++ TACTICAL OBSERVATION 02: CONCENTRATION & MANEUVER ++

[Iron Father Ferrum]

So I've put in a good six more games since my last TacObs article, so I feel sufficiently strongly about this next topic to start a discussion on it. Namely, the importance of maneuver and specifically, the need to provide a concentration of force at a decisive point.

 

For an example of this, I'll reference a game I played against an ork player. His army, roughly speaking, was two 30 man mobs of boyz, one 10 man mob of boys, two 10 man mobs of storm boys, some flash glitz, lootas, a couple of trucks, three killer kans, two weird boys, a war boss, a big mek with KFF, and the special character stormboy boss. Agains this, I pitted my Iron Hands in a Gunline configuration: some mechanized Tac Squads, two Thunderfire Cannons, a Ven Dread, an Ironclad, and a Stormtalon, supported by a captain, LT, and Techmarine with conversion Beamer.

 

I wiped him in four turns and lost only about five Tactical Marines. How did I achieve such a fantastic kill ratio? I was able to maneuver my forces better, and I was able to concentrate my forces faster.

 

So to really bring this home, we have to look at deployment. There were four objectives on the tables, one each in the DZs and two more spread out along the centerline of the table. I concentrated my early deployment in my right back corner of the table, setting up my Gunline with Hunter, TFCs, Razorbacks, Talon, Ven Dread, and HQs. As I deployed all these long range guns, he of course deployed his foot mobiles and one of the trucks directly across from them in order to have the least possible distance to get into combat. Then I placed my Ironclad and a Rhino on my left flank, way out alone, deliberately to sucker him into placing the Stormboy groups (he added the mechanized flash gitz for good measure) out on the flank.

 

Thus, when the game began and I radically shifted my Rhino and Ironclad from the left to the center, he was forced to follow suit. But since I was moving along the back end of the table and he had to cross the entire table now at a diagonal, I was able to keep the Stormboyz out of the fight long enough to clear out his main mass of maneuver with my concentrated force. What he didn't realize when he counter deployed on my left was that the units he was countering contributed not at all to my initial firepower. I was not diluting my initial concentration of force while at the same time, by kiting his jumpers across half the table, I was turning off his ability to disrupt my gunline with his fastest units.

 

An example where I failed to achieve concentration was against a Tau player with my Alpha Legion. I infiltrated chainsword CSMs, Raptors, and Berzekers and landed first turn charges... But I was fighting against his screen line of Ghostkeel and stealth suits. Rather than combine my charges to ensure I could wipeout my charge targets, I spread them out and attacked across a broad frontage. The result, combined with some admittedly poor dice rolls, was that I did not wipe a single unit I charged and of course having FLY they simply jumped away and erased my entire infiltration force through the application of superior firepower. I maneuvered poorly and did not achieve concentration and as a result I got creamed.

 

Unfortunately there's no way to really provide a template for how to maneuver for concentration, or to maneuver to dilute enemy concentration. This concept is so heavily reliant on force composition, objectives, terrain, and deployment that there's really not much specific advice I can give. The best I can do is to point this out as a tactical concept to employ.

 

As always, any comments or questions are appreciated!

[WarriorFish]

Deployment is a very important part of the game, as it's one of the foundations of the entire battle (along with lists and mission). I'd argue that without good deployment you can't really control the game, the Ork battle is a good example of what not to do on your opponent's behalf. He didn't acknowledge that they weren't going to be doing much early game and so was baited accordingly. For you it was a riskless plan, as you'd have pulled them in just the same with the same minor inconvenience. A great start to a game, letting you take the initiative and implement your plans

 

I've long worked my armies into what I call "cells" of units intended to support each other, as it works well both in table top effectiveness and compartmentalisation of your battle strategy and tactical implementation. You could call this localised concentration perhaps? The trick is to be flexible with them, so nothing is "tied" to anything else. In 8th it works very well with auras and the like so you'll often be able to use a character as the central piece. Maximising said auras goes a long way, and that means getting your forces to work closely together.

 

I've had good success with this, even to the degree of concentrating my entire army together - though only in smaller games I don't think I'd recommend this in larger ones. Localised superiority allows you to get a leg up and theoretically continue this. Even if your opponent responds in kind (which he probably should) that initial advantage should help you on your way to victory

[Iron Father Ferrum]

What you're describing is the WW2 German kampfgruppe or battle group, whereby the Germans would cherry pick individual companies and battalions to create ad hoc units specialized to a specific mission or objective. Modern militaries use the same system to create what we in the US Army call a task force, though the German method was less rigid than the modern American one. Some commanders, like Rommel, were really good at reorganizing their battle groups on the fly and the German staff system and NCO training made them extremely good at this kind of rapid realignment.

 

Applying that to 40K (not just 40K; i did it with BattleTech for years before I started playing 40K) is pretty natural. I generally divide my forces during list building into a base of fire group and a maneuver group. Some units I deliberately plan to begin as part of one group but transition them to the other as need arises; this reason is why I make such heavy use of Razorbacks and specifically the old las/plas variant. They're useful to provide long range antitank fires with their lascannons as part of a gunline but since they carry Tacticals and features good short range firepower as well, I can transition them to a mobile task force to take or contest objectives as needed.

[WarriorFish]

I generally take Dreads for many reasons I probably don't need to allude to ;) Gives me some range and punch which helps as usually my opponents are more mobile and/or are coming to me anyway so there's limited scope for real manoeuvrer games, so I don't really need the extra movement. I find this flexibility works well for me, as the Tacs and Dreads complement each other nicely, it also feels very Space Mariney :)

[chapter master 454]

It defines why movement is the hidden sleeper key statistic in any battle.

"It isn't about who has the most force. It is who applied it the best"

 

In a similar vain, way back when back in 5th edition I wrote the article regarding Earth Style tactics (of the group of 4 relating to the elements and those forms of gameplay: Water came first then I followed with Earth if I remember right then two others I believe did complete it with Air then Fire). Back then, I put great importance on deployment and setting up firing lines that weren't meant to get massive kills but force units into one unit or another. Ofcourse back then line of sight wasn't such a joke! However it still stands in your observations and relates to how the Earth style functioned: defensive firepower focused on breaking the assault with key shots.

 

Some common things however can be discerned about the game: Always target key play-makers. If you can point to one unit in your army that can make the plays, no matter what they are then there is something wrong with your list. These kind of units will only work if they are the annoying Smash-Master type of unit who gets hidden like a goblin fanatic then once in range kicked out from the group (and by kicked out I mean put on a short 1" leash!) from their bodyguards. 

 

One is target practice, Two is a threat!

This is something I learned building lists for my friend who is playing Tau. We were running triple riptides with 2 running Heavy Burst Cannons and 1 Ion Accelerator. As his regular opponent and observer in others, I noticed that the Ion riptide very rarely got to live past turn 2 (in fact, in every game I faced it due to my armour bias I always ensured its destruction) but then noticed that the Heavy Burst Cannon Riptides always seemed to take far longer to get rid of for something reason. It wasn't just the 3++ they get but the fact that there is two of them makes them far more potent. Now we have shifted his list to using three Riptides with the exact same loadout (for those xenos scum wondering and who know: HBC, 2xFB, Target Lock and ATS...makes their HBC an avenger gatling cannon! So disgustingly good!) and that has helped immensely as now there isn't one identifiable anti-tank unit. Granted they don't hit hard, but the famous addage "Quantity has a Quality all its own".

 

Kind of why i believe knights are quite powerful or are currently perceived to be. Normally you only see 1. But like I said, once you double that number and go beyond 2 now we are looking at trouble because you can't single out the one problem as they are all problems! Knights have the brilliant advantage that they need no "tax" units and thus 100% of points are spent on threatening the opponent...to be fair though I did have a game last week that was disgusting...my castellan...uhh...one shotted a Spartan Assault Tank in one go with the volcano lance...it was filthy. I showered...and showered...it still doesn't come off!

 

Anyway, disgress aside the core concept stands: If Infantry win firefights, tanks win battles and artillery win wars then good movement wins campaigns!

[Lysere]

I have to agree very heavily with the movement wins campaigns, deployment being an extension of that.

 

My previous game was against deathguard running six 5-man marine squads with triple plasma, Morty himself, a pair of DPs and three rhinos for the marines to ride in. This gives him a roughly 27" threat range for double tap with the plasma turn one, turn two there's no way to keep him far enough away. Knowing this I deployed just out of that double tap range. He had the first turn, had to get close to do his job, and I was playing mostly knights. (Valiant, Crusader, Gallant, Helverin, and some Scions)

 

The game ended with me having a 7 point lead and soon to table him despite some below average rolls for most of the game, all because his entire first turn was wasted because he had to get closer to do anything to me while only part of my army needed to get close. Yes I didn't play perfectly, but I locked him into the middle and kept him there while I was free to reposition to better engage his army.

 

If I hadn't deployed far enough away to limit his first turn it could have easily ended up the other way around.