The preliminary calculations made in the Chapter Three reflect the relative cost efficiency of Dark Eldar Warriors and Space Marines in various situations. Those abstract calculations, however, do not take into account factors found on the actual WH40K battlefield, such as formation, varying terrain, morale, and strategic movement. Although specific calculations are not used in this chapter, this chapter describes the general effect of various formations upon a unit's basic cost effectiveness.
Different unit formations are used for different tactical effects. The components of formation are cohesion, shape, orientation, and relative positioning.
Note: A unit that is in 5x4 formation rather than 20x1 formation will be able to respond to changing battlefield conditions with much more efficiency. However, the unit that is in 20x1 formation may be able to fulfill a particular tactical role better than a 5x4 formation - if a unit is already set up in a formation appropriate to the strategy being planned, the formation won't need to be changed during the battle, and no movement will be wasted to change the formation.
Cohesion refers to the looseness or tightness of a formation - that is, how closely models in the unit are to each other. A unit with all its models in base-to-base contact with each other is in tight formation. A unit with all its models 2 inches apart from each other is in loose formation.
Tight formations are better suited to close combat than loose formations. A tighter formation allows fewer enemy to get into base to base contact, while allowing the most of your formation to be in base to base contact.
Tight formations are potentially more effective in the shooting phase than loose formations. The models at the extremities of a unit in loose formation may not be able to reach the enemy with their guns, or may fire at reduced effect.
Tight formations can be reshaped to meet changing battlefield conditions faster than loose formations can.
Tight formations occupy less area, so a unit in tight formation is easier to protect than a unit in loose formation.
Loose formations will take fewer casualties from template weapons such as blast weapons, flamer type weapons, and ordnance blasts. Thus, loose formations are potentially more effective than tight formations in the shooting phase against armies that have template weapons.
Loose formations occupy more area, so a unit in loose formation will protect more area than a unit in tight formation.
Some illustrations of the varying effects of cohesion follow. In the diagrams below purple circles represent Dark Eldar, and the blue circles represent Space Marines.
Diagram One shows a unit of 8 Space Marines in a tight formation being charged by a unit of 15 Dark Eldar Warriors. Diagram Two shows a unit of 8 Space Marines in a loose formation being charged by a unit of 15 Dark Eldar Warriors.
The tight formation allows fewer Dark Eldar Warriors to get into base-to-base contact. Thus, fewer Warriors will benefit from the +1 Attack received when charging. One of the Warriors is not even within 2 inches of the combat, so that Warrior cannot attack.
The loose formation allows all the Dark Eldar Warriors to get into base-to-base contact. Thus, the Warriors all receive the +1 Attack from charging.
The tight formation will be hit with 20 attacks (((6 * 2) + (8 * 1)) = 20). The loose formation will be hit with 30 attacks (15 * 2 = 30). The two combat situations are changed drastically, simply by a change of formation.
The magnitude of this effect varies as the spacing between models of a unit changes. The principle of tightness of formation applies to units that are charging as well as units that are being charged.
Shape refers to the geometric shape of a formation - linear, triangular, rectangular, ovoid, and so forth. Different shapes have different tactical advantages.
Linear formations are of varying effectiveness in the shooting phase. Linear formations are the least vulnerable to template weapons. However, units in linear formation are vulnerable to targeted effects such as Mind War and Vindicare Assassin shooting, as models in a unit deployed in linear formation do not usually block LOS to one another. Because of the lack of LOS blockers, linear formations can also be particularly vulnerable to untargeted shooting, as shown in the diagram below.
In the above diagram, blue circles represent Space Marines with bolters. The blue ring represents a Space Marine with a heavy bolter. Purple circles represent Dark Eldar Warriors with splinter rifles. The two purple rings represent Dark Eldar Warriors with dark lances. The large purple rectangle represents a Dark Eldar Raider. The white and red lines are drawn to show line of sight.
In the example above, the Raider blocks LOS (line of sight) from the Warriors with Dark Lances to most of the Space Marine squad. If a dark lance scores a wound, the Space Marine player must remove the Space Marine with heavy bolter, as no other models in the Space Marine unit could be hit by dark lance fire.
A linear formation is the ideal formation for the assault phase, so long as the formation's line is perpendicular to the line of enemy advance. A linear formation parallel to the line of enemy advance is almost worthless.
The orientation of a linear formation cannot be changed quickly in response to changing battlefield conditions. Since the effectiveness of a linear formation in the assault phase depends entirely upon its orientation, the slow change of a linear formation's orientation can potentially be an extreme liability.
A triangular formation (phalanx) is an excellent formation for shooting. Models placed in the center or rear of the triangular formation will be protected from enemy LOS and in the first round of an assault.
A triangular formation will have slightly varying effectiveness in the assault phase depending on which part of the formation - edge or point - is involved in close combat. A triangular formation can potentially decrease the effectiveness of an incoming enemy assault.
The orientation and shape of a triangular formation can be changed quickly, so can respond quickly to changing battlefield conditions if necessary. As a triangular formation is not particularly vulnerable to attack from any given direction, a shift in orientation or shape is rarely actually needed.
Long rectangular formations are similar to linear formations. Wide rectangular formations are similar to ovoid formations. The following description of rectangular formations refers to rectangular formations that are neither particularly long or wide.
Rectangular formations combine the lessened vulnerability to template weapons of a linear formation with the LOS blocking of a triangular formation. However, a rectangular formation will not protect models as well as a triangular formation will against enemy rear or flank attacks.
Rectangular formations can be quite efficient in an assault, depending on whether the long side or the short side of the rectangule is perpendicular to the line of enemy advance.
The speed of change in orientation or shape of a rectangular formation will vary as the length-width ratio of the rectangular formation varies. A 20 model unit in a 10x2 formation will be able to respond to changing battlefield conditions with considerably more speed than the same unit in a 20x1 formation. A 5x4 formation will be able to respond to changing battlefield conditions with even more speed than a 10x2 formation.
Ovoid formations are formations in rough circles or ellipses. Only large units of ten or models are large enough to make true ovoid formations.
Models in the center of an ovoid formation are protected from enemy LOS and in the first round of an assault, just as the models in the center of a triangular formation are.
Ovoid formations are neither particularly strong or weak in close combat.
An ovoid formation is the least specialized formation, but is the quickest to respond to changing battlefield conditions. Shape and orientation can be changed very quickly. Models will usually bunch up at one end or another in response to changing battlefield conditions - more models will be present at one end of the formation, as a flank is protected, etc. For this reason, this type of formation is called "ovoid", or egg-shaped, rather than "circular".
Orientation refers to the direction a formation faces. Some formations are extremely strong against frontal attacks while being extremely weak against flank attacks (linear and rectangular). Other formations are fairly strong against frontal attacks while not being particularly vulnerable to flank attacks (triangular and other conceptually similar formations). Finally, some formations are not particularly strong or weak in any situation (ovoid).
A unit's cost effectiveness can change drastically as its shape and orientation change. As a rough guideline, a unit in linear or rectangular formation will be 50% to 200% as efficient as a unit in ovoid formation, depending on orientation. A unit in triangular formation will be about 75% to 150% as efficient as a unit in ovoid formation, depending on orientation and relative positioning.
Relative positioning refers to the the positioning of one unit relative to other units on the battlefield. A unit's cost effectiveness will be greatly increased if it is well positioned relative to other units on the field.
For example, a Blood Angel Scout squad armed with bolt pistols and close combat weapons is ideally suited to charging basic enemy infantry units. In a battle against a Gaunt-heavy Tyranid army, placing the Scouts at the front of the line almost guarantees that the Scouts will be charged by Hormagaunt-type Gaunts or Gargoyles. If the Scouts are charged, they can't charge the enemy.
In most cases, Blood Angel Scouts with bolt pistols and close combat weapons should be placed behind a unit that can absorb the force of an enemy charge (the front unit should be able to survive an enemy assault, and thus prevent an enemy sweeping advance).
If possible, the Blood Angel Scouts should be placed in a position in which they will be able to assault the enemy at full effect. That is, all charging Scouts should ideally be able to get into base to base contact with an enemy model. This means that the Scouts can't be placed directly behind a thick screen (the Scouts wouldn't be able to maneuver into HtH very well). It also means that the Scouts shouldn't be placed too far behind the front line (or the Scouts wouldn't be able to reach the battle in the turn after the enemy charge)
The best cohesion, shape, orientation, and relative positioning of a unit often changes. Different tactical effects will be desired for different situations. Different tactical effects require different formations.
In the above paragraph, "different situation" is purposefully vague. Change in terrain, board size, army composition, enemy army composition, and deployment are some of the more obvious factors that could change.
There are less obvious factors that could change a situation as well. Total point value involved in a battle is one. Personal preference is another.
The use of a unit can be changed simply by the total number of points involved in the game. A Rhino with a ten man Tactical Squad is an easy target in a 500 point game on a 6 by 4 board. That isolated Rhino would be easily destroyed before it could transport its troops into close combat. Even if the Rhino were to manage to drop off its troops, the enemy would easily be able to counterattack, as most of the enemy forces would be placed close together.
The same Rhino in a 1500 point game would be much more difficult to destroy - it could hide behind other Rhinos, or even the wrecks of other Rhinos. When the Rhino managed to drop its troops off into close combat, most of the enemy army would probably be unable to reinforce the assaulted area, as at 1500 points, the enemy army would probably have a good number of models that would get in each others' way.
In the first situation, the Tactical Squad might be placed in a phalanx formation to fire upon the enemy, while in the second situation, the Tactical Squad might be put in a tight linear formation after the Rhino dropped them off into close combat.
Even though the same unit is being used, the different point value involved in the two different games necessitates different tactical usages of the unit.
"Personal preference" refers to simple personal preference. A flexible army could use two entirely different effective strategies requiring two entirely different sets of tactical plans for each unit. Sometimes, the choice of what strategy to use is purely random. Sometimes, the choice of strategy is dictated by knowledge of an opponent's strategies, or knowledge of the opponent's knowledge of one's own strategies.
Sometimes, a commander will know the opposing commander preferences. If the commander watched the opposing commander's previous games, enemy tactics and strategies may be known. If the commander knows the opposing commander personally, enemy tactics and strategies may be predicted based on the opponent's temprament and mood.
An opponent may choose to use his or her army's vehicles to move troops with guns around the field, avoiding enemy contact. Or, an opponent may choose to use his or her army's vehicles to transport the same troops into close combat. If a commander knows the enemy prefers one over the other, a particular strategy may be formed to assure a better chance of success.
Sometimes, an opposing commander will have observed your games. If so, you may choose to use a different strategies from the ones your opponent has seen you use. This may surprise the opponent, allowing you to secure an advantage.
Various formations have different tactical effectiveness and different cost effectiveness in different situations. There are too many possible combinations of positions to describe the exact effects of various formations on cost effectiveness. However, knowledge of basic relative cost effectiveness combined with an understanding of the application of formations will allow a commander to make informed decisions on the battlefield.
A unit with tight cohesion will have better cost effectiveness in an assault than the same unit in loose cohesion, but will be more vulnerable to template weapons in the shooting phase. Although tight cohesion will allow the unit to protect the area it occupies better than a unit in loose cohesion, the unit in tight cohesion will not be able to protect as much area as the unit in loose cohesion.
A unit with loose cohesion will have better cost effectiveness against template weapons than the same unit in tight cohesion, but will be less cost effective in close combat. Although loose cohesion allows a unit to protect more area than a unit in tight cohesion, that area will not be as well protected.
Tight cohesion and loose cohesion can affect a close combat even after the initial assault. If an enemy used superior numbers to assault a unit in loose formation, the enemy could remove casualties and move units in in such a manner that the enemy's numbers would be brought to bear at full effect in subsequent rounds of combat. If an enemy used superior numbers against the same unit in tight formation, the unit in tight formation could stay in one place, restricting the number of enemy able to get into base to base contact, reducing the efficiency of the enemy assault in subsequent rounds.
A unit is formed in a line perpendicular to the enemy will have maximum cost effectiveness in close combat.
A unit formed in a line parallel to the enemy will have minimal cost effectiveness at initial contact. If the unit is small (seven or less models), the unit will be at average cost efficiency in the next assault phase. If the unit is large (fifteen or so models), the unit will still be at low cost efficiency in the next assault phase, and will only reach average cost efficiency in the third assault phase.
Units formed in line formations that are neither perpendicular or parallel to the enemy will fall between the listed descriptions above.
A linear formation is vulnerable to particular enemy tactics (see above) that allow the enemy to target single models.
A linear unit will not be particularly vulnerable to template weapons.
A unit formed in a triangular formation with a broad side facing the enemy will have average cost effectiveness in close combat.
A unit formed in a triangular formation with a point facing the enemy will have low to moderate cost effectiveness in the initial round of close combat, and average cost effectiveness in subsequent rounds of close combat.
A triangular formation is vulnerable to template weapons.
A large unit formed in an ovoid formation will have low to average cost effectiveness in the first round of close combat, low to average cost effectiveness in the second round of close combat, and average cost effectiveness in subsequent rounds of close combat.
A unit in ovoid formation is vulnerable to template weapons.
Carefully placed units will be much more cost effective than units that were simply placed anywhere on the board. For example, placing strong assault units behind weaker assault units ensures that the strong assault units will be able to charge into combat (rather than *being* charged). This particular topic of positioning units effectively in relation to one another will receive its own chapter.
Formation effectiveness will vary considerably with army type, army composition, terrain, and morale, as well as a number of other particular factors depending on what army is being used.
The key thing to remember about formations is that they're a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. Different formations will be required in different situations. There is no single most effective formation.
The next chapters describes other factors that can change cost effectiveness, such as terrain, morale, mobility, variant armour saves in a unit, variant armour saves in an army, unit armament (why Devastator squad units are still cost effective although their weapons cost double the points), as well as uses of vehicles to block LOS, uses of vehicles to section the battlefield, advanced formations, using differently sized models such as Carnifexes, Tyrants, Ogryns, and Nobz effectively, plus a lot of other fun stuff like that. Chapter Five describes game effects of terrain, as well as some possible courses of action to take when no favorable terrain exists.
Follow this link to the next chapter.
Chapter Two: Strategy, Tactics, and Statistics
Chapter Three: Calculating Basic Cost Effectiveness
The Unofficial Warhammer 40,000 Army Cheese Purity Test
Sector Occultus: Background Information
Army Selection (Example: Blood Angels)
Painted Units For Sale. (Pictures mean long download time!)
Copyright � 2001 Newpaintbrush. All Rights Reserved.