Why 40k Needs a Rank and Flank ruleset - Logistical considerations

 In my previous blog rant I explained various grounds for why there should be a rank and flank variant of Warhammer 40k. These reasons included references to this type of warfare in the artwork, rules, miniatures, reducing tabletop clutter, focusing games on maneuver, and contributing to the satire/insanity of the setting. 

On its own terms

In this rant I want to make an argument for why this style of combat might make some amount of sense if we take the setting on its own terms. 

So, how can we say that lines of massed infantry, horse-drawn stubb guns, and few vehicles could possibly make sense?

Let us first consider the context in which the current Imperial Guard makes sense. The massed armor, hungry big guns, and infantry of the Imperial Guard are often portrayed in conflicts such as the Battle for Armageddon. In conflicts like these, these armies are supported by a very close industrial base. This industrial base allows these armies to be maintained in the field and supplied with near inexhaustible amounts of ammunition, fuel, and machinery. Modern militaries are hungry. Modern history is replete with examples of militaries that quickly exhausted their pre-war ammunition stockpiles and had to ramp up production of arms and munitions to meet the demands of modern warfare. 

For examples we might consider the pre-war stock of Nations involved in WW1 and how quickly they exhausted those stores before running out until their industrial production to could catch up - the aptly named "Shell Scandal". We can consider the ammunition and fuel shortages that plagued the eastern front during WW2. Or we might consider the current Russian invasion of Ukraine and how the Russians ran out of "smart" munitions in only a few months and have been grinding down their cold war stockpiles faster than they can be replaced by current war production. 

Now let us consider an Imperial conflict in the 41st millennium that doesn't take place on a forgeworld or a world with hives and countless manufactoria. A few factors should shape our thoughts. First is the time and distance of space travel and resupply on an alien world. We are told in White Dwarf 139:

"Only during the very largest of wars, lasting for many decades does the Imperium bring battlefleets together and dispatch them en masse to a war zone. Such a war is currently underway in the Galaxy‘s south-eastern spiral arm. Here, the Tyranid Hive fleet Kraken is inexorably advancing, conquering and consuming the planets in its path. A massive campaign involving millions of men, thousands of ships and whole chapters of Space Marines is being fought against the Tyranid invasion. Fleets are being mustered and all the Segmenta to begin the long journey to the war zone. The journey will take decades in some cases, and many of the crew will never see the battles they are heading towards, but the Imperium knows all too well that in mere decades the Tyranid threat will be as strong as ever."

From this we can glean that imperial armies would take a long time to reach their destination. This means that unscheduled resupply will necessarily be untimely - If resupply is planned at all:

"Some regiments are sent to conquer and pacify newly discovered planets, and may remain there afterwards as a Garrison, forming a new warrior elite to rule the planet." (White Dwarf 140)

Next, consider the nature of the weapons and vehicles of the Imperium. The Land Raider (seen below) has box art that features an exhaust cloud and the models themselves have two large exhausts in the back.

The Land Raider on the left has the tell tale exhaust smoke rising and billowing behind as it drives forward.

Similarly we can note that the Rhino also has exhausts. This strongly implies that the vehicles of the Imperium are fueled by some futuristic analog to our fossil fuels. Fuel can be rapidly consumed if you don't have a ready source of it. 

Relatedly, we know that many munitions used by the Imperium are analogous to modern munitions. We see mortars, artillery, missiles, bolters etc that all appear to fire ammunition. (We will discuss lasguns later.) From real life we know these types of ammunition can also be quickly used up. 

Here we see an Imperial squat loading ammunition into a mole mortar.

Invading an Agriworld

Knowing what we now know, imagine if you were like King Henry V preparing to go on campaign and loading up a ship to land in Normandy and campaign to Calais (except it's 40k). What you pack aboard your invasion fleet will be nearly everything available to you until you complete your campaign. 

What resupply would be available on an agriworld? For mechanized warfare there would be little in the way of resupply. Agriworlds lack large scale industrial production. Vehicles lost to break down, getting bogged down, or combat damage could not easily be replaced. Similarly, there would likely not be significant ammunition production to replace any ammunition that was expended in combat. There would likely be limited facilities for the production of biodiesel or some futuristic analog to power the harvesters and tractors of the world. This would not be sufficient to sustain the protracted and far afield maneuvers of mechanized warfare. 

Food would be readily available. Sustaining men and horses (or other beasts of burden of the 41st millennium) would be a straight forward and practical affair, similar to General Sherman's March. 

All of this means that you would have to plan accordingly. We are told in White Dwarf 140:

"A Galaxy starts the game with four regiments aboard. In reality, the number of regiments carried by a Galaxy varies depending on the size of the regiments. (usually from 2000 to 6000. Men) and the mission they are on."

This means that, in terms of crew compliment, a Galaxy troop ship is a bit bigger than an aircraft carrier. As we load our Galaxy troop ship for our invasion of the unnamed agriworld, we have choices to make: how to prioritize between Food, water, clothing, ammunition, weapons, men, vehicles etc. Since the ship has a limited cargo room, it follows that the choices present trade offs (very similar to the army building process). What you choose for your campaign very much depends on how quickly you believe you can achieve victory. If you can seize the enemy capital and be assured this will translate into achieving your war aims then a force comprised of vehicles and lots of ammunition would be appropriate. \

But what if your aim was to conquer the planet? Or you anticipated that the enemy could yield endless ground? Imagine an unending plain on an agriworld comparable to Nebraska, where the enemy could engage in scorched earth for hundreds of miles like Napoleon's invasion of Russia. What if seizure of their capital or a key location wasn't sufficient to achieve victory? How long would your fuel and ammunition stores last without resupply? Weeks, maybe a month or two?

Infantry and horses with an ample supply of food can last nearly indefinitely. Ideal for a protracted campaign or conflict without resupply. 

What about ammunition? This is where the humble lasgun comes into its own. We are told in 1993's War Gear that:

"A lasgun may not be the most effective weapon in the galaxy, but it is easy to manufacture and maintain, and very reliable even under the toughest battlefield conditions. The lasgun is powered by rechargeable batters, but carries a residual supply and can be recharged using its own solar converters." 

This is reinforced by Imperial Armour Volume Five - The Siege of Vraks - Part One where we are told the lasgun power pack can be recharged by sunlight. Also the Deathwatch Core Rulebook tells us that power packs can be recharged from the heat of a fire. Both of these would be available to an army on the march on an agriworld.

However, if power packs are analogous to our batteries then one should bear in mind that rechargeable batteries last longer when they are regularly charged rather than when they are allowed to drain all the way down. Therefore, a lasgun designed for a long campaign on an agriworld might benefit from a lower rate of fire so that soldiers could conserve ammo and would be less likely to drain a power pack all the way down during a fight. Similar ideologies dominated many real-world militaries in the mid to late 19th century. Many militaries refused to or delayed adopting repeating rifles because they believed these weapons would result in less accuracy as troops were preoccupied with reloading or that troops would waste ammunition. We can imagine that a similar doctrine might take hold in our context. Instead volumes of fire to repulse the enemy could be achieved through massing infantry.

Fronts or Pitched battles

Warhammer 40k, as we came to know it in 3rd and later editions, was, at it's core, a WW2 or modern warfare game. The scenarios for the battles played are often described as smaller battles in a larger war, as if it were an engagement along a "front". So we can imagine a battle in WW1, WW2, or later conflicts in which enemy forces face off against each other along a near-ubiquitously-manned line often stretching hundreds of miles. Attacks take place daily at various places along this front. This requires a constant drain of men, ammunition, fuel, and vehicles to maintain. Attritional conflicts like this would be 'bad war' and prevent decisive victory. 

Without resupply to maintain this way of war, armies would be forced to fight wars of (perhaps lengthy) maneuver  and that means pitched battles or battles where forces were concentrated.

Putting it all together

These considerations around resupply and the consequences of resupply, or the lack thereof, fundamentally change the way we would expect armies of this nature to fight. In this context we would expect a greater preference for infantry and horses than a typical Imperial army and a lower regard for vehicles and ammunition-hungry weapons systems. Similarly, the manner of planning to embark on a campaign and only being able to rely on agrarian resupply - living off the land - places us firmly in the kind of feudal mindset that Rick Priestley had in mind when he wrote Rogue Trader. 

These factors combine to invite us to imagine a 40k setting that might have a 19th century feel to it. Armies where tanks and rapid firing weapons are sparse, and massed infantry, cavalry, lascannon batteries, and horse-limbered heavy weapons would be the order of the day.

Perhaps such a way of war exists in an as-of-yet unwritten corner of the 41st millennium. 

 

40k needs a Rank and Flank rules variant

 Welcome to my rant about why Warhammer 40k needs a Rank and Flank rules variant. 

I'd like to first to provide a roadmap to organize my thoughts:

1. What is the inspiration for this within 40k?
2. What is meant by Rank and Flank and what would it look like implemented in a 40k setting?
3. Why do this?

What is the inspiration for this?

The largest inspiration developing a rank and flank variant of 40k is the early artwork of Rogue Trader and interviews with Rick Priestley. 

In interviews Rick Priestley has discussed the inspiration for Rogue Trader and the type of civilization and warfare represented in the 40k universe. He notes that despite the relatively advanced level of technology that the imperium is a feudal civilization and the warfare represented in this setting drew heavily from this motif. He also noted that as 40k transitioned to 3rd edition that the newer rules were based on a WW2 system he had been developing outside of the office. With the introduction of IFVs and dedicated transports the game has also mirrored Cold War tactics. 

I am not the first to point out this is just a bulky Soviet BMP

And, later editions, especially with the addition of Primaris marines and hovering bradley-esque tanks has taken on a more ultra-modern aesthetic. Warhammer 40k has drawn on different eras of historical combat over time. 

It's a hover bradley.

One might wonder, what if other eras were represented by 40k?

Are there any rules examples of Rank and Flank in 40k?

In the Rogue Trader rules there are a handful of references to primitive/medieval worlds. Similarly, Warhammer Siege explicitly contemplates mixed forces of primitive and advanced forces. However, it is never spelled out exactly how one is meant to integrate warhammer fantasy and 40k rules together. 

Over the years the imperial guard have paid some homage to 19th century warfare. The 2nd third edition Imperial Guard codex has the doctrine "close order drill". This rule requires that you line up your men, base to base, to gain a leadership and initiative bonus. In 5th edition the imperial guard have various orders. One of them is called "first rank, fire! Second rank, fire!" Which allows your unit to generate more shots due to organized volley fire. This is a clear reference to 19th century military drill (likely inspired by the movie Zulu).

From a more abstract perspective, we also get hints at rank and file rules from the Apocalypse rulesets. In this ruleset the game does not adopt a rank and flank system perse, but it does introduce movement trays and a rudimentary command and control system. 

What about the artwork?

Early Rogue Trader artwork had many images that are reminiscent of 19th century warfare. 

The one that stands out to me the most is the cover of the imperial guard boxed set. 

On this cover we see vast numbers of guardsmen lined up and marching across and open field apparently under fire. They carry banners and many carry their guns upon their shoulders. 

Bavarians advancing during the Franco-Prussian war

In other versions of this image, we see officers or generals surveying the battlefield. 

 Again, on the front of the Eldar Legion box set we see the Eldar arrayed in a firing line with banners.

Highlanders at the Battle of Balaclava

 

Squats in close order with banners. 

Infantry in a square during the Napoleonic wars

Space Marines in close order with a banner.

Custer's last stand

More Elves in close order with banners. 

I think you get the point. Now, we need to discuss whether these images should be taken "literally" or whether they are an aesthetic contrivance to say "hey! You're going to get a lot of minis in this box" or "look at this epic battle" - both valid interpretations. However, it also suggests that 1. rank and file formations of troops would not be aesthetically foreign to 40k and 2. If it looks epic on box art it would also look epic on the table. 

We see more inspiration in the minis as well. Early RT mini ranges were filled with command groups despite the rules conspicuously lacking any role for those minis in the game. 

Additionally, the Imperial Guard had regiments themed around 19th century uniforms such as the Praetorian Guards or Vostroyans

What is meant by Rank and Flank and what would it look like implemented in a 40k setting?

Traditionally rank and flank table top miniature wargames emphasize formations of infantry (and other troops) moving in lines and other formations (the rank) and attempting to strategically out maneuver their opponent typically by attacking flanks (the flank).

Most simplistically, this would mean using 40k miniatures with a ruleset that borrowed heavily from the the DNA of warhammer fantasy. So we can imagine our Imperial guard and eldar arrayed in wide lines with maybe and additional rank. Our close combat troops like Orks or Hormagants organized into narrower formations with deep ranks. 

We can imagine our las cannons blasting holes in units similar to cannons in warhammer fantasy. We could similarly imagine many heavy weapons converted to carriages like the original thudd gun model. Such weapons might be limbered with horses or crude tractors (gun limbering rules appeared in Gorka Morka).  

What about tanks? you might ask. We might take a page out of history and consider how tanks similar to the tanks of 40k faired in real life. 

Historically, tanks not entirely dissimilar to the tanks of the 40k universe have been employed by real militaries. That is, tanks with too many turrets and guns for their own good. These tanks have universally been outclassed by tanks of more focused design. The primary reason for this, to my admittedly limited knowledge, other than mechanical failures and thin armor, was command and control. Coordinating the firing of multiple weapons is mentally taxing on the commander and easily overwhelming. I haven't played current 40k, but a Rogal Dorn tank appears to have 8 weapons on it. Coordinating the tasks of 9 crew an their correspond roles/weapons would likely leave a tank commander paralyzed with too many functions screaming for their attention. Many vehicles in 40k might be similarly nerfed to allow for a game play more analogous to 19th century tactics by. That is, they could be framed as unwieldy landships that are difficult to coordinate, or lacking awareness of their surroundings. Introducing a command and control system similar to Warmaster or Apocalypse might accomplish this. 

Why do this?

There are a few answers to this other than mechanical preference - many people prefer rank and flank war games because of the emphasis on maneuver, but we will set that aside and assume that preference is either self evident or not at all preferred. 

The first answer is that it is more absurd. Lining up soldiers into ranks and files to fight battles with futuristic technology is absurd on its face. But, as Rick Priestley has noted, the civilization of the imperium doesn't make sense. It's not a functional society. Their society isn't justified and most of their problems are of their own design. It makes sense that the people of such a universe would be uniquely unhinged in this way. This type of game would emphasize the satire of the Warhammer universe. 

An absurdist scene from King of Hearts where the British
and Germans line up in close order formations before blasting each other away.

Next, Warhammer 40k seems to have gotten smaller in the very literal sense that the standard table is technically smaller than it used to be, but also the miniatures have gotten bigger and take up more room. Combine this with infantry formations that are in loose formations and the table has become more cluttered and functionally smaller. Returning to 25/28mm scale, shrinking models down to more plausible sizes, and ranking them up would open up the table to more tactical maneuver and use of the board. This could be coupled with a change in the scale of the battles, distances could be modified - perhaps an inch could represent 10 yards like it did in Warhammer fantasy, or even farther to represent the effective range of weapons. 

What do you think?