Battleplan Tactics 1: Blood and Glory

[hobgoblinclub]

The General's Handbook matched play battleplans seem very simple but offer real tactical variation (as with everything in AoS).  Slight tweaks, such as how objectives are captured, mean each battleplan demands a distinct approach.

I'm interested in how the community approaches each one.  I'll start a thread for each of the six matched play battleplans so things don't get confusing.  It'll be interesting to see which ones provoke the most discussion (and I can shamelessly pick up tips...because future opponents obviously can't read this).

First up, Blood and Glory.  How do approach this battleplan?  What has worked?  What hasn't?  In your experience, which unit types are vital?  Which ones should be left at home?

[daedalus81]

You may want to take it one battle plan a day or so to keep the discussion focused.  I won't reiterate the thought from my old threads, so I leave it to the rest of you guys -- too much work to do!

[hobgoblinclub]

41 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

You may want to take it one battle plan a day or so to keep the discussion focused.  I won't reiterate the thought from my old threads, so I leave it to the rest of you guys -- too much work to do!

Advice noted and followed. Didn't want to make it seem spammy. Daily discussions seems like a great plan. 

I played this one on Wednesday night against @Painted by G. I almost made the fatal error of leaving top few units on the objectives and letting him get an auto win (only to remember you can't win until turn three).

Seems to me like the centre of the board is of very little value. Next time we play, I'll split the army in two and put it on either flank, protecting my objectives. As long as you take units quick enough to stop the enemy slipping through the middle, the focus should be entirely on dominating out wide and, hopefully, pushing quickly forwards.

[Painted by G]

I thought the same thing when looking at this battle plan..  Split into 2 and pretty much fight 2 separate battles. 

But you'd have to win both decisively no? Fair enough if you can look at your opponent's list and know what's going to happen, but I'm a long way from that. 

Thats why I decided on a strong core in the middle and two hard hitting flanks,  hoping to smash through the objectives and grab early victory and use the core to fix what didn't go to plan.

Kinda almost worked!

I'll be following this with interest, being an aspiring tournament player, it'd be great to have even a basic idea about how to approach each scenario without having to play all of them several times over.. Which would take me a year probably! 

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

Problem with splitting is you're kind of relying on your opponent deploying weakly to one area or spread out. If he deploys everything on one flank you will be outmatched then by turn 3 they should be able to push in to the other half.

You definitely have to play against their deployment and be wary of non-deploying that can concentrate on one flank or one-drop first turn armies that can alpha strike

[hobgoblinclub]

I try to avoid following the opponent's deployment too much though. It assumes he's more of a threat if you purely mirror him.

If you split your force, and the opponent spreads out across the board, in theory you should be able to smash both flanks. If your opponent goes down one flank, that could cause problems. You may be able to out maneuver him though. By committing it all in one area of the battlefield, he's fencing himself in and leaving the other half of your force to roam free. 

[Tenebris]

In my case I use to full advantage my Skyborne Slayers formation. I begin by setting my Vexillor and Retributors safe away from enemy LoS and if I can (usually I do since I finish deployment first) I give the first turn to my adversary. When he places his army, moves his lines it is clear what he intends thus I can plan how to deploy the rest of my army. 

Usually I place my bow Judicators in my half of the board, the other objective goes to the Vexillor and I put all my assault elements heavily when the concentration of the foes is the greatest, to smash them apiece (or be smashed in return). My main targets are his ranged units which can shoot throughout the game at my objective holders. 

I doubt I will ever get a major victory in this scenario but if I play it right and do actually play smart with target priority and my alpha strike, it is a game and an option to score well. 

 

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

I try to avoid following the opponent's deployment too much though. It assumes he's more of a threat if you purely mirror him.
If you split your force, and the opponent spreads out across the board, in theory you should be able to smash both flanks. If your opponent goes down one flank, that could cause problems. You may be able to out maneuver him though. By committing it all in one area of the battlefield, he's fencing himself in and leaving the other half of your force to roam free. 

Yeah that's exactly what I was saying really. It can be a bit Rock Paper Scissors if you're not careful.

I don't mean mirror his deployment, but with most of these battleplans you have to react to them. A one size fits all deployment plan just doesn't work often enough to be viable.

[hobgoblinclub]

Very true. Dunno how many times I'll get to play it again before Blood and Glory. Think I'll have to play it by ear on the day. 

[Thostos]

 Played this one a couple times with my Flesh Eaters.

 

 Since I like to stay in my 5+ bubble as much as possible I try and move my army as a kinda large blob.What I do in this one is start pretty much in one corner though leaning toward the middle of my board side,then push diagonally across the board.I ended up capping the objective accross from my starting corner both times and only lost my other corner objective once.both games were wins with one from having 3 objectives and the other being tied on objectives but winning on unit points killed.

 

 As with any objective based scenario,it may not seem very smart to leave one of your own objectives unoccupied,but when facing more elite,lower model count armies,it can actually work as it forces your opponent to move one of their few units on the board over to cap the objective,thus taking them out of the fight for what usually is at least 2 turns.In a 5 turn game that can be huge.

 

[MrCharisma]

I attempt to start with a concentration in one quadrant, with the expansion occuring both up and to the side... essentially creating an L. 

As a Free People/Empire player I'm reliant on keeping my core within the bubble of my General and Hurricanum. My block of crossbowmen hold the initial objective while the rest advanced in a wave (swords in front, spears literally behind with base to base, leveraging a 2" range). 

I the past I haven't used calvery which has burnt me in the late stages of the game if I haven't secured 3 of the objectives. 

[StealthKnightSteg]

Played this scenario once with my Storm cast (vanguard size and 4x4 table).

I used a set of Liberators with a Castellant and his gryph hound to secure and hold 1 objective (group1). While the other was secured with a set of liberators and my Relictor / Celestant (group2). Had a set of Retributors and Prosecutors up high.. Due to scenery only objective by group 1 was easily approachable.

Awaiting his movement I plunked in the Retributors near an objective that he was threatening (by a mournghoul) while my Prosecutors went behind enemy lines to threaten on of his objectives.

Group 2 and support managed to clear the thread and then relieve the holding out of group 1 while my prosecutors were able to secure an objective and I just failed my run rolls (3 times a 1) to reach the last objective to claiming it.