Fighting
Tiger Tactics (pg 2)
Pages
1
<> 2 <> 3 <>
4
<> 5 <> 6
<> 7 <> 8
<> 9
Axioms
I hold a few
axioms regarding Space Marines. Some relate more to picking an army, some
relate more to fighting the battle, but I believe they are all interconnected.
They are:
For
Space Marines, emphasize quality over quantity
Points you
spend on your army are like dollars you spend in real life: you have to
get the most value for your money--even if you have to spend a little bit
more--because cheaper is not always better. And trust me: there is no such
thing as a cheap Space Marine.
Of course,
it's possible to go to the other extreme and over-equip all your units.
Just because your HQ units can take 100 points of wargear doesn't mean
that each of them should. You'll have to strike a balance between "cheap"
and "effective." Think about what you need, not what you can have, and
spend wisely. In the discussions of each unit, I provide examples that
you might find useful.
No
Space Marine is expendable
The cheapest
guy in the Space Marine army is 13 points, which is way more than an Eldar
Guardian, Termagant, or Gretchin. Space Marines, even Space Marine Scouts,
cost too many points to casually sacrifice them, use them as cannon fodder,
or be reckless with them.
In every battle,
at least one Marine is going to die: make sure that those who died did
so for a good reason.
Leaders
lead
This might
not make perfect "game" sense but it is definitely in character for Space
Marines. Let's say a Bloodthirster is bounding toward my lines and I have
the choice of throwing a Chaplain or a Tactical Squad in its way, knowing
that either one is probably going to get chewed up and spat out in hand-to-hand
combat. Now of course, I don't want any of my Marines stepping in front
of an angry Bloodthirster, but if I had to I'd send in the Chaplain every
time.
Why would I
"throw away" such a valuable and expensive character? Mostly to be in character.
I can't imagine a fearless Tiger of Varuna ordering his men into certain
death to save his own skin; instead I see him ordering the squad to lay
down some cover fire and then save themselves while he holds off the monster.
When you think
about it though, this does make some "game" sense. If I charge Talwar
Chakram at the Bloodthirster, she has five attacks with a power
weapon and an invulnerable save to help protect her. Is she going to beat
a Bloodthirster? I'd say no at least 19 times out of 20, but when the Bloodthirster
wins, it's only taken out one Marine. One exceptional Marine yes, but I
still have 10 Tactical Marines who are alive and can keep shooting holes
into that big red bastard. And the way 3rd Edition is set up, 10 ordinary
troops are almost always more valuable than one exceptional character.
Mobility,
mobility, mobility
If you can't
move, you lose. It's really that simple. Granted, some elements of your
army (notably Heavy Support) are best when they don't move, but the rest
needs to be able to go to or get away from the enemy quickly. You'll notice
that I have a lot of transports for troops as well as plenty of jump packs,
bikes, and teleporting troops.
Don't
sweat the big guns, sweat the little guys
Unless you're
playing against an all-tank Imperial Guard army, don't worry too much about
how "big guns" (vehicles and characters) are going to hurt you, worry about
all the "little guys" in front of the big guns. While a Leman Russ or a
Hive Tyrant is bound to get your attention, what's probably going to beat
you are the hordes of infantry you ignore. Big, bad vehicles and superheroic
characters are nice but they almost never win games by themselves. The
reverse is that rank-and-file grunts aren't flashy but they almost always
carry the game for you. Don't look at the Force Organization charts and
moan, "Damn, I have to take two Troop units"; instead, look at the charts
and say, "Hot damn! I get six Troop units--and if I take another detachment,
I get six more!"
You
can't count on shooting, but hand-to-hand combat will win you the game
The revised
40k rules released in fall of 2004 rightly emphasized the importance of
the Shooting Phase--after all, it is a game played with a lot of guns,
some of them quite large. Nevertheless, the Assault Phase is still critical.
Let's do a quick comparison between the phases:
-
In a six turn
game, there are a six Shooting Phases and up to 12 Assault Phases.
-
When you shoot,
your opponent gets to pick who dies. When you assault, you pick who dies
by moving your figures into base-to-base contact and beating them.
-
After you shoot
and wipe out your target, you don't get to move further up the field and
shoot someone else. If you assault and wipe out your target, you get to
move further up the field and start beating on some other poor unit.
I think you get
my point: shooting is flashy and sexy and has its place (I certainly love
it), but as in football and real warfare, you usually win the battle on
the ground, up close and personal, based on little more than maneuvering,
brute strength, and aggressiveness.
One
man's cheese is another man's brilliance
It doesn't
matter what you include or don't include in your army, some idiot out there
is going to accuse you of being cheesy or beardy.
For example,
is it cheesy to have a Veteran Sergeant in your Scout Squad? Or is it smart
to give the fledgling Marines the benefit of his Leadership and close combat
ability? Is it cheesy to equip that Veteran Sergeant with an auspex? Or
is it smart, because before the game begins, he and his Scouts can fire
on the infiltrating Ork Kommandos nearby?
Arguing about
cheese/beardiness is a waste of time, because for the vast majority of
gamers, cheesy is always what someone else's army is, never their own.
I say if it's in your codex and you can legally use it then it's not cheesy.
If you're interested, I have more to say on this
subject.
Pages
1
<> 2 <> 3 <>
4
<> 5 <> 6
<> 7 <> 8
<> 9
Related Pages
Putting an End
to "Cheesiness"
© Copyright Kenton
Kilgore January 2000
Top |