Post by shasodnarb on Jun 17, 2010 0:55:54 GMT -5
Two things inform my 40K thinking above all others: (1) the Battle of Rossbach and (2) checkers.
I love checkers. I play a lot because it's fun but I also enjoy improving and I take winning seriously. Interestingly, what I've found is that more than anything else I have experience with, a checkers mindset translates very well to 40K.
Broadly speaking, the goals are similar. In checkers, I want to fight to control the middle of the board and avoid becoming entangled along the sides. I want to continue this struggle until I've gained an advantage somewhere on the board. Usually, this advantage arises if the enemy loses a piece or gets out of position. Then I decide whether to shift my focus to exploit the opportunity or continue playing as I was.
I think it's important during deployment and every subsequent turn, to view the board very simply. For both sides, I need to figure out what units are going to skirmish, attack, support, or defend. The stats and other details of the units are less important when it comes to making the big decisions.
In checkers, skirmishing often means that pieces are traded by each player until one side controls the middle of the board and therefore has the advantage because they now have more options of movement. In 40K, skirmishing means using your unimportant units to either draw enemy firepower or movement. If you can get your skirmishers to gain the attention of the enemy's decisive attacking or defending units, then you have gained an advantage, providing you don't fall into the same trap.
Realize that successful skirmishing can win games of 40K. It has the ability to confer an advantage for the rest of the game, and that advantage can create a power gap between the armies that becomes greater each turn.
If you gain an advantage, you must decide whether you will take advantage immediately or whether you proceed cautiously. In checkers, if the advantage is a material one, it is often best to continue trading pieces because the result will invariably favour the player with the advantage. In 40K, this will occur most dramatically during Annhilation missions and involve using decisive attacking units to exploit the disparity in power.
However, if the advantage is a positional one, then perhaps only aggressively exploiting the advantage with movement will maintain the edge and perhaps lead to victory. This situation might arise most in objective missions in 40K and will often result in the movement of decisive attacking units.
Ultimately, this is all basic stuff... but all too easily forgotten. Conceptually, checkers and 40K are both simple games that sometimes seem to get overcomplicated. If you don't do so already, I recommend testing out this theory for yourself and incorporating it into your army's fighting doctrine.
I want to mention one more thing about checkers and 40K. In competitive checkers, all else being equal, it is always more prudent to play for a safe draw than a risky win. I also feel this way about 40K. Since luck plays such a huge part in the game, I don't believe in the a bold gamble early in the game that could lose the game outright. Instead, fight hard to earn that early advantage and then choose how to exploit the opportunity. If misfortune prevents even this, then fight for the draw.
After all, no amount of theory will ever challenge vagarious dice.
I love checkers. I play a lot because it's fun but I also enjoy improving and I take winning seriously. Interestingly, what I've found is that more than anything else I have experience with, a checkers mindset translates very well to 40K.
Broadly speaking, the goals are similar. In checkers, I want to fight to control the middle of the board and avoid becoming entangled along the sides. I want to continue this struggle until I've gained an advantage somewhere on the board. Usually, this advantage arises if the enemy loses a piece or gets out of position. Then I decide whether to shift my focus to exploit the opportunity or continue playing as I was.
I think it's important during deployment and every subsequent turn, to view the board very simply. For both sides, I need to figure out what units are going to skirmish, attack, support, or defend. The stats and other details of the units are less important when it comes to making the big decisions.
In checkers, skirmishing often means that pieces are traded by each player until one side controls the middle of the board and therefore has the advantage because they now have more options of movement. In 40K, skirmishing means using your unimportant units to either draw enemy firepower or movement. If you can get your skirmishers to gain the attention of the enemy's decisive attacking or defending units, then you have gained an advantage, providing you don't fall into the same trap.
Realize that successful skirmishing can win games of 40K. It has the ability to confer an advantage for the rest of the game, and that advantage can create a power gap between the armies that becomes greater each turn.
If you gain an advantage, you must decide whether you will take advantage immediately or whether you proceed cautiously. In checkers, if the advantage is a material one, it is often best to continue trading pieces because the result will invariably favour the player with the advantage. In 40K, this will occur most dramatically during Annhilation missions and involve using decisive attacking units to exploit the disparity in power.
However, if the advantage is a positional one, then perhaps only aggressively exploiting the advantage with movement will maintain the edge and perhaps lead to victory. This situation might arise most in objective missions in 40K and will often result in the movement of decisive attacking units.
Ultimately, this is all basic stuff... but all too easily forgotten. Conceptually, checkers and 40K are both simple games that sometimes seem to get overcomplicated. If you don't do so already, I recommend testing out this theory for yourself and incorporating it into your army's fighting doctrine.
I want to mention one more thing about checkers and 40K. In competitive checkers, all else being equal, it is always more prudent to play for a safe draw than a risky win. I also feel this way about 40K. Since luck plays such a huge part in the game, I don't believe in the a bold gamble early in the game that could lose the game outright. Instead, fight hard to earn that early advantage and then choose how to exploit the opportunity. If misfortune prevents even this, then fight for the draw.
After all, no amount of theory will ever challenge vagarious dice.
