Midfield or flank?

[raganrkob]

I just wondered how do people tend to play with marines. Do you go straight for midfield domination? attack a weak flank? or even draw the enemy towards you with your firepower? perhaps a combination of the two?

Or does it depend on how the opponent plays? or his/her list?

 

I started to wonder about this because one of my last games was against a Tau player that deployed in the middle of his deployment zone (it was a pitched battle, annihilation) with lots of fire warriors, broadsides, hammerheads and pathfinders and had very good lanes of fire to concentrate on the centre of the board specially.

I had two tacs and one sternguard squad in rhinos and my main units supported by a couple of predators, sniper scouts and a dread. So I could either go for the middle and trust my armour and try to close distance as fast as I could, or try to flank him so he couldn't concentrate all his firepower and forcing him to move/redeploy...

In the end I went for the flanking option (maybe some old habits from my Wood Elves :lol:) and it was a very close game but I won in the end.

 

So how do you guys usually do it?

[greatcrusade08]

you have to be tactically felxible IMO, if the opponent shows a weak flank, attack it... if hes set up in a way that requires a more centralised push, then thats the plan of the day.

its really just a complex rock/scissors/paper thing

[DarkGuard]

Now I think about it, I never attack down the middle or the flank. Rather, I attack off-centre as it were, depending on terrain and the propensity of anti-tank weapons to take out my vehicles. Normally I try to attack with at least two of my units, with another supporting it behind, although depending on the opposition and situation they may fan out. But as GC08 says, it really does depend, and you should be flexible in your deployment and approach.

[thade]

Like GC08 says, I don't really have a favorite approach; my favorite approach is "dynamic", I guess. :D

 

If the opponent deploys centrally, spread out along his/her deployment line, or breaks their force into two detachments, there's a good chance I'll try to pit my entire force against half of his/her force (which usually means a flanking deployment). If the two detachments are very wide spread and well-suited to hold whatever they're after (usually objectives) then I may have to break my force into two detachments as well. Sometimes it's even keel (i.e. I don't expect one detachment to get to the other any time soon, so each detachment is equal - as best it can be - to whatever it needs to engage). Sometimes I can tempt fate a bit (pit a handful of specialists against one detachment...like Mephiston + a shield-bearing Vanguard and another melee IC all by themselves to tie up one detachment, the rest of my force against the other), meaning that after I've dealt with one group of enemies, I can reallocate forces to help my hard strike team.

 

It's never that simple and varies game to game, but I feel the best way to answer these questions is to explain how I think about them. Really, there's no single correct method...but a manner about which you approach given situations. The approach is maybe what is most important to learn and evaluate.

 

Depending on table set up and enemy deployment I have at times made a solid push centrally with hard-to-kill units (land raider, storm shield models, mean ICs) and skirted the edges with tacticals and fire power to support the middle. Doesn't always play out that way though. While typically my opponent will focus on the massive monster in the center, they might instead go for my scoring units (who are flanking on the sides)...which changes how I move and what I attempt to engage.

 

There are a lot of variables. :D So it's hard to really say I have a favorite, and that's what I really like about the game. Never know what you're going to come up against next.

[Something Wycked]

There are a lot of variables. B) So it's hard to really say I have a favorite, and that's what I really like about the game. Never know what you're going to come up against next.

How very Water Warrior of you B)

 

@raganrkob: Check out Silent Requiem's Water Warrior article at the top of my signature, if you haven't read it already. My "strategy" is to bring an army list full of units that support each other well. My game play is determined by my opponent's codex, army composition, and deployment- I gather intelligence on what his personal objectives are based on those things and act upon what I predict he will do on turn one and going forward.

 

In your example, you correctly identified that your opponent wanted to pour copious amounts of firepower into midfield; he wants midfield to be his killing ground, so avoid midfield. There's a few ways to play this: stream down one or both flanks, making use of cover as best as possible; Infiltrate/Outflank/Deep Strike to avoid his killing ground; you can even use terrain to negate his firepower and bait him into coming to you and then pounce on him (but be careful of pouncing onto bait units used solely to pull you into the open so he can bring his firepower to bear.)

 

Like others have said, flexibility is key. In my opinion, the worst thing you can do is stick to some arbitrary game plan that plays right into your opponent's hands. Adapt! Improvise! Flow around the enemy's strong point like the sea around a rock, and crash into their weak points with the force of a tsunami.

[thade]

Actually, I'm glad you brought that up. I hate that article. It's his definitions and very little theory with basically zero context.

 

MUCH better to read the thread he used while designing that article. B)

[thade]

It's worth adding, perhaps, that despite the fact it was written for 4th Ed. and the literal applications (tactics) he uses in those example battles are no longer valid (i.e. they don't work anymore due to rules changes), the theories and critical thinking involved are still valid and useful. I swear by them, personally.

[Something Wycked]

Interestingly enough, I like it specifically because it has no context- that is the essence of Water :D

 

Unlike the other elements, Water fights reactively, responding to the plan of the enemy. Whereas the other elements try to dominate a particular phase, and 'inflict' their plan upon the enemy, Water has no plan other than to defeat the enemy's plan. Good Water armies use well rounded, generalist troops.

 

I could go through the phases, but there is no point, as a Water army requires an opponent in order to truly define itself.

[nurglez]

Indeed, I am rather similar to some of the other people posting here. I like to create opportunities and take advantage of them, changing how I play depending on the situation. Sometimes diving down the middle, other times flanking and deepstriking. If my opponent knows what my next move will be, I'm at a disadvantage.

 

While I often choose to go second and very rarely seize the initiative, sometimes I will try, just so they cant rely on me always going second, keeping them second guessing :down:

[greatcrusade08]

Interestingly enough, I like it specifically because it has no context- that is the essence of Water ^_^

 

ah yes, silent requiems school of tactics..

[Brother Tual]

MUCH better to read the thread he used while designing that article

 

I dont know about that... some crazy comments in that thread

[DarkGuard]

While I often choose to go second and very rarely seize the initiative, sometimes I will try, just so they cant rely on me always going second, keeping them second guessing :tu:

 

That's interesting. You see, I normally tend to try and go first. I like controlling the game as best I can, and would prefer to be able to get my troops to midfield under the cover of smoke while also knocking out my opponent's mech. That being said, I'm incredibly unlucky, with my opponent's often winning the roll for first turn or Seizing the Initiative, and so often I end up going second as well. As such I've learnt how to deploy to minimize loses to my forces in the first turn and react well to my opponent before wresting control of the game. One example was against my brother who slyly gave me first turn to see me set up, than thanks to Sicarius and luck got first turn, before knocking out a couple of tanks. I was getting hammered after the first two turns, but my Honour Guard and lascannons turned things around and mid-way through I'd seized control of the game. This came about because I was able to adapt to the situation better and faster than him, which is something you can only learn after a lot of time playing IMO, but if you can grasp it then you should do fine in most of your games.

[greatcrusade08]

That's interesting. You see, I normally tend to try and go first.

 

with scouts i try to go first, trouble is i havent won a first turn roll in months (no kidding).. whether i go first or second i deploy last (just about everything infiltrates) so the prinicple is the same, it allows me to play a reactionary game even though i go first

[thade]

Interestingly enough, I like it specifically because it has no context- that is the essence of Water ;)

What? haha. I wouldn't say the essense of water is a lack of context; I'd say the essence of Water is that you don't have a plan when you put your models on the table. Where as Earth, Wind, and Fire each have hard-and-fast strategies before they take their models out of the case, Water does not. It definitely has context: your force and the way your opponent uses there forces makes up your context. Hence, why I like that thread. Good examples, if a bit dated.

 

His presentation isn't perfect, and I imagine reactive playing is different for everybody who employs it (really, you can't categorize all players precisel into four ways of thinking), but it's a good way of thinking about it, I feel.

[raganrkob]

I honestly never fully understood the whole elemental-style analogy, however I do have a battle plan when I deploy and I don't like to play a reactionary game (if that is what I think it is), quite the contrary I try to move in such a way that my forces my opponent to react to me. I've found that when it's me who's reacting I usually tie or lose.

 

The thing is with marines we have quite some staying power and don't depend on cover as much as other races, that gives us the advantage to play more aggressively and don't be so terrain-dependant. Also given the range of our "main weapons" (24' in most cases with 12' being optimal) having a strong midfield position gives us more options and our offensive capabilities can be used to their fullest. However the big drawback is that it's a position where one can get easily assaulted or suffer form concentrated fire.

 

Of course one must be tactically flexible and a lot of variables must be taken into account each time. But what have people found to be more viable/useful with their marines?

[thade]

When I say "play reactively" I don't mean only tit-for-tat; I mean react to what your opponent's strategy seems to be, not literally to every move he makes piecemeal. Here comes a contrived example or two that might help explain my thinking.

 

Contrived Example 1

Say my opponent deploys his force centrally (pitched); it's a BA force, a LR, lots of jump packs; he's going first. I have a lot of deployment options. I might:

• Deploy centrally and go head-to-head. That is likely what he wants with all that melee. It's both what his army seems designed to do and probably what he's most experienced at as a player. I'd be playing into his hands, but possibly I can pull it off.
  
• Deploy in a corner and try to weather him with fire as he approaches, then go head to head. He's got a lot of mobility (jump packs, the LR) so he'll get to me fast and I'll have to throw down in his world.
  
• Hold my entire force in Reserve; hope he pushes far forward and I get charges on him instead of reverse. Very risky, again because of his high mobility and charging power.
  
• Force him to split his force by deploying in two corners. I know well how my lists work in chunks of two and three; does he? He might.
  
• A combination of the latter two: hold one or two killing units in Reserve and split my force otherwise evenly. Now he's got to take into account that when he finally charges a unit, he might get counter-charged or intercepted by the unpredictable killing unit(s) off the table.
  

Which one of these deployment styles allows me to fight reactively? Answer: all of them.

 

I could deploy centrally and then move everything hard right or left; remember, this table isn't bare. There may be terrain pieces that I can put between him and myself, and his first move will predictably be toward my force (that's his goal) on his first turn, so my first turn I put my units somewhere that his shortest path to close with me puts him through terrain. Jump Packs risk checks, the LR might get immobilized. He thought we were playing his game, but now we're playing my game.

 

Contrived Example 2

My opponent is Tau and he's got like half a dozen rail guns, meaning my APCs - even my Land Raider - will probably not make it very far. He very gleefully gets first turn and deploys everything very near his table edge, intending to ground me by mid table and then eat me with Fire Warrior rapid-fire and further rail-gun pain. What are my deployment options?

• Deploy as far forward as possible, hope to seize, move, pop Smoke. Very risky...and precisely what he wants.
  
• Deploy as much as I can in cover so they can potentially survive to then push forward and pop smoke...still pushing through all of his ranged fire power.
  
• Deep Strike my Land Raider (BA codex shenanigan) right in his face; can't predict what turn it will come in on, but he knows it's coming. Hold everything else in Reserve and trust my 18" Rhinos will get scoring units where they need to be.
  

Which one of these allows me to play reactively? Answer: all of them. Granted, in this case at least the first option seems kind of dumb ;) but this doesn't take into account a lot of other options. Consider this weird Deployment option...say it's Seize Ground...

 

I combat squad my units, and deploy my empty Rhinos as far forward as possible; still DSing the Land Raider. I stick small squads on my objectives, hopefully completely out of LOS. I stick all my other combat squads as far forward as I can, either behind the Rhinos (not in them) or in Area Terrain. Now my opponent has more targets than he can fire his awesome guns at. What does he shoot? My empty Rhinos? Those have no troops, but at 18" moves they can easily get to contest range and sit in cover within his own gun-line. My troops? I control my point; he'll have to push forward fast and hard to contest it. Eventually my LR is going to land somewhere - a drop pod from hell, as it were - and he'll have to decide whether to shoot my Raider or the surviving Rhinos/squads still advancing. He may even lose sight of the objectives presented with more targets than he has magic Rail Guns.

 

A sure-win for me? Not by any means, but I'm no longer playing his game. We're playing a different game; he's got to react to me as I reacted to him.

 

Not the best examples...

 

But maybe you see where I'm headed? If I deploy first, I set my guys up such that those that can quickly redeploy appear to be going elsewhere. (I face them that direction. It's a feint.) In the Spearhead I won against a Purifier list recently, I poised my entire force as if I intended to rage forward...and on my first turn I actually rolled everything back 6" and started pinging him lightly at range. Eventually he lost patience and pushed forward himself...which was what he had prepared for me to do.

 

I don't have a plan, other than that I plan to react. If I go first, I probe. If he goes first, I monitor his first moves as if he's probing me.

 

No easy way to explain how I do things, I guess. Given specific examples I can tell you - right or wrong - how I handle it. But I have a hard time articulating any basic strategy I have. I guess my strategy is to get the other guy out of his comfort zone (insofar as the given game is concerned).

[nurglez]

The whole elemental type thing got me confused too, but it started to make sense to me after I read the water warrior one, as that is my style.

 

Adapting to the situation is king. I've been playing chaos, plague marine heavy chaos, logan wing and then Draigo wing. With the chaos I often had long range fire, havocs and 5 man squads with heavy weapons (old codex), with a few counter assault units in rhinos, the others have all been rather short/mid range armies, but I do switch between playing reactionary and forcing my opponent to react to me.

 

Realising you have several options and picking the best isn't always easy, especially when its almost all dice based. The reason I often chose to go second was because I had 3 drop pods in my logan wing force, so letting them deploy/move on in dawn of war was very much needed, and also its great having the last turn and seeing where they deploy. If I had a scout force I would probably try and go first due to placing infiltrators and such.

[Something Wycked]

I wouldn't say the essense of water is a lack of context; I'd say the essence of Water is that you don't have a plan when you put your models on the table. It definitely has context: your force and the way your opponent uses there forces makes up your context.

Exactly :) In the tactica article, there is no opponent, there is no table, there is no army list of your own. No context at all save that water fills the container it's poured into: fitting the mould of the terrain and the opposing army list and deployment.

 

I get what you're saying though- the thread has specific examples to learn from.

 

I honestly never fully understood the whole elemental-style analogy

Its actually less complicated than it seems at first, with each style nicely summed up in just a few words.

 

Fire: Highly aggressive, usually assault oriented (eg, Berzerkers in a Land Raider) though a close-range firepower force can fit this as well (GK Purifiers)

Earth: Very static or very tough army attempting to outlast the opponent (Tau/IG parking lots, Nurgle armies)

Air: Mobility, mobility, mobility. (C:SM bikers, Mechdar, etc)

Water: Reaction and control.

 

however I do have a battle plan when I deploy and I don't like to play a reactionary game (if that is what I think it is), quite the contrary I try to move in such a way that my forces my opponent to react to me. I've found that when it's me who's reacting I usually tie or lose.

Absolutely. There's two major ways to see "reactionary" gameplay; the one you're talking about speaks to the battle's initiative. Your opponent has the initiative and you're off balance, on the back foot, trying to put out fires that your opponent has started. This is certainly not the place you want to be in battle.

 

The other way of reactionary gameplay is what Thade and I do- identify the opponent's game plan and shut it down as best we can, as in Thade's excellent examples.

 

But what have people found to be more viable/useful with their marines?

I hate to say it this way because you want specifics, but whatever my opponent is bad at doing I make sure he's forced to do it. As examples, if I'm facing an assault weak/shooting strong army I do my best to get in close with them. If I'm facing an assault strong/shooting weak army, I kite them around as best I can so they can't get into assault with me while I shoot them to pieces. Marine armies are particularly suited to playing to your opponents' weakness; they're almost universally good all-rounder troops while other races are typically much more focused on one or two aspects of the game. For me, the key to winning each battle is knowing my opponent's strengths and either destroying, avoiding or mitigating that strength. The path to each victory takes unique turns depending on scenario objectives, list compositions, terrain, and deployment.

[thade]

If there's general confusion around the elements-thing, I don't mind addressing that quickly. Easy enough with some examples.

 

I don't know if S.R. is the guy that came up with the terms and their usage, but he's more or less given credit for doing so on this board (or that's my impression). Keep in mind that an army list does not intrinsically meet the definition for an element: it's the way these lists are typically played that meets the definition. First, the easy ones:

 

Fire Army: Assault and/or short range engagement armies where the entire objective is to get in your opponent's face and do as much damage as fast as you can...hopefully faster than your opponent does damage to you. Examples are Khorne Bezerkers, Blood Angel Rhino-rush, Dark Eldar.

 

Earth Army: Castles up and trust in their very long range fire power to break you or at least wear you down to the point where - when you do finally get close - what little assault elements they have can mop you up. Examples are Tau gunlines, Dev/Tank heavy shooty vanilla marine lists, the I.G. "Leaf Blower", etc.

 

Wind Army: Mobility is the key here: wind armies are the most mobile in the game and typically play a war of attrition, wearing you down with quick strikes and retreats. (Without the retreats, they're Fire). Examples are mounted Eldar lists (especially with bikes), marine bike lists, Tau battle suit lists (at least, back when they used to work).

 

Water Army: Reactive play style, typically an all-comers/balanced list that can both lay down some long ranged anti-tank fire and deal with short ranged threats. They can get in your face if they have to, but they're not focused on that aspect. You can view water as a being all and none of the other elements. At times you "go Fire", other times you "go Earth", etc., over the course of a game.

 

As I said, the armies themselves do not necessarily pigeon hole you into a play style. For instance, I often field BA "Rhino rush" list formats, but will feint and kite and play possum, not often charging in with everything right off the bat (unless it seems a good idea). A BA DoA player could run his list "as Wind", being very picky about actually locking his teams in assaults, instead hopping around and laying down bolt pistol/flamer/melta fire as needed.

[DarkGuard]

Good summary's there thade. I would make one amendment though, and that's the attrition part in Wind. Attrition warfare is more Earth or maybe Fire, but not Wind, they're too delicate for that, and are more likely to make use of hit and run tactics or isolating parts of the enemy battle line and overwhelming them.

[Zid]

I like to play super aggressive; shoving stormravens filled with deadly goodies with speeders and jump marines providing backup where needed for my Blood Angels. While this tactic works 99% of the time the other 1% it blows up in my face lol

 

I prefer to win through overwhelming force and picking taregts of opportunity because my force doesn't do well in needing to respond

[E. Severus]

I prefer to 'play' with my opponents. Because most of them here are mech imperial fisties, ultramarine "marneus calgar is the best!"-newbies and agressive khorne/ dark eldar armies, I like to let them come, shoot them, slow them down, shoot 'em, slow 'em down, ticklle thier flanks with cheap assault squads and so on. Mostly it's first turn sternguard drop pod + heavy long rang fire and taking out transports . 2nd turn, bolters and plasma's all the way, storm raven melta punch. 3d turn Assault squads with 2 IP's, more long range fire, drop dreadnought, rhino's go forward and pop smoke. 4th Turn, within rapid fire, vengeance kills marines, rhino's deploy. 5th turn, finished!

This, however, divers from army to army. It only works against Fire/Wind, but 'cause thats what I'm playing against most of the time...

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Earth Army: Castles up and trust in their very long range fire power to break you or at least wear you down to the point where - when you do finally get close - what little assault elements they have can mop you up. Examples are Tau gunlines, Dev/Tank heavy shooty vanilla marine lists, the I.G. "Leaf Blower", etc.

 

Wind Army: Mobility is the key here: wind armies are the most mobile in the game and typically play a war of attrition, wearing you down with quick strikes and retreats. (Without the retreats, they're Fire). Examples are mounted Eldar lists (especially with bikes), marine bike lists, Tau battle suit lists (at least, back when they used to work).

 

Water Army: Reactive play style, typically an all-comers/balanced list that can both lay down some long ranged anti-tank fire and deal with short ranged threats. They can get in your face if they have to, but they're not focused on that aspect. You can view water as a being all and none of the other elements. At times you "go Fire", other times you "go Earth", etc., over the course of a game.

 

As I said, the armies themselves do not necessarily pigeon hole you into a play style. For instance, I often field BA "Rhino rush" list formats, but will feint and kite and play possum, not often charging in with everything right off the bat (unless it seems a good idea). A BA DoA player could run his list "as Wind", being very picky about actually locking his teams in assaults, instead hopping around and laying down bolt pistol/flamer/melta fire as needed.

 

I think Tau play more as a para-elemental, to use a D&D term.

Earth and Water and Wind, or Flying Mud ;) if you like.

:tu:

 

Tau are not as shooty as Guard. To compete, they need to collapse away from the enemy, which they can do well with JSJ on the Crisis suits, Multi-tracker on the Hammerheads [allowing them to shoot as per a fast vehicle] and perhaps even ASS on the Broadsides. [confering Relentless]

 

Over on the White Scars blog [which is in my signature] Stillfrosty and I have spoken about how similar Tau and Bikemarines play, overall.

 

I know you have included both gunline and battlesuit lists, but nowadays, they conform to a mono-build as per YTTH and 3++. I know some dudes hate the idea that there can be only just one way, but in practise, I have not seen anything work other than:

 

Crisis with plasma and missiles ~ Fireknife

Crisis with twin-linked missiles ~ Deathrain

Broadsides, either ASS or Target Array [for +1bs]

Kroot flocks

Piranhas with melta gun and Dpod

1 Firewarrior team, hidden in a Devilfish

Perhaps one Pathfinder team, donating their Devilfish to the Firewarriors.

[thade]

To be fair, those were all examples to fit stereotypes (in order to explain what the elemental terms meant). They were definitely not meant to be exhaustive, nor were they meant to explain everything about the armies mentioned. They were only there to explain things. Surely you can play Tau as Fire or Wind...but the stereotypical Tau gun-line sits there and leverages it's stupid number of rail guns. ;) Easy way to explain what the "Earth" term means.

 

@DG: Hit-and-Run tactics where you leverage high mobility and whittle your opponent down has always been Wind-centric in my mind. These terms are far from hard-and-fast defined though, and I can see whittle-down tactics being used by a Fire Army...tho I'd accuse them of being Wind when they do. ;)