Maximise your chances of winning Warhammer Fantasy Battles

[Tarrowhin]

The posts on Ulthuan.net often cover the same or similar topics and questions, so I thought I’d throw in something a little different for your consideration, Gentle Reader.

There are some ‘battle winning principles’ that the (British) military is taught. When properly applied these are considered to give you an advantage over your enemy and increase your chances of winning a combat.

Should these real-world factors apply to wargaming - and fantasy gaming in particular? I think so. We are wargaming, and fighting Warhammer Fantasy Battles, so aspects of real war should have some relevance, surely? Even if you disagree, scan what follows and I suspect you’ll find that you are already doing some of the things suggested, but maybe not consciously. If the ideas below strike a chord, then try them out. It can’t do any harm - and it’s quite fun!

So what are these ‘battle winning principles’? Many factors contribute to success in battle (such as seizing and holding the initiative and getting inside your opponent’s decision making process), but defeating an enemy at the tactical level comes down fundamentally to shattering his cohesion as a fighting force. Cohesion is the glue that holds a force together and keeps it fighting; break it apart and you win. Shattering the enemy’s cohesion is best done by applying as much as possible of the following to your opponent (official military definitions in italics):

• Firepower. Firepower destroys, neutralises, suppresses and demoralises. It provides the violent, destructive force to amplify the effects of the three other means of attacking cohesion. It can be delivered remotely or in close combat. The effects of firepower are transitory; it will not win a battle on its own, and must be used in concert with the other three factors below.

• Tempo. Tempo is the rhythm or rate of activity, relative to the enemy. It seeks to pose increasingly compelling threats with which the enemy is unable to cope. A high tempo enables the shifting of threats from one place to another on the battlefield, ultimately making any orders issued by the opponent irrelevant and ineffective. Tempo is relative to the enemy so does not necessarily mean ‘fast-moving’.

• Simultaneity. Simultaneity seeks to overload the enemy commander. He is attacked or threatened from so many angles at once that he is denied the ability to concentrate on one problem at a time. He faces menacing dilemmas about how and where to react; he is torn in different directions and finds it hard to respond coherently. Simultaneity does not necessarily mean ‘simultaneous’ and does not equate to a ‘swarming horde’ approach; a massed charge actually gives the opponent few decisions to make - it is a simply a case of ‘fire at will’. Simultaneity presents the enemy commander with so many difficult dilemmas, one following quickly after another, that he becomes ‘punch drunk’ and ceases to respond effectively.

• Surprise. Surprise is fundamental to shattering the enemy’s cohesion. Time is the key factor. Absolute surprise is an important bonus, but relative surprise is the crucial effect to be achieved. Surprise is created in the opponent’s mind, either in the commander and/or rank and file troops.

An illustration of the importance of these factors in a fantasy context is the initial attack by the Rohirrim at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. The assault by the Riders of the Mark did not kill every orc between the Rammas Echor and Minas Tirith. But a lot of orcs were slaughtered: firepower. However, ‘all’ firepower does is amplify the effects of the other factors: greater tempo (launching the assault before the orcs could respond effectively, rendering Gothmog’s and the Witch King’s previous orders to conclude the assault on the city irrelevant); simultaneity (causing both the Witch King and Gothmog a dilemma about how to deal with a major new threat, thereby loosing the initiative); and surprise (relative, not absolute, because the orcs did react, but not quickly or effectively enough. Also, surprise was achieved both among the rank and file and in the minds of the commanders).

So the principles are applicable to the Lord of the Rings; as they are to real-world warfare – and to Warhammer.

There is one more principle that should be added because it can moderate the use of the principles above. This is not so much to do with breaking down the enemy’s cohesion but a more general approach to commanding your forces. It is called ‘strength versus weakness’. The idea is that you neutralise or make irrelevant the enemy’s strengths while ensuring that you can bring your strengths to bear on his weaknesses. Tricky - but a great result if you can pull it off! Actually, we all try to do this anyway, albeit subconsciously most of the time. For example you might try to neutralise Dark Elf hydras by march-blocking with eagles or with a magic combination based on Beast Cowers. Who would dream of engaging the Black Guard in an attritional toe to toe combat? Shoot the buggers! At the same time as doing this, you’re manoeuvring your Dragon Princes plus BSB with Battle Banner for a clear run at a weaker unit that they will overrun and so cause mayhem in the Dark Elf battle line. We try to do this sort of stuff all the time - it’s just that we rarely stop to think consciously about what we’re doing.

So how is all this of use when planning and fighting a WFB? It’s all to do with weighing up different Army lists and battle plans to see which will be most effective. Take the four principles for shattering enemy cohesion and use them as criteria against which to weigh up the various army lists that you’re thinking of using. If you’ve got so far as to make one or more battle plan(s), do the same for these.

Take two army lists (both worth approx 2,250 points):

List A

Prince on griffon
Mage
Dragon Princes X 5 & BSB
Dragon Princes X 5
Dragon Princes X 5
Dragon Princes X 5
Dragon Princes X 5
Dragon Princes X 5
RBT
Archers x 10
Archers x 10

List B

Prince on star dragon
Mage
Dragon Princes X 5 & BSB
Phoenix Guard x 17
White Lions x 15
Swordsmasters x 7
Lion chariot
Eagle
Archers x 10
Archers x 10

Don’t worry about unit command, precise magic and whether or not they are ‘hard’ lists or not; this is just an example (although both lists are, hopefully, vaguely reasonable).

Now use the four principles for destroying enemy cohesion to score these lists. Score each list against firepower, tempo, simultaneity and surprise, giving each a score out of 10 against each criterion. Do this based on your subjective ‘gut feel’. If you like, help yourself with the decision-making process by writing down the factors influencing your score before you assign the final number. Remember that ‘firepower’ is the ability to cause casualties by any means (not just shooting), simultaneity means ‘lots of threats’ and tempo is having more ‘manoeuvrability’ relative to your enemy. Surprise is admittedly tricky because WFB don’t really allow for it, but it could include bound spells, hidden magic items, scouts etc (doh - I can feel another thread coming on about the lack of opportunity in WFB to surprise the enemy!).

Then simply add up the four scores for each list and, the Winds of Azyr willing, the list with the highest score will give you the best chance of shattering your opponent’s cohesion - and winning!

I’m not going to tell you the scores I got for these two lists - that would be pointless because everyone is using their own subjective marks and will probably come up with different results - it’s all personal, remember. For the sake of the continuing thread let’s say that List A comes out on top.

Now you need to bring in the ‘strength versus weakness’ consideration. Let’s say you’re up against a Dark Elf opponent who likes to field two hydras in a 2,250 point army. Sure, you might beat these by throwing Dragon Princes at them - but let’s try to be cleverer than that. How can the hydras be neutralised - made irrelevant - rather than bludgeoned to death using up your own strength to do so? Maybe changing the RBT for a couple of eagles to march-block them? Ditch the griffon and bring in a second mage with the Seerstaff to ensure Beast Cowers?

What you’re aiming for is a list of the enemy’s most dangerous threats and, against each, the options you have for countering it. Ideally you neutralise each threat with expendable (or at least cheaper) units or capabilities, leaving your strengths free to exploit the enemy’s weaknesses. Your strengths aren’t necessarily units and could include magic, shooting or whatever. Sometimes you will have no option but to put your strength up against the enemy strength, but at least the method above makes you consider the alternatives and hopefully leaves your strengths free to wreak havoc!

You will need to consider character choices in all of this. Maybe you scored the Prince on a griffon higher than, say, Tyrion in terms of delivering more firepower (with the griffon’s attacks), tempo (20” flying is still better than Malhandir’s 20” terrestrial trotting), simultaneity (if Tyrion’s in a unit somewhere) and surprise (if the Prince has an undisclosed magic set-up). BUT if you think your strength (Lord) is likely to face a specific situation or foe then you might need to ‘over-rule’ your scoring. If you fancy Tyrion’s chances against a hydra more than you do a griffon-mounted Prince’s then adjust your list accordingly.

The point is that you are ‘playing tunes’ with a basically sound list to ensure that you have considered the primary enemy threats - and know how you’ll counter them. This might have repercussions for your original scores using the four criteria - but this playing about during the planning of your list and the tactics you’ll use is half the fun.

The last step is to allocate your strengths against the enemy’s weaknesses. ‘Strength’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘hard hitting unit’ although it might well do. If you have a strong magic phase then neutralising enemy threats by other means leaves you free to wield your magic against juicier targets! Likewise shooting and even intangible strengths like greater manoeuvrability. Similarly, the enemy’s weaknesses are not always units; it might be an inability to move quickly, his mages if they get caught in combat - or whatever.

You should end up with a strong list that maximises your chances of shattering the enemy’s cohesion while neutralising his primary threats and bringing your own strengths to bear against his weaknesses. You obviously still need to deploy then play your list well on the tabletop - but at least you should have maximised your chances of winning. Enjoy

[Musashi]

• Firepower. Firepower destroys, neutralises, suppresses and demoralises. It provides the violent, destructive force to amplify the effects of the three other means of attacking cohesion. It can be delivered remotely or in close combat. The effects of firepower are transitory; it will not win a battle on its own, and must be used in concert with the other three factors below.

Especially in regard to High Elves, as our arsenal only allow a judicial application of it that allow us to either use it as powerful sniping tool in the form of our RBT and magic bows, or in a light medium range missile form via longbow/bow, which can lightly brush off poorly armoured, low toughness troops, but is overwhelmed when faced with multiple threats, especially divided on several axis.

• Tempo. Tempo is the rhythm or rate of activity, relative to the enemy. It seeks to pose increasingly compelling threats with which the enemy is unable to cope. A high tempo enables the shifting of threats from one place to another on the battlefield, ultimately making any orders issued by the opponent irrelevant and ineffective. Tempo is relative to the enemy so does not necessarily mean ‘fast-moving’.

The High Elves are favoured in this area, as not only do we have an overall higher rate of movement, our lower unit numbers and the Skeinsliver tend to give us the initiative as well.

• Simultaneity. Simultaneity seeks to overload the enemy commander. He is attacked or threatened from so many angles at once that he is denied the ability to concentrate on one problem at a time. He faces menacing dilemmas about how and where to react; he is torn in different directions and finds it hard to respond coherently. Simultaneity does not necessarily mean ‘simultaneous’ and does not equate to a ‘swarming horde’ approach; a massed charge actually gives the opponent few decisions to make - it is a simply a case of ‘fire at will’. Simultaneity presents the enemy commander with so many difficult dilemmas, one following quickly after another, that he becomes ‘punch drunk’ and ceases to respond effectively.

Usually, we only have to worry about this from our opponents if we either plan to castle or to counter-attack (as the primary strategy) - ASF is usually a very forgiving rule. If we're blitzing, we should have a schwerpunkt since we usually cannot afford to get stuck in combat, and at 2K this usually revolves around the Commander (with or without a Lizard), Dragon Princes and a Lion Chariot, making it obvious that other threats are exactly what they're meant to be, distractions. It does get more interesting in really large games.

• Surprise. Surprise is fundamental to shattering the enemy’s cohesion. Time is the key factor. Absolute surprise is an important bonus, but relative surprise is the crucial effect to be achieved. Surprise is created in the opponent’s mind, either in the commander and/or rank and file troops.

Why does this not startle me?

An illustration of the importance of these factors in a fantasy context is the initial attack by the Rohirrim at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. The assault by the Riders of the Mark did not kill every orc between the Rammas Echor and Minas Tirith. But a lot of orcs were slaughtered: firepower. However, ‘all’ firepower does is amplify the effects of the other factors: greater tempo (launching the assault before the orcs could respond effectively, rendering Gothmog’s and the Witch King’s previous orders to conclude the assault on the city irrelevant); simultaneity (causing both the Witch King and Gothmog a dilemma about how to deal with a major new threat, thereby loosing the initiative); and surprise (relative, not absolute, because the orcs did react, but not quickly or effectively enough. Also, surprise was achieved both among the rank and file and in the minds of the commanders).

You have to distinguish between missile combat, which can be defined by firepower and is at a distance, and shock combat, which is whien you can see the face of your enemy up close, usually combining both close-in weaponry multiplied by speed to create momentum.

So the principles are applicable to the Lord of the Rings; as they are to real-world warfare – and to Warhammer.

There is one more principle that should be added because it can moderate the use of the principles above. This is not so much to do with breaking down the enemy’s cohesion but a more general approach to commanding your forces. It is called ‘strength versus weakness’. The idea is that you neutralise or make irrelevant the enemy’s strengths while ensuring that you can bring your strengths to bear on his weaknesses. Tricky - but a great result if you can pull it off! Actually, we all try to do this anyway, albeit subconsciously most of the time. For example you might try to neutralise Dark Elf hydras by march-blocking with eagles or with a magic combination based on Beast Cowers. Who would dream of engaging the Black Guard in an attritional toe to toe combat? Shoot the buggers! At the same time as doing this, you’re manoeuvring your Dragon Princes plus BSB with Battle Banner for a clear run at a weaker unit that they will overrun and so cause mayhem in the Dark Elf battle line. We try to do this sort of stuff all the time - it’s just that we rarely stop to think consciously about what we’re doing.

This is a rather desperate act, as we hope to achieve by missile attrition what we cannot either do by Magic or risk through direct confrontation, achieve a parity in which it's possible for our melee troops to have a good chance to overcome the Black Guard, should it be decided to permit them to engage.

What you’re aiming for is a list of the enemy’s most dangerous threats and, against each, the options you have for countering it. Ideally you neutralise each threat with expendable (or at least cheaper) units or capabilities, leaving your strengths free to exploit the enemy’s weaknesses. Your strengths aren’t necessarily units and could include magic, shooting or whatever. Sometimes you will have no option but to put your strength up against the enemy strength, but at least the method above makes you consider the alternatives and hopefully leaves your strengths free to wreak havoc!

For us, even minimum Core shouldn't be lightly expended except when no other alternative exists.

The last step is to allocate your strengths against the enemy’s weaknesses. ‘Strength’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘hard hitting unit’ although it might well do. If you have a strong magic phase then neutralising enemy threats by other means leaves you free to wield your magic against juicier targets! Likewise shooting and even intangible strengths like greater manoeuvrability. Similarly, the enemy’s weaknesses are not always units; it might be an inability to move quickly, his mages if they get caught in combat - or whatever.

Prioritize and recognize current and potential threats.

You should end up with a strong list that maximises your chances of shattering the enemy’s cohesion while neutralising his primary threats and bringing your own strengths to bear against his weaknesses. You obviously still need to deploy then play your list well on the tabletop - but at least you should have maximised your chances of winning. Enjoy

If all else fails, you still have the Caledorian Gambit.

[geoguswrek]

I think you miss one, i'm sure it isn't taught by the army, but it is true. hardiness: survivable units, that can take what the enemy throw at them and keep going.

for example a bsb with the helm of fortune and DP kit, giving him a 1+ save. I can put this in front of an entire DE gunline, and be pretty sure i'll still be going at the end of the turn (unless they have bolt throwers and single shot). These units add something that doesn't fit in the other categories.

[SpellArcher]

Tarrowhin you are always good value.

"Shoot the buggers!"

That's sig material if ever I saw it...

[Citizen Militia]

This was a great read and I found myself agreeing with almost all of what you put. Though I think people aren't fully understanding what you meant by things like Firepower and tempo... As you said

The effects of firepower are transitory; it will not win a battle on its own

Remember that ‘firepower’ is the ability to cause casualties by any means

Firepower is just there to give the enemy something to think about and assist the other categories. 5 DPs have incredible firepower on the charge but nothing to offer really in the second round of combat. Hence unless the tempo is right their firepower is useless.

Other firepower I use is RBTs which are brilliant for neutralising opponents weaknesses. I use it to take out enemy warmachines so that they cant hurt me and also stubborn units that my DPs won't be able to break.

Having a high tempo is not about movement rate (though I suppose if you had lots of fast cav with flyers you could make use of it). For me it is the likelihood that you will break your enemies in one turn of combat. If you charge every turn, overrun into fresh enemy or persue off the board and come back on next turn or anything like that, then you are totally dictating the tempo of the game.

Equally you can dictate tempo to the other extreme using what geog refers to as hardiness. I would say this is still under tempo; choosing to use stubborn units or insanely tough units to slow enemies down brings the pace of the game onto a level you are in control of. Similiarly march blocking an opponent will allow you more time to make use of ranged firepower (mages, archers, RBT)

For me the element of surprise comes in to play when you put the ellyrion banner on a unit of DPs and then charge them straight through a wood into the enemies flank.

Simultaneity I would aim to break through my enemies lines in one point with a very strong unit. I have just proved to my enemy that the said unit is a massive threat and often opponents will turn a unit or 2 to deal with it, exposing a flank or better still a rear to the rest of my army. The other option (Ironically probably the better option is for my opponent to hold his lines and ignore the unit, but how often does an opponent do this?) Leaving an opponent with many threats at once and watching him take the obvious, albeit wrong option is something I do alot of the time.

[Tarrowhin]

Cool replies, guys - I'm glad you found it interesting and not too abstract.

I don't disagree with any of the comments above, but would like to make one point of clarification and add another dollop of doctrine!

I think it's important to recognise that firepower doesn't just equate to shooting. Firepower destroys, whether this is with ranged weapons, magic or an axe to the head!

The other bit of doctrine that you might find interesting is a general approach to tactics. geoguswrek and Citizen Militia quite rightly point out that 'hardiness' matters. This is what I would call 'fixing' the enemy: pinning him down so that you can manoeuvre around him, or into his flank or whatever.

The military cry is 'find - fix - strike' but someone (historian - Richard Holmes I think?) had a nicer take on this, which was 'pin - pivot - pounce - pursue'

[saintjon]

Good call on "fixing" I was going to suggest that maybe hardiness should be considered a central facet of your own cohesion, a reinforcement of it. But I think like the idea of fixing better since it pretty much spells out what the end goal of your hardy units is.

[chris_havoc]

This is a really cool topic! Very army inspecific which is great as it will improve your game plans (or make you consciously aware of them) whether playing High Elves, VC, 40K, or killing actual, real life people.

I agree that breaking the cohesion of your enemy's army is imperitive. However, this is a little tougher to do with armies like Dark Elves who use the MSU build for their armies. Our local Dark Elf player mastered this with the old Dark Elves and is now unstoppable with the new ones. It's hard to break the cohesion of any army who is willing to sacrifice any of their units because in the long run they are expendable. Kinda like why the Kamekazi pilots were so effective. It's hard to comprehend that an enemy would throw away something seemingly valuable to their army for the sake of one combat but if the army has depth even the most seemingly valuable units are relatively expendable. And, thus, it is incredibly hard to force failed cohesion of the army. As well as this epic cohesion of this force he uses his units to break the enemy's cohesion incredibly effectively by concentrating ranged firepower and avoiding close combat where possible to expose the enemy to as much ranged damage as possible and striking hard when he can ensure a successful combat. So I was wondering how you'd beat a player like this given the above guidelines? It is absolutely a matter of him out-playing me and everyone else at our club but maybe your insight can help change that.

[Tarrowhin]

chris_havoc. Bit maxxed out with real-world work so this is just to let you know I've got your question and will reply in a day or so. By which time I'm sure some of the usual suspects on Ulthuan.net will have given you some Top Tips too! More shortly...

[chris_havoc]

Just wrote 1, 600 words on the VC enemy of the month topic at work so I literally have no idea how you must feel. Thanks for the quick reply.

[Tarrowhin]

So I was wondering how you'd beat a player like this given the above guidelines? It is absolutely a matter of him out-playing me and everyone else at our club but maybe your insight can help change that.

Sorry, chris_havoc, I’m not sure you’ll like this answer! Your exam question boils down to ‘how do you beat Dark Elves’? I started writing a detailed answer to this very fair question - but then decided not to!!! I did this for what I hope are good reasons: most of the detailed tactics and lists have already been covered on Ulthuan.net; many of the contributors here are far better qualified than me to answer the exam question (geoguswrek’s ongoing series is an excellent place to start - as I’m sure you’re aware - and overlaps this thread in many areas); and it would take a mini-thesis to cover properly.

Above all else, however, I have absolutely no doubt that you could come up with the ‘how to counter’ and ‘how to exploit’ options yourself; none of them are really that clever and it is the process of thinking the factors through logically that I’m driving at in this thread, not the detailed tactics that result from going through the process. What I hope this thread does is give you a framework to help you consciously and methodically consider these factors. At the risk of being Deeply Patronising I guess it’s more a case of how to think rather than what to think.

That huge ‘get out’ over, I will throw some Rather Rambling thoughts your way then give 2 examples that worked well against Dark Elves recently.

Firstly, I don’t disagree with anything you say. It sounds like your DE nemesis is already applying many of the principles I’ve banged on about! It is therefore more important than ever to consider the ‘strength versus weakness’ part of the equation to give yourself the best chance of neutralising the DE threats and exploiting his weak points. In the same vein, consider how you can reduce his capability to break down your cohesion.

So here are 2 examples that worked well for me. Remember that these are situation-dependent and in different circumstances they might not work. Sometimes I play against an open list, sometimes closed; we select terrain randomly in some games and place it in others; sometimes we use a scenario. All of these circumstances fundamentally affect the outcomes of the thought process (although the method stays the same) and influence the validity of these examples.

Example 1. I was at the UK Games Day with my regular DE play mate when a venerable greybeard at one of the demo tables said that he never left his Black Ark without at least 3 units of harpies - they were the best thing since sliced slave. Noting the twinkle in my mate’s eye, I concluded that he was near certain to bring 3 units of harpies to the table next battle (which was to be a closed list game). So 3 + units of harpies became one of the DE strengths that I consciously wanted to counter in the planning of my list. My provisional list looked something like the List A in the original post, so was a high-tempo, high-firepower (not just shooting, remember), high-simultaneity list. So all I did to counter the anticipated harpy threat/strength was remove any likely targets for the harpies from my list or make them very hard to get to. I flanked my RBT with the 2 archer units in a ‘castle’ position on a hill where they could shoot approaching harpies and I kept my eagle within 20” so it could mask the RBT if the harpies threatened. Did I care if the harpies march-blocked some Dragon Princes each turn? No - I had plenty more DPs to manoeuvre with. Did I care if the harpies charged my DPs? Bring it on! End result: the anticipated 3 units of harpies duly deployed - but were left with little they could do and so made irrelevant. They did march-block a DP unit or two in the first turn but were then shot. Those remaining withdrew towards an irrelevant board edge and played no further part in the battle. The start point of this was an already strong list (some would say that 6 units of DPs is ‘unfair’ - but I’d faced 2 hydras (hydrae?) and a black dragon the game before so I wasn’t feeling charitable!).

Example 2. The lists for this battle were exchanged simultaneously and were open except for magic lores and magic items (and DE assassins, of course), which we selected after seeing the opponent’s list. The DE list I opened with trembling hand was based on MSU and featured innumerable units of Dark Riders, harpies and shades. It included 1 hydra - but just 1 level 2 sorceress. So I decided that the main DE strengths I had to counter were the MSU and the hydra - and there was a weakness that I could exploit in a lack of magic defence. My open list included 1 x level 2 mage and 1 x level 1 mage, so to counter the threats I selected the following:

Level 2: Lore of Beasts. Seerstaff and dispel scroll. Spells chosen: Crow’s Feast and Beast Cowers.
Level 1: Lore of Fire: ‘auto-selecting’ Fireball. Ring of Fury to get bound Fury of Khaine spell.

I assumed the DEs would have Ring of Hotek. I took the Banner of Sorcery and would use 2 or 3 PD for each of the above spells but also hoped that by targeting his fragile MSU DRs, shades and harpies these would be outside the RoH umbrella. RoH is useless against the Ring of Fury anyway. I also knew that his magic defence was quite weak with just 1 x level 2 sorceress. Even if she had 2 dispel scrolls, the DEs would be facing 3 magic missiles every turn, each of which could (and did) wipe out an entire unit of harpies, shades or DRs plus Beast Cowers. Consider how you would stop this combination of spells if you were the DE player with just 3 dispel dice; tricky.

What this did for my HEs was: greatly enhance firepower; significantly increased simultaneity as the DE player was put on the ‘horns of a dilemma’ facing multiple threats from the HE magic and other things going on (and he had to think about this every time he moved and when he faced my magic); and introduced an element of surprise with the ‘unmasking’ of the Ring of Fury. But it also countered his primary threats - and it worked! The smell of singed dark steed, sizzled shade and burned beast boobs lingered over the kitchen table long after the HE victory celebrations!

So what? None of these ideas are particularly clever and you’ll see better ones on Ulthuan.net every day. The point is that they were derived by following a methodical process of examining your own list and the enemy list based on sound, relevant criteria - it’s just logic, Jim.

Last word. As I said previously, you’ve still got to play your list well. Also, there will always be some things you just can’t anticipate or are just too damn difficult to counter because there are so many unknowns. Assassins for example: there are simply too many factors to consider (such as where they’re hidden and with what weapon mix) so I generally just accept the risk and wait until I see where they appear - and then figure how to kill them!

Sorry to be evasive, and I hope this helps!

[chris_havoc]

It's all good! My friend tends to play a list similar to the second example you gave. 2 units of harpies, 2 units of dark riders, BSB with enchanted shield pendant and great weapon on a dark steed (hate this thing), CoK's with Dread Lord, BG with ASF and RoH, crossbowmen, bolt thrower, lvl 2 caddy, hag with cauldron and hydra. So 9 regular units to place... maybe not completely msu but enough units for him to maneuver a lot. If I'm not 2nd after this dude I'm close to it just he tends to sit head and shoulders over the player ranked after him so I guess that doesn't help me much. Also I think it's possible the style of VC list I play has a natural weakness against the style of army he plays. I'm very intrigued to see how well I do against him with High Elves. I have a feeling with a whole extra phase on my turn (shooting ) I might very well be able to counter his Black Guard much more effectively giving me room to handle the hydra and CoK's. In my VC list his strength vs. weakness is quite high as I play Blood Knights who don't respond well to Black Guard striking first with killing blow. Thanks for your response it was very helpful!

[geoguswrek]

3 level 2's, ring of corin, ring of fury, level 4, 3 take metal, lord takes death, throw 3 casts of rule of burning iron at the BG champ, the ring of fury, second turn repeat then throw the ring of corin in on top. You should still have all your mages and have destroyed his magic defence. Go enjoy burning things.

[Tarrowhin]

3 level 2's, ring of corin, ring of fury, level 4, 3 take metal, lord takes death, throw 3 casts of rule of burning iron at the BG champ, the ring of fury, second turn repeat then throw the ring of corin in on top. You should still have all your mages and have destroyed his magic defence. Go enjoy burning things.

Ahem... as I said earlier 'many of the contributors here are far better qualified than me to answer the exam question (geoguswrek’s ongoing series is an excellent place to start - as I’m sure you’re aware - and overlaps this thread in many areas).' I rest my case!

[krysith]

Great topic! This is useful stuff!

I have been teaching my wife how to play Warhammer. I play high elves, so of course she plays dark elves. She easily understands what each unit does, but she always asks me questions which reveal that she is aware that she doesn't understand tactics like you have described in your posts above. These are questions like, "why did you decide to place that guy there?" or "should I just charge in, or is there something else I should be doing with this unit?". Since she is smart but knows that she has no training in tactics, she has asked me to teach her.

I have discovered that a two-person adversarial game may not the best way to teach tactics to your wife. When you reveal your own strategy and and help her analyze her own, the game is much less of a game. Playing more games gives her experience, but I think she wants to get better faster than simply playing enough games to learn by mistakes.

I took some time with her and covered some of the same themes you mentioned above, except the way I presented it was different. I called them:

1) Concentration: get more troops or firepower affecting a situation than your enemy. Concentration can be achieved by having more points invested along the frontage of a combat than your enemy has, or by concentrating missile fire on a unit. Since the game is such that each side starts with the same number of points, this element of tactics consists of things which cause some troops to be applied to a battle situation and which exclude others (i.e. refused flanks, line-of-sight, etc.) This is the answer to the "why" of maneuvering.

2) Timing: A combination of what is called tempo and simultaneity here. It answers the "when" of maneuvering.

3) Appropriateness: what is good versus what. In Napoleonic warfare terms, infantry beat cavalry which beat artillery which beat infantry. Rock/paper/scissors. Dragon Princes vs Flamers vs Hammerers. The "what " of maneuvering.

One thing I've found interesting about Warhammer fantasy, is that although it has matchups similar to classical warfare (the artillery/infantry/cavalry of WHFB is usually magic&shooting beats hard slow troops which beats mobile troops), unlike in classical warfare a mixed army is often weaker than an army which is dominated by any one type of troop. I don't know why this is the case. I don't think it has to do with the phase system (which many other wargames also have), but it does seem like a different dynamic.

I didn't go much into the subject of surprise with her because to a new player, everything is surprising (wait, you mean that banner means I don't get eternal hatred? Why didn't you tell me?).

[lathian]

My general principles are:

Proper application of force: The amount of energy spent dealing with something should be no more, and no less than enough to cripple its fighting effectiveness. Too much force means you're missing the total picture, too little means you're spreading out too much and are likely to lose some combats.

A perfect counter, isn't: In general, I can use any unit in my army to defeat any other unit in the enemy army. I have to outmanuever him, but in doing so, a weaker, cheaper unit can defeat a stronger, more expensive one that according to "common knowledge" I was mismatched against (see a greater daemon vs. seaguard.)

Trim the fat: Any time you have a unit where you think "I gotta expend resource X or Y" to defend it is fat. Trim it. They are targets and easy points. something your opponent will take out. If every element in your army is equally hard as every other, then they will have nowhere to strike at best, and all the points he spend on specialist support hunters will be wasted. Of course, units that are targets that are expendable are acceptable.

Think 2 turns ahead: You should know where your troops will be in two turns, and move other units accordingly. I find any rounds past that, and I start to lose focus on what is immediately necessary.

Prioritize targets, but take opportunities: It's generally important to know what each unit will be going after, but if an unfortunate pursuit roll moves his chaos knight's flank into my dragon prince's charge arch, I'll not say no to it, even if I had planned on using them to take down the unit of chosen.

Know where traps are: As a caveat to the above, now when you're about to walk into a trap. I beat a high elf player using all core all Slaanesh demons of chaos, when the high elf player had a dragon, all because I could lure him into traps of my devising.

Lastly, learn from what happens on the board.

[chris_havoc]

I think lathian's last point is the most poignant. Learning from the game is the one of the most important thing and as I am pretty sure he intended it's not exclusively after a game is done that you have to learn and reflect on it. Improvisation boils down to being able to learn quickly from the state of the table. Though it should never be something you rely on wholly. Another very important issue mentioned by geoguswrek in his gameplan topic is well... game plans. It's all very well applying fire power but to what? It's all very well applying your strengths to your enemies weaknesses but where are your strengths and against what are they strong? Implicit in this idea of having a good game plan is knowing your opponent's strengths and weaknesses not specifically the next opponent you'll be facing but rather a general knowledge of the other armies you may face and the similarities and differences they share. For instance, I would throw my VC Lord on a dragon into combat with anything but a Star Dragon, traps (like Dire Wolves or HE mage that can't be hurt in CC) and a Blood Thirster and only desperately into a Beast Lord with Rune of the True Beast. This all ties in with things that have been said the main issue is that when writing your list you should have contingincies in place to deal with different challenges when facing different armies and, therefore, have a gameplan to face these different armies when you see what your opponent has brought to the field. So that you know how to have some level of control over each phase by balancing your strength vs. weakness scores and trying to tip them in your favour.

[Tarrowhin]

Seeing as I stared this thread with the proposition that real-world warfighting principles should apply to WFB, here are a few quotes and official principles that strike me as relevant (noting the fact that contributors to Ulthuan.net seem reluctant to quote real people ). Take them for what they are, if no more than food for thought. I think they're fairly self-explanatory and there are endless books on most of them out there so I'm not going to even attempt to discuss them!

It's all very well applying fire power but to what? It's all very well applying your strengths to your enemies weaknesses but where are your strengths and against what are they strong? Implicit in this idea of having a good game plan is knowing your opponent's strengths and weaknesses not specifically the next opponent you'll be facing but rather a general knowledge of the other armies you may face and the similarities and differences they share.

Sun Tzu: 'Know your enemy and you will win half of the battles you fight; know your enemy and yourself and you will win all of the battles you fight'

On 'strength vs weakness':

Napoleon: 'A plan should take into consideration everything the enemy can do, and prescribe the necessary measures to counteract him.'

On the importance of contingency plans:

Eisenhower: 'I always found the plan useless; I always found planning indispensable.'

On war (!):

Clausewitz: 'The first and most important rule to observe...is to use our entire forces with the utmost energy. The second rule is to concentrate our power as much as possible against that section where the chief blows are to be delivered and to incur disadvantages elsewhere, so that our chances of success may increase at the decisive point. The third rule is never to waste time. Unless important advantages are to be gained from hesitation, it is necessary to set to work at once. By this speed a hundred enemy measures are nipped in the bud. Finally, the fourth rule is to follow up our successes with the utmost energy. Only pursuit of the beaten enemy gives the fruits of victory.'

The principles of war (with those that I think relevant to various comments in this thread in bold):

Selection and maintenance of the aim
Maintenance of morale
Concentration of force
Offensive action
Economy of effort
Surprise
Security (i.e. secure flanks etc)
Flexibility
Co-operation (i.e. between different elements of a force)
Sutainability

The concept of a enemy's 'centre of gravity': 'that aspect of an enemy's overall capability which, if attacked and eliminated, will lead to his inevitable defeat.'

Techniques in combat:

Seizing the initiative
Synchronisation
Tempo
Main effort (the schwerpunkt)
Surprise
Deception
Echeloning
Reserves

I think that's enough!!! Throw these all up in the air and see which ones take your fancy... Maybe they'll help, but don't get wrapped around the axle trying to abide by them all. The #1 principle in WFB as far as I'm concerned is that it should be fun! So just go kill stuff!!!

[geoguswrek]

I think that you have spent one line there on possibly the most important concept. an enemy's centre of gravity: the elements without which your opponent will surely lose. Ie if you have a run away wood elf style of army, then the enemy shooting is his biggest threat, but if you have a combat oriented army, you are more worried about tarpits.

[Tarrowhin]

I think that you have spent one line there on possibly the most important concept. an enemy's centre of gravity: the elements without which your opponent will surely lose. Ie if you have a run away wood elf style of army, then the enemy shooting is his biggest threat, but if you have a combat oriented army, you are more worried about tarpits.

Good spot! Couldn't agree more! Why am I not surprised you picked out the key concept?!?

[chris_havoc]

Really like the Eisenhower quote.

[lathian]

I think that you have spent one line there on possibly the most important concept. an enemy's centre of gravity: the elements without which your opponent will surely lose. Ie if you have a run away wood elf style of army, then the enemy shooting is his biggest threat, but if you have a combat oriented army, you are more worried about tarpits.

True, and I think the inverse should be noted as well. You should never be so reliant on a single part of your army working, that victory is untenable if it is removed.

[Musashi]

I'm not sure I want to be without Skippy, even if he has bad breath.

The Blitzkrieg option requires the ability to apply enormous pressure on a narrow frontage and breakthrough the enemy line. It's a gamble, but a calculated one. Doesn't mean that you actually have to do that, but it's what Caledorians do best.

[lathian]

I'm not sure I want to be without Skippy, even if he has bad breath.

The Blitzkrieg option requires the ability to apply enormous pressure on a narrow frontage and breakthrough the enemy line. It's a gamble, but a calculated one. Doesn't mean that you actually have to do that, but it's what Caledorians do best.

You can still take the dragon, you just can't assume that you'll lose if he dies.

I recall one match where I took the star dragon and prince as a near throw away unit. He threatened the entire center of my enemy's armour (yeah I mean armour. Lots of heavy knights), got encircled and destroyed, but in turn, I managed to surround and round up the entire enemy army for my efforts.

[chris_havoc]

Yes I agree. Sometimes an opponent is just really good and, although it's never a favourable thing to do, you have to start playing less cautiously with things like dragons. I've had a couple games where I've lost my VC Lord on dragon who costs a total of 730 points and still won the game. Granted crumbling doesn't affect models with the Vampire rule which I have an abundance of but I still won after having lost a third of my army in one turn. Not saying I'm really that good at Warhammer just that if I can do it you can too.