Philosophy of the game: Counter-charge

Hey there folks, it's Xaereth again, from Delusions of Grandeur, taking a slight deviation from my 'Rediscovering Angels' series I've been giving.  Today I want to show you the way I approach the game in general.  I think in order for future posts of mine to make sense, it'll be good for people to read them in this context.  It's something I posted a while back on my other blog, so to those of you who read both:  I apologize for the repeat.

As a sidenote, please realize I won't be repeating content from one blog to the other often at all- this week I'm a little pressed for time what with like 3 huge papers due, and a final project and such.  Perfect timing for said recycling content :)

Right now: Keep in mind that a counter-charge isn't necessarily only a charge- it can be shooting.  It's basically an efficient way of removing your opponent's models quickly.  Every army has them, though of course some armies have an easier time of it than others.

I've long thought that the counter-charge was the way to win 40k.  Sure, every once in a while you get a game where a pure gun line is setup spread across the board, and a pure assault force is spread across the board, where everything happens in a linear manner, almost as if there were 15 different games going on. A game with skilled players won't generally happen that way, however.  The concept of supporting your units is perhaps the most fundamental concept of playing 40k well, and good players know that.

When going into a game, I have a kind of chess-like mentality.  If I expose my bishop for the opponent to take it without risk to any of my opponent's pieces, I will clearly lose my bishop, with little to no positive gain to me.  However, if I expose the bishop with the knowledge that if they take my piece, my rook will be able to take their piece in turn, depending on what pieces are swapped, it might end up profitably for me.    Similarly in 40k, if I expose a unit to my opponent to the point that I'll lose that unit, without being able to somehow make them pay for it, I'll likely lose that unit.  If they (the exposed squad) haven't already done their job (i.e. melta suicide vs. a Land Raider), then it was a poor decision to expose them in that manner.

Perhaps this is fairly obvious.  Let me digress for just a moment.

The game of 40k, at its most basic level, is the attempt to get troops out of their transports, and kill them.  If there are no transports, it's easier (or at least, simpler), since you can skip straight to killing them.  There are of course many ways to kill them, but the basic concept remains.

Many people attempt to force their opponents out of their transports, jumping in with guns blazing, ready to assault the contents.  Sometimes that works.  Many times, they pop the transport, and are unable to charge, or to fully wipe out the squad inside, exposing themselves for the benefit of a single popped transport.  Even when they are able to jump in, destroy the transport, and assault, that unit is exposing itself to the rest of the opponents army.  Like in chess, the unit will probably be removed- hopefully the damage done to your opponent was worth losing that unit.  This is why transports in 40k are amazing- they provide the perfect method of counter-attack, though we don't generally think of it in those terms.

Look at Tau for another example of good counter-charging- lots of the best Tau players screen their most crucial shooty units with 'bubblewrap', forcing a would-be assaulter to kill a wall of kroot or piranhas instead of the Broadsides or crisis suits right behind them.  This exposes the assaulters to a 'counter-charge' by the Tau- presumably lots of plasma and rocket pods to the face.  Nids also do this a lot- they use a gaunt screen, forcing the opponent to assault the gaunts so that their big guys can get the charge.

A particular strategy I like to use quite a bit against Land Raider lists, in order to get them out of their Land Raiders, is to move transports in rhinos up, all near to each other, and have a single rhino disembark their troops within 6" to try to melta the Raider.  There's never a doubt in my mind whether or not the squad will survive- with terminators aboard, even if they kill the Raider, the termies will exact retribution.

Here's the idea though- even if the Raider isn't destroyed, it forces my opponent to deal with that squad.  He might disembark his Termies to charge my guys.  If it's a redeemer, maybe he'll just move up and toast the bunched-up squad.  Either way, he's exposing something to the guys in my other rhinos- I'll be able to move up and melta his Raider out the hatch with a Rhino, keeping the guys inside relatively safe.  Or, if his terminators get out and assault, I can get out and assault/shoot the termies from the nearby rhinos with the force I need to wipe them out.

So, I get a pretty reasonable attempt to kill a raider + another reasonable chance to get rid of his termies all for the sacrifice of a single squad.  If I end up bagging either the raider or the termies, it's likely going to be worth their sacrifice.  All accomplished by not relying on the charge:  it's accomplished by forcing my opponent to deal with me.

This doesn't work every time of course, since a Land Raider + Termies do not a full army make.  If it's a canny opponent, maybe he'll have stuck a rhino full of flamers (in a Vulkan army) nearby, ready to jump out and deal with something like this.  If I fail my melta rolls (which happens quite a bit, sadly), he won't be forced to get the Termies out of their ride- he can 'sacrifice' his Tactical squad instead, forcing me to deal with them.  Being able to understand the threats an enemy army can present to each of your units is vital for getting the best counter-charge.

I'm not a chess master by any stretch of the word, but I know I've played multiple games where if one piece takes another, it will set off a chain of counter-attacks by both sides.  The trick is to finagle it so that you get the better end of the deal- by either losing less pieces than your opponent, or losing less value in your pieces removed than they did (i.e. only losing a rook and 3 pawns vs. an opponents bishop, rook, and 2 pawns).

How this relates to 40k should be obvious- force your opponent to deal with you, but do it on your own terms.  If you can see that he'll just counter your attempt on the Raider with his Flamer Tac squad, then maybe do it, and get ready to kill his Tac Squad.  Then, when he's forced to use his termies to clean up your counter-charge, have another unit ready to deal with them.  If you know you can't possibly deal with all the threats presented, it probably isn't worth it, and you need to find another 'chink' in his armor.  There will almost always be one.

Games are won in such ways.  That's generally the way I play all the games that I win.  If I look back at a game where I got stomped, it's almost always because I failed to support my units well, and take advantage of the counter-attacks I could have set up.

Also keep in mind- this method of play can be used in other ways.  If you're defending an objective, or want to distract an opponent from something happening elsewhere on the board, this method works well.  Keeping
his 'pieces' in a single isolated area in order to counter-attack you can have serious benefits if it keeps them from taking you off an objective it takes a turn or two for them to get to.  Play around with it- you'll see what I mean.

I'll stop here.  Hopefully you get the gist of what I'm talking about.  40k is obviously complex enough that no example will be able to survive in a vacuum.  But hopefully you learned something.  Let me know what you think :)


Sean said...

Excellent post. It covers the most basic and fundamental strategems of war. Drawing the enemy away from his refuge. This incorporates two things in particular.

"every time a few muslim jihadists die disabling one us stryker their parent cell has won an engagement. Those jihadists are too easy to replace to have much strategic value. The stryker costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, if enough are destroyed, congrees will stop funding the war."
- Militant Tricks

"Never directly attack a well entrenched opponent, instead lure him away from his stronghold and seperate him from his source of strength."
- Verstappen, the thirst-six strategies of Ancient CHINA

I approve will be trying with my BA RAZ on my brothers LR time to bust out the meltaguns.

Michael said...

Good ideas Xaereth.

I always have thoughts like this, but in the mix of the game, I always forget my strategies it seems, and try to wing it. Doing things on the fly. Adaptability is good, but I tend to lose focus of my primary objective.

That is not a very good plan, lol.

Xaereth said...

Heh, glad a couple people liked it :P

It's hard to keep this sort of strategy in mind. Lots of times there's enough going on elsewhere that you're tempted to forget about it.

This strategy is almost perfect for Blood Angels in particular though, since everything is capable of quick, powerful assault.

Post a Comment