let's backtrack a bit.
before the game starts, there are considerations you need to account for.
40K TACTICA Part III: the list
When M:tG became enough of a presence in geekdom that it had an effect and example on other games, it created a certain amount of pollution into wargaming. there had always been a bit of the competitive nature within the field, but there has gradually grown a sentiment of optimization pre-game -- an idea that the list, and not how it is played, that wins the game.
this is foolish.
don't get me wrong, an unsuspecting player playing a well-built optimized list might not be able to beat a power-combo the first time around. but a bad player playing a good list is often worse than a good player playing a non-optimized list.
In M:tG, the list (rather, the deck) wins you the game. play is not so much a skill as a knowledge of cards. there are fewer tactical decisions during play, because your action options are so limited because of what cards you have on hand. in comparison, a game of 40k that is not optimized might still involve tactical/strategic play if you figure out appropriate uses for your given units and react accordingly. thus, an attitude that the list is the most important, and the search for the "infinite squirrel combo" parallel in 40k begins.
i used to play Magic. but i didn't have a ton of spare money, so i played for fun and not in any way optimized -- in fact, i had theme decks that might rely heavily on common cards, like my all-zombie/ghost undead black/blue deck. but a friend of mine had a first-turn-kill deck (nothing but mountain, channel, fireball, lotus -- a first turn 20-point fireball that leaves you with one life), and later others built the infinite-whatever decks. i had a 3-card combo that was a group-game ender (dingus egg, armageddon, reverse damage... 2 damage for every land out, for everyone but me, played midgame is a real dealbreaker). it was all fun.
but games could be over in 20 minutes.
in 40k, i usually schedule a half-hour per 1000 points on the board if the players know what they are doing. a 2000-point game with 2 players should take around 2 hours.
if someone uses an obnoxious combo in that game, that's much more of an investment of time than just throwing down some cards.
as a result, there's a rift in the community as to how much this is accepted.
some areas, a competitive game and a competitive list is THE ONLY way to play. you learn how to cheez it up because it's either that or drown. in others, you'll find people with fun, interesting-looking armies, but they are really in it for the fun or the painting and not to dominate the playing field... so they may not win all the time or field the units everyone else does. they all have their place.
LESSON 3: build a list that you like, and that your partner will like.
on one hand, you are playing an adversarial game. you need to be a challenge. on the other hand, if you come to a boxing match with a shotgun you're the jerk. if the other person wants a game that is a challenge, and you take a carefree experimental list that they flatten by round 2, they leave the table unfulfilled. if you show up with a good list well-grounded in the lore, but your opponent takes the flavor-of-the-month power build without telling you that that's the kind of battle they expect, you're going to leave in annoyance.
there are really three ways of building a list.
* style one: i take it because i like it
i knew a guy in college who was a chess genius. two, actually. one was a master of speed-chess, who had once beaten a grandmaster playing out of his element. he forced the endgame, blitzing through the early and mid portions by attrition -- he would guard a handful of his pieces, then set fast traps to try to take more of your pieces than his own (and leave certain ones for his end plans). the other was not as skilled... except for with knights.
the knight guy was interesting. he loved the ell-shape attack, the jumping, and the manner in which they fit into an 8x8 board. with two knights active, he could wreck your lines. he was actually not terribly great at the part of the game that comes after you lose your favorite pieces, but he was amazing early on when he could whittle an opponent down to nothing with his two favorites careening left and right down the board.
so too will you find certain units "speak" to you. you might like the speed of a Jetbike, or the implacability of a Landraider, or the resistance of a Terminator, or the strength of a pack of Bloodletters. you might do well with a long-range army or an assault army or a set of mechanized infantry.
including these, even if they are not "optimized," is important sometimes. playing how and what you want to play with make you happier and more comfortable. it should be part of the game, even though often it gets left behind. if you repeatedly find that there are elements of your work that do not feel right, there might be something to that... and maybe you might want to look at an army whose style more matches with yours.
* style 2: i take it because it's better
mathhammer is prevalent. you can assess the hits and wounds in a theoretical pattern, and see if it's a higher total than another unit. by taking only those units that are more worth their points, you have a better-functioning list. if you only take weapons that have consistent use, you will not have any useless moments. by taking units that are harder to kill, you will have better units on the table. this works until others start creating more difficulty by reacting to your brought units and bringing tools to kill them...
this is what we call "the meta"
you should plan a bit for your meta. still, depending on how competitive your game is, meta might not matter much.
* style three: i take it because it's all i have
eventually this is not a problem. but to start with, your options might be limited. in some ways, this is a good thing: you need to teach yourself how to play.
overall, there are basics to remember too.
1. you have two primary worries: anti-troop and anti-armor. each weapon is better at one or the other, or is a middle between the two. taking a balanced span of these things allows for your choices of unit-functionality and dedicated role. some weapons are great in many cases, and are often taken at a higher rate.
having a couple units dedicated to punching armor will give you the ability to deal with a balanced list. having many units that are good at a variety of ranges (such as three tac squads that combat-squadded into two, who have a melta or a multimelta in each squad) give you the ability to deal with a lot of armor.
having units that are focused on higher-rate fire of less strength can be useful in whittling away troops. mid-strength, or low-ap are better, but more costly. the standard armament of an average trooper can be useful in taking down the troops of the opponent. same with blasts.
a range of weapons minimizes the specific effect you can have. but it also means that you can meet a certain type of foe well. too many meltas or lascannons can take out a Knight, but get swamped by a horde of conscripts. too many high-rof/standard weapons might chew through wave after wave of termagants, but can not even scratch the paint on a Leman Russ. bringing a choice variance can really do you well.
2. Flyers are less common now, but still a problem. they don't come in until later, are not that effective at keeping one target in their line of fire, but can fire four weapons per turn. they can be super-effective on the turn they are used. anti-air weapons, or flyers of your own, can affect their utility and change how they are used. taking a unit or two that has utility and multi-use and can target flyers is never a problem.
Being a primary Darkangels player, i have a couple flyers i can take, but i don't. the Nephilim wasn't useful, and the Darktalon is a little silly (though was great in a Bolterwing army in 6th). on the other hand, i rarely jump into a game without bringing a Mortis Dreadnought. the Forgeworld rules for a Mortis, or a Contemptor-Mortis give the unit the options of Skyfire and Interceptor if it does not move. it's a great possibility, and a unit that is still effective if there are no flyers, since a dual-TL-autocannon dread has four rerollable S7 shots that can take out light vehicles.
3. if the model that carries the weapon dies, it goes away.
big killers are big targets. artillery, moving giants of death, flying doombringers -- they are going to be the first on the target priority list, if they are possible to kill. sometimes, they are actually low on the list due to other factors -- the old (pre-5th) Necron Monolith was a next-to-impossible kill that would wreak havoc on your battle line... but if you killed a certain number of the basic troops they whole army disappeared and you auto-won. meaning that each attempt to kill the monolith was a wasted attempt to get the number of models down.
if you have a great machine of death that you want to bring to the table, remember that they might not last too long.
similarly, if the troop unit holding all the good guns gets caught in a crossfire, now you have no good guns.
in addition to the points-cost being a factor in whether you take an option, the survivability of the weapon should factor into your thinking. a light, fast, easily-killable unit that will not last past turn 3 really should not have too many
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Tactica 2: positioning and priority
40K TACTICA Part 2
everything counts.
firstoff, remember that you need to be in a good position to start.
second, remember that you need a plan.
third, throw your plan out the window and make a new one, because it isn't working and you need to do something else. that's almost universal.
the two factors that affect the efficiency of units in the early game are position and priority. position is a matter of how effective a unit can be, based on where they are and where they can be, in order to have choices and affect the opponent's models. it's a physical measurable thing that can be observed and worked with, and builds upon itself in each round. priority, in contrast, is the mental game -- knowing what units your opponent has that are most important to get rid of, and what units he wants to eliminate of yours.
if you can eliminate a key useful unit early on, such as scouts camping on an objective or an unaccompanied warlord, they have a high priority. if you know that they plan on using a deathstar to romp right over you, can you eliminate their scoring units and avoid said deathstar, and win by score? if you know that they are planning on sweeping in with mobile troops in order to claim or contest mid-game, can you whittle down these units early so as to take them down later?
you begin with a plan, and you lay out your troops as per how your plan should function. your opponent has their own plan, and usually you can either react to their actions or act how you had originally intended. often, one is a clear necessity. sometimes, though, it's not the one you think.
part of priority is knowing that big obvious threats are only worth targeting if you have the tools to deal with them easily. if not, there are ways of mitigating their usefulness. position is being able to do one or the other due to your past actions and reactions.
a better checklist is this:
1. identify the units your opponent would be most unnerved by losing, or which would have the greatest negative impact on their attempts to achieve any goals. if you deploy second, you can alter your initial plan in order to set up the matchups in the deployment phase to your benefit.
2. identify the objectives -- either numbered, decided-upon, or the like -- and, after deployment, consider what they are going to do about each one and what you had planned to do about each one. even if the potential outcome of these is to your favor, make any changes that will help boost your strength in any of them.
3. identify the ways that the opponent will try to make you act, move, or respond. will they position a threat as a bait? will they harry you from flanks? will they try to keep their distance and/or fortify up? consider how you can break up their plan -- or how you can act so that you are not disadvantaged later. if they are baiting you, what do they want you to miss? if that dreadnought running up the center is drawing your fire, what are the other units you are not shooting at going to be doing, and which one is he protecting by giving you another immediate option?
remember that three units firing upon one might destroy the one, but three units firing upon three give you three chances to retaliate. there is strength in numbers, and in units, so can you eliminate a whole unit instead of forcing those casualties to be spread across many?
if you have good target priority, you know which one you should be gunning for first, either because they left you an opening, or because they are important.
another WHF story. i have a nemesis. had, really. and not so much, or i suppose i was his nemesis. he was a younger player, but very active, and he and i randomly got assigned as each other's opponents just about everywhere.
one game, my Nurgle Beasts versus his Vampire Counts. their new 7th book had just landed, in the beginning of the inordinate days, and he was claiming victory after victory. he ran a unit of Blood Knights with a war-kitted Count down the flank. my Trolls were there to stop them, but got demolished during the charge. they came out the other side, and right in front of them was my Great Bray-Shaman General. he thought he'd have the game won.
the herd he was in, as skirmishers, scooted out of his charge arc. then, the Great-Bray drank from the Plague Chalice and irresistably cast Nurgle's Rot. d6 s3 unsaveable wounds every round until the unit is dead. that round, it killed one BloodKnight. in his round, he wheeled to charge my next herd, but i had shifted past terrain and he had no good angle... then the rot randomized onto his General (who had taken a wound from the trolls) and killed him. meaning, his lines started to crumble. by turn 3, half his army was gone and my victory was a sure massacre.
i won because i knew from his earlier games (i had talked to his prior opponent, and had heard him talking) that he favored the Bloodknight deathstar to flankcharge an army across the backfield, then summon new units to harass the rear of any forward units he had not been able to reach. so, i set up the trolls as a speedbump, and the Bray was planning on getting to him about turn 3 or so. he did well, and sped up the clock, which only benefitted me.
i could predict his move, bait his move, deflect his move, and had a counter to said move waiting for him. he was so overzealous (which i also knew from our earlier games) that he didn't stop to think that i was an active player, only that he was going to do something he thought i would be powerless to prevent.
if ever, henceforth, i complain about balance it's because i firmly believe that the game should be about the player, and not about the army. if it's about the rules being better, or about the army being more effective, then that just prohibits players from investing in certain forces. that in turn undermines the hobby and the value of the experience.
because you play the person.
if you know their style, their mindset, their capabilities, their tactis... you should win. every time. sure, everyone's got a story about that one time they needed a 3 on 2d6 to make a charge that would win them the game, and they rolled snakeeyes... or when they rolled four 5++ saves on one remaining model... or any number of other dice-related turns of events. dice, though, are usually not the reason why a game is lost or won.
everything counts.
firstoff, remember that you need to be in a good position to start.
second, remember that you need a plan.
third, throw your plan out the window and make a new one, because it isn't working and you need to do something else. that's almost universal.
the two factors that affect the efficiency of units in the early game are position and priority. position is a matter of how effective a unit can be, based on where they are and where they can be, in order to have choices and affect the opponent's models. it's a physical measurable thing that can be observed and worked with, and builds upon itself in each round. priority, in contrast, is the mental game -- knowing what units your opponent has that are most important to get rid of, and what units he wants to eliminate of yours.
if you can eliminate a key useful unit early on, such as scouts camping on an objective or an unaccompanied warlord, they have a high priority. if you know that they plan on using a deathstar to romp right over you, can you eliminate their scoring units and avoid said deathstar, and win by score? if you know that they are planning on sweeping in with mobile troops in order to claim or contest mid-game, can you whittle down these units early so as to take them down later?
you begin with a plan, and you lay out your troops as per how your plan should function. your opponent has their own plan, and usually you can either react to their actions or act how you had originally intended. often, one is a clear necessity. sometimes, though, it's not the one you think.
part of priority is knowing that big obvious threats are only worth targeting if you have the tools to deal with them easily. if not, there are ways of mitigating their usefulness. position is being able to do one or the other due to your past actions and reactions.
a better checklist is this:
1. identify the units your opponent would be most unnerved by losing, or which would have the greatest negative impact on their attempts to achieve any goals. if you deploy second, you can alter your initial plan in order to set up the matchups in the deployment phase to your benefit.
2. identify the objectives -- either numbered, decided-upon, or the like -- and, after deployment, consider what they are going to do about each one and what you had planned to do about each one. even if the potential outcome of these is to your favor, make any changes that will help boost your strength in any of them.
3. identify the ways that the opponent will try to make you act, move, or respond. will they position a threat as a bait? will they harry you from flanks? will they try to keep their distance and/or fortify up? consider how you can break up their plan -- or how you can act so that you are not disadvantaged later. if they are baiting you, what do they want you to miss? if that dreadnought running up the center is drawing your fire, what are the other units you are not shooting at going to be doing, and which one is he protecting by giving you another immediate option?
remember that three units firing upon one might destroy the one, but three units firing upon three give you three chances to retaliate. there is strength in numbers, and in units, so can you eliminate a whole unit instead of forcing those casualties to be spread across many?
if you have good target priority, you know which one you should be gunning for first, either because they left you an opening, or because they are important.
another WHF story. i have a nemesis. had, really. and not so much, or i suppose i was his nemesis. he was a younger player, but very active, and he and i randomly got assigned as each other's opponents just about everywhere.
one game, my Nurgle Beasts versus his Vampire Counts. their new 7th book had just landed, in the beginning of the inordinate days, and he was claiming victory after victory. he ran a unit of Blood Knights with a war-kitted Count down the flank. my Trolls were there to stop them, but got demolished during the charge. they came out the other side, and right in front of them was my Great Bray-Shaman General. he thought he'd have the game won.
the herd he was in, as skirmishers, scooted out of his charge arc. then, the Great-Bray drank from the Plague Chalice and irresistably cast Nurgle's Rot. d6 s3 unsaveable wounds every round until the unit is dead. that round, it killed one BloodKnight. in his round, he wheeled to charge my next herd, but i had shifted past terrain and he had no good angle... then the rot randomized onto his General (who had taken a wound from the trolls) and killed him. meaning, his lines started to crumble. by turn 3, half his army was gone and my victory was a sure massacre.
i won because i knew from his earlier games (i had talked to his prior opponent, and had heard him talking) that he favored the Bloodknight deathstar to flankcharge an army across the backfield, then summon new units to harass the rear of any forward units he had not been able to reach. so, i set up the trolls as a speedbump, and the Bray was planning on getting to him about turn 3 or so. he did well, and sped up the clock, which only benefitted me.
i could predict his move, bait his move, deflect his move, and had a counter to said move waiting for him. he was so overzealous (which i also knew from our earlier games) that he didn't stop to think that i was an active player, only that he was going to do something he thought i would be powerless to prevent.
if ever, henceforth, i complain about balance it's because i firmly believe that the game should be about the player, and not about the army. if it's about the rules being better, or about the army being more effective, then that just prohibits players from investing in certain forces. that in turn undermines the hobby and the value of the experience.
because you play the person.
if you know their style, their mindset, their capabilities, their tactis... you should win. every time. sure, everyone's got a story about that one time they needed a 3 on 2d6 to make a charge that would win them the game, and they rolled snakeeyes... or when they rolled four 5++ saves on one remaining model... or any number of other dice-related turns of events. dice, though, are usually not the reason why a game is lost or won.
starter tactica -- Warhammer 40k
i've been playing around with this idea for a bit... figured that since nobody reads this, i'd post it here with some chance of seeing my words in print helping me consider them in a different manner.
let me start off with this fact: i'm a dinosaur. not really... i don't have scales, a fear of meteors, or oil for blood. but i am a veteran of gaming. i like AD&D 2nd edition. i had fun with 40k's 3rd edition. i played GURPS before they had the square-bound one-book set. i remember the time when gaming was the solace of the social pariah. as such, some of my means are derived form older methods of play, and while they have fitting parallels i've found they work quite nicely. another, learning the game, might disagree with my means in favor of a streamlined or more efficient way of achieving the same ends.
now that that's out of the way...
WARHAMMER 40K TACTICA
part 1: the basics
Lesson One
everything counts
there was an older gentleman who played WHF back in 6th, at a store i used to frequent. he would usually look at the board at the beginning of the game and make a comment like "this reminds me of Alexander's battle at Gaugamela" or "this could be just like Caesar at Alesia." if you asked him which side was which, he would smirk and say "of course, i'm Alexander" (or insert the victor's name at will).
for him, the game was won during deployment. he knew history. he knew tactics. and he knew the game he played well enough and the strength of his armies (he had a few) such that he could deploy with pairups and a plan in mind well before the first die was rolled, and as a result his victory rate was huge.
Deployment is a skill.
how and when to Charge is a skill.
List-Building is a skill.
Target Priority is a skill.
setting up Firing Lanes is a skill.
deploying Objectives (in a competitive battle) is a skill.
Achieving Goals is a skill.
learning all of these takes time. which means that
Patience is a skill.
everything counts.
the first skill you use is list-building. this is more complicated than ever, with local and overall Meta messing with how the game is and can be played, individual playstyles interfering with what is considered sportsmanlike behavior, and generally differing ideas complicating what should be fairly easy to lay out.
i will cover this later.
the second skill is deployment. this is where some people lose, and where some people can surprise you.
before a unit goes on the table, but after you have had a look at your opponent's force, you should have a general initial plan for each of your units. are those tactical marines best suited to hold that sensor array, or should they advance toward the tau firebase for a better position and possible assault? should that Broadside unit be focusing on popping light vehicles or elite infantry? will that land raider bulldoze up the middle, or will they sit on an objective and act as a mobile bunker?
deployment is simply the second step in that plan. put the units where you think they will best be able to utilize this plan. how can they move toward the correct location, or from where can they see their goal, or where is the terrain best suited for an advance?
if you have a high-count horde army, you need to eyeball where the enemy is located (or probably will be, based on terrain) and plan your advance accordingly. minimize distances, and get there as fast as you can.
if you have a low-count elite army, you want instead to use that small size to your advantage. is there any sight-blocking terrain? can you place a unit or two where they cannot be physically seen by the opponent? if they have infiltrate/droppod/deepstrike capabilities, you may do this differently. but it's an option.
one of my favorite tricks with my old Deathwing army was to waste my opponent's first turn. step 1: deepstrike anything that was set up for deepstriking. step 2: deploy remaining units behind sight-blocking terrain. step 3: if i had won first turn, i would give it up if i had the choice. that way, they would go first... and while they could move, they would have nothing they could shoot or charge. if they were gearing for an assault and would hit me next turn anyway, i'd pull back and put more distance between us. if they moved units forward into closer range (all but the CML in those days was 24" range, so that was the optimal distance to keep until midgame), i'd focus fire and unload on them. if they were unable to make it to me, i could get two or more turns of shooting off, and maybe even the charge, just by properly retreating.
this leads to the second deployment tactic: strongflank.
a normal board is pretty easy. you have a line, and you have units on or behind that line. the longer range ones, if sight permits, stay back. the shorter range, faster, and assault-based units toe that line and move forward. it creates a more or less even line across part or all of the forefront. expecting this, you can change the game by just not adhering to this convention.
* strongflank is when you place your units in a dominant position on half of the board. if you deploy second, you can do this optimally -- choose the side that has the better longrange capacity, or the side that is the least cross-supported by comparable units. your forces will be able to overcome the side you are currently facing via outnumbering force, and half of your opponent's army will be forced to redeploy rather than join in the fighting. this works better the lower your model count is. it can still be done with an army such as a horde, but the space quickly fills up -- meaning that the strength is hidden with numbers. if you have a couple weaker units, they will ride the weak flank together and act as a buffer, maybe hanging back, maybe claiming an objective. because everything counts.
in this picture, the ruins on the lower left are optimal for placement. they provide some cover, while giving access to potential visible chunks of the enemy. the red stars can move forward, or they can allow the opponent to come around that building-and-tower to their 2oclock. if there is an objective there, they are set... but they will need to move out of this position in order to engage on their terms or to snap up other objectives. there are limitations, but it does play into the strengths of starting form a secure position.
* a variation of this (particularly when your opponents catch on to your plans) is the baited strongflank. have one unit a standalone threat on the other flank. my Deathwing would routinely have a CML squad hang out on a hilltop alone and isolated from the rest of the army. as much as i hated wasting all those points on units that never engaged, more often than not the bait was taken -- the enemy would move units into range or position to worry about the missiles, or to get the easy unit, or just because they felt it was too good to pass up. they'd further delay their arrival in the real combat zone, and allow my units to pick them apart when they were done with the first targets instead of showing up in time to perhaps turn the battle to their favor.
here, the red stars have decided to go for a more isolated deployment. they have built up in the lower right corner, where much of their opponent's longrange capability would be wasted due to the woods to their north and the thicker terrain density on this half of the board. they have placed a unit in relative safety on the opposite side -- one with long range capability, but not one integral to their plans. while the opponent moves toward them and their arc of fire, the remaining red stars can filter forward to meet the enemy's piecemeal efforts.
imagine an old action movie trope -- the line of bad guys who move forward in a single-file line for the good guy to punch out. this is the slightly more advanced version of making your opponent do this. they have only a few lines of access, and by targeting them in tandem the units have the ability to disable them each in turn.
* another variation is the "horns of the warlord" (i didn't make that up, really). it's a dual-flank deploy, simply. if there are units in the center, they are held back (like artillery, or like some ranged expensive toy you want to bait them into moving toward). the flanks and middle force the opponent to move and make decisions in order to face your forces. if you can manage your firing lanes (discussed later), you can minimize the angles that they can approach from -- either forcing a redeploy delay, or making them approach the middle where three angles can rip into them simultaneously.
here, the two stars in the center are a firebase, or a tough vehicle, or a formidable unit waiting to be called out. the 3 stars on the right plan on neutralizing anything that comes through that top gap, then aiming between those two square buildings to help the center (bait). the four on the left have more play... they might move forward, they may lend firepower upfield to hinder the enemy's advance, they may sweep up and behind that oval building to assault an objective, or they may move to the center (in preparation for a push forward, or in order to boost strength, or the like).
each unit has a plan, its position reflects what you wish to achieve.
in the end, your goal is to place your units such that your opponent
- has to move in order to be effective (disabling the effectiveness of heavy weapons and blasts)
- has fewer units, or models, or less capability, than you do in a given area
- has a limited number of targets
- has fewer options as to what to attack or where to move
- has to move or place models where they can be shot at from multiple angles and multiple units
- has to modify their plans in favor of the weighed options that you present to them.
because everything counts.
let me start off with this fact: i'm a dinosaur. not really... i don't have scales, a fear of meteors, or oil for blood. but i am a veteran of gaming. i like AD&D 2nd edition. i had fun with 40k's 3rd edition. i played GURPS before they had the square-bound one-book set. i remember the time when gaming was the solace of the social pariah. as such, some of my means are derived form older methods of play, and while they have fitting parallels i've found they work quite nicely. another, learning the game, might disagree with my means in favor of a streamlined or more efficient way of achieving the same ends.
now that that's out of the way...
WARHAMMER 40K TACTICA
part 1: the basics
Lesson One
everything counts
there was an older gentleman who played WHF back in 6th, at a store i used to frequent. he would usually look at the board at the beginning of the game and make a comment like "this reminds me of Alexander's battle at Gaugamela" or "this could be just like Caesar at Alesia." if you asked him which side was which, he would smirk and say "of course, i'm Alexander" (or insert the victor's name at will).
for him, the game was won during deployment. he knew history. he knew tactics. and he knew the game he played well enough and the strength of his armies (he had a few) such that he could deploy with pairups and a plan in mind well before the first die was rolled, and as a result his victory rate was huge.
Deployment is a skill.
how and when to Charge is a skill.
List-Building is a skill.
Target Priority is a skill.
setting up Firing Lanes is a skill.
deploying Objectives (in a competitive battle) is a skill.
Achieving Goals is a skill.
learning all of these takes time. which means that
Patience is a skill.
everything counts.
the first skill you use is list-building. this is more complicated than ever, with local and overall Meta messing with how the game is and can be played, individual playstyles interfering with what is considered sportsmanlike behavior, and generally differing ideas complicating what should be fairly easy to lay out.
i will cover this later.
the second skill is deployment. this is where some people lose, and where some people can surprise you.
before a unit goes on the table, but after you have had a look at your opponent's force, you should have a general initial plan for each of your units. are those tactical marines best suited to hold that sensor array, or should they advance toward the tau firebase for a better position and possible assault? should that Broadside unit be focusing on popping light vehicles or elite infantry? will that land raider bulldoze up the middle, or will they sit on an objective and act as a mobile bunker?
deployment is simply the second step in that plan. put the units where you think they will best be able to utilize this plan. how can they move toward the correct location, or from where can they see their goal, or where is the terrain best suited for an advance?
if you have a high-count horde army, you need to eyeball where the enemy is located (or probably will be, based on terrain) and plan your advance accordingly. minimize distances, and get there as fast as you can.
if you have a low-count elite army, you want instead to use that small size to your advantage. is there any sight-blocking terrain? can you place a unit or two where they cannot be physically seen by the opponent? if they have infiltrate/droppod/deepstrike capabilities, you may do this differently. but it's an option.
one of my favorite tricks with my old Deathwing army was to waste my opponent's first turn. step 1: deepstrike anything that was set up for deepstriking. step 2: deploy remaining units behind sight-blocking terrain. step 3: if i had won first turn, i would give it up if i had the choice. that way, they would go first... and while they could move, they would have nothing they could shoot or charge. if they were gearing for an assault and would hit me next turn anyway, i'd pull back and put more distance between us. if they moved units forward into closer range (all but the CML in those days was 24" range, so that was the optimal distance to keep until midgame), i'd focus fire and unload on them. if they were unable to make it to me, i could get two or more turns of shooting off, and maybe even the charge, just by properly retreating.
this leads to the second deployment tactic: strongflank.
a normal board is pretty easy. you have a line, and you have units on or behind that line. the longer range ones, if sight permits, stay back. the shorter range, faster, and assault-based units toe that line and move forward. it creates a more or less even line across part or all of the forefront. expecting this, you can change the game by just not adhering to this convention.
* strongflank is when you place your units in a dominant position on half of the board. if you deploy second, you can do this optimally -- choose the side that has the better longrange capacity, or the side that is the least cross-supported by comparable units. your forces will be able to overcome the side you are currently facing via outnumbering force, and half of your opponent's army will be forced to redeploy rather than join in the fighting. this works better the lower your model count is. it can still be done with an army such as a horde, but the space quickly fills up -- meaning that the strength is hidden with numbers. if you have a couple weaker units, they will ride the weak flank together and act as a buffer, maybe hanging back, maybe claiming an objective. because everything counts.
* a variation of this (particularly when your opponents catch on to your plans) is the baited strongflank. have one unit a standalone threat on the other flank. my Deathwing would routinely have a CML squad hang out on a hilltop alone and isolated from the rest of the army. as much as i hated wasting all those points on units that never engaged, more often than not the bait was taken -- the enemy would move units into range or position to worry about the missiles, or to get the easy unit, or just because they felt it was too good to pass up. they'd further delay their arrival in the real combat zone, and allow my units to pick them apart when they were done with the first targets instead of showing up in time to perhaps turn the battle to their favor.
imagine an old action movie trope -- the line of bad guys who move forward in a single-file line for the good guy to punch out. this is the slightly more advanced version of making your opponent do this. they have only a few lines of access, and by targeting them in tandem the units have the ability to disable them each in turn.
* another variation is the "horns of the warlord" (i didn't make that up, really). it's a dual-flank deploy, simply. if there are units in the center, they are held back (like artillery, or like some ranged expensive toy you want to bait them into moving toward). the flanks and middle force the opponent to move and make decisions in order to face your forces. if you can manage your firing lanes (discussed later), you can minimize the angles that they can approach from -- either forcing a redeploy delay, or making them approach the middle where three angles can rip into them simultaneously.
each unit has a plan, its position reflects what you wish to achieve.
in the end, your goal is to place your units such that your opponent
- has to move in order to be effective (disabling the effectiveness of heavy weapons and blasts)
- has fewer units, or models, or less capability, than you do in a given area
- has a limited number of targets
- has fewer options as to what to attack or where to move
- has to move or place models where they can be shot at from multiple angles and multiple units
- has to modify their plans in favor of the weighed options that you present to them.
because everything counts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)