A lot of people like to sit and talk about 40k or Fantasy as if its real warfare; quoting Sun Tzu or Clausewitz or something and trying to sound uber smart. Honestly, trying to use real life tactics in a game like 40k is utter nonsense as they bear very little similarities. That being said, the very basic principle from Art of War that I think DO apply to all games like this is: “Know your enemy, know yourself.”
The first part is obvious; knowing what your opponent’s units are and what they are capable of is highly important for making a battle plan. You have to know what the biggest threats are when and how best to go about killing them. The only way to really get that knowledge is to play against every army and every unit and in every configuration. Obviously, that isn’t going to happen for most people; but those with more experience gaming and with more experience with various armies and opponents will come to have a better understanding of what their opposition is capable of.
The second part is a bit more tricky and a bit more philosophical, but I think also very crucial. My opinion is this: most people can only play certain armies certain ways and be successful. Or, in other words, the power of your list is dependant on how you think and how you play. Now, I’m not simply talking about your experience as a general or your tactical acumen; I’m talking about the gestalt of when a list meshes well with the owner and it just makes sense. The list plays the way you understand and want it to play.
Let me back up for a second. While I love 40k, and have played it a TON since 2007 (after a hiatus from mid 3rd edition), my main game has always been Fantasy. I don’t want to turn this into a fantasy is better than 40k or vice-versa debate; but lets just agree that each game takes a different skill set to win with. Fantasy is about precise positioning and 40k is more about precise timing.
Now, in fantasy (and in previous editions of 40k) winning was based on Victory Points. And in that system there are three basic strategies to win: VP capture, VP denial, and VP exchange. For those unfamiliar; VP capture is where you build your list to do maximum damage to the enemy as quickly as possible; usually in the form of ranged attacks or powerful, fast melee units. VP denial is typically based around deathstar type units or multiple small unit evasion tactics. VP exchange is about sacrificing some units to get more VP by forcing the opponent into poor positions. I have always played VP exchange, with every army I’ve ever owned. Uber units have never compelled me, and VP denial I find boring. I’ve had quite a bit of success with Fantasy (other than one miserable performance at the 2005 Seattle GT); and typically am considered one of the better generals in the Pac NW (we have a local ratings system and I’m #1 for Empire and #4 overall); but despite my skills in Fantasy, I really can only play one way with the same army type.
That army is essentially a few big blocks of units backed up with enough shooting to force the enemy to come to me, where I can divert them and beat them through combats of my choosing. I rarely have any unit stand out over another, all units are threatening in some way, but none are a lynchpin. Every army I’ve built that I’ve had success with has been built around those principles.
I’ve tried mixing it up and playing armies that are more built around support units or big monsters or some such; but they just never jive with me and I get trampled. For instance; many Empire generals will (rightly I might add) swear by pistoliers and archer detachments. I find both units to be a complete waste of points and NEVER field them.
Anyway, this is 40k blog, so back to 40k.
When the new Ork codex was on the horizon, I bought up an Ork army off of a friend at my LGS (Fire and Sword FTW!). Happily for me, it was built up by someone who really gets 40k and the list kind of forced me to play the army a little differently than other configurations. I got a bunch of reps in with the 3rd edition codex in 4th edition before the new book came out. It took me a while; but I eventually settled on a list that I liked. Just as a quick comparison; here is my Empire list and my Ork list
Level 4 Mage
Warrior Priest
2 level 2s
25 Spearmen with detachment
25 Swordsmen with detachment
20 Greatswords
2 units of 5 knights
1 cannon
1 mortar
1 helblaster
Steam Tank
Big mek with KFF
15 lootas
2×30 shoota boyz
2×12 boyz in trukks
10 gretchin
2 rokkit buggies
15 stormboyz
1 battlewagon with ‘ard case and killkannon
3 lobbas
3 killa kans with rokkits
Both lists have very similar themes; neither has a true hammer unit, mostly just a collection of anvils or speed units. The characters are usually in a support position; there’s plenty of shooting to force my opponent to react; and they both have a somewhat symmetrical aesthetic.
Frankly, this extends beyond even these games; these tactics are identical to how I play in Starcraft or a Total War game; I like unit co-operation and gestalt vs power units or avoidance/guerilla tactics.
Basically, that army design is something that makes sense to me and allows me to play in a competitively. When I see some people bringing out different lists; I can intrinsically understand what makes it powerful and know (usually) how to deal with it; HOWEVER, when I’m behind the wheel of one of those lists, I’m usually pretty flummoxed.
This entire series about Orks is kind of a testament to that. To me, Orks (and especially the list I have been using) make perfect sense and I just “get” how to make them work; perhaps those who have not been having success with them are doing so not because of any deficiencies in their skills but perhaps a mismatch of skill and list.
I’ve debated on here most excellently with mark mercer; who runs a battle-wagon focused Ork army which has been successful for him. I’ll be frank in saying that if you put me in charge of that list, I’d be happy to get a draw against most opponents. I’m sure the reverse would be true of him using my list. This isn’t a knock on either of our skills; but a testament to how we approach list design and how we individually go about winning the game.
One of the people I am blessed (and cursed!) to play against on a regular basis is Zen, owner of Fire and Sword, and 2nd best overall at the last Conquest NW here in Seattle. Zen brings this goofy space marine list that has all this weird stuff in it that I’m sure if it was posted on YTTH or elsewhere, he’d get laughed off the board (highlight is the thunderfire cannon in a drop pod!). But Zen plays with a really unorthodox style and uses bizarre tactics and just. plain. wins. I’m pretty certain that if we gave that list to your average good 40k general they’d struggle mightly with it (the list is completely devoid of synergy IMO); myself most of all. This list is so antithetical to how I design a list that it just confounds me how he wins with it.
Essentially, the point I’m trying to get at is that, its my experience that we all have a wheelhouse, if you will, of tactics that make sense to us and are second nature, and the lists that we have the best success with are as much a product of the list design in a vacuum as it is with how the list works with our gaming mentality. Basically, take advice from others with a grain of salt; get as many reps in with your army as you can without changing too much so you get a better handle of the units and how they interact in different situations; and really pay attention to what really works for you and try and expand on that.