Target Priority vs Weapon Effectiveness

[Mysticaria]

ok, so we've all been told many times that setting a target priority and maintaining disciplined fire is the key to effective shooting. However, I'm having trouble reconciling this with weapon efficiency. To me, it feels like each weapon has a target that it naturally prefers shooting at. Weapons have characteristics of range, strength, and AP while targets have Toughness, Armor Value, and Saves. When I look at shooting I am trying to match a weapon with a target to get the best results possible.

 

Examples of good weapon matchups:

- plasmaguns (AP2) vs Terminators (2+)

- Bolters (S4, AP5) vs genstealers (T4, 5+) or Orks (T4, 5+)

- Krak Missiles (S8, 3+) vs Tyranids Monstrous Creatures (T6, 3+)

- Melta vs AV14 (6+ on 2 dice at melta range)

- Lascanons vs rhinos (2+ to glance, long range keeps cargo far away)

 

Examples of bad (but not completely ineffective) weapon matchups:

- Small arms vs vehicles (S4 glance rear armor 10 on 6+)

- Bolters (S4, AP5) vs Plague Marines or Bikers (T5, 3+)

- Lascanons vs guardsman or gaunts (T3, 6+)

- Meltagun vs Monolith (living armor)

 

I think that in most situations it is easy to decide what to shoot at. Usually I have a weapon-target match to the top priority. However, this is not always so. So here is the real question. What system do you use to decide when to choose target priority over weapon effectiveness when firing? Here are a couple examples:

 

1- Let's say there is a land raider that is threatening to move and deploy assault terminators into your lines next turn. There are also some devastators in cover and a pair of rhinos on the other side of the board. You really want to stop the land raider, but the only weapons you have left to fire are on a pair of typhoon landspeeders. Do you take a chance and try and shoot at the landraider hoping for akey glance that will stop it for a turn? Or do you try to pick one of the other tagets which are lower on the priority but would be easier to kill? What system do you use to make this decision?

 

2- Let's say there are 5 shooty tyranid warriors and 20 tyranid termagaunts that can both be engaged by a tactical squad in a rhino. The warriors are the bigger threat, but rapid firing into them is likely to kill 1-2 models at the most. Do you lay in to the gaunts hoping for the kill and let the warriors have a pass?

 

With my playstyle, I tend to go with weapon efficiency over target priority. I figure that in the long run the number of models I kill will make up for the fact that I have not dealt with the absolute top priority first. On occasion I end up killing some lesser threats and ignoring the big elephant in the room and it comes back to bite me. I just can't stand to possibly 'waste' a lot of shooting at something I might not hurt. I want to hear from some others though. I am trying to reconcile the 'target priority' mindset with the 40k rules system that has different weapon and target characteristics.

 

-Myst

[Captain Idaho]

Although some interesting points, it is worth mentioning that it doesn't always have to be a direct match up between the most efficient weapon vs it's most vulnerable target. Sometimes there are times when a target needs to die or be weakened even to the exclusion of inefficient weapon selection.

 

As an example, you might find that those dual Heavy Bolters on your Landspeeders and Predator with Autocannon and Heavy bolters, which you would prefer to be firing at those Tyranid Warriors, need to be used against that Trygon that just popped up about to munch through your Tactical squad holding your objective, which although armed with a Plasma gun in rapid fire range and Lascannon can't deal with the Tyrgon on his own.

 

Desparate times call for desparate measures, where as sometimes you just need to concentrate on something more pressing and re-aline target priority later.

 

I know you have acknowledged this already, but I felt it bares emphasising. On the whole I would agree that weapon efficiency is very important and should be a priority, but we should all be careful not to use weapon efficiency to the deteriment of your game.

[Tanhausen]

Interesting "problems".

 

IMO, its more of concentrating fire. Unless you play a VERY shooty army, usually you can only take 3-5 objectives (talking a 2000 points). And rarely do you get more than 2 turns of freely shooting, usually only 1.

 

To your examples:

 

1.- I'd go for the devastators, no doubt. There is no way I'm gonna blow up the LR and its difficult to pound the rhinos... play it safe. You know that probably you are going to suffer assault next turn, so do prepare the LS to fire next round onto the assaulting squad (since it is so scary, it means it will probably overrun you).

 

2.- I wouldn't shoot: I'd assault the gaunts if possible. You are not going to destroy the 20 gaunts, so you will be engaged in CC in his turn and won't be a target.

 

Another scenario:

 

An Ork is throwing 2 big mobs at you: 1 assault and 1 nob bikers. You have 2x10 marines, which you know are in serious trouble if it get to CC. Instead of trying to rapid fire both... I'd concentrate all of the power on 1 unit...probably the assault one. Why? Because 40 bolter shots are going to deliver something like 12 wounds (I'm assuming AP5 takes aways saves). If that doesn't destroy them, hopefully they will flee. If I shoot the nobs, I'll be delivering some 8 wounds, that will probably be saved (3+?)... hence with luck you'll kill a nob, maybe 2... the unit won't even notice it and you have exactly the same situation...but now you have already fired!

 

Hope it helps :P

[Mysticaria]

Although some interesting points, it is worth mentioning that it doesn't always have to be a direct match up between the most efficient weapon vs it's most vulnerable target. Sometimes there are times when a target needs to die or be weakened even to the exclusion of inefficient weapon selection.

 

Exactly, when do you make this call? Is it just a gut feeling about "OMG that has to go now" or is there something more to it? Also, how far down the ineficiency scale will you go to take that threat on? If you have a weapon that is nearly useless will you still go for the 'desperate measures' as it were? Is this likely to be one question that is just too situational to answer?

 

My default position is "match the gun to the scariest thing it can reasonably kill" and then get away from that only when things start becoming "really scary". Is that a valid strategy?

 

-Myst

[Vanor]

If you have a weapon that is nearly useless will you still go for the 'desperate measures' as it were?

 

Depends on if there's something more productive you can do with that unit vs how low the odds of having any effect are.

 

If you have almost no real chance of doing anything, like a ST 8 attack vs a Land Raiders AV14, I'd say the odds are so low it's not worth it, and you are better off shooting something else. However if you were to have say a ST 10 attack vs the AV14... Then given the better odds of having an effect I'd go for it.

[Wildfire]

Is this likely to be one question that is just too situational to answer?

 

This. It's just too hard to give a blanket answer to this. You seem to have the concept down, all you can do is hope you choose right.

[mowglie]

One thing you can do is evaluate the priority target, and fire things with good efficiency against it first*.

 

That way, if your single MMAB blows up the rhino, your Typhoons can fire against something else.

 

* Actually, it's possibly better to express it as "fire things with poor efficiency against everything else against it first".

[Velkairiwyth]

It is a very good question... And one I think I have the most problems with.

 

Against a mech army, I divvy my shots about quite a lot - if I dont kill the target with a shot, if I stun it - or stop that shooty tank from shooting - Im happy with the result and move onto the next. I fire the likes of autocannons, heavy bolters at light armour, and my bigger guns against the heavier armoured shooty things... I have taken a liking to combi-meltas on sergeants and zooming up and popping tanks up close that my ranged are struggling with...

 

My biggest problem comes from tyranids.

 

Against my mate, there is generally on or two units of gaunts that either soak up fire or provide cover to those behind them, and his bigger beasties are parked in woodland so he always has a cover save. I usually try to take out some of the big threats in the first round - e.g Trygons. If Im going to open fire on these MCs I need to kill them in that round, and I find that I can end up using every single shot available against it to take it down (Ive had them regenerate from almost dead to pointless to try to take down many times.)

 

I have only won against his army once...

 

I proxied my army with Eldar - and just tore down his gaunt lines with the high volume fire, then when his bigger nasties got closer the sheer weight of fire from untangled units meant that I took down some of his bigger beasties much easier and won the battle pretty cleanly.

 

In this case - there is cannon fodder on the table, which you know you should be ignoring because they are not the threat... but if you shoot the bigger beasties you can waste a turns shooting and not even take a target out, which against tyranids means the full weight of their army is ready to charge in turn two + three... But "wasting" shots on this cannon fodder is the only time I have freed myself up from early combat and enemy cover saves to do some damage...

 

Humm...

 

No hard n fast rule, I guess it varies depending on opponent, and the army you are using...

[ImperialReaper]

I think since you need to allocate the shots of you whole army before opening fire and given that most units will have mixed weapons anyway I guess this is a fairly theoretical discussion.

 

You will not know in advance if your devastator Squad will bring your target down in in case of doubt even declare that your tactical squad will open fire on the target. Even if they are armed with bolters which may be theoretically ineffective against the chosen target.

 

Also since a squad only can shoot at the same target you are most likely to shoot a rhino with 9 bolters even if it is a 6 you need, just because you already shot your rocketlauncher at it.

[Fatuous]

While firing the right weapon at the right target makes perfect tactical sense, it is not always appropriate.

 

In any game, and during each turn, you need to focus to ensure those targets that must die do die. At teh expense of the right tool for the job if need be.

 

Example. Ork trucks, ork boys and mega armoured nobz.

 

ML for trucks, bolters for boyz and plasma for nobz is the ideal weapons to take out each unit. But distance is alot more important. If those boyz are closer than the nobz, and they have to die, then focusing fire from everything to ensure their destruction is vital, at the expense of other units, which may be about to hit your lines else where.

 

Usually this is all down to protecting what needs to be protected that turn, which is usallay troops. Firing on key targets to protect those vital troop choices over more expendable elite and HQ units. Certainly if you have to clear an objective late game.

[Captain Idaho]

Exactly, when do you make this call? Is it just a gut feeling about "OMG that has to go now" or is there something more to it? Also, how far down the ineficiency scale will you go to take that threat on? If you have a weapon that is nearly useless will you still go for the 'desperate measures' as it were? Is this likely to be one question that is just too situational to answer?

 

My default position is "match the gun to the scariest thing it can reasonably kill" and then get away from that only when things start becoming "really scary". Is that a valid strategy?

 

It is a case of when you get that feeling in you stomach that if you don't stop/cripple that opposing unit/model it is going to lose you the game. We don't normally consider Heavy Bolters good at killing tanks or MCs, but they can challenge rear armour or even the fron armour of Rhinos, and just a single wound on a MC is good work.

 

But it is also a case of having the right opportunities to use your weapons and knowing that you might not get the same chance later on to target those threatening units. One example is the Swarm Lord and his Tyrant Guard are bearing down on you and from turn 1-3 you won't be bothered so would normally consider firing your heavy bolters at those Genestealers, but then turn 4 comes by and you haven't done enough damage to hurt the Swarm Lord and now have more limited resources (attrition etc) to deal with it. If you disregarded weapon efficiency earlier on you could have spent a turn with those Heavy Bolters weakening the slow moving threat before you had more limited resources to deal with it. After all, in the closing stages of the game when both sides are reduced, it is easier to kill a couple of Genestealers you ignored than a Swarm Lord with 3+ wounds!

[death_incarnite]

i think the biggest trick to diseplined fire is not getting scarred, for instance to many times have i seen people dedicate all of their tank hunter weapons at a land raider and only destroy a weapon at long range when there could be four rhinos and a defiler that are a little to close for comfort, another thing i know this is battle 101 but i can never add enough enphasis to this. when ever two people come to fight they both come with a plan on how they will try and engage the opponent, so in ways it is like chess. the real trick of the battle is that the person who will be able to execute/adapt their plan and cripple the opponents is always the victor.

[Rogue]

I think you need to consider both aspects - target priority and effectiveness. Ask yourself 'What do I want to kill most, and what do I have that can do it?'

 

I pretty much only play against Tyranids, so in a recent game, I was constantly chosing between three different target types - gaunts, big nasties and warriors. I had a vindicator, devastators with launchers, tacs with launchers and plasma, and tacs with bolters.

 

The tacs with bolters had almost no chance of wounding the big nasties (1 in 27), so were hitting the the gaunts (as the warriors were out of their range). If I wanted to take on the tervigons or carnifex, I tried to hit it with as much heavy stuff as possible until it died, or until I ran out of guns - vindicator, missle launchers, heavy tacs. Likewise the warrior squads (due to st8+). When I went after gaunts with intent (rather than just popping bolters at them), they'd get a vindicator pie plate followed by bolter squads, followed by heavy tacs and then launchers if necessary (unless they were pinging warriors).

 

In this context, it was certainly more useful to take out whole units at a time - two damaged units can tie up two of my units in combat, preventing either from firing. One dead unit and one untouched unit can only engage one of mine, leaving the other free to continue battering other gribblies.

 

Of course, any advice like this is variable on the situation - you may want to deliberately weaken two squads to a point where neither can effectively assault you, or you can expect to finish them both off before your own turn.

 

In my most recent battle, the Doom of Thingy turned up in a crowded area and started dropping marines something horrible. In that turn, I was prepared to fire everything st8+ I had at him until he died, but wouldn't have bothered with bolters. Why? He already had 10 wounds from some lucky rolls on arrival, and the limited chance of bolter damage (1 in 9) from the few I had in range would easily have been gained back in the next turn, so I figured they'd be more use popping a few gaunts before they died.

 

In short, pick you target, and hit it with everything that has a reasonable chance of doing damage until it dies; but don't waste firepower that is unlikely to scratch you main target when it could be put to better use elsewhere.