|Many of the different army books from the 3rd edition of
Warhammer 40k had these cool little illustrations on suggested
tactics and manuevers.
Sadly, the guys at Games Workshop have moved away from
this practice in subsequent editions. These illustrations
were very simple and depicted some classic battlefield formations
and manuevers from throughout history. There were variations
on the phalanx, the pincer and many others.
I will do my best to
ressurect some of those illustrations over the next couple
of pages, as well as adding a few of my own. But first I'll
look at some concepts, components and terms common to most,
if not all, battlefield formations and manuevers.
is a Formation?
a formation is the way in which an army is deployed on the
battlefield. There are many different ways to deploy an
army, some are more effective than others in a given situation
or against a certain opponent. In all the time I've been
playing 40k, most of the formations I've seen can be categorized
in two broad types, the 'phalanx' and the 'flank attack'.
The following pages will have some illustrations showing
variations on these two formation types, but for now here
are a few things I think are important to know about battle
formations in general:
Battle Line: Due in
part to the shape of the deployment zones in most 40k missions,
most armies tend to form a 'battle line' of sorts. Units
are placed side by side in support of one another, presenting
a broad frontage to the enemy. If this seems pretty conventional,
that's because it is. The game of 40k was translated over
from Warhammer Fantasy which represents battle in a 'historical'
way, with ranked troops and so forth.
Flank: The flanks of
a formation are the units on either end of the battle line.
Since they don't have as much support as units in the center
of the line, they are more vulnerable to attack. One thing
that every battlefield commander fears is being "flanked";
i.e. having an enemy outmanuever you, hit you in the weakest
part of your formation and then start "rolling-up"
your line. Historically, the effect of a flank attack on
troop morale was devastating, causing confusion and panic.
Such attacks usually spelled defeat for the army being flanked.
Mobile Force: Most
armies generally contain specialist units that have the
edge in mobility over the basic line trooper. These units
use their speed to launch raids into enemy lines and hit
your opponent where he's weak. There are a few armies out
there that contain few, if any, mobile elements, but they
are the exception rather than the rule. There are also some
players who build their armies without mobile forces, but
this is usually a matter of preference.
Fixing Force: For a
mobile force to be able to operate effectively, the enemy
needs to be stationary or at least limited in it's mobility.
This is the job of the "Fixing Force", units whose
purpose is to engage the enemy battle line and hold them
in place while the "Mobile Force" swoops in and
does it's thing. "Fixing Force" units can accomplish
this in a number of ways. I've seen it done with assaults,
close-range firefights, pinning weapons, etc. Heck, even
just by presenting a big scary block of troops, some opponents
will concentrate on the "Fixing Force" instead
of the much smaller mobile elements.
for the "Center of Gravity"
In military terminology,
an enemy's 'Center of Gravity' is defined as:
"a source of 'massed strength'
- physical or moral, or a source of leverage whose serious
degradation, dislocation, neutralization or destruction
will have the most decisive impact on the enemy's ability
to accomplish a given military objective."
In 40k terms, the "Center of Gravity"
is the point in a battle formation that will cause the most
mayhem if taken out. A good example of a "CoG"
would be heavy weapon teams accompanied by some basic line
troops and a command unit who provide protection and leadership.
Placed in a position of heavy cover with good lines of sight
to the battlefield, this collection of units can make a
resilient and effective firebase.
Such a firebase can provide supporting
fire for an entire army but represents a substantial investment
in resources. If it can be destroyed, the army will lose
not only it's fire support but a fair chunk of it's manpower
Not every player will deploy their army
in such a way as to have an obvious "CoG", preferring
instead to have a dispersed formation. While deploying your
army like this can deprive your opponent of an obvious target,
it can also deprive you of a 'strongpoint' to fall back
to. Having said that, it can be very effective to have a
firebase in your deployment. Just don't put all your eggs
in one basket!
A "CoG" can also be abstract
as well, it doesn't neccessarily have to be composed of
enemy units. It just needs to be something that is valuable
to the enemy and will cause him serious problems if it is
destroyed or captured. In many 40k missions, victory is
determined not by the casualty ratio but by controlling
objectives. In these cases, the "CoG" will probably
be a specific area of the battlefield, regardless of troop
Accurately identifying your opponent's
"Center of Gravity" and coming up with a plan
to either destroy or capture it is the key to winning games
effectively. Once you have control of the "CoG",
or are in a position to take control of it at you leisure,
you can then worry about mopping up the rest of the enemy.
If you concentrate on destroying the enemy first and worrying
about the objectives later, you run the risk of going 'kill
crazy', losing sight of the mission objectives and potentially
losing the game. Remember, keep your eyes on the prize!
best-laid plans of Mice and Men
As I said before, it's
best if you deploy your army according to a battle plan.
If you know where you need to go and what you need to do,
you will be more able to move and attack in a coordinated
fashion, and your game will flow smoother. For the first
turn or two at least.
By having a plan, you can take the initiative
in a battle and force your opponent to react. If you don't,
then you'll be reacting to your opponent's movements, and
you have conceded control of the game. This...is...a...BAD...thing!
By giving control over to your opponent, he will have an
edge. Your opponent may very well take control of the game,
it happens, but don't just give it to him. Make him work
"No battleplan ever
survives contact with the enemy"
- Field Marshall Helmuth von
Remember, no matter how perfect you
think your plan is, ALWAYS have a backup. A wargame battle,
like a real one, is a highly fluid situation. Your opponent
will do things you won't expect. He may not fall for your
cunningly laid trap, or he may pull a manuever that catches
you completely off guard. Sometimes you need to hold to
your plan in the face of the unexpected, other times you
may need to change your tactics. How can you tell the difference?
If you have a plan going into the game
and your opponent doesn't, then you will move and attack
with purpose, making it easier to control the flow of the
game and this will give you an edge. Games like this are
generally pretty one-sided and the outcome of the game can
usually be determined pretty early on.
If neither of you have a plan going
into a game, things may very well end up looking like an
episode of the Keystone
Cops. Things may get done, but it won't be pretty.
If both you and your opponent come to
the table with a plan, it will come down to who can execute
their plan most effectively. Control of the game may shift
back and forth, and the game may hang in the balance until
the last turn. If this happens, consider yourself fortunate,
you have found a worthy opponent. Games like this are the
most challenging and enjoyable. They can be nerve-wracking
while you're playing, but you will remember them for a long
time. Some of my favorite games, win or lose, have been
"nail-biters" in which you couldn't tell who won
until the very end.
isn't Neccessarily Least
Remember when I talked
about the advantages of going second? Well, here's where
it really pays off. If you deploy first, you put
your whole army on the table without knowing what your opponent
might have up his sleeve. Essentially, you're going in blind...
well, half-blind anyway.
In cases like this, your battle plan
and formation will probably be somewhat generalized. You'll
be able to see the terrain and any battlefield objectives,
and can make plans to move and capture them. But since you
don't know exactly where the enemy will be, any plans to
take them out will be guesswork at best.
By going second, you get the full battlefield
picture. You get to see the terrain, objectives and where
the enemy has deployed before you drop a single model on
the table. This makes a HUGE difference when coming up with
a battle plan. You can see exactly where your opponent has
placed his forces in relation to the objectives and can
probably get a good idea of what his plan might be. You
can then formulate your battleplan to counter his, and place
your forces in position to take advantage of any weak spots
in his deployment. Since you also have full knowledge that
your popponent will take the first turn, you can position
your forces so they are protected from the worst of the
By having your opponent show his hand
first, you will be in a better position to counter his battle
plan and accomplish your own goals.
I've been going on about battle plans
and their importance for a while now. Why it's important
to have one, and what can happen if you don't. By now you're
probably saying "This is all well and good, but when
the hell is he going to show us some of these fancy plans?"
Well folks, the wait is over...
to "Tactics vs. Strategy"