General Stratigy Thought...

[ZenPaladin]

So I was thinking about stratigy today and came to a conclusion that many probibly have before. If you simplify things enough there are basicly to stratigies to building and playing an army. You either play to your strengths or you play to your oponents weakness.

For example. If you play the Tau you play to your strengths. You shoot the enemy, you don't assault them. If you play Blood Angels you assault them you don't shoot them. It's not that the Tau can't assault and its not that the Blood Angels cant shoot its that unless your are using their strengths you can be outmatched and defeated.

If your are playing to your foes weakness then you are looking for where he's weak. For example I take a balance Marine list. If I run up against Guard or Tau I try to assault. Even my most shooty units like Sternguard are going to do better in assualt against a firewarrior squad. If I come up against Space Wolves I'm going to try to shoot them because in Tactical on Tactical fighting i'm going to loose!

I run two armies. Tau and Necron's, with the Cron's i'm trying to play to my foes weakness. I'm adapting to them. With the Tau i'm trying to maximise my firepower and mobility it doesnt matter who i'm fighting.

So what sort of force do you run? Adaptive or Static. Which do you think is stronger? Easier? Obviously some combination of the two is allways in place.

[DarkLink]

As a Grey Knight player, I fully agree. In almost all of my games with my Knights, my strategy is "do what I have to do to live another turn".

If my opponent is trying to rush me, I shoot his transports out from under him. If he tries to out shoot me, I try to maneuver and return fire to protect myself and soften him up as much as possible, while getting in close to take him out.

It's all about playing reactive rather than offensive. Many will insist that you have to take the initiative, but some armies just can't do that well. In fact, some armies just perform better preventing the enemy from accomplishing their goals, rather than ignoring the enemies plan and following your own.

[david5th]

With my Ultramarines it's more adaptive. Take the initiative keep it that way but keep in mind this

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder - No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength (no plan survives contact with the enemy).

With mi Imperial Guard it's simply one word - SHOOT.

[fade_74]

I mostly play guard and I shoot....alot. There are differences in shooting though. I like to play armies with mobile volume of fire. I don't take huge heavy hitting weapons all the time (medusa, demolisher, lascannons, meltaspam etc). I like to be able to shift a huge enough amount of shots to one area to be able to kill almost anything. This is opposed to huge high strength bombs that will kill anything.

For example, Lets say i am shooting at a unit of terminators. I can bombard them with a couple medusa shots per turn and hope I hit which will most likely kill them off. Or, I can bring to bear a large number of lower power weapons and let my opponents saving throw dice do my job. A unit of 20 guardsmen, with a couple multilaser scout sentinels, and maybe a heavy weapons squad, supported by a chimera, will do the same job, but that mass of models is SO much harder to get away from.

I also find this way So much more fun to play. I almost never play the same list twice. I can use almost anything on my shelf, and it will fit right in. Don't want sentinels today? Ok, throw in some rough riders. Don't want to play a lascannon squad? Sure, penal legion would be fun! Don't want a chimera? How bout a vulture with 4 missile pods? Or no transports at all! yeah thats another squad i can buy for each chimera that I don't!

I'm rambling....I didn't get my regular 40k game this week lol.

[Lord Azaghul]

I
I'm rambling....I didn't get my regular 40k game this week lol.

Oiy I sypmathize! And I don't think I'll get one in this weeke either.


Tactics:
I play IG and I'm picking in SM.
IG are probably the strongest 'reactors' in the game. Taking first turn can be very devistating, but the ability to deal out both high S and high volumn fire power is awesome. I like to throw a squad of vets in reserve, and bring them up to plug holes in the line: Just as my opponent thinkgs he's cleared an area -BAM - have some melta and flamer and a tank! Or my sentinals, I love those little guys, a great early game distraction, or late game rear armour targetor. For me its an easy army to play to its strengths.

SM: clearly very different, and sort of an underdog these days. But I have no doubt I'll learn as soon as I get a dozen or so games under my belt!

[Uncle Nutsy]

I like to run a full adaptive list with my tau.

troop spam? lotsa bursties, PIGs and pulse subs. heavy armor? in come the deathrains, sunforges, railguns and heavy gundrones with markerlights.

[scadugenga]

It's not so much army comp or picking one particular style of play.

You need to outplay your enemy--seize the initiative (not rolling a "6" btw...) and make him react to your troops, rather than you reacting to his.

[DarkLink]

and make him react to your troops, rather than you reacting to his.

Well, here's the thing. This isn't necessary all the time. I find that I rarely make my opponent react to me. I instead react to him.

Now, if you're too slow to react then you can fall into a losing position and be defeated. But there are definately times when my opponent was too aggressive because he was trying to make me react to him. Well, I reacted, and his transports got shot out from under him and I picked him apart as a result. Or maybe his assault got too spread out when he should have advanced more slowly and carefully.

The point is, you have to look beyond the next turn or two. Sometimes that means not being aggressive, and letting your opponent come to you. "Making your opponent react to you" is a term that gets thrown around a lot, but... hmm, this would be a good time for a Sun Tzu quote, but I don't have an appropriate one off the top of my head.

The point is, don't get so caught up in trying to force your plan on your opponent that you defeat yourself.

[Uncle Nutsy]

It's not so much army comp or picking one particular style of play.

You need to outplay your enemy--seize the initiative (not rolling a "6" btw...) and make him react to your troops, rather than you reacting to his.

I've discovered that once you know an opponents' playstyle and you know for a fact that 'this is what they do in situation x' then there's no real need to 'outplay' them. When you know their patterns, you've already outplayed them before the game even starts.

I've done it a few times already. I sent a unit one way and they've followed it, just like I figured they would. By the time they've realized that they've taken the bait, i'm already in position to obliterate that unit.

Every time I've had a loss I take a moment to step back to ask "what unit did they use to gain that KP? how did he use it beforehand? How did they move it?". If the answer was "he used marines and got close enough to use powerfists to destroy the unit.", then the army list and tactics change to include a unit to stop said marine unit. Ever since I've started to do that, my army list has evolved to counter those units.


Such as the case of me vs a tzeench/nurgle army. I knew for a fact that Nurgle, while deadly in CC was also slow and purposeful and had no shooting. That lowered the threat level below Tzeench so I left them alone because I knew i could outmaneuver them. That let me concentrate on the Tzeench side, which I almost outright destroyed. If there was going to be any more turns, I then would have concentrated on Nurgle and wiped them out.

[Kahoolin]

Well, here's the thing. This isn't necessary all the time. I find that I rarely make my opponent react to me. I instead react to him.Right. Playing aggressively may be enough to shock and overwhelm if you are playing someone who lacks confidence and/or experience. But if you're playing someone who knows their army inside out and can stay cool under fire, then daring behaviour is likely to lose you the game. I can attest this from experience, I am quite an aggressive and daring player and I usually have to reign myself in a bit, or I'm liable to overextend :cool:

[Bean]

I've discovered that once you know an opponents' playstyle and you know for a fact that 'this is what they do in situation x' then there's no real need to 'outplay' them. When you know their patterns, you've already outplayed them before the game even starts.

I've done it a few times already. I sent a unit one way and they've followed it, just like I figured they would. By the time they've realized that they've taken the bait, i'm already in position to obliterate that unit.

Any opponent you can manipulate in the manner you describe, here, is an idiot.

[Uncle Nutsy]

Not so much an idiot, but more reliant on the one-trick-pony line of thought.

[Kahoolin]

Any opponent you can manipulate in the manner you describe, here, is an idiot.Or at least their attitude is very casual, in which case congratulations - you've just defeated someone who wasn't really trying to win!

I agree Bean, I think most people, if you played them often enough to be able to predict their actions, should be learning from you as much as you are from them.

[Bean]

Or at least their attitude is very casual, in which case congratulations - you've just defeated someone who wasn't really trying to win!


A fair distinction. It's certainly true that some people just aren't trying that hard.


I agree Bean, I think most people, if you played them often enough to be able to predict their actions, should be learning from you as much as you are from them.

That's certainly true. I was more thinking that a player who responds to particular moves in predictable ways without taking into account the position of the rest of the units on the table is playing badly.

It's one thing to make a particular response to a particular move--but if your opponent sets up a devastating counter to that response, you should respond differently--even if he otherwise makes the same moves. If you don't, you're basically an idiot--and if you do, the sort of approach described in the quote just doesn't work on you at all.



Not so much an idiot, but more reliant on the one-trick-pony line of thought.

I'm pretty sure that the degree of unthinking single-mindedness required on the part of your opponent to make this work is basically indistinguishable from idiocy--presuming, as Kahoolin points out, that your opponent is actually trying to win.



edit:

on topic, the OP is basically right. Some armies are so heavily focused that they're always going to be pressing for the same type of engagement. Others are more middle-of-the-road, and will tend to try to press for a type of engagement the other army is bad at.

Orks and Tau really epitomize the first type--Orks pretty much always press for close combat while Tau pretty much always press to keep the fight at range.

Vanilla Marines epitomize the second type--they'll try to keep Orks at range, 'cause they'll generally lose in close combat, and they'll try to close with Tau, 'cause they'll generally lose at range.

However, it would be a mistake to equate this dichotomy of army types with the dichotomy between active and reactive play. The one has to do with how focused your army is on one portion of the game. The other has to do with how hard you're pressing for the type of engagement your army favors.

[Xas]

Any opponent you can manipulate in the manner you describe, here, is an idiot.

then I must have some magic charm that means I only play against idiots in tourneys...



the master-class of tactics is to react to what your oponent is going to do the turn after you reacted to it.

[Bean]

then I must have some magic charm that means I only play against idiots in tourneys...

Lucky you, I guess.




the master-class of tactics is to react to what your oponent is going to do the turn after you reacted to it.

On the contrary. really playing the game well involves not presuming anything about what your opponent will do, ever.

[ZenPaladin]

See that was the sort of thing that got me thinking. What is the stronger army? The one that is so powerful in its chosen field that no other can top it? Forcing the foe to adapt or be crushed? Or the army that is perfectly fluid? Unable to ovewelm in any part of the game but able to counter what ever the oposing force brings?

Focused or Fluid?

I'm pretty tempted to say that in modern 40K focused beats fluid. A beastly close combat army or a beastly blasting force will defeat a force that brings a little of both. But I also contend that a fluid force is more fun to play and play against. Because it creates more interesting and and tactical situations on the field.

[Bean]

I doubt that either quality is necessarily more valuable than the other. As far as the actual armies go, some of the focused ones are pretty good while others aren't--and the same is true of "fluid" armies.

Vanilla Marines are fluid and mediocre. Guard are focused and strong. Tau are very focused and weak. Orks are focused and strong. Grey Knights are fluid and weak. Eldar are fluid and strong.

Both can work. A fluid army that is both great at shooting and great in combat will be a strong army--it's great at everything. A focused army that isn't sufficiently good in its area of focus--or which is just too weak in some other area--will likely be weak on the whole.

[Uncle Nutsy]

People, no matter what they do, form habits and traits in a game. If you find out an opponent is predictable, you can play to exploit that. For example: If he's reliant on artillery, that's a weakness you can capitalize upon.

So focused can beat fluid if done right.

[DarkLink]

Just for reference, everyone should go check out the Way of the Water Warrior (http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=101214) thread on Bolter and Chainsword. Though it was written with 4th ed in mind, it's easily the best 40k tactica I've ever seen.