The Erroneous Nature of the Theoretical Vacuum

“Each episode in war is the temporary result of a unique combination of circumstances, presenting a unique set of problems and requiring a unique solution. Nevertheless, no episode can be viewed in isolation. Rather, each episode merges with those that precede and follow it - shaped by the former and shaping the conditions of the latter - creating a continuous, fluctuating flow of activity replete with fleeting opportunities and unforeseen events. Since war is a fluid phenomenon, its conduct requires flexibility of thought. Success depends in large part on the ability to adapt - to proactively shape changing events to our advantage as well as to react quickly to constantly changing conditions.”
-USMC Combat Doctrine Manual, “Warfighting”, p.9

This article is intended to go along with the first article, posted a week or two back, regarding The Role of Chance in 40k. I hope to show through this piece that our conceptions of theoretical vacuums in games of 40k are harmful to our list building processes, and also counter-productive to personal growth as a player.

To begin with, it may be helpful to define what I mean when I use the term theoretical vacuum. I imagine that we have all either taken part in or listened to arguments that discuss the value of a certain unit or wargear setup when compared to a particular foe. These arguments rarely move beyond the math regarding damage dealt and survivability in return. It is almost always assumed that the unit being analyzed will be going first, at full strength, in optimum position, against the targeted foe. It is important to note that this data is very useful in determining a unit’s value, but it does little to progress your thinking about the deeper aspects of becoming a successful 40k gamer.

For example, what if the unit isn’t going first? What happens if the opposing unit Seizes the Initiative? It can also be assumed the units are not participating in a one-on-one firefight, but rather they are each part of a larger force. When we consider all the possible combinations of cover, synergy support from friendly units, debuffs from enemy units, and all the other encounters in a game of 40k, it becomes apparent quickly that the theoretical vacuum gives us less than the tip of the iceberg in regards to unit effectiveness.

It is my position that theoretical vacuums offer significant value in determining a unit’s capabilities, but that they also create erroneous thought processes when used as the sole determinant of a unit’s intrinsic worth/worthlessness. Furthermore, there are so many variables involved in a game of Warhammer 40,000 that I would argue true intrinsic value is unknowable. As a result, list construction should be aimed toward the prosecution of a given mission, rather than a sole focus on optimization.

Consider the following. At their most basic level, Troops choices must fulfill only one criteria: two of them must be purchased in any army (assuming we aren’t running formations or detachments of any kind). While a small minority of players still approach the game with plans of tabling their opponent, in practice it is simply too difficult to do in 6th edition with all the drastic points reductions across armies. Since one-third of the Eternal War missions rely solely on Troops to hold objectives for victory conditions, it is a safe assumption to begin with the premise that Troops are essential to adequately fulfill victory conditions across all missions.

There are several different factors that go into determining the value of a Troops choice, and many of them are self-evident when placed into the theoretical vacuum. A Troops choice must strike a balance between resilience, points cost, and overall effectiveness to be truly worth their investment. In the mind’s eye of many players, several 5th edition Codices were made (Space Wolves, Orks) or broken (obsolete Dark Eldar) by the intrinsic quality of their Troops. Many other factors were left out of the equation, but in general it was accepted that these books were good or bad due to the intrinsic value of their Troops choices.

Since many of my recent games have been with Codex: Tau Empire, I will turn to them for an example. There is a large discussion regarding the value of Tau Fire Warriors as a viable Troops choice, and the camps are split somewhat evenly. In the early days of the Codex release this was not the case. Most people felt the Fire Warriors were a poor Troops choice and would not perform well in their required task of holding objectives. Evidence to support this pointed either to their relative fragility or to their very average stat line. However, with time and game experience many players have reversed their opinion of the lowly Fire Warrior, and decided he is indeed a good Troops choice.

When viewed in the theoretical vacuum, it is easy to see why Fire Warriors received so much negative review in the early days. Their high-strength weapons do not equate to very many wounds. Resilient targets will absorb most of these hits through their armor saves, and horde units will soak up the casualties through attrition and intelligent use of cover. The Fire Warrior has a relatively weak stat line, and as a result he cannot absorb incoming fire all that well. In addition to this, the Tau’s complete ineptitude in close combat only exacerbates the issue. With a somewhat pricey cost per model, it seems obvious that Fire Warriors are not that effective as your objective-holding Troops models.

Despite all this evidence, anyone who has faced a Tau Empire army in 6th edition knows that Fire Warriors are actually incredibly effective Troops that can remove entire enemy units in one volley. So how do we reconcile that with the general idea that, “on paper”, Fire Warriors are an inferior choice? In this specific example, army synergy is the answer to the question. Ethereals provide additional shots, Pathfinders provide elevated shooting ability with their Markerlight support, and Devilfish APCs give additional protection and maneuverability to protect the Fire Warriors until the moment they strike. An opponent will be working to ensure the synergy falls apart ahead of time, by striking at either the Ethereal, the Devilfish, or the Pathfinders in support.

These factors all tie together to show that a Warhammer 40,000 battlefield is a fluid, constantly evolving process. Each offensive thrust is met with a defensive parry, and all the while conditions are changing across the board. Good generalship depends on much more than playing optimized units. Instead, a player should focus on an overarching mission behind their force. A succinct generalization that might prove appropriate follows:

My goal is to create a force that maximizes the chances of success across all Eternal War and Maelstrom of War missions.

With this as your goal, units should not be chosen for optimization, but for their complimentary nature to other units in your force. Your entire force should be viewed as a single entity, and must have a plan for each mission it might encounter. True initiative on the tabletop can be taken this way, as your opponent will be continuously working to thwart your mission, rather than prosecuting his own. Many simplify this process by referring to it as “point-defense mode”. If your opponent is engaging targets based on how you have maneuvered, you have gained the initiative. 

You simply cannot allow your plan to develop as the game progresses. Against a foe who has prepared their own agenda against the stipulations of the mission, this will almost always end in failure. Go into the mission with a plan to execute, and view the enemy as an obstacle in the path of achieving the desired mission. With this focus, you cannot lose sight of the victory conditions, and your every effort will be expended to full force in prosecuting the mission, rather than destruction of enemy assets. In this way, unanticipated casualties and surprise maneuvers by the enemy hold much less sway over your ability to dictate the course of battle.