Threat Analysis: Nighthaunt Part 1

 Introduction

This blog has demonstrated the methodology of performing Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield in more generic terms. Today, we will perform these steps while focusing on a single matchup: Nighthaunt. We will focus solely on a part of Step 3 of today's process, "Evaluate the Threat," The first two steps would be tailored to your specific army and "Operational Environment," the battleplans you would play at a tournament or game you select. Check out the previous entries for more on that.

Evaluate the Threat

You can perform this step outside of game time. In fact, I recommend you do. We will use a Nighthaunt list that recently won a GT for the following steps. 

The first substep is to classify this threat as Regular, Irregular, or Hybrid. Regular threats are more straightforward, not using teleporting shenanigans or methods to retreat and charge. Irregular threats will avoid head-on fights with unique abilities that allow them to engage in asymmetric warfare. Hybrid threats simply do some of both. I would typify NH as an Irregular threat because of their army-wide abilities to charge in combat, fly, and in the case of this list, run and charge with a unit as well as deliver a deepstrike capability with Awlrach. 

Composition

Most of this is spelled out in the opponent's list. We have three regiments that we can expect to be reconstituted into task-organized units. This process will help us determine the enemy's capabilities and limitations. 

This is the basis for symbology we will use (derived from the NATO Joint Military Symbology standard). We doctrinally would also be considering where the enemy is (the Disposition) but we won't know significant details of that until deployment, and subsequent steps will better illustrate that stage of the game.

Threat Files

Next let us combine the Composition with the existing rules for the associated units to make up our Threat Data Files. These would normally include unit strength, combat effectiveness, doctrine and tactics, and many other characteristics. For our purposes, what this means is an understanding of how the units the enemy has taken in their list will interact with the army's rules. 

Take a look at the warscrolls, spell and prayer lores, artefacts and heroic traits. What sort of synergies do they grant? How much added value do these selections bring to the table? This will help inform your assessment of the enemy's capabilities and limitations. 

Create or Refine Threat Models

"Threat models accurately portray how threat forces normal execute operations and how they have reacted to similar situations in the past," (ATP 2-01.3, section 5-43). My old instructor told me to imagine this as "if the enemy deployed into a giant parking lot that was 100 x 100 km, how would they arrange their forces to do an operation?" Another good point here: once you've created the Threat Model, you'll just be refining it as the meta changes. 

One of the products we'd generate in this step of IPOE is the Threat Template. This product can be as simple or as complex as you'd like to get. A quick napkin sketch of a plan would suffice. You can derive some insights based on the maximum ranges of certain unit abilities. For example: we can see a strong power-pair of Awlrach and Bladegheists. With the season rule and Awlrach's deepstrike ability, this unit can rapidly insert 7" from their target and deliver a precise and devastating blow. This won't be an option for the player if the Bladegheists are not wholly within 12" of Awlrach. 

We also know Reikenor can be a pretty potent spellcaster with the Corpsecandle ability. The strong debuff and recursion spells in the NH lore both have a range of wholly within 12", so we can make an assessment that Reikenor will be positioned to cast those spells, likely on a unit the enemy wants to make more durable and retain board control. 

The primary damage dealer would be the Bladegheists but the Hexwraiths and Harridans are no slouches either. Because NH is so mobile, most units can have multiple roles as screens, prospectors, and even anvils. The unit selection here looks to commit the Bladegheists as the decisive operation whose mission is to destroy High-Value Targets (HVTs). Harridans are likely tasked with seizing and securing key terrain and objectives as they have been reinforced and are therefore more wound dense than the Hexwraiths, and they are stronger when they attack wounded units. The Hexwraiths are likely going to be employed as prospectors, performing secondary objectives and canalizing enemy forces into the most damaging units in the NH army.

Finally, we know that the Krulghast Cruciator is reducing damage for NH units wholly within 12". We can expect to see this protection piece located where it can confer the greatest benefit to the maximum number of units. Possibly this would pair even better with the Hexwraiths as they are a wound-dense unit. Combining all of these together, we might have a Threat Template that would look like this:

This won't look like much at the moment, but remember, we will massage it to the terrain and the mission to give us a better idea of how the enemy would prefer to employ their forces. Their main command and protection pieces will look to keep their 12" ranges in a position they can influence the units that will retain objectives. Their fastest units are moving up the flanks as prospectors and disrupting your secondary operations. Awlrach and the Bladegheists are the exploitation force, looking for that opportunity to deliver maximum damage to an exposed unit with the 7" deepstrike. 

Conclusion

Today we laid the foundation that will inform our ability to make a Threat Template, a tool that is agnostic to terrain and other operational environment factors to look at the enemy's composition and other threat characteristics. Next post we'll look at creating a high-value target list and seeing how these steps feed into our final product: a situation or SITEMP. Again, these can be drastically simplified. These are illustrative examples so you can see the underlying logic and process and tailor it to your needs. Until next time, be kind, play some Warhammer, and stay Sparkly.

After Action Reports (AARs)

Introduction

As in life, we can learn just as much, if not more, from our losses in Warhammer. This idea is no new wisdom and the Army has conducted After Action Reports (AARs) for a long time. The fog of war very easily clouds our judgment and even our perception of reality. While tabletop gaming is nowhere near this grave, it is common to overlook valuable insights because we are not as intentional about reflecting upon the game. Sometimes it was a negative experience, we are rushed to get to our next game, and sometimes we are just lazy. Today we'll be looking at some techniques to get more out of your games by conducting AARs.

Negative Experiences

I cannot tell you how many times I have just turned my brain off in a game because I've gone full-on pouty mode. Dice rolls, my opponent's list/attitude, the overwhelming need to take a dump, any of these are reasons we have all likely encountered that have jarred our focus. We have a couple of options to remedy this: mediating how we respond to activating events or building in checkpoints or mechanisms to bring you back to a more stable state of mind. 

The best players do not give up when they've seemingly lost. It is common to become discouraged when a critical unit is destroyed or you fail a key charge. Remember, you win the game by scoring points, not by killing enemy units and keeping yours alive. Even if you are tabled, you'll score points for objectives you still control. Look at the scoreboard, see what you can still achieve, and limit your opponent. Often when there are fewer units for your opponent to interact with, scoring secondary points is more difficult.

Introspection

Reflecting on what went wrong can be challenging in Warhammer. It is easy to fall into the mind trap of "oh if my dice rolls were just a little better," but the hard pill to swallow sometimes is that things went poorly because we made a poor decision. But don't get down on yourself, being able to pick out a specific event like a bad decision means you can influence your play in the future. This is why I discourage players from getting in the habit of playing with "takebacks." Own the decision and see how detrimental that outcome will be if you make that mistake. That will better inform your calculus in the future.

We can also become better at reflecting on our games with a couple of tools. Smartphones are pretty ubiquitous at this point, so I think I can confidently recommend two practices with that tool for your success: taking pictures and an app or other method to capture the decisions you made throughout the game. Snapping a photo at the beginning and/or end of each turn can help you understand how you and the enemy maneuvered in time and space. This will help you understand if you overextended your forces or failed to screen out an avenue of approach for your enemy. 

The other factor is something to help keep track of what decisions you have made. A few apps exist out there to help you keep track of scoring and battle tactics, but it would also be helpful to jot down what your logic was. Sometimes nothing beats a journal. This can also help you capture nuances of the obscene amount of rules that are out there. Much like in life, it can be hard to be present and involved. Journaling or capturing your thoughts in some other medium will help you reflect more proficiently.

Lastly for this subject, I encourage you to reflect with your opponent. What went well? What did not go so well? Were there any plays that surprised either of you? A new rule interaction you weren't familiar with? We can gather these insights and add them to our toolbox. I also enjoy this because it helps us celebrate some of the cool, pivotal moments and congratulate one another for them. 

Building Efficiencies

A common AAR comment in the Army addresses how prepared or unprepared Soldiers were for a task. One of the primary methods Soldiers use to be ready when the time comes is Precombat Checks (PCCs) and Precombat Inspections (PCIs). Basically, these are steps leaders take to physically ensure that Soldiers have everything they need from ammunition, water, and knowledge, to accomplish the mission. Wargamers can take a page out of the book for their kit as well.

Here are some easy wins you can implement to gain some efficiency and ensure you are preparing yourself to be successful:

• Pack your army the same way each time. This helps you account for all of your units so you don't leave anything behind between games and also helps you deploy quickly and efficiently. When everything has a home, you won't need to waste time looking for it.
• Have a wargaming kit. I have a backpack designated for wargaming and each pocket has its purpose. Make a list to run through so you have all the necessary tools for war as well as spares. "Two is one, one is none," goes the saying in the Army. 
• Set your table up as consistently as you can. Have a designated spot for dice, tape measure, etc. It is also very helpful to stage out counted groups of dice, in sets of fives or tens for example, so you can quickly count and roll them. 
• Know your warscrolls or have the physical copies readily accessible and organized. If you are taking physical warscrolls, store the unused ones, or even better do not bring them so you do not have to shuffle through to find the unit you need. 
• Have a reference sheet if you need help with the sequence of phases or other game rules. This helps you and your opponent be on the same page for battle tactics, scoring mechanics, and relevant rules. Many of us have gotten to our movement phase and forgot that we did not select a battle tactic. A tool to help you and your opponent isn't just good sportsmanship, it helps both of you understand how the gamestate is changing.

These may seem trivial but that ounce or preparation will be worth a pound of worry. Any efficiency you can build will reduce your mental fatigue in later rounds. You don't have the brain bytes to worry about these things, so make them habits.

STX Lanes

STX (Situation Training) Lanes are an Army training method to put Soldiers in common and challenging scenarios they might encounter in combat. Some scenarios are not designed to be "winnable," but are rather intended to develop the resolve and leadership in Soldiers in dire circumstances such as an ambush. We can do this in wargaming as well during our practice sessions. Set up the table for a bad matchup or a battleplan you aren't confident on. Set up those nightmare scenarios so that you can at least give yourself a chance to find out what strategies you can employ to maximize your opportunities. You can also set up STX Lanes to practice deployments based on matchups and battleplans. Having a strategy in mind that you can fall back on is another great way to minimize that mental fatigue and it also helps you feel more prepared and confident in your decisions.

Conclusion

Taking a more introspective look at how your games will often make you a better player than consigning fault to the fate of the dice. There are situations when the game is decided by a collection or even a single dice roll. If you put yourself in a position where that is the case, you should be very pleased with yourself. It was out of your control, you did the best you could. But there is almost always something you could have done better in a game. Using some of these techniques will help you feel more prepared and open to receiving those insights so you can avoid repeating those mistakes. 

Unit Roles

 Introduction

Even outside of wargaming, most folks would be able to understand that certain units or weapons platforms would have specific roles or purposes on the battlefield. One would not reasonably expect to destroy an enemy radar facility with a K-9 Military Police Unit, just as one would not expect an A-10 to maintain a security checkpoint. This concept is also pretty consistently important in Warhammer. Today we will discuss some of those unit roles and also discuss how they might change throughout the game.

Background

The following will be a general list of some of the basic archetypes in Warhammer: Age of Sigmar. We'll define each role and give some examples as well as how you would traditionally use them in a scenario. Those archetypes are chaff, hammers, anvils, support, and prospectors. Some units can have multiple roles but typically won't excel in each of those as much as a dedicated unit. 

Chaff

Don't let the name mislead you, this is arguably the most important unit role in the game. The tactical task of a chaff unit is to disrupt, delay, turn, or block the enemy to shape your offensive operations. Chaff are typically cheap, "disposable" units that exist to make the enemy's job of destroying key pieces of your army that they see as high-priority targets. Each army will have a different approach to this. Some chaff, such as Dryads, accomplish this simply by delaying an enemy by giving them wounds to chew through. Others, such a Gossamid Archers, disrupt the enemy's momentum but not become decisively engaged. Sometimes chaff is just a speedbump for your opponent. But if you waste even one of the enemy's combat activations, you're reducing that unit's output by as much as 20% throughout the game (if they can deliver that effect for all five turns). 

Hammers

On the flip side, hammers are the units you want to deliver to degrade, neutralize, or destroy the enemy's forces. Again, each army will accomplish this task with differing techniques. A common paradigm is a high quantity of lower-quality attacks vs. a low quantity of higher-quality attacks. each has its own benefits and drawbacks. Your job as a general is pairing the right damage-dealing hammer to the right target to maximize your opportunities to remove key pieces from the game that give your opponent options. Having multiple capabilities/types of hammers is often prudent as well. Generally, the types of lists that are most well-suited for success have flexibility in the types of damage they can inflict. Pairing into Nighthaunt is a great example: fewer, high-quality, high-damage attacks are more susceptible to variance because Nighthaunt ignores positive and negative save modifiers. No matter the rend, they'll have a 50% chance to negate each of those attacks, which is impactful when each of those attacks inflicts large quantities of damage. However, Large quantities of attacks, no matter the rend, are spreading that variability across many attacks. 

Anvils

Anvils are similar to chaff in that their role is to deny the enemy access to your key assets or terrain. However, they differ in that they look to remain in a positive to retain key terrain rather than displacing or providing only temporary use. Anvils are also useful for securing objectives and denying the enemy from scoring primary objective points. Again, this role is accomplished with multiple avenues. Some anvils are wound sinks that can recur models as casualties mount. Others have high armor saves or ward saves, thereby increasing their effective health. Primary objective points make up the greatest quantity of points you can score each round (60% of all points you can score in a game). Anvils are a way to lock down a portion of the board with less risk of losing your ability to continue to score these vital points. Maggotkin of Nurgle accomplishes this with several units that have a large wound base and a ward save to give their opponent a lot of wounds to chew through before they can gain control of an objective.

Support

Much like Medical Service, Logistics, and Military Intelligence, support roles enable maneuver forces (the military units that engage directly in combat with the enemy) to do their job. "Without supply, bullets don't fly," is the old saying. Warhammer also has these support roles, often in leaders or other "power pairs" that provide synergies or unlock abilities to make a unit more effective. Most often in Warhammer, we see this with Hero units that issue buffs through abilities such as magic or prayers. Some units support one another, such as Kroxigor and Skink units in Seraphon. This unit role improves the performance of another unit.

Prospectors

A newer term that I've heard in the wargaming community is the "Prospector." These units serve more specific roles to accomplish secondary objectives (Battle Tactics in Age of Sigmar). The closest parallel here may be Special Forces that bring a capability to insert into remote, austere locations to accomplish specific goals. Units with superior movement or the ability to be set up on the battlefield are great for getting to those specific locations to accomplish tactics such as Take Their Land or Take the Flanks. The best Prospector units can accomplish these tasks and continue to evade the enemy or be such a low-priority target that the enemy will not pursue them. Frost Sabres are a common Prospector unit taken in Ogor Mawtribes because they are not visible to the enemy unless they can get to within 9" of the unit. This can force the enemy to take valuable ranged or melee assets away from your key assets while you use them to farm secondary points. 

Changing Roles

While it is important to understand these roles in list-building and at a conceptual level, it is just as important to understand that they are not static. A good general will constantly evaluate the board state and be ready to adapt and reconstitute their forces for the task at hand. A great example is that something you might consider to be a key support role can become chaff as the game progresses. It can seem entirely contradictory to send the piece you've worked so hard all game to protect into the fray, but some situations call for it. Based on their relative board position, enemy disposition, and the path to victory, a squishy wizard hero may be all you need to move block an enemy from moving onto a key objective or scoring a battle tactic. Is there a spell that you need to cast? Is there a target for that spell to even go onto? These are the factors that can transform a unit's role throughout the game. 

Jaws of Gallet Analysis

Introduction

Another day, another installment. Today we will be analyzing the Jaws of Gallet battleplan through the lens of an Ogor Mawtribes army. Again we'll make a Course of Action (COA) sketch as a possible gameplan to execute depending on the composition and disposition of the enemy. This Ogor list focuses almost exclusively of Gutbuster Infantry supported by two foot-casters that also deliver excellent abilities. Complementing this force is a Frostlord on Stonehorn (FLoSH) that will be playing the role of the exploitation force, quickly delivering a great deal of combat power and an additional threat of rapid movement with the Stonehorn's rampage. 

The core concept here most closely resembles a movement to contact that transitions into an envelopment. This approach plays well into the more straightforward nature of the army. What happens, though, when the battleplan's twist can make your strategy play directly into your opponent's favor? Let's take a look at the Jaws of Gallet battleplan with the new information we have in order to create dilemmas for our opponent while we develop decision points, key events in time and space on the battlefield, so we can maintain the iniatiative.

Background

The Jaws of Gallet is a five objective battleplan. The twist is that from the second battle round at the end of their turn, the underdog can remove one objective (OBJ) from play. If there is no underdog, no OBJ is removed. You score 2 for holding an OBJ, 2 for controlling 2 OBJs, 2 if you control more OBJs than your opponent, and 4 if you achieve your chosen BT. A couple of takeaways here: Whoever goes first in the battleround starting with the second AND is also the underdog has the opportunity to score an OBJ then delete it. They also have the opportunity to remove an OBJ that you control before you can score it. The latter is the more common technique, where players might intentionally go down on points in order to shape the battlefield how they want it. This is especially effective with highly defensive armies. 

This COA sketch attempts to account for this by allowing to both react to how your opponent scores so you can remove the OBJs you want, or to be in a position to continue to apply pressure with your forces if they are the underdog and pull OBJs out from under you. Also remember there is a change in how you check for control of OBJs in this edition. You check at the start of the first battle round and at the end of each turn. Don't reveal any information you don't need to. If you deploy on two OBJs, your opponent immediately has a path to become the underdog on points and begin setting conditions in their favor. If you do not who will go first turn, avoid this mistake. 

I am inclined to believe that if it is apparent my opponent is going to intentionally go down on points, I will do everything I can to make them regret that decision. Because I do not know which OBJ they will remove, I need to maneuver in such a way that I can score battle tactics while maintaining security and bringing combat power to bear. We can also potentially throw a spanner in our opponents plans by flipping the script in putting them in a position where it may be disadvantageous to remain down on points. One technique we can use in that scenario is to only capture two OBJs or even intentionally drop a battle tactic. This is what makes the battleplan interesting and I would love to hear your thoughts.

Deployment 

The majority of our forces consist of Gluttons. This is because they are cost-effective and can perform independently relatively well. We have also chosen to run minimum strength units in order to get as many chances at damaging the opponent's units with the Trampling Charge ability. Additionally, this gives us added flexibility to achieve battle tactics. We deploy off of the "home" OBJ because we do not want to give our opponent any information that allows them to remove objectives. It also gives us the opportunity to select exactly how many objectives we want to score should our opponent deploy on an objective or if they go first in the first battle round.

We have arrayed our forces to sufficiently screen and maintain security with three units, Gluttons 1, 2, and 4. The FLoSH, reinforced Ironguts, and Gluttons 3 will serve as the exploitation forces after the initial point the enemy makes contact with our first line of troops. Examining the geometry of the map in conjunction with our capabilities, we want to keep our foot heroes (Butcher and Slaughtermaster) close enough to our combat power to use their abilities. Overlapping multiple units at one time to keep options open as the enemy produces casualties and attempts to outmaneuver us is essential. 

What we are setting up here is a situation where we create a dilemma for the opponent. We will advance along the long axis of the board, capturing primary OBJs and completing battle tactics to create a deficit. If the enemy attempts to remove OBJs and commit to the defense, we have multiple, diversified threats to commit to the counterattack.

Turn 1

Our first phase of this approach is establishing security as well as assembly areas for our exploitation forces. We know that our opponent cannot remove an objective this turn so we can safely bank on scoring the two western points (if they want to commit any forces that far from the rest of their army, We are only going to commit to these two OBJs no matter who goes first. It creates the dilemma for our opponent whether they want to go up on points or to be the underdog to shape the battlefield. We are arrayed in such a way that we can adjust for either. 

Gluttons 1 also has the tactical task of securing Key Terrain 1 in the north as a possible early battle tactic, Take Their Lands (based on the suggested terrain layout provided in the battlepack). Again, put this into context of how many points your opponent has scored if they went first. We want to remain far enough away from our opponent's maximum effective range (movement and charge) to disincentive them from committing a force that is not favorable for us to deal with. This means our forward line of troops could be closer to our territory or further away depending on the enemy's mobility. Even if they do commit to long charges, the likelihood of them successfully executing multiple (around 9"+) charges is slim. If they commit only a unit or two at a time, we have effectively disrupted their tempo. This advance also allows the Gluttons to be mutually supportive. If one unit gets charged, others on the flanks or from the rear echelon are in a position to attempt a countercharge (so long as you left space for them). 

Turn 2

At this point in the engagement, if the opponent is the underdog, they have the choice to remove a battle tactic. In order to do so without us having the opportunity to score it, this means that they have to go first in the battle round. This is why we have set up in a more cagey, deliberate fashion. They can take the first turn in the round as the underdog and remove the tactic, but our standoff distance and security posture we took makes such a decision costly. If we go first in the battle round, we have the opportunity to establish a hasty defense on the center objective and commit our first echelon of troops to the fight or to continue to deny the enemy freedom of maneuver across the board. 

More importantly, we are setting up for our decisive operation, the commitment of our exploitation forces. The Gluttons independently are a threat to the enemy and if we have destroyed any units, our Slaughtermaster can be handing out valuable offensive and defensive buffs. This is the point we are expecting the most likely contact with the enemy. Depending on the positioning of our Mawpot, we are also able to use the once-per-game heal to any units that have taken casualties. If the enemy commits a high value target or you see a gap in your opponent's defenses, your Butcher is now in a position to grant a run and charge ability to your Ironguts and in subsequent turns, have the option to head northwest to accomplish the Take the Flanks battle tactic should the need arise. We are also in a position that we are likely able to make charges and commit the entirety of our force should we choose to do so. 

This is the operation's decision point. How and when we decide to commit our exploitation force will make or break us. Ogors are not a very resilient army compared to some of its peers. It has a high quantity of health but low save characteristics. Some Ogor units can survive a turn or two into some enemies, but most hammers will not have much of an issue destroying a unit of Gluttons. Knowing this, we have to pick a single, decisive point to apply as much of our combat power as we can in an engagement. Massing effects with our mortal wounds output, relatively high damage output, and abilities to produce as many casualties as possible and defeat the enemy. 

Turn 3+

Here is where our offensive will likely begin to culminate as we conduct a single envelopment with our remaining forces and begin to secure the rest of the battlefield. Depending on how the enemy has engaged our forces, we can expect at least 30-50% of our forces to be destroyed. In this phase, we reconsolidate our gains by remaining close enough to any remaining objectives so we can capture whatever the opponent has not removed. 

By this time we will have committed the exploitation forces and ideally will have destroyed the enemy's capability and will to continue the fight. Because the margin of victory might be quite narrow even if we destroy the majority of the opponent's forces, we need to ensure we are able to continue scoring battle tactics. Here we can see that the Seize the Center, the Kunnin' Approach, or perhaps even Slay the Entourage could be achievable with this formation. Having options will be key to scoring battle tactics. 

Turns 4 and 5 will ideally be faced with little resistance if we have committed our exploitation forces correctly. If such an opportunity did not arise because the enemy stayed in the their corner, focus on scoring battle tactics and taking their army apart piecemeal. Eventually the points could even swing back and you can remove their OBJs and force their hand.

Conclusion

This plan sought to create a flexible, methodical approach that is appropriate to this battleplan in juxtaposition with an army that is more known for good ole' smashin' and bashin'. Sometimes ya needs to be more kunnin' than brutal. When you're making plans like this, remember that it can be all in your head and very much simplified. These diagrams and explanations are intended to help you visualize where in time (the turn and round sequence) and space (where on the board) you move your units as an army instead of simply pushing them forward. 

Having some sort of plan or concept of how you will maneuver, what battle tactics you will be able to score, and how you will adapt to the battlefield as the situation develops will make you a better commander. Putting in some preparation beforehand will be like training and will allow you to default to what you have already practiced or considered in your analysis. I hope you've enjoyed today's read. Drop a line to let me know which faction and/or battlemap you'd like to hear about next. And of course, stay sparkly.