# The Mindset of Stratagy & Tactics



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

I figured I would start this particular thread so I could get help on this topic and maybe if it spins off into something that helps others then all the better, so anyways heres the low down.

I have now been playing 40k for about 2yrs now and I know how to build an army list paint & assemble my models and play the objectives but the one thing that gets me every time especially against veteran players is tactics and seeming to have the entire game planned out from turn 1.

Also anytime I have gotten help from a veteran player they tend to take over and do everything without explaning what they are up to and why so I do win the game but learn nothing in the process which is anouther reason I am trying this avenue.

As such I would like to learn how to get into this "mindset" so I don't end up "winging it".

So any advice, input and even insight from all you veteran players would be much appreciated by me and probably many others.

Thanks.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

It is possibly worth noting that there is a difference between strategy and tactics. Many people erroneously believe that the two terms are synonymous.

Strategy: the science of military command, or the science of projecting campaigns and directing great military movements; generalship. This is all about the big picture, the grand scheme of things.

Tactics: a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result. These are the short-term operational functions that help you achieve your strategy.

You need both of these elements working together to be able to win with skill rather than luck. Everyone has good and bad luck, it is your use of strategy and tactics that will help you win even in the face of bad luck.

A good strategy is set in stone and does not change once execution has begun. In 40k about 50% of your strategy is determined by random dice rolls: Mission + Deployment (a bad strategy would be one where the mission changes all the time for example, often the case when politics interfere with military planning). The other 50% is your list. The most important thing is to know your own army. Not just a bit, but to really know it. When it comes to the tactical execution of your battle you will need to know your army well enough that you can react to changes of circumstance, and you might need to use units in ways that you did not intend to in order to achieve your goals. Know your weaknesses as well as your strengths. You should effectively do a SWOT analysis of your army and plan your list to mitigate or remove weakness, and to maximise the efficiency of your strengths (SWOT=Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats). Once you know all of this, your strategy is complete.

Tactics in game terms will feed directly from your strategy. From your SWOT analysis you will be able to establish a target priority list. Simple tactics include killing off enemy Troops units in Objective missions to make a win for them impossible; to kill small elite units in kill point games because you get your score up faster and they are usually the things that can hurt you back the most. These are two examples of very basic tactics. More detailed tactics revolve around the units you are fielding, each will have a designated function; play to their strengths and focus your actions for maximum efficiency.
‘No plan ever survives contact with the enemy’, you will have to adapt your tactics to the changing circumstances of a battle; do not get trapped in rigid plans but be flexible and ready to react. If things are not working, try another tactic; if your enemy makes a mistake, be ready to exploit it.

Experience brings a deeper understanding of your army and what it can do beyond its core function; you will be able to spot opportunities on the battlefield more quickly. This is why it is hard to learn from veterans sometimes, you can not get a deep understanding of your army from a 30 minute tutorial. What they can do is help you, indirectly, to arrive at a more accurate SWOT.

Do not play with the expectation of becoming an expert overnight, but learn from every victory and defeat. You can often learn more from a lost fight than from a win.

Sorry if this was a bit of a ramble, but these are some of my thoughts…


----------



## kungfoomasta (May 8, 2008)

dont ask for help from the vetrand during a battle, if its a tough choice then take your gut instinct and go with it. if your wrong then you learned that charging genestealers with guard is a bad idea or more so in your case what happens when I....... ect. if you play certin people over and over again figure out how they like to play and counter their normal style of play, make them wing it rather than yourself.


----------



## Wraithian (Jul 23, 2008)

Plan ahead, with multiple outcomes. If you move a troops unit, think about where you want them to be in two turns. Analyze what possible threats may be in the area, which units may move to counter your unit, and the best possible way to neutralize that threat before it can become a threat. 

Observe the table after deployment for a minute or two, see where you want units to be by the end of the game. Analyze your opponent's deployment and try to anticipate where his units are going to want to be by the end of the game.

Prioritize threats. If you have a unit (for example) of 3 strong plasma toting Tau battlesuits and a a minimum sized, non-upgraded firewarrior squad near one of your tac squads, figure out which of the two are more dangerous to your tac squad, and do what you can to neutralize it.

Area denial. If your opponent is moving to an area that provides a strategic advantage to him, do your best to intercept and deny him that advantage. If your opponent is moving toward a bunker, for example.

Regarding veterans... Don't ask a veteran for help during a game--ask him to play a game against you. Explain to him that you are newer to the hobby and want some strategic/tactical advice in a real-game environment. That's how I teach newer folks how to move into understanding their army more, as well as the game in general. When I move, I explain why I moved where I did, what my plan is in the current turn, and what the plan is within the grand scope of the game. I then ask what my opponent's thoughts would be to counter it, and if they can't come up with anything, I make a suggestion or two. 

As for everything else, darklove rounded it all up pretty good.


----------



## Morgal (Sep 26, 2007)

Well, all i can say is learn from your losses.

I find writing a battle report helps a lot. It forces you to look at each turn and what you did and what happened. Also what your foe did.
I find writing unit by unit helps as you examine what each unit did.

Also after a fight ask, why he did what he did, what annoyed him from your list what was he happy with.


----------



## newsun (Oct 6, 2008)

Yup, even a short battle report, like noting: "I could have done this or he killed this right out, maybe I should have held them back. XX unit got owned by YY unit. I had the objective till turn ZZ, then lost it because..."

I am a fan of short notes as I mostly want to play, though I do note about each battle so I can learn and get better. I also keep track of who I played and what army and the mission/deployment.

Play as many games as you can with an army with minor tweaks here and there to your list. Large changes sometimes will yield losses due to not knowing what to do with that particular list.


----------



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

Cool thanks guys this is alot to "download" but I'll do my best any other ideas and or suggestions are still welcome of coarse so keep them comming.


----------



## Daneel2.0 (Jul 24, 2008)

There is another aspect that hasn't been mentioned which is use of terrain. This is both a strategic and tactical issue. 

Strategically, you need to think about how much terrain is good for your army; whether or not you want long open firing lanes or closed off clumps. In game turns, it almost always ends up being a combination of both, but your analysis based on the list you want to play will be crucial in determining where you deploy your forces.

Tactically, your use of terrain is important as well. It helps you deny shots to opponents, mitigate charging in CC, etc. This means that you need to decide if/how you want to use the terrain on the board.

The strategy you can do before the game even starts, but the tactics needs to be looked at after the terrain has been set up and before you deploy. During this period, make absolutely certain that you know what each piece of terrain on the board is (does a building count as a fortress or a ruin?). It can sometimes be hard to tell so discuss this with your opponent and come to a mutually agreed upon decision. Then, if you don't think you'll remember, write it down. Especially during tournaments. Arguing about what a particular piece of terrain actually represents is a horrible thing to have to do during the game, since it means that no matter what happens your initial analysis of the game table was incomplete. Once you know what everything is, decide where you want your pieces to be in the last turn, pick a route for them to get there and then walk to the other side of the board and see where your opponent is going to go to get his pieces there too. How will he screw up your plan, how can you screw up his plan, etc. If you think about these things before the match, you'll have a big step up during the game.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

Every little bit helps, now I just have to put it all together and make it work...
which will probably take a few tries just to get it right, anyways thanks all keep the post coming


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

If you can, check out Vassal 40k. There are a lot of experienced players that game there and it's an awesome place to get games in when you're unable to get to your club or what have you.

You can learn all about it here: www.vassal40k.com.

Katie D


----------



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

Thanks for the advice unfortunantly I use the computer at work during the slow times to answer my threads and downloading and what not is a no no, but fortunantly I do get to my club every Friday and Saturday and thoygh there are many veteran players most are not that willing to sit down and explain their tactics I guess they don't want to give away their "secrets" which I suppose is understandible....

Anyways on a side note I was also wondering what type of modern warfare tactics and manuevers apply to 40k and how do most decide to use particular ones in a given situation. 

I would also like to know how to set up and exicute these particular tactics.

Can anyone help with this?


----------



## Daneel2.0 (Jul 24, 2008)

40K is all based on Napoleonic tactics (or those earlier), so if you want to know which RL tactics to focus on, I'd say read up on Napoleon - which come to think of it, isn't a bad idea for anyone interested in military games anyway.


----------



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

Was wondering if anyone would like to take a stab at a summery of the various tactics used in 40K and how to use and or counter them that way I can try them out and find out what works for me.


----------



## adimick (Mar 17, 2008)

Basic over all field tactics that I have seen or used in games, are hammer and anvil, pincer, and what I like to call the "spartan".

Hammer and anvil is the use of a strong unit front, something that can withstand a lot of punishment. And you have a highly mobile unit to use for flanking. You have the enemy attack your "anvil" and use your "hammer" to push them further onto your "anvil" and crush them upon it. 

The pincer is an overall army set up. You have your slower units in the middle and fast units on the side. The objective is too crush through on the sides and envelop the enemy in the center of the board and tighten the noose so to speak around the enemy.

The spartan is a movement denial tactic, works best with large numbers of opponents against a small number on your side. Essentially you back yourself into a corner, which minimizes threat to your flanks and rear. You can't ignore what little flank you do have, some sort of heavy unit on the sides helps if the enemy gets in there. This tactic minimizes the front that your enemy can attack and also limits the number of units that your enemy can attack with as well, leaving you to deal with smaller chunks of the opposing force, rather than at a whole.The spartan works well in countering the first two tactics as well, it denies the ability to flank which is crucial to them.


On another note, reading through this thread has given me some great ideas and concepts to use and consider. I've been on a very bad losing streak lately, and I feel pretty good after reading through all of the suggestions posted.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Read this first

As an example of the mindset you need, rather than specific tactics, that's it right there. Not all of it is directly applicable but lots is.

Edit: Substituted Darklove's much-better link.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

A searchable version can be found here: http://www.readprint.com/author-84/Sun-Tzu

There are not that many usable things in the Art of War really, as a lot of it is literally about war while 40k is only about battles.

Rommel and Clausewitz are probably more relevant than Sun-Tzu.


----------



## SpaNNerZ (Jun 17, 2008)

No tactic is foolproof
The thing you need to learn is how you play then develop around that, look at the style you play, the army you play, the squads you play, how you like to win, even how worked up you get during a game.
Myself, I'm aggresive player, thats why I play Khorne, espically lots of beserkers, I like to win preferably by annhilating the enemy, sometimes I forget objectives and I dont get to worked up during the game, I enjoy it.
And with that I can sit down and build an army around what I know, is my style, and further more I can go to a table and spot what will help me and what will slow me down, through out you will be and should be constantly re-assessing the sitch, Warhammer you cant play Like chess you cant think to far ahead as you can lose sight of things.
It all comes down to an attitude and a mindset, not much more

peace out:victory:


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I don’t really think that we can talk about the relevance of different commentators based on the kinds of conflicts they were involved in. They were involved in real wars while we are playing a game with toy soldiers and dice that hardly tries to simulate reality at all. 

Just because Rommel had tanks and Sun Tzu didn’t, doesn’t mean that Rommel is going to give you better advice on how to use your toy tanks. Rommel didn’t have to deal with 20 foot tall daemons flying up to his tanks and chopping them up with axes.

That isn’t to say that you shouldn’t read anything and everything you like. I just think Sun Tzu is a good place to start if you are looking for a strategic mindset. He goes into ways of thinking a great deal as well as explicit tactics and I think that this is the change that would benefit a lot of people most.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Actually, Rommel never published on tanks, his most famous work is on infantry. My recommendation is based on the fact that they are theorists that have written on the management of battles, and might be of some use in deployment etc.

A crude breakdown:

HQ; commanders, provide the army with direction and leadership (buff units)
Elite; shock troops, hit the enemy hard to force a break in the enemy lines
Troops; the mob, garrison buildings and secure locations
Fast Attack; cavalry
Heavy Support; artillery.

If you think about the FOC in this way it is easier to take real world force deployment theories and apply them to 40k.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I really think that's far too literal.

Firstly, there isn't really much correlation between FOC slots and a unit's role. Secondly, there's no reason to assume that strategy for a real life unit applies at all.

So if you are trying to figure out what to do with your bikes, land speeder and assault squad, reading about cavalry tactics is likely to teach you only a small amount, some of which is conflicting.

My approach is holistic. I look at what units are good at, and what jobs I need done, and then I try to match them up. It isn't rocket science really. The point is to design an army to carry out a strategy, and to provide the tools that strategy requires, rather than to design a strategy to fit an army. Don't think "how can I get this square peg into this round hole", bring a round peg. 

This obviously goes both ways and you should design a strategy that your army can do well, particularly the troops part of it.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Hey, I said it was crude. I think my first post on strategy and tactics was quite clear on adaptability and maximising the strengths of different units. Rocket science is also pretty easy :grin:


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

As far as I see it there really aint no strategical part in 40k.

Strategy is, as said, the large plan and overview. The one you have in a military HQ during a campain. Like "during the next two weeks of operations our 3 armoured divisions are expected to take controll over this(points) part of the map(fairly huge area)"...
One could of course argue that when playing a 40k battle youre part of one such unit and thereby part of some grand strategy, as would give the reasons for getting mission X this fight 

For you "Old Ones" that remember, and played the really old Space Marine Epic game you will know what Im talking about. When playing like 25000 pts battles, on areas of roughly 4 normal game tables, there you had elements of strategy. Since the fight was so freaking huge and the ammount of forces under your disposal were so vast it allowed you to make general plans.
"Supported by my Reaver Titan Battlegroup my Land Raider Company, my Ravenwing Company and my Mechanised Space Marine company should(hopefully) be able to take the left flank within 4 turns" 

Tactics are Platoon and group level fighting, the thing you play in 40k. How to maximise the effects of each unit under your disposal during the fight. Each model is(more or less) important here. Active "missuse" of units will give you hard times due to your limited resources. "Should I really gamble with shooting my Lascannon on that Tank instead of using my whole unit for shooting those Orks?" :russianroulette:

The example I stated above is why some players tend to move away from AT heavy weapons in units and instead go for specific AT units only. Many times you simply dont have time to waste a whole units fire for one chance shot on a tank...


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Sorry MM but I really must disagree with that.

You are basically saying that strategy only happens with large numbers of troops and big space, and that smaller numbers of troops and smaller spaces are tactics. That's wrong. Abstract the games of 40k and epic for a moment and you see that you probably have a comparable number of playing pieces in each. Scale is irrelevent. Chess is a game of strategy that you can play on your phone. The difference between strategy and tactics is not simply a numerical one.

Strategy and strategic thinking can be applied to any project, large or small. It isn't just a question of moving pins around in a map or plastic spacemen around on a table, it's about a thought process for planning what you are going to do and how you do it. Fundamentally it is about identifying a goal of some sort, then analysing the things you need to do in order to get there. In 40k it generally comes down to looking at enemy units in terms of how they threaten your plan and how they can be disposed of with the minimum amount of fuss.

Planning your objectives is a key part of a strategy. Are you going to try to take objectives or wipe the other guy out? Are you going to try to take both objectives in take and hold or take one and contest the other? If there are 5 objectives, how many are you going to play for, and are you going to try to hide which ones you want to take? In annihilation, are you going to try to play agressively and take kill points, or defensively and deny them? Well, all these depend on what armies you and your opponent have, the terrain layout, who is going first and countless other things. Make a choice and go for it, and build in the ability to recover from setbacks and take advantage of opportunities.

Easy, except there's a guy on the other side of the table trying to mess it all up.


----------



## Daneel2.0 (Jul 24, 2008)

MaidenManiac, I'd have to agree with Someguy. Strategy has nothing to do with scale, but with approach. For instance in 40K your army list is a strategic accomplishment. How your troopers are equipped, do you go stock for lowest points, or do you upgrade for a bigger hit. All strategic questions. Now, how you move them and what you shoot at are tactical applications of that strategy. 

Also consider battlefield setup. Does your army want to have dense terrain or sparse? There is a lot of strategic thinking that can go into a 40K battle.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Hmm might be very off here yea...

Gonna sleep some and see if I can get a hang on what I was trying to formulate in a better way :lazy2:


----------



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

Wow this thread is starting to take off, is there any other tactics worth mentioning?


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Indeed. Have some rep for asking a good question.


----------



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

Cool thanks a bit unexpected but hey who's to argue with a good thing.:biggrin:


----------



## bishop5 (Jan 28, 2008)

I would say a few things:

1. Know the armies and units - all of em. You never know who or what you will be fighting so read up on all of them to locate strengths and weaknesses, and how best to exploit them with the forces you have (Know thy enemy & thyself)

2. Experience; ain't nothing better than just simply playing lots of games, even smaller ones. You can think about tactics and strategy all you like but a rookie mistake like forgetting to fire a tank could end up costing you the game. 

3. Have fun! If you take it too seriously, you'll never have any fun. Sometimes you've got to be prepared to take risks!


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

Strategy is the larger picture, the ends you wish to achieve by various actions. It involves deployment of the entire theater, getting into your opponent's head and anticipating what they can and are likely to do and planning for it, as well as knowing what your enemy is capable of.

Tactics has more to do with small unit leaders. Good leaders can usually achieve tactical superiority in localized areas through maneuver and firepower; things like envelopments, double envelopments, ambushes, and so on. Things achievable on the smaller unit end of the scale. 

Strategy is necessary regardless of the size of the force. Tactical superiority is achieved by solid leadership on the front itself. 

That is simplifying things rather, and they don't work quite the same way for wargames as they do for real, but the ideas are the same. Strategy is generally easier to implement in 40K than tactics in my own opinion, even though we call most things Tactica. Certainly the flank attack set up and anchored by the base of fire is tactical, but the idea of doing that to take advantage of the oppositions tendencies would be strategy. In a very small nutshell and very simplified.

Loved arguing these things in the Corps, yep. Mileage varies in a big way.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Sister Sin formulated things alot better then I did...k:

Having spent some time thinking ive come to the conclusion that 2 certain games have affected my pov on Strategy and Tactics alot...

Word In Flames(WIF) and Advanced Squad Leader(ASL)

WIF is a worldwide game over WW2, the smallest thing you controll is a division as a ground force. Most units are one size bigger. This game is hexagon based and each "hex" on the european map is roughly 100 kilometers big cross over. All units are presented as square "blips" roughly 1x1 cm big with names and stats.
This is one of those games you play over a year to finish...

ASL is group fights in WW2, platoon size but down to individual leaders as "blips" where even the machineguns that units use are separate "blips". Just leader blips are very much whats important here, helping up the lots of morale tests youre generally forced to make while under fire and stuff...
In ASL you play small scenarios that took place somewhere in WW2, and they are generally over on an evenings worth of playing 

Sorry for straying a bit away from 40k


----------



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

I'm kind of unsure of how you would get into your "opponents head" since ther eis no way to know for sure what they are planning this doesn't really sound like a sure fire plan for a win... or am I off my rocker on this one..?


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

In a word, Intelligence. 

That's what it's used for at the Strategic Level. Knowing your foe's training levels, standards, routines, equipment, political mindset, psyops, etc. That is all strategic. You are planning for combat, preparing in every way, and a large part of that is anticipating what the enemy has, what they will do with it, and how to counter those things as well as break them psychologically...the will to fight. Rob it and the game is well on the way to being won. Strategy deals with all of these things.

In terms of 40K it works better with people you've known or watched for some time; seeing how they build their army, what they like to do during the game, and not a little psyops in deployment and unit choice. Something as simple as 'talking smack' before a game, or recounting great wins, even placing a model on the table you aren't going to use but which is formidable...all psyops and it does have an effect.  Even if we think it doesn't. Ever look at an opposing force and think 'Damn!'? That's psyops at work.

I don't play tournaments at all these days but unless they've changed you don't really have time to observe since you're playing your own heat so it makes things harder. We replace this with reading the other list, knowing the Codex of the army and its weaknesses and strengths and trying to go from there. 'Getting into the opponent's head' as it were is basically anticipating their actions and formulating counters for them ahead of time. 

Balanced forces will tend to perform better over time because of this aspect of things, even though in the short term gimmick forces might seem far more powerful. Once the gimmick is known and canceled the army becomes a lot less viable.

The mindset of Strategy involves a lot of 'Aether' sifting...thinking and trying to put yourself in your opponent's head, and having good intel as to their capabilities and experience. The mindset of Tactics is mostly dependent on 'Situational Awareness' such that you can take advantage of terrain, maneuver, and your own strategic planning to acquire localized superiority on the battlefield. Fancy way of saying you're out-thinking and out-fighting your opponent on the small unit level. Tactical superiority is usually achievable by a good leader. Strategy is, of necessity, a less measurable thing until you win. 

Have I confused the issue sufficiently?


----------



## Daneel2.0 (Jul 24, 2008)

I think you said it pretty well actually Sister Sin, no confusion here. :biggrin:

I can provide a small example of psyops for Ferik though. When I go to play games at any of the shops in the area, I *ALWAYS* bring all 3 monoliths with me - especially if I don't intend to use them. People get nervous about 3 monoliths in a standard game (for some reason :laugh: ), and may take too much of 1 type of unit in anticipation ignoring the other things that their army has to offer. VERY useful if I plan on fielding 30 scarabs and no monolith.

All armies have the capability to do this kind of misdirection in the pre-game. What is in your list that people get nervous about? Land Raiders, Greater Daemon of Korn, Basilisk, etc. . . . After playing a few games it generally becomes clear which units your opponents don't like.


----------



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

Sneaky! I like! :biggrin:


----------



## Daneel2.0 (Jul 24, 2008)

Thanks. Be forewarned though, it is a trick that players are likely to fall for only once. And I don't lie to them about the list that I do intend to play, I just don't discuss it with them.

If you want to add a twist to it, bring 3 monoliths to the game and don't use them 2 times in a row. On the 3rd game use all 3. Then watch the panic as they deploy from reserve :scare:


----------



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

Will do I will also have to find ways to use that "trick" in different ways like bringing 3 Landraiders and 3 vindicators ect ect or bring a big case and spread out the entire contents... or something to that degree.

Anyways thanks


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Also a good way to get to know your amry better is to do small games with only 1 or 2 squads at a time. Often this leads to you learning the best ways to use that one squad. From that then expand by adding another squad when you're happy with how you use that unit. With few units on the table on your side get a friend or half your army and give them an advantage over your squads so then you will have to learn how to use them in unison. 

When I started I never did this and I lost a lot. I started playing small games with just one squad etc and I learned to use it well. Expand all the time and make yourself the underdog and you will learn to use your amry in unison well. Once you know how to use your army the tactics and strategies fall into place.... Hope this helped


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Good point Reevan, I often (even after playing only Necron for almost a year) still try experimental lists with a very narrow focus every now and then, purely to evaluate new unit combinations or tactics.


----------



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

I guess anouther point I would like to touch on is how do you decide what units work best with a given tactic... I kind of figure that this is a redundant question since for example fast attck will work well with other fast attack but I believe there has to be more to it than that or am I wrong?

Also a play by play of the various tactics and how they work may also be helpful in getting to know this way of thinking.

Sorry I keep bringing this up all the time just having a hard time grasping the subject.

Thanks again for any help that may be given on this.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

From my personal perspective playing games.

*Strategy* I see this as knowing the mission and what you have to do to achieve it. Objectives, kill points whatever. Know what you have to do and keep it in mind throughout. I try to have a simple plan, ie the slow units will go for this nearer objective and the faster ones for the further one. My HQ will just try to cause havov. Nothing too proscriptive but a vague plan is better than none.

*Tactics* As said above know your enemy and your own army/codex. Don't throw a marine squad with no power fist at a wraithlord, this is *normally* pointless. Attention to detail is also important. During the movement and shooting phases I always start from the left and work across the table to my right. Sounds anal but it stops me forgetting. Identify the most threatening enemy unit and shoot or punch it till it goes away and move on.

As for real life tactics I think there is only one which has any comparable effect on the tabletop and that is concentration of fighting power. Generally if you can throw half your army at a quarter of his (without suffering the same back) you are in a good place. Experiment with a refused flank strategy for this.

Just a few thoughts which work for me.


----------



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

Anouther aspect I've come to learn over the last little while and with the help of this thread is always always support each and every unit in your army.

This helps in two ways:

1 it pretty much insures anything you shoot at or assault will be dealt with.

2 if one unit turns out to be in a tight spot the other is there to bail it out.

Also as many have said movement tends to be a key aspect in many tactics as doing so robs a person of LOS or confers a hull down. 

It also helps to line you up for when you want to strike at a precise momment with various units that are supporting one anouther.

On a final note there is a saying amoung my club to keep in mind which is "there is no kill like overkill" this coincides with support again and if you believe one unit can take care of a target then throw in anouther to make sure of it.


----------



## Pauly55 (Sep 16, 2008)

Strategy is what you do before a game/battle, Tactics starts when your first turn does.

Reading battle guides written by famous generals needs to be taken with a grain of salt. While certainly none of them fought deamons, I think the greater problem between real battles and 40k games is the fact that it is much much harder to deceive your opponent in 40k. They see your list, they see where you have deployed, and they know if a unit is hiding behind a hill. These facts invalidate a large portion of real world war guides.


----------



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

Too true.

The only way to pull off any "tricks" in 40K is usually having empty transports or the like.

Overall though it is all about trying to out think or out manuever your opponent and hopefully get them to second guess themselves and make mistakes.

Though I may be wrong still havent compleatly grasped the subject quite yet.


----------

