Killhammer Strategy: Using Tactial Squads

[Warp Angel]

There's a lot of talk about whether or not tactical squads are any good, or how they should be equipped. Based upon some suggestions, I thought I'd examine a near-compulsory unit for most Marine armies and discuss how they can best be utilized with Killhammer principles.

 

First off, tac squads are NOT very high in K. They are pretty average at best, and in some situations, they can be very poor.

Secondly, tac squads are NOT very high in D. They're just plain average. More or less the baseline unit in this regard.

 

BUT, you have to play them in most of your armies.

 

There's the school of thought that says, "spend as little as possible", and buys two 5 man tactical squads with a basic sergeant and plants them on objectives. Another school of thought says, "make them shooty". Still another says, "don't buy heavy weapons" because you get a limited use out of them. Killhammer says that all of these ways of thinking are usually not the best option.

 

1) Full tactical squads have a higher D2 - or the amount of time that it takes to destroy. This raises their Killhammer rating to you.

2) One full tactical squad has a significantly higher K1 than two half squads, and costs less to boot.

3) S is dramatically increased with a full 10 men, since if the situation warrants it you CAN combat squad if you want to, and it opens up the drop pod option.

 

Then there's always the discussion of whether or not you should take transports. There's a legitimate reason in Kill Point games to NOT take them, and EVERY reason in an objectives game to take them. In a previous article, I stated my ideas on drop pods not being the best way to keep units in reserve, but I'll elaborate more on all forms of transport below.

 

1) Rhinos provide mobility to your tac squads that they would otherwise lack, increasing the squads S as well as their K2 (time to become killy), in addition to being very high S units on their own. At a minimum, they can contest objectives or provide mobile terrain, increasing the D of your tac squad or another unit. Their K, however is effectively 0. Don't rely on them to kill anything. Ever.

 

2) Razorbacks have Low, but significant K, and provide a lot of S that you can't otherwise get in a tactical squad. If used as an integral part of your tac squads, even the full sized ones, they add anti-horde firepower or anti-tank, adding a missing capability to a squad or effectively doubling the heavy weapons fire of that squad. If you combat squad or take casualties, it provides the same increases to K2 and S that a rhino does.

 

3) Drop pods have a few issues: They don't always land where you want them, they aren't mobile once they land, they dilute your firepower, most units inside have their K reduced by the inability to assault, and they have limited or very short range firepower. Killhammer formulas point strongly to concentration of firepower and the ability to assault an enemy, and just the inability to assault significantly reduces the S of the transport. I'm not saying it's bad, in fact, it's usually better than a plain footslogger squad with no transport, but I prefer my tanks. Remember, you're the general, and you know your army and playstyle better than I ever could. In some armies, drop pods are the beats.

 

I think it becomes pretty obvious, that from a Killhammer standpoint, a full tactical squad with a transport is the best option from a unit selection standpoint. But how do you equip them.

 

I've come to the conclusion that there's really only two roles for a tactical squad in Killhammer. They aren't going to ever kill a whole lot on their own, but they will either be ignored by your opponent as he concentrates his firepower on your more potent units (allowing them to perform their mission), or they'll become a fire magnet and absorb firepower that might pick apart a tougher unit. So what are those two roles? Well, they aren't shooty or assaulty.

 

They are Defensive or they are Hunter.

 

Defensive tac squads stay home and guard objectives, and a razorback is a great transport for them, since it adds to firepower, becomes mobile terrain, and if you take casualties or combat squad, allows you to scoot out. As such, you want to be looking for longer range weapons or weapons that can break up an assault. You usually aren't going anywhere. But I've found that you can NEVER go wrong with a flamer. It's free. If you're going to buy:

 

Special: Plasma Gun

Heavy: Missile, HB, or Plasma Cannon

Transport: Razorback

 

Lascannons are (in general) no better at inflicting casualties on inbound enemy units than a plasma cannon, or missile launcher, and all of the non-lascannon/multi-melta choices are better at horde control. Your defensive squad is holding an objective or key terrain, and as such should be concerned with enemy infantry trying to push you off of it. A vehicle is almost never going to knock them off of an objective. If you want anti-tank firepower on defense, buy the TLLC razorback.

 

Sarge doesn't really need a powerfist, since the job of the squad is to LIVE, and kill advancing infantry before they assault. I'm a big fan of the combi-flamer, plasma pistol and CCW (for pesky terminators and bonus cc attack), or just basic bolt pistol and CCW. If you find yourself facing a lot of monstrous creatures or walkers.... well, you know what you need to do.

 

Hunter tac squads are generally used to advance to another objective, to go tank hunting, or to clean up behind other units mopping up enemy remnant squads, or serve as ablative wounds for more important and more killy squads. A tactical squad doesn't have enough offensive capability against anything but tanks to be a truly good on offense (and good is relative here), so I call them hunter squads rather than offensive squads.

 

Special: Melta Gun or Flamer

Heavy: Multi-Melta, Lascannon

Transport: Rhino or Drop Pod

 

As a hunter squad, they're ideally suited for going after enemy tanks, fire support squads, or just in generally making your self darned inconvenient to your opponent. You don't have enough firepower to be "priority number one", but you threaten enough that your opponent has to take you seriously. After all, your rhino has just dropped you off in a place where he doesn't want you to be. Both the lascannon and the multi-melta give you the anti-tank capability that you need, and the multi-melta not only penetrates better, but it's also a free weapons choice. Going the flamer route instead of the melta gun significantly weakens you against elite infantry and vehicles, but it's great for clearing light infantry off of objectives.

 

Sarge could get a power fist, but he could also be given a power weapon and melta-bombs. It really depends on whether you think you'll be facing monstrous creatures or vehicles, since the PW/CCW vs. Power Fist is about equal against T4 models and in the PW favor against T3. A combi-melta is not a bad idea, since he adds to the anti-vehicle and anti-elite nature of the hunter squad, but a combi-flamer will help if you're dealing with pesky Eldar Rangers or infantry heavy opponents buried in cover (Guard, Tau, etc). Don't worry if you get charged by enemy CC units. You should last a turn or two, giving the more potent units in your force the time and opportunity to whittle your opponent down. Your hunter squad has done it's job by "eliminating" an enemy unit from participation in the wider battle.

 

As always, feedback would be appreciated.

[minigun762]

I've only read through this once but I think you're onto something.

Playing Chaos, I have much more flexibilty in my weapon loadouts that makes it easier to use my squads. The main hurdle to get over with Tacticals is how to incorporate the heavy and special weapons.

 

I had a question though, here on this point

2) One full tactical squad has a significantly higher K1 than two half squads, and costs less to boot.

 

Were you saying that you're against a 5 man squad or against combat squadding? I ask because a naked 5 man squad is fairly pointless while combat squadding might just give you the best option for how to handle the heavy/special weapon issue.

 

I know you limited this first piece to just Tactical squads, but Scouts bring in an interesting option. 9 snipers and 1 heavy weapon is 20 points cheaper than the cheapest possible Tactical squad and generates more long range firepower (even considering BS3). This squad is arguably superior to any variant of the "defender" role mostly because of the nature of the Bolter.

 

In my mind, this means that the "best" way to use Marines is some variant of the "hunter". You need them mobile and you need them up close, usually within rapid fire range to get full effect. The major choice here is whether you want a 10 man Rhino squad or a 5 man Razorback combat squad and 5 man fire support combat squad.

[Brother Gathurn]

Do you think that there is any point in any type of special weapon other than a flamer?

 

also t must say that I think that the best would probably a combat squaded sssquad with a missle launcher, flamer, and razor back it gives you the benifits of both a hunter and a defensive squad.

[Warp Angel]

Answering a couple of questions:

 

I had a question though, here on this point

QUOTE

2) One full tactical squad has a significantly higher K1 than two half squads, and costs less to boot.

 

 

Were you saying that you're against a 5 man squad or against combat squadding? I ask because a naked 5 man squad is fairly pointless while combat squadding might just give you the best option for how to handle the heavy/special weapon issue.

 

From a Killhammer perspective, a 5 man squad is suboptimal. You get no firepower other than bolters, and a kitted out sergeant doesn't have enough troopies to suck up wounds. You get slightly better results with squads of less than 10, but still miss out on the special and heavies.

 

Combat squadding is similarly less effective in most situations than keeping the full squad. You lower your effective D2 as if you, but you get the added firepower of the special and heavy weapons available to your army at less total cost than buying two 90 point 5 man squads.

 

Do you think that there is any point in any type of special weapon other than a flamer?

 

also t must say that I think that the best would probably a combat squaded sssquad with a missle launcher, flamer, and razor back it gives you the benifits of both a hunter and a defensive squad.

 

Melta guns are amazing anti-tank for a hunter squad, and plasma can be utilized by hunters or defenders, though defenders make better use of it since they're more likely to need the greater range. Flamers are good for both types of squads since they do anti-horde in a way that no other weapon in a tactical squad's inventory can do, but they're suboptimal against vehicles and against elite enemy units. As with everything Killhammer, it's going to depend on your army and playstyle which loadout works best for you.

 

A combat squadded unit, as I pointed out above, gives you flexibility of deployment, but at a cost of durability (reduced D2) for both units. And it reduces your ability to concentrate firepower, giving you two low K1 (killing strength) units instead of one moderate one. And again... you know your army and playstyle best. If combat squadding works for you, go for it. It's another reason to take a razorback instead of a rhino transport too.

[Blood Scorpion]

I know you limited this first piece to just Tactical squads, but Scouts bring in an interesting option. 9 snipers and 1 heavy weapon is 20 points cheaper than the cheapest possible Tactical squad and generates more long range firepower (even considering BS3). This squad is arguably superior to any variant of the "defender" role mostly because of the nature of the Bolter.

 

In my mind, this means that the "best" way to use Marines is some variant of the "hunter". You need them mobile and you need them up close, usually within rapid fire range to get full effect. The major choice here is whether you want a 10 man Rhino squad or a 5 man Razorback combat squad and 5 man fire support combat squad.

I'm with minigun762 on this one. Tacticals are inferior to Scouts for the "Defender" role. A 10-man Scout unit with Sniper Rifles, Heavy Bolter & Camo-Cloaks are about the same price as a 10-man Tactical. K1 will depend on the opponent, Scouts hit on a 4+ but can wound higher toughness models easier, whilst the Tacticals hit on a 3+ but their Bolters are only really effective against lower toughness models. I would call K1 even. However, the Scouts have a better K2 as they have the superior range.

 

The Souts also have a higher D1 due to their Camo-Cloaks offering them a 3+ Cover Save in ruins/woods, and D2 is even for both units. Obviously S can change all of this (if there aren't any runis/woods for example the Scouts will be left with their 4+ Armour Save and a reduced D1), but on the whole I think that Killhammer shows Sniper Scouts to be the more efficient "Defender" Troops choice out of the two.

 

That leaves the Tacticals with the role of the "Hunter", and this is where they can excel, but only if you take a transport for them. By taking a transport you double their K1 and halve their K2 as you get them into rapid fire range, doubling their shots, twice as fast. Their D1 & D2 also improve as small arms fire cannot harm them whilst they are in their transport. I wouldn't take a unit of less than 10 as the introduction of the Special & Heavy Weapon can add dramatically to their K1, and I wouldn't Combat Squad unless the situation absolutely called for it as this dramatically reduces their K1 and D2. Therefore a Rhino is the only real option simply due to it's transport capacity.

 

Their main target has to be light-medium infantry as the main weapon in a Tactical Squad is the humble Bolter, which is ineffective against Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures. Against the right infantry their K1 is huge when within 12" (hence why they need a transport). I believe therefore that the Flamer is the best option for Special Weapon as this ups futher their K1 against their preferred target, making Tacticals a major threat.

 

I wouldn't look to use a single Meltagun for anti-armour as one shot will on average wreck or destroy a Vehicle only about 30% to 40% of the time depending on the AV of the Vehicle. You are wasting the other 9 models doing this and their K1 is very small therefore when used in this role. There are much greater units to choose from for hunting tanks. Plasma within 12" can be leathal, but if you can hit enough models with the Flamer template then you can easily kill just as many as you can with two Plasma shots.

 

Against more heavily armoured infantry their Bolters become much less effective, but still a threat. Against Vehicles they have their Krak Grenades which can be effective at times but not great. Therefore to increase their K1 against heavily armoured infantry and Vehicles (and Monstrous Creatures) I would always give them a Power Fist as their reasonable D1 & D2 should allow it to do it's thing against most opponents before it is taken out (another reason to keep them at 10-men strong). This addition makes them more flexible on the battlefield without taking away from their huge K1 against the right target.

 

If there are no light-medium armoured Troops to rapid fire at, your Tacticals job will be one of two things...

 

1) Get to far away objectives, sit on them and be as hard to kill as possible. Once there they become a "Defender" and this can be where the Heavy Weapon can bring something to the table as they will still be able to impact on the game, albeit with a low K1, even if the action is beyond 24" away. I like the Missile Launcher as it is a free upgrade and poses a threat against a range of enemies that the Heavy Bolter and Multi Melta don't. Although for 5pts a Plasma Cannon is a good investment as it is also versatile and to some armies quite scary!

 

2) To cause a neusense of themselves and distract your opponent form the things in your army that will really hurt his units. Charging a Terminator Sqaud may sound like suicde, but it could prevent them from engaging a more prized unit of yours, thus increasing the Kill Gap in your favour. With a Power Fist you also stand a chance of killing some of them before you are wiped out.

 

So to summarise, this is how I believe you get the best value out of your two mandatory Troops choices...

 

- Tactical Squad - 10 Marines, Power Fist, Flamer, Missile Launcher & Rhino - 230pts

- Scout Squad - 10 Scouts, Camo-Cloaks, 9 w/Sniper Rifles, 1 w/Heavy Bolter - 180pts

 

For 410pts you have a "Defender" and a "Hunter" unit that should add to your army rather than being points spent just because you have to have them. In 1500pts games and above I would add a second Tactical to give you three scoring units. Obviously their ability to impact on the game will come down mostly to how you play and as Warp Angel says, all of this is subjective. The above is my point of view, but I hope that you find it of interest.

[Warp Angel]

Blood Scorpion, you're just about the only person who has ever replied back in full Killhammer thoughts to one of these essays.

 

For that, I thank you.

 

Assuming that you can rely on scouts not getting assaulted, you're right about the sniper rilfes being superior to bolters at reaching out and touching someone. As long as they're in cover, their D1 and D2 is better, but if you're up against a CC oriented army, or one with drop pods that can get close with flamers, or any of a zillion other ways of closing the distance, the Tac squad is superior. Additionally, against a CC oriented opponent, not only is a tac squad more survivable, but you're likely to be able to fire that heavy bolter, a flamer, and get at least as many wounds with the bolter rapid firing. The K1 of the scouts really not much higher, and once the tac squad gets an enemy within rapid fire range (K2 reduced to 0), they're usually superior for inflicting wounds and have much higher D1 and D2 in CC than scouts.

 

I honestly think that it is going to come down to S as to which you are going to pick for your army. If you've got the ability and the playstyle to minimize the scout's vulnerability, you're right that they make excellent defenders. My preference is to have the second transport (available only with tacticals). I think that my army's S rating goes up with them, since I've got more options available to me than I would have with a footslogging, heavy weapon toting, scout squad. My armies don't tend to run with scouts, but like with everything else Killhammer, I know my armies and playstyle best.

 

I think we're pretty much in agreement on the Hunter squads though. I generally wouldn't include a melta gun unless I included a Multi-Melta as well, and tend to run with flamers most often since I clobber vehicles with other units in my army.

 

Killhammer: Unit Synergy is probably an article that I need to start thinking about. I need to figure out a way to easily put together battle diagrams first, since for that article, a picture is worth a couple hundred words, and makes the other words more useful.

 

Thanks again for the great response.

[Blood Scorpion]

If your home objective is being assaulted then you have probably lost anyway!

 

You could, as I actually do, just take Pedro Kantor and have your scoring Sternguard Squad as your "Defenders" with two Heavy Weapons and 30" Special Ammo, and have two "Hunter" Tacticals running around causing mischief.

 

Without Pedro though I would put Sniper Scouts top of the best "Defenders" list. Maybe back them up with some Devastators or Dreads, but you need to have a scoring unit to sit back and Tacticals just don't fit this battlefield role as you waste so much of their potential.

[robdark1]

i go a better idea that would say on the killhammr theory here is that your placement of defnese unit and offesne unit that would support the overall play of killing what you need to win. takeing out there points of interest while you play them throught the game. as someone put in the preivours artice is that there hunter unit and defender unit that have the begening unit as the game starts. mosty play follow the doctrine that play the started set up while there not putting pressure on the army overall.

killhammer bring to light that reseveres, assualt power and target propoirty come in the game because the flow of game now has something that can be used by newbie when he starts.

[Warp Angel]

If your home objective is being assaulted then you have probably lost anyway!

 

You could, as I actually do, just take Pedro Kantor and have your scoring Sternguard Squad as your "Defenders" with two Heavy Weapons and 30" Special Ammo, and have two "Hunter" Tacticals running around causing mischief.

 

Without Pedro though I would put Sniper Scouts top of the best "Defenders" list. Maybe back them up with some Devastators or Dreads, but you need to have a scoring unit to sit back and Tacticals just don't fit this battlefield role as you waste so much of their potential.

 

I DO take sternguard and Pedro in larger games to do exactly that.

 

But as an Ork player, and who plays more often than not against Tyranids, I KNOW that my Defender unit is going to get assaulted, regardless of any strategy that I might have. I like the ability of the tactical squad to dump a flamer, fire bolt pistols, and run off the objective as they charge the enemy. Per my Killhammer Close Combat article, I've denied my opponent a quick kill, reducing their overall K.

 

I don't tend to play with supporting units like Devastators or Dreads, so in my army the Tac Squad makes better Defenders than Scouts, since I'm not able to mitigate the scout's advantages.

 

You definitely understand what I'm talking about though, and that's cool as all get out.

[Blood Scorpion]

I'm finding Killhammer very interesting, good on you to put so much time and effort into getting what you have down in words, you are definately onto something!

 

Sniper Scouts can still run off the Objective, fire their Bolt Pistols and Assault to deny an easy kill. Granted they are less effective in combat than a Tactical Squad due to WS3 and 4+ Save, so their K and D are inferior. But given that their K and D are superior when it comes to a fire fight, and given that a fire fight is what "defenders" will be doing most of the time, I would still recommend a Scout Squad over your Tactical.

 

Besides, if you are facing Nids you probably wont get to charge them as they'll most likely be able to Fleet and some can Assault 12", so you wont have a chance to abandon the objective and get some shots off. As I said, if this happens to your "Defender" unit then you have probably lost anyway, as you have failed to intercept the assaulters with another unit, be it due to lack of able units or poor tactics or both.

 

Your Tactical/Scout unit on your Objective are pretty much the most valuable unit in your army when you are playing Objective based missions. Their S is huge and they therefore become your most prized unit. Other units, even those with a higher K, should be the ones to be 'sacrificed' to prevent an assault on your base if the situation calls for it. At the end of the battle it doesn't matter if they are still alive as long as they stopped your scoring unit from giving up the objective to your opponent.

 

What follows are my thoughts that have developed as I've thought about this, it may have been done before, and it may be complete rubbish, but it makes sense to me right now.

 

May I suggest, therefore, a third battlefield role of the "Intercepter", the unit(s) whose job it is to react to your opponent's moves and remove the threats to your "Defenders" that they cannot cope with themselves. These will generally be fast moving, heavy hitting units that can quickly get to where they are needed and make a big impact when they come to life. They are the traditional counter-assault units that many shooty Marine armies take, Assault Squads, Command Squads etc., but an "Intercepter" can also be a unit with a high short range shooty K, possibly jumping out of a transport to open up at rapid fire range.

 

The difference between an "Intercepter" and a "Hunter" is that the "Hunter" will generally try to impose itself on your opponent, whilst an "Intercepter" will react to the threats imposed on you. They do cross over, and many units can perform both. For example, a unit of Drop Podding Sternguard would normally be seen as a "Hunter", dropping in to cause devastation with their special ammo and routing your opponent's Objective. However, if they drop in and target a unit of Hormagaunts that is forseen to be a future threat against your Objective that your "Defenders" wouldn't be able to handle themselves, then the Sternguard would be fulfilling the role of the "Intercepter" as they are reacting to the threat that your opponent's unit posed to your "Defenders". The Sternguard's K may well have been higher against the Carnifex, but the S in the equation meant that the priority was to reduce the threat to your home Objective first.

 

A "Defender" unit that is not your home Objective scoring unit can also become an "Intercepter". For example, a Dreadnought with TLLC and DCCW may well sit at the back as a "Defender" and shoot with the Lascannon as fire support for your "Hunters", but when a unit of Genestealers is within assault range of your prized scoring "Defender" unit (Tacticals/Scouts) the Dreadnought may become an "Intercepter" and step in to block their assault and attempt to engage the Genestealers, even if it has a hugher potential K against a different more distant target. The S in the equation has changed the priorities of the Dreadnought as you need to prevent an assault on your home Objective.

 

Now, going back to the topic at hand, Tacticals are capable of performing the "Intercepter" role, just as they are "Defender" and "Hunter", they are the most versatile unit in a Marine army after all, hence their name. They may well even perform all three roles in the same game, changing as the battle developes. However, I believe that they are best suited still as a "Hunter". They lose too much of their potential (rapid firing Bolters, 'hidden' Fist) when used as "Defenders". As they are one of your few scoring units they are too valuable to risk being pinned down or even sacrificed as an "Interceptor". As a "Hunter" they can go after the units where they have their highest K (light-medium infantry) and take your opponent's objectives from him.

 

Anyway, that's as far as my brain will let me develop this tonight :) , let me know what you think Warp Angel.

[minigun762]

Sniper Scouts can still run off the Objective, fire their Bolt Pistols and Assault to deny an easy kill. Granted they are less effective in combat than a Tactical Squad due to WS3 and 4+ Save, so their K and D are inferior. But given that their K and D are superior when it comes to a fire fight, and given that a fire fight is what "defenders" will be doing most of the time, I would still recommend a Scout Squad over your Tactical.

If you're worried about the lack of K? for the Scout squad in assault, you can always add in a Power Fist/Weapon Sarge. They're cheap and still have that WS4 and usually the biggest punch of a Tac squad comes from that Sarge.

 

 

 

Now, going back to the topic at hand, Tacticals are capable of performing the "Intercepter" role, just as they are "Defender" and "Hunter", they are the most versatile unit in a Marine army after all, hence their name. They may well even perform all three roles in the same game, changing as the battle developes. However, I believe that they are best suited still as a "Hunter". They lose too much of their potential (rapid firing Bolters, 'hidden' Fist) when used as "Defenders". As they are one of your few scoring units they are too valuable to risk being pinned down or even sacrificed as an "Interceptor". As a "Hunter" they can go after the units where they have their highest K (light-medium infantry) and take your opponent's objectives from him.

I know you had intended for Warp Angel to comment on this but I thought I'd say something if you don't mind. ;)

You bring up a great point with the Interceptor, but in my mind, the role of the Hunter and Interceptor are the same. They seek to move forward and interact with the opponent. This may mean going after an objective or it could mean charging that Carnifex whose about to rip into your weaker Defenders. In general they are the "offensive" arm of your army while the Defenders are naturally the "defensive". The difference between Interceptor and Hunter is based on the targets available to that Squad and the situation in the game.

 

Taking either a Scout or Tactical squad and combat squad gives you both squads, albeit at 5 man size.

10 Scouts, Heavy Bolter, 4 Sniper Rifles, 1 Shotgun, 4 Bolt Pistols/CCW, Power Fist

Split up this way

5 Scouts, 4 Snipers, 1 Heavy Bolter

5 Scouts, 1 Sarge with Power Fist/Shotgun and 4 BP/CCW

 

This gives you a Defender and an Interceptor/Hunter squad. Tacticals would look the same with the main choice being does the special weapon go in the I/H squad or the Defender squad.

 

With Combat Squading, you could take 2 such units (maybe one Tactical and one Scout) and have them work together (using that synergy we mentioned earlier) now what you have is 10 Defenders and 10 I/H's. You also have spent less points than dedicated 1 entire squad to each function and have more scoring units. The only negative is the lower D (right?) and chance to give up Kill Points easier.

[Blood Scorpion]

I know you had intended for Warp Angel to comment on this but I thought I'd say something if you don't mind. ;)

Absolutely not, glad to hear your thoughts too.

 

If you're worried about the lack of K? for the Scout squad in assault, you can always add in a Power Fist/Weapon Sarge. They're cheap and still have that WS4 and usually the biggest punch of a Tac squad comes from that Sarge.

Great point. They will still be inferior to a full Tactical, but a PW/PF will give them a much greater K in combat for few points if you can spare them.

 

You bring up a great point with the Interceptor, but in my mind, the role of the Hunter and Interceptor are the same. They seek to move forward and interact with the opponent. This may mean going after an objective or it could mean charging that Carnifex whose about to rip into your weaker Defenders. In general they are the "offensive" arm of your army while the Defenders are naturally the "defensive". The difference between Interceptor and Hunter is based on the targets available to that Squad and the situation in the game.

You are right in that many of your units will perform as the "Hunter" and the "Intercepter" in most games. The way I understand the "Hunter" unit is that they go forwards and hunt the unit where their K is highest, or look to take Objectives from your opponent, thus generating the largest Kill Gap possible. They are your attackers, although they will be backed up by fire support form your "Defenders".

 

They become "Intercepters" when they choose not to maximise their K by going after their preferred target, but instead choose to engage a unit that is posing a threat to your "Defenders". Their K is weaker, and in some cases, it may be that their K is so week and their D so reduced against this non-preferred target that they are effectively sacrificed to delay/reduce the effectiveness of the threat, the S in the equation.

 

"Intercepters" do not always move forwards though, some armies take units to only perform the role of the "Intercepter", leaving an Assault Squad back to counter charge for example and protect their gun line of "Defenders". I wouldn't describe the Assault Squad as "Defenders" or "Hunters", but somewhere in between as their role is not to sit and defend a position, nor is it to advance and threatern your enemy's position, but rather to intercept the "Hunters" that your opponent sends forwards to take out your "Defenders".

 

There is certainly cross over between the three, and many units can perform multiple roles in a game, but I do see a difference between a unit that attacks and one that intercepts and one that defends in any given turn.

 

Hope this makes sense, my brain shut down about an hour ago! -_-

[Brother Merrick]

Warp Angel, Ive been following the Killhamer series with quite a bit of interest and look forward to where you go with them.

 

I wanted to ask about running tac/hunter squads in regards to the necessity of transports. With the new run rules, a squad should be able to move 9-10" on average a turn obviously sacrificing any shooting. While not as durable as a unit in a transport and not quite as quick, given 2-3 turns, you should have enough time to move a hunter squad into a new position without a transport. This tactic could be enhanced by using other vehicles, esp. Raiders, Preds, Vindies, to block LoS while the hunter squad moves up. Care to comment on this?

 

M

[Warp Angel]

What follows are my thoughts that have developed as I've thought about this, it may have been done before, and it may be complete rubbish, but it makes sense to me right now.

 

May I suggest, therefore, a third battlefield role of the "Intercepter", the unit(s) whose job it is to react to your opponent's moves and remove the threats to your "Defenders" that they cannot cope with themselves. These will generally be fast moving, heavy hitting units that can quickly get to where they are needed and make a big impact when they come to life. They are the traditional counter-assault units that many shooty Marine armies take, Assault Squads, Command Squads etc., but an "Intercepter" can also be a unit with a high short range shooty K, possibly jumping out of a transport to open up at rapid fire range.

 

The difference between an "Intercepter" and a "Hunter" is that the "Hunter" will generally try to impose itself on your opponent, whilst an "Intercepter" will react to the threats imposed on you. They do cross over, and many units can perform both. For example, a unit of Drop Podding Sternguard would normally be seen as a "Hunter", dropping in to cause devastation with their special ammo and routing your opponent's Objective. However, if they drop in and target a unit of Hormagaunts that is forseen to be a future threat against your Objective that your "Defenders" wouldn't be able to handle themselves, then the Sternguard would be fulfilling the role of the "Intercepter" as they are reacting to the threat that your opponent's unit posed to your "Defenders". The Sternguard's K may well have been higher against the Carnifex, but the S in the equation meant that the priority was to reduce the threat to your home Objective first.

 

A "Defender" unit that is not your home Objective scoring unit can also become an "Intercepter". For example, a Dreadnought with TLLC and DCCW may well sit at the back as a "Defender" and shoot with the Lascannon as fire support for your "Hunters", but when a unit of Genestealers is within assault range of your prized scoring "Defender" unit (Tacticals/Scouts) the Dreadnought may become an "Intercepter" and step in to block their assault and attempt to engage the Genestealers, even if it has a hugher potential K against a different more distant target. The S in the equation has changed the priorities of the Dreadnought as you need to prevent an assault on your home Objective.

 

Now, going back to the topic at hand, Tacticals are capable of performing the "Intercepter" role, just as they are "Defender" and "Hunter", they are the most versatile unit in a Marine army after all, hence their name. They may well even perform all three roles in the same game, changing as the battle developes. However, I believe that they are best suited still as a "Hunter". They lose too much of their potential (rapid firing Bolters, 'hidden' Fist) when used as "Defenders". As they are one of your few scoring units they are too valuable to risk being pinned down or even sacrificed as an "Interceptor". As a "Hunter" they can go after the units where they have their highest K (light-medium infantry) and take your opponent's objectives from him.

 

Anyway, that's as far as my brain will let me develop this tonight :rolleyes: , let me know what you think Warp Angel.

 

I think you're spot on with the idea that an "Interceptor" role should be part of every army and strategy. I'm not sure that tactical squads should fill that role though. There's so many other units with the same or better D than a tactical or scout squad, that have a much better K. Sternguard, with better shooting and more base attacks, and with much better firepower potential with combi weapons are a much better choice as an interceptor. They suffer less from combat squadding or small squad size than tacticals do. Bikes are amazing interceptors, with their high K and higher D.

 

While I'm not entirely in agreement that a tactical squad is the best interceptor, I do think that you're on to something here. I need to give it more thought, and it might develop into a Killhammer Strategy: Army Components.

 

Bravo.

[Warp Angel]

Taking either a Scout or Tactical squad and combat squad gives you both squads, albeit at 5 man size.

10 Scouts, Heavy Bolter, 4 Sniper Rifles, 1 Shotgun, 4 Bolt Pistols/CCW, Power Fist

Split up this way

5 Scouts, 4 Snipers, 1 Heavy Bolter

5 Scouts, 1 Sarge with Power Fist/Shotgun and 4 BP/CCW

 

This gives you a Defender and an Interceptor/Hunter squad. Tacticals would look the same with the main choice being does the special weapon go in the I/H squad or the Defender squad.

 

With Combat Squading, you could take 2 such units (maybe one Tactical and one Scout) and have them work together (using that synergy we mentioned earlier) now what you have is 10 Defenders and 10 I/H's. You also have spent less points than dedicated 1 entire squad to each function and have more scoring units. The only negative is the lower D (right?) and chance to give up Kill Points easier.

 

Scouts certainly suffer less from being in smaller squads than Tacticals do, and a 10 man scout squad, combat squadded up into a CC unit and a Sniper unit might be the right unit in a defender role for a smaller game. I'm still not sold on the 4+ save in CC though.

 

Great feedback, and I'll see what I can manage to incorporate in future articles.

[Warp Angel]

Warp Angel, Ive been following the Killhamer series with quite a bit of interest and look forward to where you go with them.

 

I wanted to ask about running tac/hunter squads in regards to the necessity of transports. With the new run rules, a squad should be able to move 9-10" on average a turn obviously sacrificing any shooting. While not as durable as a unit in a transport and not quite as quick, given 2-3 turns, you should have enough time to move a hunter squad into a new position without a transport. This tactic could be enhanced by using other vehicles, esp. Raiders, Preds, Vindies, to block LoS while the hunter squad moves up. Care to comment on this?

 

M

 

For 35 points, if you've got a unit that you're going to use in a hunter role, there's absolutely no reason not to throw them in a rhino.

 

Look at it this way:

 

-- With the transport, you are guaranteed 14" of movement. If you lose the transport, you can foot slog it. The rulebook doesn't say that you can't run in your shooting phase after getting dumped out of a moving transport. So theoretically, your "run" with a vehicle is 15-20" If you lose the transport, you're no worse off than you were if you never bought one.

-- Without the transport, you are only guaranteed 7" of movement.

 

This doesn't even begin to take into account the mobile cover aspect, or additional contesting unit that you've got.

[minigun762]

I'm still not sold on the 4+ save in CC though.

 

I can see what you're worried about, but my thought was that its Power Fists/Weapons/Klaws or Rending that tend to screw over Tacticals, so the 4+ Armor Save is less of a concern. The drawback is probably more in the WS3.

[JaM_TW]

Great article (this one, and the other killhammer articles too).

 

If I could give "reps" here, I'd do it immediatly ! :(

[Warp Angel]

I'm still not sold on the 4+ save in CC though.

 

I can see what you're worried about, but my thought was that its Power Fists/Weapons/Klaws or Rending that tend to screw over Tacticals, so the 4+ Armor Save is less of a concern. The drawback is probably more in the WS3.

 

Against most units that are likely to be in an assault with you, there's no real difference between WS3 and WS4.

 

Orks get hit on 4+ by both.

Most bugs get hit on 4+ by both.

Eldar's CC troops get hit on a 4+ by both.

And there's maybe a handful of special characters and monstrous creatures that will force a 5+ to hit on the scouts.

 

But you're losing an extra 17% of your models to failed saves with scouts.

 

Killhammer terms, the K of Scouts and Tacs is the same in CC, but the D heavily favors Tacs.

[Chyttering]

Against most units that are likely to be in an assault with you, there's no real difference between WS3 and WS4.

 

Orks get hit on 4+ by both.

Most bugs get hit on 4+ by both.

Eldar's CC troops get hit on a 4+ by both.

And there's maybe a handful of special characters and monstrous creatures that will force a 5+ to hit on the scouts.

 

But you're losing an extra 17% of your models to failed saves with scouts.

 

Killhammer terms, the K of Scouts and Tacs is the same in CC, but the D heavily favors Tacs.

 

A larger issue in the difference between WS3 and WS4 is how easy it is for your opponent to hit you.

 

Orks are hitting on a 3+ rather than a 4+, as against WS4 Tacticals.

Mixed bag for Tyranids - Hormagaunts and Warriors will be hitting on a 3+ instead of 4+; Termagaunts are still rubbish.

Eldar Aspect Warriors will be hitting on a 3+ rather than a 4+.

 

So everyone's more likely to hit you, and with that 4+ save, even more likely to wound.

[StormTAG]

Scouts can get much better K than marines in close combat, being able to take CCW/BP.

 

Of course, as has been mentioned, their D is significantly less because

 

A) armor saves worse. Moving from a 3+ to a 4+ is pretty signifcant in CC. Not to mention there are alot of AP 4 weapons out there (Heavy Flamers, Heavy Bolters, Auto-cannons, etc.

 

;) WS 3 means that a lot of models with WS 4 (Orks, Marines, Aspects, etc.) are getting to hit you on 3+ in CC now.

 

 

Also, don't have my book in front of me, but is their Initiative as high as marines? If not, hitting simultaneously with Charging Orks can significantly increase their casualties.

[Marlow]

I am enjoying these articles and it gives me some good tactical ideas.

 

What I will say about scouts is that you can still have the Sniper Rifles and heavy weapon in a squad of 5-9 unlike Tacticals who need ten men so you could have a 5 man Sniper squad on the objective guarded by a 10 Man tactical. The other advantage they have is Telion for trying to take out Power Fists, etc before they reach you. Telion gives them Stealth without needing cloaks while he lives and a two shot rifle with BS 6 so I think he is worth the points.

[Castus Xanthis]

What do you think of having Tactical squads as the primary fighting force of your army? The way I use them includes a 5 terminator squad for some extra K1 and K2 (With a deathwing assault) and three tactical squads with meltas and missile launchers and one with a lascannon. All my sergeants get powerfists. The army is led by a terminator interrogator chaplain.

[Warp Angel]

I'm not in favor.

 

My reasoning is this: There is no way that a tactical squad can be counted upon to reduce an opposing equivilant squad to minimal effectiveness on its own. That means that they can almost never operate unsupported

 

Let's go with a couple of scenarios (rounding up in favor of the Marines):

 

1) Standing Rapid Fire w/PG, LasCannon, Sgt/bolter.

16 bolter shots, 9 hits, 5 wounds, 2 failed saves

2 plasma shots, 1 hit, 1 wound, 1 dead marine

1 lascannon shot, <1 hit, <1 wound < 1 dead marine.

 

Great. You've just killed 3 Marines.

- If those are Khorne Berzerkers, you're toast to what's left.

- If those are Plague Marines, chances are you only killed one.

- If those are 1kSons, it's time to pack up the squad.

- If those are Khorne Bloodletters, you've killed a few more, but it's time to pack up the squad.

- If those are Dire Avengers, you've killed a bunch more, but are likely to take equivalent casualties back, and they cost a lot less.

 

2) Bolt pistols w/PP and MG before the assault w/PF sergeant

8 bp shots, 6 hits, 3 wounds, 1 failed save

1 MG shot, <1 hit, <1 wound

1 PG shot, <1 hit, <1 wound

Maybe 2 dead MEQs.

16 regular attacks, 3 PF attacks: 8/1.5 and 4/1 respectively, with 1/1 dead.

You've now gotten a total of 4 enemy killed, but if they have better than basic attacks, you're not necessarily going to win combat.

 

3) If you're going shoot vehicles with MM, and MG:

You're going to hit a little bit more than once, getting no more than 2 hits.

There's a fair chance (1 in 9) that you won't get ANY hits at all, let alone fail to penetrate.

 

4) If you're going to assault a vehicle with PF and Krak Grenades:

You're going to do exactly as well as an assault squad, maybe getting a meltagun shot off first.

 

 

 

Lessons:

 

If you're going to stand and shoot, Sternguard, Terminators, and a tactical squad points worth of other units do it better.

If you're going to assault, Vanguard, Assault Marines, Terminators, Sternguard, and many other things do it better.

If you're going tank hunting with guns, speeders and attack bikes do it better, cheaper.

If you're assaulting tanks, you aren't substantially better than any other unit in the game.

Bikes do just about everything as good or better than a tactical squad. Except defend.

 

In their role, any of the non-tactical options listed above is more lethal than a tactical squad is.

 

For thought:

 

Tacticals aren't necessarily more durable than some of the alternatives, meaning that you can't just choose them because they're "more survivable".

Tacticals don't necessarily have better transport options, or are any more mobile than the alternatives.

 

Conclusion:

 

Tacticals can perform any role on the battlefield, just not as well as the specialists. And when it comes to being primary killing units, you want specialists.

[fivetide]

I like it but I have massive sucsess with my LandSpeeder melta squad in my 1500 pt army

 

Fast Attack: Land Speeder Squadron (3#, 240 Pts)

3 Land Speeder Squadron @ 240 Pts

Multi-Melta (x3); Multi-Melta (x3)

 

4 times out of 5 I've been able to drop on Heavys and burn them.. and they have a good allround armour and even a kamikaze assault on a land raider with Termiz in , has only lost only one LSped.. maybe Im lucky.. dunno or even I'm crazy but the tactic has worked so far.. I like it and the hit and run.. close big AP seems to work.