Military History and Warhammer 40k

For the folks over at YTTH and their comments on this thread, I thought I’d throw this article together.  The consensus among the commenters is that comparing and applying military history to a game, especially 40k that in no way simulates situations in real life, is a huge waste of time and has no value.  This is the same kind of logic behind saying that the lessons of Sun Tzu are not applicable today because we have amazingly advanced technology, like stealth bombers and guided missiles, that Sun Tzu never imagined.  Both comments are idiotic and I could not disagree more.  The maxims that have been studied and discussed for thousands of years are entirely applicable to any wargame, and Warhammer 40k is no exception.

The difficulty with jiving military history and 40k is the fantasy aspect of 40k.  “That’s a huge, muscle-rippling, dual-wielding, winged monstrosity who’s main weapon against me is…. a psychic power?  What the…?”  Without studying the rules there’s no way of knowing what your opponent is capable of, unlike Flames of War, for example, where knowing that a Tiger tank is one bad ass piece of machinery and dug-in infantry are hard to dislodge can instantly improve your gameplay.  None the less, studying and understanding the greats, such as Sun Tzu or Clausewitz, will improve your game.

But, if you’ve come to read this article, have limited time, and want to improve your game by leaps and bounds…. close this tab immediately and read your codex and rulebook.  This article, as with any article you read on the blogosphere, will not improve your game by leaps and bounds simply by reading it.  True understanding only takes place on the tabletop.  Besides, that’s not the purpose of this article anyway.  The purpose is to educate the ignorant on how ingrained military history is in the game of 40k, or at least a snippet of it.  So, stay and see how Sun Tzu’s ideas are alive, well and influential within 40k.

“Win All Without Fighting”
“Your aim must be to take All-under-Heaven intact.  Thus your troops are not worn out and your gains will be complete.”
How can I argue for reading military history and start with this example?  Laughable, isn’t it?  Warhammer 40k is a game about war and conflict… death and destruction and everything that goes with it (thankfully, for those of us with PTSD, in a pretend sense).  The cover of the rulebook does not say “In the grim darkness of the future, war is still a continuation of politics by other means” though Clausewitz might argue.  So, applying this maxim to 40k is ridiculous… on the strategic level.  But on the tactical level, well… there we’ve got something to discuss.

As a Black Templar player it is common practice to take power-fists instead of power weapons in Crusader Squads.  Why?  Because of the possibility of being tar pitted by dreadnaughts.  Flip the coin.  Let’s control the dreadnaught and look at how this situation is an example of winning without fighting.  Now, a dread up against a unit with a power-fist is a fight.  They have the chance to damage or destroy my dreadnaught before I am able to wipe out the unit.  But, if that unit does not have a power-fist, either because it wasn’t equipped or because it was killed (Telion, Vindicare, an unlucky dice roll during a torrent of bolter fire) there is no fight.  It’s only a matter of time before the unit is destroyed.  Now lets throw in the Emperor’s Champion and a Master of Sanctity, neither of which is commonly equipped to effect at least an Ironclad dreadnaught.  That’s somewhere near 400pts of combat power that will do nothing for the rest of the battle if not a couple of turns.  Finally, lets pull those Crusaders off of an objective for a win.  That’s winning without a fight, folks.

Other examples of this maxim might include:
Destroying the few heavy weapons in an opponent’s list that can penetrate your Landraider variant
Ninja-Tau builds or other lists that utilize Reserves
Lists that focus on pinning weapons or tactics that reduce mobility
Tank Shocking and escorting those Assault Terminators or Nob Bikers off the board

“Attack where he is unprepared; sally out when he does not expect you.”
Being assaulted by Tau Crisis Suits is an example of this maxim from personal experience.  It’s a rare occurrence but my weekly opponent Gracian understands how this unexpected move can change a battle, and it’s paid off.

“Now an army may be likened to water, for just as flowing water avoids the heights and hastens to the lowlands, so an army avoids strength and strikes weakness.”
Avoid strength, attack weakness… an often times hard to apply concept within 40k where most armies have some kind elite, hard hitter in a mobile transport that is exactly where you don’t want it, when you don’t want it.  For example, an LRC full of Assault Terminators.  There are tactics abound to counter such a unit.  I don’t intend to cover them, but will say any that strategy or tactic that focuses on destroying or immobilizing the LRC in order to get the AssTerms on foot (thus making them slower and more avoidable) is using the maxim of avoiding strength and attacking weakness.  Any tactic that tries to trump the AssTerms with greater combat power is using Clausewitz’s concept of Hauptschlacht, or decisive battle.  Either way you choose, you’re looking at military history in action.

Another application of avoiding strength and attacking weakness is the clever use of Independent Characters in close combat.  Abaddon amongst Khorne Berzerkers loaded into a Landraider can be a tough nut to crack even for Black Templar Assault Terminators on the charge.  If you have no other choice but to assault Abaddon and his crew then getting a cheap 72pt Techmarine into base contact with Abaddon (and no Terminators) can immediately diminish his combat power, at least for a turn, and give the AssTerms an opportunity to slice up some Berzerkers.  ‘Avoid’ Abaddon, attack the Berzerkers…. and get something out of it.

The analogy with water is applicable as well.  Consider determining an enemy’s avenues of approach during deployment based on terrain.  How does terrain effect unit movement?  Are Dozer Blades equipped?  Skimmers?  How aggressive and willing is a player to risk immobilizing on terrain?  All of these questions need to be evaluated when determining avenues of approach and how likely an opponent will not move outside the lowlands.

“Invincibility lies in the defense; the possibility of victory in the attack.”
Some gun-line lists have a tough time with objective missions.  They have amazing firepower, but a lack of offensive ability to move forward and capture objectives can create a problem.  Thus, victory can be elusive.

“Those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him.”
Strategically within 40k, this maxim comes into play when determining deployment zone and who goes first.  Both of these decisions can determine where on the tabletop a close combat will happen or where firing lanes exist.  Can I afford to let my opponent (who’s fielding an aggressive army looking to close the distance but lacks First Turn Firepower) go first as this will allow my firepower to destroy his transports in a portion of the battlefield that’s beneficial to me?  Or should I try to Alpha Strike as much as possible and break up his advance as early as possible?  Every player tries to shape the battlefield to their benefit.

Tactically this maxim applies as well.  You’ve won close combat and rolled to consolidate.  Do you move forward towards your enemy like a good little Stormtrooper, or laterally toward the wood-line where you’ll receive cover from shooting or strike first in close combat during your opponent’s turn?

“To rely on rustics and not prepare is the greatest of crimes; to be prepared beforehand for any contingency is the greatest of Virtues.”
This maxim is all about adapting to information and intelligence.  Most notably, Scenario 3 of the ‘Ard Boyz prelims last month and whatever scenarios are released for next week.  No whining, bitching or blaming…. that’s really what Sun Tzu’s talking about here.

“Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.”
Read the rules, know the rules, read them again.  Read other codices, know other codices, read them again.  Strange that the argument of so many commenters on YTTH was for exactly this, and yet it’s exactly what they’re bashing.

And maxims I’m not going to take the time to cover right now:
“When he is united, divide him.  Sometimes drive a wedge between a sovereign and his ministers; on other occasions separate his allies from him.  Make them mutually suspicious so that they drift apart.  Then you can plot against them.”

“Speed is the essence of war.  Take advantage of the enemy’s unpreparedness; travel by unexpected routes and strike him here he has taken no precautions.”

“All warfare is based on deception.”

“The enlightened ruler is prudent and the good general is warned against rash action.  Thus the state is kept secure and the army is preserved.”

And… I think that’s enough for now.  Given enough time, applying the lessons from historical battles and the maxims of military strategist of the past several thousand years to Warhammer 40k wouldn’t be difficult.  Everywhere one looks within 40k, these strategies and tactics effect the game we play as they do with all war-strategy games.  In fact, I don’t think they could be designed without them.

So, is it necessary to study military history?  Sadly, no.  Perhaps if more players did we would have a more skillful community.  Without a doubt, the most effective way to become a better 40k player is to master your knowledge of the basic rules, soak up information from every codex, play multiple opponents and armies on a regular basis, evaluate what you could have done better, shower (please shower), and repeat the whole process.  There is no way around this.  But to consider military history worthless when attempting to better yourself at a wargame is beyond idiocy and I encourage the ignorant to pull their heads out of their asses and open a book… the old looking, non-GW kind.

~ by BigDunc on June 4, 2010.