Placement of RBTs

[Gildor777]

How do you guys place RBTs in your games (assuming you use them). In my games which granted have been on the smaller side the last few weeks, I have found placing them on opp. ends of my battle line has worked out more often than placing them near each other (say on a hill) with some unit guarding them. At least in these small games, opponents can't get to both quickly enough before they do some major damage, and splitting them also causes my opp. to be a bit more cautious in deployment since they can usually cover more of the field. What do you guys do?

[Bel-Hathe]

Generally split unless terrain forces them together. I frequently place one on my refused flank with a unit of archers.

[Griffon Prince]

I run a trio so I tend to keep one on a flank and the others in the center, hill or not.

[SpellArcher]

Split, preferably with one covering the other and options for double-shooting the same target.

[pk-ng]

well depends on terrain and what they have. If the other player is like DE with RBTs then I would preferably have my RBTs split and be able to shoot at the same RBT as to take it out on turn 1.

[Musashi]

Close enough to be protected and have interlocking fields of fire, or far apart enough for flank ones.

[dabber]

Putting all three of them in the center on the table edge, just a few inches apart, has worked really well with a variety of matchups.

[geoguswrek]

I aim to have my about 10 inches apart, this means that an enemy charging one has a lot of difficulty overrunning into a second, even with 3d6 move but also means i can keep them all in a close enough area to concentrate fire when necessary.

If theres a hill i generally put two on it, seperated by some archers. (keep those wizards honest)

[White_Phoenix]

Admittedly, i play small games (1000 pts usually) but i tend to either go for both in center on hill, or 1 in each corner, depanding on enemy. Corners when im sure i will get the table corner points out of it, in other cases i tend to go center.

[geoguswrek]

But rbt's cn't claim table quarters

[SpellArcher]

I find that a hill really helps Archers, while RBT can usually be usefully deployed elsewhere if necessary.

[saintjon]

I usually don't put them on hills, they are easier to protect from certain flyers when they can't necessarily be seen.

[Lord Anathir]

away from his machine hunters, and never together, so if you lose one you dont lose them all because of overruns.

[Dreadlord Blooay]

I always, almost always, deploit my rbt's away from each other. This makes sure that if the enemy wants to take out my rbt's, they can't do quickly. More time to shoot.

[Daydream]

Putting all three of them in the center on the table edge, just a few inches apart, has worked really well with a variety of matchups.

This, and they are drop number one to put pressure on my opponent.

[geoguswrek]

Daydream: how does this put extra pressure on your opponent? the RBt is one of the things in our list which is very instrumental in the early turns of a game, which means people often deploy certain elements of their army (2+ save cav for example) out of line of sight or far away from the RBT. By holding them back as a late deployment, or spreading them wide across the table(and deploying them early), you create a pressure on your opponent by denying him space in which to deploy his units, often resulting in his units being less cohesive, but by placing them all with a more restricted line of sight (by placing them on the board edge your line of sight is always at most equal to that which you have from placing them further forward) and clumped so that they are easier to avoid for the light elements that need to dodge bolt throwers, you are actually taking a pressure off of your opponent (who otherwise must worrry about every possible position your bolt throwers can take when you do deploy them and so must be even more careful about the deployment of his troops)

[Daydream]

@geoguswrek: I disagree with your assessment if you're playing on a standard fantasy table that follows the rule of not putting terrain within 12" of the center of the table. Putting your RBTs down first takes control of the center of the field. Your opponent is forced to choose between deploying their army in range and LOS of your bolt throwers or putting them on the flanks and splitting their forces.

One bolt thrower is irrelevant, two is annoying and three are a threat. It takes all 18 shots to really threaten a meaningful unit. By spreading out your bolt throwers you reduce the threat that they provide and it is easier for your opponent to screen their units from one or two bolt throwers. Sure you may still be able to shoot a unit with one bolt thrower, but one is not enough.

Also, on most fantasy tables it is hard to hide more than a couple of units with terrain. I grew up playing 40k, and I can tell you that fantasy tables look really open to me and identifying the lanes of fire is pretty easy. I haven't ever found that I wasn't able to have a wide range of fire on a table with my bolt throwers on my table edge. Obviously putting them on the table edge makes the trip to kill them longer for your opponent giving you more time to shoot.

Putting all of them together also makes them easier to protect. High elves don't have enough units to protect 3 bolt throwers in 3 different places on the table. One could argue that losing 100 points isn't that much, but I'd argue that losing 1/3 of your shooting output is an unacceptable loss. The center of your table edge is the safest place for the bolt throwers which will keep them shooting longer.

I'd also tell you that in my area of play, I made a splash when I first deployed them in the center and first when I stated playing fantasy. I had a number of good fantasy players tell me I was making a mistake, but I continued to do it. Over time I had success with it and now those same players that said I was making a mistake have started adopting my method. Try it sometime and I think you'll see why it works by your oppoenent's reaction.

[geoguswrek]

@geoguswrek: I disagree with your assessment if you're playing on a standard fantasy table that follows the rule of not putting terrain within 12" of the center of the table. Putting your RBTs down first takes control of the center of the field. Your opponent is forced to choose between deploying their army in range and LOS of your bolt throwers or putting them on the flanks and splitting their forces.

Even on a standard table, you will reduce your lane of fire somewhat by putting them on the back table edge, maybe not much, but always a little. You don't need to put your bolters down first for the threat of the bolters to be there. If he decides to deploy in the open, then when you DO put the bolt throwers there, you'll have line of sight and range to everything you want, whereas if he doesn't, you'll have the option to put your bolt throwers where they can see him anyway. An intelligent opponent will know that there are bolt throwers forthcoming and therefore be forced to worry about everywhere they could be deployed and how best to avoid them, you need to decide what the role is your bolt throwers are doing. If you want him to split up his forces, then you deploy them early in a battery (to creat an exclusion zone), but high elves actually do badly by playing down a shortened frontage (we are neither chaos nor DE), if you want him deploying in LOS of your bolt throwers, you give him the minimum possible opportunity to avoid them, meaning you deploy them late, where you can put them down knowing where your units are.
Consider it like this: by placing the bolt throwers down, he must then make the decision whether his units are better off hiding from the bolters or in the open in front of them, by placing them last, YOU make that decision.

One bolt thrower is irrelevant, two is annoying and three are a threat. It takes all 18 shots to really threaten a meaningful unit. By spreading out your bolt throwers you reduce the threat that they provide and it is easier for your opponent to screen their units from one or two bolt throwers. Sure you may still be able to shoot a unit with one bolt thrower, but one is not enough.

That depends on your aims. Yes three bolters is nasty and it hurts big units, but one is more than enough if it is supported by something. for example, if i remove a model out of a knight unit, then my swordmasters are much more likely to go through them.
One is also useful, al solo, for shooting harrasser units since these are generally small, so can be panicked by even a single thrower. Also, those significant units can often be deterred by a combination of your own combat units and your harrassers, meanging you have a long time to shoot them, kill the light stuff first, then concentrate fire on a single target.

Also, on most fantasy tables it is hard to hide more than a couple of units with terrain. I grew up playing 40k, and I can tell you that fantasy tables look really open to me and identifying the lanes of fire is pretty easy. I haven't ever found that I wasn't able to have a wide range of fire on a table with my bolt throwers on my table edge. Obviously putting them on the table edge makes the trip to kill them longer for your opponent giving you more time to shoot.

I did not say you had BAD line of sight for being far back, just that you got BETTER for being further forward. With regards to how far back i put mine, I generally do some maths: If my opponent has predominately a 6 inch move, then i put them 6.0000001 inches back so if i march block for a turn then i get an extra turn with my bolt throwers, if he has a 4 inch move i don't bother, and put them forward (no point and better LOS). Putting the throwers on the table edge also means that whatever killed the one bolt thrower is going to be off the table no matter what (this means you can't shoot it for a turn), which is a minor frustration. Also by putting them further back, you further restrict your units movement with regards to not getting between the throwers and their targets.

Putting all of them together also makes them easier to protect. High elves don't have enough units to protect 3 bolt throwers in 3 different places on the table. One could argue that losing 100 points isn't that much, but I'd argue that losing 1/3 of your shooting output is an unacceptable loss. The center of your table edge is the safest place for the bolt throwers which will keep them shooting longer.

Putting all three together makes it harder to protect your total investment: when playing an army with lots of warmachine hunters, one will get into your battery no matter what, and because your bolters are close together it can tactical wheel and hit all three one after the other. Wheras i accept that one bolt thrower will die, to ensure i keep 66% of my shooting going. You claim the loss of one bolt thrower is unacceptable, i claim the huge risk of losing all three is even more unacceptable.

I'd also tell you that in my area of play, I made a splash when I first deployed them in the center and first when I stated playing fantasy. I had a number of good fantasy players tell me I was making a mistake, but I continued to do it. Over time I had success with it and now those same players that said I was making a mistake have started adopting my method. Try it sometime and I think you'll see why it works by your oppoenent's reaction.

Batterying your warmachines is not always a mistake, but deploying them early generally is, even if you know exactly where you are putting them, your opponent does not and must fret over them, don't gvie your opponent less to worry about. On batterying, i find the most effective battery is two bolt throwers seperated by a unit of archers. This has the advantage of making it very difficult to get an all killing overrun (one nice trick is, when things are looking at charginone bolt thrower, move your archers so they are standing at 45 degrees to it, meaning any overrun hits the front of the archers and sends the enemy between your throwers, keeping one alive), gives you a shooter that is slightly weaker than a bolt thrower (but necessary) that you can sacrifice to protect the warmachines from hunters, and gives you something you can use to tidy up light threats without wasting a bolt thrower. Also, i would never plan on placing on the board edge unelss absolutely necessary, you disrupt the freedom of your own troops to move in front of the bolters and so give yourself more headaches with regards to positioning of troops to protect them. note that my bolters do a different job to yours: mine give my superiority or parity in the shooting phase, coupled with a heavy magic phase meaning my opponent has to come to me, letting me play in a counter-punch style.

Ps: my reaction would be to dump my BSB in front of the bolt throwers and see what happens... i reckon he'd take them.