Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I've been giving a lot of thought to the sort of tactics that could be used with a GK army, and the thing that I keep coming back to is this:
No other army can fit as many points in as small a space as pure GK (well, maybe Deathwing). It strikes me that if you keep the army together in one large group, that they could much better defend themselves and each other than if they were spread around the board.
For instance, the list I've devised for when I finally get around to starting GK involves 5 Terminators, 4 squads of 8 GK and 2 Dreadnoughts. Minimal upgrades all around. If you were facing, say, a Tyranid army which comes at you, would it make sense to keep those 5 infantry squads in a big group so that:
a) They can combine their firepower to take down incoming threats (basically all GK squads are protected by a fire umbrella from all the other squads). The army I've described there can statistically take down nearly a maximum gaunt brood in one round of shooting.
b) If one squad was assault, the other squads could jump in to help get rid of the enemy squad, so that they're more likely to be rid of the enemy by their next turn and thus able to shoot some more (ie countering the Tyranid tactic of using gaunts to lock enemies in CC while Genestealers come in).
Looking at it from another perspective, say, that of a player fighting against Tau, it seems to me that as you move up the field, the concentration of firepower in one area could mean that you just obliterate whatever squad is closest to you (and thus is most likely to beat the Shrouding, and cause you some hurt) with stormbolters, and if there's anything left, they can assault it (depending on who you're fighting it may be wiser to not shoot, so you can assault and get extra movement, but I'm trying to keep the tactics BROAD).
The alternative to this bunching up is, obviously, spreading your units out. This seems like a terrible idea to me, mainly because GK are so slow that a quick army could opt to hit one side of your force, gang up on them, then sweep across. Not to mention, if you were to get hit by a squad of something nasty, say, Genestealers, consider the scenarios:
Genestealers fight 1 squad: Do pretty well
Genestealers fight 3 squads: Still only able to inflict the same number of casualties, but the Stealers are recieving 3 times the number of incoming attacks. All of a sudden it becomes a suicide run for them.
For some horde armies, this bunching tactic could also mean that they hordes are not able to employ their full force. Imagine a bunch of GKs backed into 1 corner of the board, completely swarmed by gaunts, but the Stealers and Tyrant not able to get in due to the congestion.
Obviously this bunching tactic isn't absolute, and is affected by things like Deep Striking, the type of opponent, etc.
I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this, remembering that it is meant more as a broad tactic, and thus shouldn't really consider specific scenarios.
Not to sound...something...but this isnt any ground breaking idea or discovery. Its called turtling and its been used and done in every war game, both computer and tabletop since the dawn of man. Indeed it is good to keep troops near each other for mutual support but here are some problems with it.
1. Taking objectives. The turtle doesnt move well and at best can take one objective.
2. Swarm armies. Indeed those genestealers are sure gonna pay for charging and killing that one group...and then the other 100+ models of the swarm army are gonna decend and its not gonna matter how close together you are and sweeping advances can be a real pain.
3. Templates. IG armies will flail your tightly packed squad with pie plates and sleep well at night knowing that no matter how bad they scatter they are gonna toast a whole buch of GK's. WH armies with flamers and Divine Guidence will love you too.
4. While you sit in a tightly packed glob you leave the run of the board to your opponent, leaving them free to use cover and move to the optimal firing places.
The turtle glob has few things to recomend it. Squads supporting eachother and providing mutual fire support is good and its just a common sense part of the game, but circling the wagons rarly gives you anything but an opponents hearty thanks.
The only honorable options left to we combatants is seppuku or semantics...which amount to the same thing really.
the only actual 'turtle' army so to speak of that i've seen constructed for DH is this guys:http://www.librarium-online.com/foru...one-tried.html
its nothing special. but the reason i think he does as good as he does, is based around the tactics he plays with. which he explains in that post.
but yah, i understand what you were trying to do silent. i myself know what turtling is, but i never really applied it to DH. tho, when i do apply it, the army list provided above makes a bit more sense to me.
Fair points. Given that I'm normally a Dark Eldar player, the concept of "turtling" was actually something quite new and novel to me, so I thought I'd raise the issue so that I might gain a better understanding. Cheers.
"Turtling" is never to be recommended.
The aforementioned template weapons are a big reason why you don't want to turtle. Especially with GK.
The *biggest* problem with keeping squads close together (even if the models themselves are spaced widely) is that if one squad gets charged by something with a higher initiative, you're going to lose expensive GK models before they get to swing, and suddenly you'll have a relatively strong enemy assault team ready to consolidate into the rest of your army after crushing a single unit. If we're talking about things that you have no chance of taking down such as C'Tan, Dreadnaughts, Demon Princes or Assault Terminators, you have a large problem on your hands.
My "Has anyone tried THIS" list is not a turtling list. "Turtling" is actually pretty damn close to the typical IG infantry strategy, where movement is seen as the enemy. At least with GK, movement is only your enemy if you want it to be. GK are probably one of the most mobile infantry options in existence, and so turtling doesn't really apply to them.
Only an extreme novice would attempt turtling in 40k. It only works in very specific conditions, when for instance only one objective needs to be held, or if you play a 100% static firepower army, which typically stand a chance of destroying anything they can see, and *then* they can move anyways once the enemy has been thinned out and "defanged" so to speak.
Your example with genestealers is a novel idea, but only in certain situations. What is the rest of your army doing while those 4 units are caught up in assault? How many enemy are left? Massing squads together is usually going to be very situational...sometimes it's a good idea, sometimes it's certainly not! Your example of being "backed into a corner" really doesn't apply to 40K, because in nearly every mission you need to move to secure objectives. If you're being squeezed into a corner your opponent has already won. If you can use your own vehicles and terrain to create this situation in a *good* position, then it might just work, at least until the vehicles blow and become terrain. Generally speaking you won't be able to restrict your opponent's movement to such a high degree, and even if you whittle down the gaunts you'll still be stuck in assault with a fearless unit, and eventually the hive tyrant will find a way in .
as i have found in my experiences turtling is only a good tactic against armies with no template weapons, i would suggest IST in a chrimera with a TH and just use deepstriking manovers.
Chaos is a decison not a life
haha, i just realized i dunno how to set a link. what a noob i am!
neways, um, around the same page where goblins suggested link is should reside my own thread called "1850 UNFRIENDLY PAGK", sorta seems to fit what u were thinking about, yet its all PAGK so it doesnt really stop moving. if you can handle my babble, mabey it would be worth reading
LO RULESOriginally Posted by Jaffar_Hasad
Well, I've had another proxied game against the Eldar player that I regularly play against. I chose to start with all 4 PAGK squads on the board, and only deep struck my Terminators (poor deep strike by me allowed their only target, Warp Spiders, to just run away and leave them useless until the last turn when they popped a Falcon's rear armour).
But this time my tactic was to utilise the superior range of the army as a whole (all my stormbolters outrange all his troop weapons, it's just his 2 Vypers, 2 Falcons and a wraithlord that outrange me). They plopped themselves down in a big forest and fired as much as they could before counter-charging. This is basically what I meant by keeping the squad together. Not necessarily all packed base to base (although they were because of my opponent's lack of template or blast weapons), but close enough that multiple squads can shoot at the same thing. I'm convinced that Deep Striking is a bad way to go unless it's absolutely essential.
(For those wondering, it was a cleanse game that I was lucky to win in that I was going to make a move for quarters as late as possible, and only just contested everything, and I had more VP still on the board).