* targets.

If you're shooting at Ork Boyz, it doesn't matter whether it's an Assault Cannon, a Meltagun, or a Lascannon - no matter what you're wounding on 3s and denying armor.

(And of course, this goes both ways - though most tanks are underpowered right now, so you'll suffer less if you need to shoot anti-infantry fire into a tank.)

Oh no, they're quite effective at it. As you've pointed out you're wounding on 2s/3+ & (often) completely denying armor. And generally doling out multiple wounds. Overkill on an ork? Sure. But that Custode player doesn't really enjoy it when he's put on to his ++ & losing a model for each one he fails.

It's not that the gun is ineffective at killing the models, it's inefficient.

An Assault Cannon kills four Orks, with perfect accuracy.
Three Lascannons kill two Orks, with perfect accuracy.

Guess which costs more?

Fundamental tactic of 9th ed. Put down enough terrain on the board and use it. Because 9th ed codices are too lethal to play a game where both armies just stand there in full view and shoot each other starting turn 1.

Fundamental to this game is the fact that an indestructible army will defeat a smaller, perfectly lethal one, because standing Objectives wins games.

Don’t plan your strategy on what units you want to kill, plan your strategy on what wins the game (Objectives) and only on killing the bare minimum number of opponent units that stop you from implementing your strategy.

Consider the sequence of movements/actions required to obtain the objective completions you’ve planned. This is easier in 9th with the defined 5 Turns.

If you’ve never done this, list building around this will be hard: so skip it for your practice. Instead make an army and play games with it until you can get the practice you need to really identify what kinds of units you need (and where).

dice math 101: understand the actual return on investment for certain actions, such as shooting. As i put in another tactics thread, in order to kill a single MEQ model (i.e. T4, Sv3+, W2), it takes 12 shots form an intercessor with bolt rifle (BS 3+ str 4, ap-1, d1) to do that. So, a five man intercessor squad, shooting at itself, would routinely only cause one or maybe two wounds, or consistently 2 wounds in tactical doctrine. understanding this will help you guage how much firepower or melee strenght you will need to throw at something to reliably kill it.

unit useage: every unit in your army should have a clear intended use in support of your game plan (see ZergSmasher above, and my echo of that below below). it could be fire support form the rear, it could be a fast melee unit to leap across the board for unexpected attacks, or a slow melee unit for counterattacks. it could even be a "chaff" or "trade" unit intended to either cheaply hold a unimportant point, screen out deep strikes, or take the brunt of the enemys efforts and thus preserve more valuable units.

game plan: ideally, as ZergSmasher said, you should have a fair idea of which secondarys you are going to pick when your designing your list, and try and tailor your list to be good at those secondarys. if your a fast army, then movement based secondary like "engage on all fronts" suits you. normally, your faction secondarys are pretty reliable picks, so build around at least one of those, but be willing to change out one of your planned ones if the enemy list is vulnerable to a different secondary (for example, switching to "abhor the witch" vs thousand sons or grey knights, where pretty much every kill you make gives you VP, or "grind them down" vs a horde list with a lot of chaff, etc)

deployment: sometimes overlooked, but try to think and counter-deploy your army as the enemy sets up his. always save your best/most valuable units until last, as their placement dictates your early moves and thus telegraphs your plan, unless you want to try and "bait" out his own best. some armies, with lots of small or cheap units, can play this game much more effectively than others. If you both have infiltraitor/forward deploying units, get yours out early so they can screen his off something important, and Dont forget the options for re-deploy shenanigans that several armies have.


on the lascannon vs infantry thing: i think the point Waaaghpower was trying to make was that by only having infantry in the army, weapons specialised into killing tanks have no good targets, so while yes, you can use them to delete infantry, thats a "waste" of their potential, so your opponent has spent points on weapons options that are sub-optimal in the current battle (for example, a 15pt lascannon vs a 10pt heavy bolter). its really just another form of skew, really.

xerxeskingofking wrote:
dice math 101: understand the actual return on investment for certain actions, such as shooting. As i put in another tactics thread, in order to kill a single MEQ model (i.e. T4, Sv3+, W2), it takes 12 shots form an intercessor with bolt rifle (BS 3+ str 4, ap-1, d1) to do that. So, a five man intercessor squad, shooting at itself, would routinely only cause one or maybe two wounds, or consistently 2 wounds in tactical doctrine. understanding this will help you guage how much firepower or melee strenght you will need to throw at something to reliably kill it.

I would like to emphasize this point about reliability.

Needing X shots to achieve a mean result only means that you are at the center of the bell curve, and does not account for variance. Consider the importance of the result and account for variance.

Also don’t forget that you will probably never play enough games of 40k in your whole lifetime to approach the required number of dice rolls such that the mean result is statistically definite.

Stats and mathammer are good for getting a general idea of what you will need and can expect.

But our fickle little 6-sided friends will turn on you and let you down. Keep a backup plan and work to mitigate that.

One thing to help is to set your order of fire with that in mind. Shoot the primary guns at the primary target first. While it might be convenient to do stuff like just shoot everyone in order from one side of the table to the other, it’s not tactically the best option. You may have to divert some secondary guns to mop up a failed kill that statistically should have been a sure thing.

sieGermans wrote:

I would like to emphasize this point about reliability.

Needing X shots to achieve a mean result only means that you are at the center of the bell curve, and does not account for variance. Consider the importance of the result and account for variance.

Also don’t forget that you will probably never play enough games of 40k in your whole lifetime to approach the required number of dice rolls such that the mean result is statistically definite.

Indeed, maybe i should have made that clearer. you need to "overkill" your target to be certain of actually killing it. even then, I once had my magos successfully make no less than seven 4++ saves against a space wolf lord (I think thats like a 0.78% chance), and then proceed to kill said wolf lord in melee with some exceedingly hot rolls form me and bad saves form my disbelieving opponent. The dice exist to add randomness, after all, so you need to account for that.

to be honest, i tend to think in terms of older editions weapons targeting rules, and mostly throw the whole squads fire at whatever i want to kill, rinse and repeat until its dead or i cant shoot it anymore.

More precisely you need to be able to overkill your target

Actually overkilling your target is a waste

Imagine I need a plasma russ dead and it has 6 wounds a lascannon deals an expectancy of 1w

So that would indicate 6

But in reality 1 might do it or it might take 9

So imagine I have 3 units of 3 las cannon heavy weapons teams

Overkilling by firing all 9 at once is wasteful

Firing 3 at another target first might result in it still living

I'm best firing the first 3 see if it lives if so fire the next 3 this minimises waste then if I have lascannons left over target something else.

U02dah4 wrote:
More precisely you need to be able to overkill your target

Actually overkilling your target is a waste

Imagine I need a plasma russ dead and it has 6 wounds a lascannon deals an expectancy of 1w

So that would indicate 6

But in reality 1 might do it or it might take 9

So imagine I have 3 units of 3 las cannon heavy weapons teams

Overkilling by firing all 9 at once is wasteful

Firing 3 at another target first might result in it still living

I'm best firing the first 3 see if it lives if so fire the next 3 this minimises waste then if I have lascannons left over target something else.

To add on to this:

If only one of the squads can shoot the russ, use them first.

If squad two can hit both a primary and a secondary target, use them next. If squad one gets lucky, squad 2 has other options. If you shot squad 2 first and they got lucky, squad one would just be standing around.

Basically you need to look at all your targets, look at all your assets, and allocate fire to try to get the most out of them.
Depending on priority you might have to shoot the wrong guns at things. You’d prefer to bolter soft targets, but sometimes you need to try to get rid of that last wound on a tank before it murders you. Or drop a lascannon onto the guardsman with his boot on the objective. Keep in mind the odds and the overall needs of battle and path to victory. Sometimes it’s just not worth it, but other times it’s worth the chance.

sieGermans wrote:
Fundamental to this game is the fact that an indestructible army will defeat a smaller, perfectly lethal one, because standing Objectives wins games.

Don’t plan your strategy on what units you want to kill, plan your strategy on what wins the game (Objectives) and only on killing the bare minimum number of opponent units that stop you from implementing your strategy.

Consider the sequence of movements/actions required to obtain the objective completions you’ve planned. This is easier in 9th with the defined 5 Turns.

If you’ve never done this, list building around this will be hard: so skip it for your practice. Instead make an army and play games with it until you can get the practice you need to really identify what kinds of units you need (and where).

With this, I want to tack on:
Don't just plan how you're going to score objectives *this turn*. I've won plenty of games because my opponent was only thinking one turn ahead. If you can blow up a big, expensive target at the expense of scoring points on turn one, it's probably worth it to take out that target and get better map control down the line - on the other hand, if it's turn three and your only unit on the back field objective is down to a few models and will probably die turn four, start moving *someone else* back to hold that objective now - otherwise you'll lose that objective.

It's turn one. How are you going to be scoring objectives on turn three and four? If your deep striking unit gets cut to pieces, do you have something else that can steal the back field objective?

Obviously you can't perfectly predict how every turn will go, so keep a backup plan in your pocket to score points even if something goes critically wrong.

 Nevelon wrote:
Stats and mathammer are good for getting a general idea of what you will need and can expect.

But our fickle little 6-sided friends will turn on you and let you down. Keep a backup plan and work to mitigate that.

One thing to help is to set your order of fire with that in mind. Shoot the primary guns at the primary target first. While it might be convenient to do stuff like just shoot everyone in order from one side of the table to the other, it’s not tactically the best option. You may have to divert some secondary guns to mop up a failed kill that statistically should have been a sure thing.

This. Never give expected results for granted, it's still a dice game.

Strategy is on a greater scale. In terms of 40k games, I'd use the word tactics.

One fundamental rule to be obeyed is the Lanchester square law:
When the enemy doubles the heavy armor, you have to fourfold the anti-heavy-armor weaponry.
It has been used during the 2nd WW.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Strategy is on a greater scale. In terms of 40k games, I'd use the word tactics.

One fundamental rule to be obeyed is the Lanchester square law:
When the enemy doubles the heavy armor, you have to fourfold the anti-heavy-armor weaponry.
It has been used during the 2nd WW.

That's not a very helpful law in Warhammer 40k. The Lanchester laws (square and linear) apply to battlefield attrition in general, and assumes all troops are roughly equal in skill, lethality, and deployment tactics. You cannot apply that math to individual battles, where the results will swing wildly, only to campaigns as a whole.

And you especially can't plan for attrition when you're setting up with two armies that are roughly equal in size and where you don't know the units you're going to be facing until you've already started the game.

Attrition, in 40k, only really matters in terms of 'if you lose more forces early on, you'll continue to lose more forces as the game continues because your ability to strike back will decrease'.

/thread

One small thing i've realised in my handful of games is that 9th ed is less like a wargame and more like a boardgame and to think in those terms really helps. Hopefully you all know what I mean 'cos to expand on that would take some thought and effort haha.

That's not a very helpful law in Warhammer 40k. The Lanchester laws (square and linear) apply to battlefield attrition in general, and assumes all troops are roughly equal in skill, lethality, and deployment tactics. You cannot apply that math to individual battles, where the results will swing wildly, only to campaigns as a whole.

Its very helpful in small pt games, when one side has armor (and dakka or decent cc) and the other side has not very much to stand in the enemy's way.
Believe me, I won a larger tourney at a small pt level with this law in mind.

 PaddyMick wrote:
/thread

One small thing i've realised in my handful of games is that 9th ed is less like a wargame and more like a boardgame and to think in those terms really helps. Hopefully you all know what I mean 'cos to expand on that would take some thought and effort haha.

But what are the fundamental differences between a wargame and a boardgame? They look pretty much the same thing to me.

The only significant difference I can think of is that a boardcame typically comes with all the components while wargames require people to get their components separately. But once players are ready there's really no difference.

The only significant difference I can think of is that a boardcame typically comes with all the components while wargames require people to get their components separately. But once players are ready there's really no difference.

This difference is really significant.
Bloodbowl, Necromunda and others on one side and 40k, AoS on the other.

 Blackie wrote:

 PaddyMick wrote:
/thread

One small thing i've realised in my handful of games is that 9th ed is less like a wargame and more like a boardgame and to think in those terms really helps. Hopefully you all know what I mean 'cos to expand on that would take some thought and effort haha.

But what are the fundamental differences between a wargame and a boardgame? They look pretty much the same thing to me.

The only significant difference I can think of is that a boardcame typically comes with all the components while wargames require people to get their components separately. But once players are ready there's really no difference.

Wargames I think are more simulations of events, where boardgames are a collection of rules that govern how it’s played. Obviously there is a lot of overlap these days, and this is the Primary focus of them IMHO. A bishop in chess is a piece that moves on diagonals. A chaplain is a zealous warrior priest, upholding the honor of the chapter. He also has a statline, rules, and wargear. Bishops don’t generally target their opposite numbers on the other side by preference. They move to where it’s the most advantageous position. Chaplains will often go out of their way to smite heretics. At least mine do.

If you find yourself doing in-character things, or making decisions on what is cool, those are more wargaming choices. Know the rules, know how they interact, “solve” the game to figure out the best way to win. That’s a boardgame.

Wargames are boardgames that have gotten big and fuzzy. There is generally so much stuff piled on they can’t be solved, and they often don’t fit into discrete hexes/grids. If you push them out farther, you get roleplaying games. They all share traits and aspects, and it’s a gradient. Also not right or wrong way to play or have fun.

IMHO, not sure if that’s what the OP’s thoughts were, but that’s my take on it.

Necromunda and 40k for example, the only games I'm currently playing, look pretty much the same thing to me. I don't think 40k or any other GW game is really that different from Monopoly, Risk, etc... either. Not even (significantly) more expensive maybe since all GW games can be played using tokens made of cardboard, bottle caps, scrap, etc...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:


If you find yourself doing in-character things, or making decisions on what is cool, those are more wargaming choices. Know the rules, know how they interact, “solve” the game to figure out the best way to win. That’s a boardgame.

With those parameters I'd definitely define 40k as a boardgame then. What you consider a wargame, I tend to call it role-playing instead. And, although I like RPGs, that's something I'd never want to see applied in 40k.

 Blackie wrote:
Necromunda and 40k for example, the only games I'm currently playing, look pretty much the same thing to me. I don't think 40k or any other GW game is really that different from Monopoly, Risk, etc... either. Not even (significantly) more expensive maybe since all GW games can be played using tokens made of cardboard, bottle caps, scrap, etc...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:


If you find yourself doing in-character things, or making decisions on what is cool, those are more wargaming choices. Know the rules, know how they interact, “solve” the game to figure out the best way to win. That’s a boardgame.

With those parameters I'd definitely define 40k as a boardgame then. What you consider a wargame, I tend to call it role-playing instead. And, although I like RPGs, that's something I'd never want to see applied in 40k.

I’ve played D&D with people who min/max characters, and play every fight like a tactical wargame. It’s a spectrum. And some is how the individual takes it. Look at the casual/competitive camps in 40k. Same game, different outlooks. But everyone is having fun.

 wuestenfux wrote:

That's not a very helpful law in Warhammer 40k. The Lanchester laws (square and linear) apply to battlefield attrition in general, and assumes all troops are roughly equal in skill, lethality, and deployment tactics. You cannot apply that math to individual battles, where the results will swing wildly, only to campaigns as a whole.

Its very helpful in small pt games, when one side has armor (and dakka or decent cc) and the other side has not very much to stand in the enemy's way.
Believe me, I won a larger tourney at a small pt level with this law in mind.

... how exactly did you win tournaments with that law in mind? By taking more points than your opponent so you could guarantee a multiplicative level of victory? Or do you just mean that you brought lots of anti-tank to a tank-heavy meta/brought tanks to a meta without much anti-tank? Because you can't actually bring four times as much anti-tank as your opponent has tanks, if your opponent brings all tanks.

(Also, how does the law even apply when there are some melee armies and some ranged armies? You're supposed to apply the linear law to melee and 'primitive' combat and the square law to 'modern' combat, but 40k features both.)

Thank you Nevelon for explaining what I was thinking and sorry OP for the derailment.

I'm keen to hear some more basic advice, particularly about using non-flying Vehicles which I am struggling with. They are just so much less manuevarable than infantry. Transports too. Disembarking is a pain once the enemy gets close.

 PaddyMick wrote:
Thank you Nevelon for explaining what I was thinking and sorry OP for the derailment.

I'm keen to hear some more basic advice, particularly about using non-flying Vehicles which I am struggling with. They are just so much less manuevarable than infantry. Transports too. Disembarking is a pain once the enemy gets close.

Vehicles are tricky because of the properties you listed, but some things that I've found which help:
Either expect your vehicles to die turn one, or just don't take a single vehicle. One of the biggest weaknesses I've found is the 'single target' problem, which I kind of outlined above - when you only have a couple vehicles or even just one for your enemy to point their anti-tank guns at, that tank will die immediately.
If you've got many tanks, though? Then it's a different proposition.

I also tend to use transports as a one-and-done. You get one move out of them, then you disembark, unless you're very confident you'll be safe next turn. It's also helpful to use multiple tanks turned sideways as a screen, if your opponents infantry can't jump or otherwise move 'through' you - for example, two Battlewagons with Deffrolls turned sideways makes for a *massive* wall, which your opponent will struggle to surround - and as long as you're not surrounded, you can disembark freely. Remember, you don't actually need to move vehicles realistically, so by all means, have them drift sideways down the battlefield to take advantage of their bulk.

Cheers Waaaghpower. Reckon I got to get more used to the moving non-realistically bit. The level of abstraction in this ruleset is quite high. For example I can't see anything in the rules to stop a tank driving up and down a 3'' high wall, although i'd struggle to keep a straight face while doing it.