Mr Mystery
11-06-2013, 03:13 PM
Evening all.
So spinning off from a post in 40k General, and my experiences in a game against Interragator_Chaplain at Warhammer World, I want to discuss the art of deloyment.
But first, a little background on my thought process here.
Predominantly, I'm a Warhammer player, and I greatly enjoy it's strategic challenges. And one of the biggest you'll face in that game is getting your deployment right, as due to the more restrictive movement rule (wheeling, reforming etc), a poor deployment can quite easily cost you the game straight off the bat. So it's no surprise this is the area most generals quickly develop in. Knowing whether to plump for an oblique line, refused flank, central castle or any of the possibilities soon becomes second nature.
Yet I don't often see this transferring over to 40k. This is likely because movement is much easier in 40k, as befits a game where victory is about taking and holding objectives. And that's a shame to my mind.
Time for an example. Against Interragator_Chaplain, we were scrapping over (if memory serves) three objectives in a 'Big Guns Never Tire'. Two were on my left flank, and one to my right. As I was fielding an infantry force of Necrons, my Warhammer instaincts kicked in, and I purposely ceded my right flank, as my force was small (1,000 points) and it held the least value to me, and to attempt to contest said objective risked my line being overextended, and thus easily broken. To those familiar with the 'technical' terms, it was a classic refused flank, with an element of castling for good measure (in other words, all my stuff on my left flank, in a tightish clump). Interragator_Chaplain however attempted to contest all three objectives. For how that worked out, there's a battle report in the relevant section!
Long and short of this is that it allowed me to concentrate my already formidable firepower on disparate and stranded elements of his force, engaging pretty much entirely on my own terms, whilst being able to strike out quite boldly to capture two of the objectives.
And this is thanks to my experience in Warhammer. This isn't a 'square base good, round base bad' issue, on account each game requires a different approach. But I do believe my experience from Squarebasebashing has given me an edge against someone who plays only 40k.
So how much thought do you put into your deployment for 40k? I'm guessing most people at least consider cover etc, and a great many will likely be doing as I find myself doing, whether consciously (such as knowing the name of it) or not.
Additional thought to kick things off.....
When fighting against a Horde army, do consider a refused flank if you are fielding a more elite force, such as Marines or Necrons. As my above example kind of illustrates, it's a good way to offset your opponent numerical advantage, as if they've gone for a wide deployment, various chunks of your opponents force will be doing very little until the later stages of the game, if indeed they ever really get a chance to weigh in!
So spinning off from a post in 40k General, and my experiences in a game against Interragator_Chaplain at Warhammer World, I want to discuss the art of deloyment.
But first, a little background on my thought process here.
Predominantly, I'm a Warhammer player, and I greatly enjoy it's strategic challenges. And one of the biggest you'll face in that game is getting your deployment right, as due to the more restrictive movement rule (wheeling, reforming etc), a poor deployment can quite easily cost you the game straight off the bat. So it's no surprise this is the area most generals quickly develop in. Knowing whether to plump for an oblique line, refused flank, central castle or any of the possibilities soon becomes second nature.
Yet I don't often see this transferring over to 40k. This is likely because movement is much easier in 40k, as befits a game where victory is about taking and holding objectives. And that's a shame to my mind.
Time for an example. Against Interragator_Chaplain, we were scrapping over (if memory serves) three objectives in a 'Big Guns Never Tire'. Two were on my left flank, and one to my right. As I was fielding an infantry force of Necrons, my Warhammer instaincts kicked in, and I purposely ceded my right flank, as my force was small (1,000 points) and it held the least value to me, and to attempt to contest said objective risked my line being overextended, and thus easily broken. To those familiar with the 'technical' terms, it was a classic refused flank, with an element of castling for good measure (in other words, all my stuff on my left flank, in a tightish clump). Interragator_Chaplain however attempted to contest all three objectives. For how that worked out, there's a battle report in the relevant section!
Long and short of this is that it allowed me to concentrate my already formidable firepower on disparate and stranded elements of his force, engaging pretty much entirely on my own terms, whilst being able to strike out quite boldly to capture two of the objectives.
And this is thanks to my experience in Warhammer. This isn't a 'square base good, round base bad' issue, on account each game requires a different approach. But I do believe my experience from Squarebasebashing has given me an edge against someone who plays only 40k.
So how much thought do you put into your deployment for 40k? I'm guessing most people at least consider cover etc, and a great many will likely be doing as I find myself doing, whether consciously (such as knowing the name of it) or not.
Additional thought to kick things off.....
When fighting against a Horde army, do consider a refused flank if you are fielding a more elite force, such as Marines or Necrons. As my above example kind of illustrates, it's a good way to offset your opponent numerical advantage, as if they've gone for a wide deployment, various chunks of your opponents force will be doing very little until the later stages of the game, if indeed they ever really get a chance to weigh in!