The Way of the Fire Warrior

[Solid Zaku]

Hello. Most of you in the B&C are accustomed to the Way of the Water Warrior, written by Silent Requiem and available on the board located here. Within the text, the author espoused the tactical strategy of Water, acting reactively to the opponents actions and strategic decisions, and enacting your own units accordingly. This strategy was first recorded by the ancient Chinese warrior-philosopher Sun Tzu (544-496 BC) who, during the Wu dynasty, created a tactical codex that would later be called The Art of War, although much of the tactical commentary that is now considered key to the tenets of the work would be expanded upon by other Chinese and Western philosophers and tacticians in later centuries.

 

The Way of the Water Warrior, as espoused by Sun Tzu, is a path that is formless and adaptive, relying almost entirely on the enemies action or inaction to conduct warfare. In this manner, Silent Requiem, using his Grey Knights as a pretext to putting the teachings of Sun Tzu into practice on the tabletop, was successful. His adaptive use of his Knights and auxiliaries in tactically divergent situations put the advantages of the form to the fore. However, having read the actual (translated) texts myself, I realized that there was a difference within actual fighting, and tabletop warfare when it came to strategy.

 

THE ART OF FIRE

 

Within The Art of War itself, a 'fire warrior' is an undesirable one. Such a warrior is quick tempered, cruel, and prone to being manipulated through goading and disgrace. His actions are brash and without forethought, using disproportionate force for minor transgressions. This is, of course, not what I hope to teach in this. Sun Tzu never refers to generals who use his tenets of warfare as 'water warriors', although it does accurately describe the tactical disposition of such a warrior. What I instead intend to do is similar to Silent Requiem's treatise. I am, like him, simply adapting elements of Sun Tzu's seminal work to the benefit of our own armies. Silent Requiem defines a 'Fire Warrior' as one who "overwhelms it's opponents, and is characterized by it's specialization". I have chosen to revise his definition of a 'fire warrior' to this:

 

A Fire Warrior uses concentrated force in precise areas to achieve his goals.

 

This is similar to the element of Fire, which goes to where the benefit is greatest and concentrates itself there. Fire does not burn unless there is fuel, so it will seek it out in the course of its' existence. An army should go where the benefit is greatest and the risk smallest. This is markedly different from Silent Requiem's definition as overwhelming force is not necessary, only the force that is needed to achieve a goal is used. I do not, however, disagree with his concept of having highly specialized units. This is paramount to using the Art of Fire correctly, as you can only have the proportional force you need by having them. You would not send a unit of expensive Vanguard Veterans against a Scarab Swarm any more than you would send Scouts in front of a Rubric line. Using the correct amount of force where it needs to be is key to victory.This may seem broad, but as you read further, it will become clear as to what this specifically means.

 

TABLETOP STRATEGY AND THE FAULT OF ADAPTIVE COMBAT

 

When I began writing this, I understood that I would have to approach Sun Tzu's works a certain way as a number of elements in our wars were far different from his. I began to think of some of the obvious ones, the fact that I would have units with unparalleled range and strength, that they would be capable of appearing behind the enemy at a moments notice, etc. But then, it hit me. I was thinking like Silent Requiem. I was thinking solely on how to adapt, not how to take the advantage. I was thinking solely like a Water Warrior. So, I began to look at other armies and their strengths and weaknesses, including specialist lists (i.e., Nob Biker armies, Nidzilla, etc.) and realized that adaptation was only part of the equation strategically. I had to not only understand that I had the advantage of knowing precisely how my army would behave, but how my opponent's would as well. I knew his precise strengths and shortcomings, how much force he could bring, and even (and most importantly to a Fire Warrior) his every move. There could be no surprises, no ambushes. Even deep-striking units could be accounted for. I know everything my opponent could possibly know, it was simply a matter of taking the initiative to put him on his back foot.

 

I took Nidzilla as a perfect example. I know my opponent fields Nidzilla fairly constantly, and has a handful of Genestealers to boot. Therefore I know two things: mobile armies are preferable to static ones as his Genestealers created havoc in any army that 'turtles'. Secondly, knowing that the bulk of his points are relegated to monstrous Carnifexes, I knew that he would have little in the way of Troops, which are, of course, the lifeblood of 5th Edition combat. So I began to work on creating a list to combat Nidzilla at the strategic level. The lists was reminiscent of Ravenwing or White Scars, with a number of Deep Striking units. This allowed me almost total control of the battlefield as I could run my bikes around the map, whittling down what few Troops he had already, and drop in nasty diversionary units that would occupy any Dakkafexes he may have had. I found that, by keeping him on the back foot at nearly all times by concentrating my firepower at his troops, it allowed me to set up bottlenecks and suicide runs that allowed me the freedom to rush in my healthy number of Tacticals and Speeder-born Scouts to the battlefield objectives with no risk of running into Genestealers flanking me. I was in control of the battlefield rather than my opponent. And that is paramount.

 

Whereas Water Warriors are dictated to by the opponent, adapting and changing as need be, Fire Warriors are otherwise. They aggressively take the upper hand, putting the opponent into defensive postures, keeping them reacting to their own foibles, and forgetting that the more strategic choices lay available to them. They deceive their opponents by putting out flashy units in compromising positions, or by having 'bullet soaks' such as special characters or Land Raiders.

 

If an army could be said to be the embodiment of the Fire Warrior, it would undoubtedly be the Eldar. 'Anything you can do, we can do better,' is a common slogan amongst their proponents, and much of that is true. They are masters at applying the precise amount of firepower or units necessary to change a tactical situation in their favor. Have a Dreadnought bearing down on you? Send in Fire Dragons. Beastly close combat unit coming towards your line? Have your Dire Avengers Bladestorm them until they don't exist. Unit of mindless swarms coming to rampage? Have Rangers keep them pinned until their templates can finish them off.

 

Second most of all is the Space Marines. Built around small, powerful, flexible units, vanilla Space Marines can be given the proper equipment to handle any situation in a manner appropriate to the way of Fire. Swarms? Frag missiles and Heavy Bolters. Monstrous creatures? Plasma and Powerfists. Armored Fury? Melta and Hammer-wielding Terminators. Not only that, but they are supremely capable of placing themselves in the perfect strategic position to achieve their aims. Whether it be the use of a Drop Pod, a Crusader, or a Librarians Gate, Marines are still impressively mobile, at relatively little risk to themselves, allowing them to place that force quickly on the enemy. Many armies that use deepstriking themselves, such as Chaos Marines and Daemons, have significant difficulty facing against Fire-style armies as their armies are oftentimes being combatted against by turn one, and are oftentimes defeated piecemeal.

 

WEAKNESS IN STRENGTH

 

If Fire is to have a weakness, ironically it is the thing it nature that is it's greatest friend: air. In Silent Requiem's original treatise, Air Warriors are exceptionally mobile, keeping on the move at all times in order to confuse or stretch out their opponents. Once more, the finest examples of good Air Warrior lists are found in Jetbike Eldar, Ravenwing, and Valkyrie-born Guardsmen lists. Their excessive mobility makes focusing on multiple weakpoints difficult to do, and an inexperienced general will find his 'hunters' being ripped apart one by one by units he cannot hit. The best way to counter an Air general using Fire tactics is to create funnels which the enemy is forced to go through at no benefit to himself. No matter which unit he decides to attack, he will be met by withering fire that will at the very least leave him tactically impotent.

 

Thank you for reading and hopefully comprehending the Way of the Fire Warrior. I hope that you will come to understand, as I do, that fielding a Fire army is not simply all about mindlessly swarming the opponent or bathing him in spamfire. I hope that you will instead see that a Fire army is as diverse as it is practical. As efficient as it is merciless.

[Mazer Rackham]

You make several interesting observations, a well thought out and interesting article. It reads very well and proposes your arguments clearly.

 

The premise itself is not that new to me, nor as refined, the article definitely gives food for thought - although you specify Fire should be used in a precise and "controlled" manner for want of a better word, don't forget that sometimes in order to put the opponent on the back foot, to disrupt them and make them reactive you sometimes have to set it to "flamethrower" and overwhelm him completely.

 

I do agree that a player should be prepared for almost anything though - every player that abides by the rules can only do what you can do.

 

Just a couple of technical points - change the part about Dark Reapers to Fire Dragons or Fire Prisms as DR's will do jack to a dread, and Guardians can't Bladestorm, but Dire Avengers can.

 

My humble opinion. To be honest I really have very little further to add!

 

Nice job.

 

MR.

[Brother Captain Josef]

I'm very impressed. I wish more threads were like this rather than the usual "Who would win in a fight between..." etc.

 

As already said by MR a very thought provoking article which will take me a bit of time to digest and assimilate before I can comment meaningfully to it.

 

At this time I just wanted to acknowledge your effort!

 

EDIT: Double post :down:

[Solid Zaku]

Thank you, Mazer. I very often get those four units confused.

[Grey Mage]

Youve put some good thought into this, and It looks like the start to a good article. Still, theres something I wanted to say.

 

and realized that adaptation was only part of the equation strategically. I had to not only understand that I had the advantage of knowing precisely how my army would behave, but how my opponent's would as well. I knew his precise strengths and shortcomings, how much force he could bring, and even (and most importantly to a Fire Warrior) his every move. There could be no surprises, no ambushes. Even deep-striking units could be accounted for. I know everything my opponent could possibly know, it was simply a matter of taking the initiative to put him on his back foot.

I dont agree with this. This, seems like a "Water Warrior" to me. "Fire" Warriors, IMO, tend to hit a weakpoint with overwhelming force- striking units down quickly and effectively. Forcing your opponent to react to you is a fire warrior tactic. Water warriors dont need their opponents to react to them- because they know what their opponents moves will be anyways.

[Solid Zaku]

But that's exactly it. Knowing what the opponent will do beforehand allows the precise application of force. I do not rely on the enemy moving in a certain way, the only 'preparation' a good Fire Warrior needs is simply the places where the enemy deploys. From that point, using the way of the Fire Warrior enacts.

[chapter master 454]

Nice article, shame it's in the wrong place. Tactica astartes I think the place is.

 

Anyway moving on, this was a very nice read. I do feel however you've still got some water warrior left in you in the article but the majority is good. Very informative and does very well. Makes me think about what the other 2 kinds would have to be said for them: earth and air.

[Grey Mage]

But that's exactly it. Knowing what the opponent will do beforehand allows the precise application of force. I do not rely on the enemy moving in a certain way, the only 'preparation' a good Fire Warrior needs is simply the places where the enemy deploys. From that point, using the way of the Fire Warrior enacts.

And perhaps that just comes down to a philosophical difference- I see "fire" as all consuming. A Fire Warrior style army in 40k would be like the Template Heavy gaurd armies, with rows of lasguns and all... just ready to blow things up. The plan it shoot it, and shoot it again if you need to. Or Stealer heavy lists- agressive, even to a fault sometimes. A fire list doesnt care so much where the opponent is, or where they will be- they care mostly for the ability to wipe them out as soon as they see them.

[Tutteman]

Nice read here, good article, I think I understand (my limitations, not yours don't worry) but basically what I'm taking from this is that Water style is all about reactive, but you never really set the pace (So me no like :P ) also you really need detailed info on opp force, otherwise you're simply reacting. To make it affective you need to be able to predict your enemies moves ahead to counter them AS they develop rather then after they've happened.

 

Fire warrior is about moving to you own tune, hitting the enemy where you win with no more force then needed...am I right, teacher? :)

 

And please, someone do Air :P I would but I lack the ability :P

 

EDIT: Grammar and some weird form of double post :P

[Solid Zaku]

Precisely. Fire cannot burn where there is no fuel.

[chapter master 454]

The more I think on this the more I seem to understand fire armies. Where water is a blend of all the forces combined and while not needed are often mechanised for this, the style where you let your opponent do what he likes but you just adapt to it. Fire is the burning force, the force that goes where it wants, more about frontal assaults and bolter blitzing no matter what, taking the fight to the enemy before they even see it coming. Hence why water works against fire so well (however water can be turned to steam by the fire) because water doesn't have any set out plans except to counter yours with no single tactic in mind. Air would be very fast, mechanised without doubt however damage is often minimum to the enemy for majority of the match and dance round them then unless upon them at turn 4 and on a hurricane of destruction while earth would be stationary, razorbacks for late on to get combat squads up field for objectives but wholey are rather about being in control of the ground they have rather than gaining any. I would make an article but I doubt I have any form of real ability to do so without making a complete mess of it. Then again 'You never know til you try', hands up if anyone here would like to see me, the ever serious madman, CM454 make an article on the earth style? I'll only do it if people wish to see me being serious about something.

[Solid Zaku]

I think we'd enjoy it. All we'd need then is to have Kurgan make an Air article.

[Marshal Rohr]

The more I think on this the more I seem to understand fire armies. Where water is a blend of all the forces combined and while not needed are often mechanised for this, the style where you let your opponent do what he likes but you just adapt to it. Fire is the burning force, the force that goes where it wants, more about frontal assaults and bolter blitzing no matter what, taking the fight to the enemy before they even see it coming. Hence why water works against fire so well (however water can be turned to steam by the fire) because water doesn't have any set out plans except to counter yours with no single tactic in mind. Air would be very fast, mechanised without doubt however damage is often minimum to the enemy for majority of the match and dance round them then unless upon them at turn 4 and on a hurricane of destruction while earth would be stationary, razorbacks for late on to get combat squads up field for objectives but wholey are rather about being in control of the ground they have rather than gaining any. I would make an article but I doubt I have any form of real ability to do so without making a complete mess of it. Then again 'You never know til you try', hands up if anyone here would like to see me, the ever serious madman, CM454 make an article on the earth style? I'll only do it if people wish to see me being serious about something.

 

 

Thats ridiculous. There is no 'set' strategy or formation that is immediately classified as Fire, Water, etc.

 

Fire turns water to steam only when fire is sufficiently hot enough and there is not enough water to quench the fire. Meaning, it takes a numerical, logistical, and tactical superiority to defeat the water warrior. Gen. Powell's overwhelming force doctrine is very much a 'fire' doctrine. The best use of the four ways, would be to know them all and use them according to the opponent. A water warrior is weaker than a warrior who understands all ways.

[Solid Zaku]

That's a given, Marshal. However, one cannot master all elements in concert without understanding each of them individually. By the way, where's Requiem in all of this?

[Grey Mage]

That's a given, Marshal. However, one cannot master all elements in concert without understanding each of them individually. By the way, where's Requiem in all of this?

I havent seen an actual post by Silent Requiem in a long, long time.

[Corpse.]

I think the blurry areas between the elements is a mix rather then set on a specific element. I've said it before. You can blend elements, and use a single element more in one turn, then use its other element the next.

 

Point:

Bike army.

Stays behind terrain and the few rhinos they have available to them for the deployment in case they do not get first turn. (Earth)

Turbo boosts their first turn. (Air+Earth in form of cover saves)

Charges one unit into a very weak to melee unit like devastators. (Earth)

Surrounds a rhino transport and charges every angle, blowing the vehicle up and the passengers inside cannot escape thus they die. (Fire)

 

The entire time acting on a sub-water style of formulating yourself to the enemy and not to yourself. I see it as a blend based on the options given and the actions taken purely limited to the army and units available to you.

[Firedrake28]

A well written article. One little thing: Swarms (meaning those units that have the Swarms rule) can't be pinned by sniper rifle fire since they're Fearless. If the OP was talking about a large unit of normal models, then other units will still probably do the job better since most of the horde style armies have means of overcoming their inherent Leadership problems (Synapse, the size of Ork units, Imperial Guard Orders, etc).