Killhammer Strategy: Using Tactial Squads

[Bannus]

Defensive tac squads stay home and guard objectives... As such, you want to be looking for longer range weapons or weapons that can break up an assault.

 

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.

Despite the formula which you have developed (and I - honestly still don't understand :)), I can't agree with this.

 

The defensive Tactical Squad is stationary. As such, it can take full benefit of its heavy weapon from turn one. To maximize this potential, it must have one over-riding characteristic: range.

 

So the two best choices are the lascannon and the missile launcher - because they are the only two weapons that can reach out to a full 48" and contribute to the battle from turn one. At that time, the squad will not likely be threatened by any enemy infantry units from assault or close-ranged fire. This is the ideal time to snipe at enemy vehicles or other key targets. It may not maximize their "kill-power" as targets approach, but it can make a very efficient use of their time in the first turn (possibly two turns) of the battle.

[Warp Angel]

You make a good point on the range of the Lascannon/ML. I guess if you've got other means of reaching out and touching things from range, then the extra foot from them isn't such a big deal. And I was recently in a situation where my "defender" could have used more than the 36" range that they had.

[Brother Tual]

A few questions -

 

With tacticals, you get a unit with no real purpose other than to score - It will struggle to do any real damage - you have said this - Low kill value - I have tested this - I know - ( I took 40 tacticals with a cheap character and transports at a low value tourney and I failed to kill anything - my wins came through their inability to kill 40 marines and I subsequently recieved the lowest placing I have ever recieved - smack bang in the middle of the pack.. 21nd of 42 I think.. )

 

Now, does a series of 5 man units not score BETTER than a pair of 10 man units? Combat squadding also increases the defense of your army on a whole.. simply because they have to kill each unit complete which my take several units to do so but also cause the real problem of overkill FOR YOUR ENEMY - ie taking 24 avenger wounds and failing 8 armour saves, which would hurt more with 8 marines dying against 5... thus another enemy unit needs to pitch in to kill your 5 - rather than your two or even simply denying the avengers a target to charge as they normally could and finish off your remaining 2 marines easily and bring them onto the objective as well!! ... but because of the combat squad, they cant charge a seperate unit... I find this a real problem with non-combat squads in tournament play as most players have enough to kill 10 marine twice over, but not really the ability to kill 6 units of 5... Which is kinda a counter to your focus fire philosophy... I spread my units, so you have to spread your fire/movement

 

Secondly - Transports do more than transport or become mobile terrain - a unit which can destroy a rhino, will generally struggle with its cargo - Ie - a lascannon toting tact squad or dev squad.. at range, they can destroy the rhino easily or have a good chance at it, but the single lascannon shot will kill one marine per turn at best.. allowing your scoring unit to survive - ofcourse this is highly bias as an example, but on the flip side, consider a unit which will destroy your ten marines (aforementioned blade storm) it cannot touch a rhino... making your tacticals invulnerable to the enemy.. Ofcourse, a teaming of say a bright lance and an avenger unit has a real chance of destroying your rhino and then your marines, but they need to be relatively lucky to do so and if they fail, they are potentially horribly exposed... My favourite is watching a hive tyrant charge into a rhino with tact squad, ripping the rhino apart only to be heavily wounded or killed by the resulting rapidfireness of the marines and ideally the game ends here (two rounds of combat - his and then yours - would most likely see your marines dead or running..) ... It gives you that extra turn of respite before you need to take serious action and start praying to the dice gods, and with random game length, this can be a god send and win you games..

 

Thirdly - pods -

 

Pods are good - They help supply the intiative - I am yet to scatter beyond the range of a boltgun with rapid fire, the pod is so large and you have a 2' window to disembark in... less problematic with dreads because of the extra large base size.. The problem with pods is that once deployed, they supply little to your tacticals - Ideally you want your pod to come in no earlier than turn 4.. You need time to re-deploy from a horrible scatter or destroy any enemy sitting an objective, but the longer it is in reserve, the less time your enemy has to kill them or counter them.. Again, combat squadding from drop pod deployment is a strong ability.. your enemy has at most 2 turns to destroy 3 units (which a single unit besides terminators) will struggle with (2 x 5 wounds and AV12) before the random game length kicks in..

 

 

I dont know how any of this fits in with killhammer - I cant see how you equate for it but I know that it is a powerful aspect to tourny play and winning games in general.. it is beyond the stat line of a unit... it is how you apply it that gives it power.. Personally I find it difficult to apply Tacticals, so for me, their power is weak - reguardless of their weapons upgrades and defensive ability or situation/postition.. I only know how to give them the best chance of living to the end of the game and thus do their job of scoring.. Mine get only 5 point worth of upgrades as a result if they are luck - spare points! (not including transports)

[Warp Angel]

Dedicated Transports are almost pure S units. It's in when and how they're used that makes the difference. Drop pods have great initial S, but it gets pretty limited after that just because they don't do a whole lot on the turns after they arrive unless you've got Deathwind madness going on a horde enemy.

 

Like you, I don't kill a whole lot with my tactical squads, but I have found that they can be used to GREAT effect when supporting or supported by other units. You can't use them in isolation. As a Defender, you're relying on them to sit on an objective and not die. Maybe provide some long range killing support. As a hunter, you're going after something that they CAN kill. Lighter tanks (with melta and krak grenades) are good targets, small squads of soft targets, or just plain soft targets like guardsmen.

 

It takes 3-4 FULL Tactical squads to reliably kill another tactical squad in one turn. Not fast. Especially once those tactical squads start taking casualties. But if you rapid fire with the tactical squad to soften up a target for an assault squad... then you get efficiency.

 

I think the problem with how many people play tactical squads is that they expect them to be the functional core of their army, filling every role from Defender to Cleaner to Firebase.

 

And they can't do that.

[Castus Xanthis]

I played a 1750 pt Dawn of War Annihilation game against orkz last night. The game "Ended" on turn 4 as a tie, we kept playing and I annihilated his army the next turn.

My list:

Calgar

4 Honor Guard w/Standard and relic blades

Lysander

5 Terminators

4 full Tactical Squads w/ meltaguns, 3 missile launchers and a lascannon, and powerfists

 

His list:

3 Mobs of 20 orks ea w/big shoota and rokkits and pc nobz

Boss w/big choppa

Mek

Looted wagon w/ boomgun

8 nob bikers

[Warp Angel]

You were conveniently up against a list that dies badly to massed bolter fire. Try the same trick against Khorne Berzerkers or a Nidzilla list. Or even a two optimized Nob Biker squad list and you'll probably see less success. Necrons would pose similar, and potentially more serious problems.

[Brother Tual]

Dedicated Transports are almost pure S units. It's in when and how they're used that makes the difference. Drop pods have great initial S, but it gets pretty limited after that just because they don't do a whole lot on the turns after they arrive unless you've got Deathwind madness going on a horde enemy.

 

Like you, I don't kill a whole lot with my tactical squads, but I have found that they can be used to GREAT effect when supporting or supported by other units. You can't use them in isolation. As a Defender, you're relying on them to sit on an objective and not die. Maybe provide some long range killing support. As a hunter, you're going after something that they CAN kill. Lighter tanks (with melta and krak grenades) are good targets, small squads of soft targets, or just plain soft targets like guardsmen.

 

It takes 3-4 FULL Tactical squads to reliably kill another tactical squad in one turn. Not fast. Especially once those tactical squads start taking casualties. But if you rapid fire with the tactical squad to soften up a target for an assault squad... then you get efficiency.

 

I think the problem with how many people play tactical squads is that they expect them to be the functional core of their army, filling every role from Defender to Cleaner to Firebase.

 

And they can't do that.

 

I agree with you - but what are the perameters of S? it is purely subjective right? It can be a large number or a small number depending on the sitution and your ability or your enemies in-ability.. How do YOU count for this before you see a table top or an enemy list? how do you determine a value? (I know where I consider it, but for new players, it might be difficult to see its worth, hence why most green players dislike tanks and transports..)

 

It takes 3-4 FULL Tactical squads to reliably kill another tactical squad in one turn. Not fast. Especially once those tactical squads start taking casualties. But if you rapid fire with the tactical squad to soften up a target for an assault squad... then you get efficiency.

This I completely agree with..

 

Like you, I don't kill a whole lot with my tactical squads, but I have found that they can be used to GREAT effect when supporting or supported by other units. You can't use them in isolation. As a Defender, you're relying on them to sit on an objective and not die. Maybe provide some long range killing support. As a hunter, you're going after something that they CAN kill. Lighter tanks (with melta and krak grenades) are good targets, small squads of soft targets, or just plain soft targets like guardsmen.

Well said, but what if these enemy units are beyond your range or well supported themselves? I find that the closer my marines get to the enemy the quicker they die, reguardless of how much support they have.. this was ok in 4th ed. but now it stings more than it used to... My question is, how do you get value out of your tactical marines without exposing them to excessive loss or employing 4 times the base cost of your target unit? How do you use them as supporting units without exposing them?

[Castus Xanthis]

You were conveniently up against a list that dies badly to massed bolter fire. Try the same trick against Khorne Berzerkers or a Nidzilla list. Or even a two optimized Nob Biker squad list and you'll probably see less success. Necrons would pose similar, and potentially more serious problems.

The funny thing is, I killed very few of those orkz by shooting. He made very good cover rolls. I wiped them out in assaults.

 

Well said, but what if these enemy units are beyond your range or well supported themselves? I find that the closer my marines get to the enemy the quicker they die, reguardless of how much support they have.. this was ok in 4th ed. but now it stings more than it used to... My question is, how do you get value out of your tactical marines without exposing them to excessive loss or employing 4 times the base cost of your target unit? How do you use them as supporting units without exposing them?

Take an assault special weapon, give the sarge a special ccw and take a heavy weapon. Combat squad and the assault squad with the special and sarge is exposed so they can assault, the fire support squad can be hidden in cover.

[Warp Angel]

S is the reason I've never tried to assign numbers to anything in the Killhammer formula. There's simply too much that can influence a decision. It depends entirely on the general to determine what/when/how based upon his opponent, terrain, and playstyle. I've got a tendancy to play for greatest overall S against a variety of opponents, rather than overwhelming S in some situations, and low S against some opponents.

 

This is why I've got a preference for Rhinos and Razorbacks as transports over Drop Pods. The upside isn't as high, but the downside isn't as low.

 

I think you're very right in your assessment that newer players have more difficulty assimilating vehicles into their armies, since their use is FAR from straightforward.

 

And if the enemy is well supported or out of range... well, that's the purpose of the S when assessing your opponent's units. The Carnifex might be the far more dangerous opponent, but if you don't wreck those gaunts first, it's going to get the charge. And that's the reason that I advocate mobile transports (rhinos, razorbacks, and land raiders), as well as fast attacking units, to close that gap and provide more support and concentrated resources than your opponent can match.

 

Killhammer is a set guidelines and a common framework for discussion on how to make better decisions. It's not a game winner by itself. Application of it IS.

 

My best advice is to build the best army for your playstyle and environment you can. Then apply Target Priorty principles to your opponent's army, removing his ability to have more mutually supporting units than you. That's the whole "Kill Gap" basis.

 

And remember, while your tacticals die when they close with the enemy... This is the Grim Darkness of the Far Future where EVERYTHING dies. Your job is to make your opponent die faster.

[Brother Tual]

So, when you use killhammer principles to determine what the best units are, are you considering S? or do you consider it only after the event (game) and then try and re-work your list based on experience or previous S values? is this the general idea until you have enough experience to be able to do this before the event?

 

Dont get me wrong.. I am not trying to tarnish your ideas - I want to understand them - I have a well proven list that I have done well with in tournies - I have several actually - Each can and does perform well against all opponents but it is because I have chosen, as you said, a play style and employed units which best perform in this role - I can post my latest list if you like.. as an example..

 

And if the enemy is well supported or out of range... well, that's the purpose of the S when assessing your opponent's units. The Carnifex might be the far more dangerous opponent, but if you don't wreck those gaunts first, it's going to get the charge. And that's the reason that I advocate mobile transports (rhinos, razorbacks, and land raiders), as well as fast attacking units, to close that gap and provide more support and concentrated resources than your opponent can match

I would use the transport to keep distance until I have the support to destroy the Fex and the gaunts so that I dont expose my tacticals to either threat... I find that as soon as they are exposed, they die, as well as my chances of a win.. this is obviously a form of target priority, but in the opposite sense to what I get from your Ideas - there is nothing kill hammer about it - its avoidance hammer.. Is this part of the S value or something else?

[Warp Angel]

If you read the main Killhammer article in the Librarium (see my sig), you'll see that one of the principles is CONSTANT re-evaluation of the game situation. Including the S part of the formula, but not JUST the S.

[Ryjak]

I think something that can enhance this discussion are the ways to maximize the "S" your transport gives your Tac Squad (and your army as a whole) Off-hand, I can think of:

 

Mobile Bunker: When you hang out in your Rhino, with just the intent of using one of the squad's "upgrade" weapons. This applies to sitting still to fire a heavy weapon, or being mobile and performing drive by flamings or meltings.

 

Movement: Using your ride to get somewhere for a specific purpose, weather it is to occupy key terrain during later turns, or to support another unit with a higher K.

 

Terrain: After you get out of your ride, this is usually what you do with it... it's a very rare game where you'll re-mount your transport. Used for blocking LOS and denying movement.

 

Attack: Weather you're using an empty Razorback as a light tank, or hoping to Tank-Shock/herd a unit with your Rhino.

 

Most games, you'll probably end up doing all of them at some point, and probably two or more of them at the same time. For examply, you could use your rhino to screen your Jump-pack units while moving your Tac squad of the board, and taking pot-shots with your meltagun. Then they dismount into key terrain and rapid-fire their bolters into the unit your Jump-packers are already on top of and about to assault. Next turn, you're shooting at another unit while your ride blocks access to your Tac Squad or Jump-pack unit.

 

And on a final note, a tactical squad can only do one thing well, and that's rapid-fire their bolters into some infantry while controlling an objective. Anything else they manage to pull off is just a bonus.

[Guest TheRevenant]

With tacticals, you get a unit with no real purpose other than to score - It will struggle to do any real damage - you have said this - Low kill value - I have tested this - I know - ( I took 40 tacticals with a cheap character and transports at a low value tourney and I failed to kill anything - my wins came through their inability to kill 40 marines and I subsequently recieved the lowest placing I have ever recieved - smack bang in the middle of the pack.. 21nd of 42 I think.. )

This is a rather unfounded statement. I very frequently do lots of damage with my tac squads against even MEQ. Double twin-linked templates help with that. And another of my tac's multimeltas nailed a vindie yesterday.

 

If YOU failed to do anything with 4 full tac squads, then it's because of YOU. Give me 4 tac squads, and I'll wreck house.

 

Then again, I do have 7 full tac squads with as many options for weapons as I need, mostly flamers, meltaguns, multimeltas, and lascannons.

And my sergeants all have a variety of weapons in the form of power weapons, fists, and combi-weapons (boy do I love my combi-flamers).

[Democratus]

This is a rather unfounded statement. I very frequently do lots of damage with my tac squads against even MEQ. Double twin-linked templates help with that. And another of my tac's multimeltas nailed a vindie yesterday.

 

It seems it is quite founded. He even stated what he founded it on - playtesting in a tournament environment. You may disagree with his conclusions, but he cited his methodology and his source.

 

How does a tactical squad get twin-linked templates? If they are doing it with the help of an Indepent Character then it is no longer just the tacticals that are doing the damage. It's tactical squads + IC special ability. This is not the claim that was made.

[Warp Angel]

With tacticals, you get a unit with no real purpose other than to score - It will struggle to do any real damage - you have said this - Low kill value - I have tested this - I know - ( I took 40 tacticals with a cheap character and transports at a low value tourney and I failed to kill anything - my wins came through their inability to kill 40 marines and I subsequently recieved the lowest placing I have ever recieved - smack bang in the middle of the pack.. 21nd of 42 I think.. )

This is a rather unfounded statement. I very frequently do lots of damage with my tac squads against even MEQ. Double twin-linked templates help with that. And another of my tac's multimeltas nailed a vindie yesterday.

 

If YOU failed to do anything with 4 full tac squads, then it's because of YOU. Give me 4 tac squads, and I'll wreck house.

 

Then again, I do have 7 full tac squads with as many options for weapons as I need, mostly flamers, meltaguns, multimeltas, and lascannons.

And my sergeants all have a variety of weapons in the form of power weapons, fists, and combi-weapons (boy do I love my combi-flamers).

 

Ah, so it's VULKAN + Tactical squads that lets you wreck house. Remove Vulkan, the twin linking that he provides, and you'll find a different story. Scale down the size of the game so you can only afford 4 tactical squads (say 12-1500 points) and you'll find a different story. You've essentially taken a character that provides an effective 10-20 point discount for every melta and flamer in your army, and equipped 10-14 (or more) of those, giving yourself a "free" 200 points in your army.

 

The fewer tactical squads you have, the fewer "free" benefits you get. The fewer "free" benefits you get, the less effective you are overall.

 

Look at it his way. If I have a piece of wargear that gives a +2 attack bonus to every squad within 6", do I get more value out of it if I have one squad within 6" or six? The obvious answer is six. Think of Vulkan as a character that gets better with more units that can benefit from his ability. Smaller games, smaller benefits.

[Warp Angel]

So, when you use killhammer principles to determine what the best units are, are you considering S? or do you consider it only after the event (game) and then try and re-work your list based on experience or previous S values? is this the general idea until you have enough experience to be able to do this before the event?

 

Dont get me wrong.. I am not trying to tarnish your ideas - I want to understand them - I have a well proven list that I have done well with in tournies - I have several actually - Each can and does perform well against all opponents but it is because I have chosen, as you said, a play style and employed units which best perform in this role - I can post my latest list if you like.. as an example..

 

And if the enemy is well supported or out of range... well, that's the purpose of the S when assessing your opponent's units. The Carnifex might be the far more dangerous opponent, but if you don't wreck those gaunts first, it's going to get the charge. And that's the reason that I advocate mobile transports (rhinos, razorbacks, and land raiders), as well as fast attacking units, to close that gap and provide more support and concentrated resources than your opponent can match

I would use the transport to keep distance until I have the support to destroy the Fex and the gaunts so that I dont expose my tacticals to either threat... I find that as soon as they are exposed, they die, as well as my chances of a win.. this is obviously a form of target priority, but in the opposite sense to what I get from your Ideas - there is nothing kill hammer about it - its avoidance hammer.. Is this part of the S value or something else?

 

Avoidance is "Killhammer". If your opponent can't kill anything, you've maintained or expanded the kill gap in your favor. Actually killing the unit is the most effective way of creating a kill gap, because it's permanent. But tying up in hand to hand combat, blocking LOS, or limiting targetting options to units of less importance is a temporary way of achieving the same effect.

[chunky04]

Another couple of points on combat squadding you're Tac squads - personally I think in a non-KP mission there is absolutely no reason not to.

 

- As Brother Tual points out, Combat squads can take good advantage of being overkilled, but the pointy end (Sergeant plus Special) of the squad also takes advantage quite well of the less is more benefits, enabling you to play wound allocation games.

 

- Even when you combat squad your Tac squads, that doesn't mean they shouldn't act as one unit. If you consider them as one unit even with tac squadding, you begin to see some of the really awesome components. Your pointy end can move into rapid fire range once the enemy get close while still allowing the back end to fire their heavy weapon, effectively increasing your K. When considered in this way, your D is actually superior as well.

 

- Something I haven't yet seen mentioned in the S discussion on these squads is the bait principle. Where a ten man squad probably gets most of the Marines killed in close combat but not all, enabling the enemy to stay in melee, a 5 man squad (generally the pointy end about 6-12" in advance of the rest) will generally leave the enemy looking down the barrel of a lot of guns, creating a large kill gap by sacrificing five relatively unimportant Marines for what is often a much more valuable target. Fast troops not utilising a transport or other method of delivery are particularly vulnerable to this, as they either charge the combat squad, or the combat squad can probably charge them the following turn, which considering the large reduction in effectiveness most assault elements have when charged is often enough to tie them up the next turn, gaining you two turns to deal with other threats.

 

- Tac squadding allows you to utilise 5 points to get your Rhino a Twin linked Heavy Bolter and still have the capacity to transport a combat squad to an objective, which is generally what you'll want them mobile for anyways.

 

- It also allows you more targetting flexibility, making them better at the Clean role, which is something I've found Tac squads quite good for.

 

Edit: Also, awesome series of articles. You've articulated something (especially the S concept) I think of a lot, but would be hard pressed to describe.

[Warp Angel]

Another couple of points on combat squadding you're Tac squads - personally I think in a non-KP mission there is absolutely no reason not to.

 

- As Brother Tual points out, Combat squads can take good advantage of being overkilled, but the pointy end (Sergeant plus Special) of the squad also takes advantage quite well of the less is more benefits, enabling you to play wound allocation games.

 

- Even when you combat squad your Tac squads, that doesn't mean they shouldn't act as one unit. If you consider them as one unit even with tac squadding, you begin to see some of the really awesome components. Your pointy end can move into rapid fire range once the enemy get close while still allowing the back end to fire their heavy weapon, effectively increasing your K. When considered in this way, your D is actually superior as well.

 

- Something I haven't yet seen mentioned in the S discussion on these squads is the bait principle. Where a ten man squad probably gets most of the Marines killed in close combat but not all, enabling the enemy to stay in melee, a 5 man squad (generally the pointy end about 6-12" in advance of the rest) will generally leave the enemy looking down the barrel of a lot of guns, creating a large kill gap by sacrificing five relatively unimportant Marines for what is often a much more valuable target. Fast troops not utilising a transport or other method of delivery are particularly vulnerable to this, as they either charge the combat squad, or the combat squad can probably charge them the following turn, which considering the large reduction in effectiveness most assault elements have when charged is often enough to tie them up the next turn, gaining you two turns to deal with other threats.

 

- Tac squadding allows you to utilise 5 points to get your Rhino a Twin linked Heavy Bolter and still have the capacity to transport a combat squad to an objective, which is generally what you'll want them mobile for anyways.

 

- It also allows you more targetting flexibility, making them better at the Clean role, which is something I've found Tac squads quite good for.

 

Edit: Also, awesome series of articles. You've articulated something (especially the S concept) I think of a lot, but would be hard pressed to describe.

 

There's two places where combat squadding CAN make sense.

 

1) against guard, where two Marines can win CC against 10-20 basic guardsmen.

2) as delaying tactics when facing a fast horde army that focuses on CC.

 

We seem to be in agreement on #2

 

Where it DOESN'T make sense (and where we will disagree) is:

 

1) to make them mobile in a razorback. They're almost as fast on foot and can shoot up to 12" while moving up the table. No reason they can't advance WITH the razorback, using it to provide cover. More often than not, your opponent will have issues figuring out which one to shoot. The desire to have a razorback (or the presence of one) shouldn't determine whether you combat squad... the S should.

2) to take advantage of wound allocation - If the enemy is capable of killing four marines in a turn of shooting (not uncommon, especially if multiple units are involved), a 5 man combat squad with the good weapons is reduced to one good weapon... if your wound allocation worked. A 10 man squad can put 7 wounds onto 'nonessential' models, and still have a 6 man squad alive.

3) anytime you want to be able to tarpit/win CC against anyone other than guard. 5 tactical marines lack the attacks and wounds to last for much more than a turn against most units.

[chunky04]

Where it DOESN'T make sense (and where we will disagree) is:

 

1) to make them mobile in a razorback. They're almost as fast on foot and can shoot up to 12" while moving up the table. No reason they can't advance WITH the razorback, using it to provide cover. More often than not, your opponent will have issues figuring out which one to shoot. The desire to have a razorback (or the presence of one) shouldn't determine whether you combat squad... the S should.

2) to take advantage of wound allocation - If the enemy is capable of killing four marines in a turn of shooting (not uncommon, especially if multiple units are involved), a 5 man combat squad with the good weapons is reduced to one good weapon... if your wound allocation worked. A 10 man squad can put 7 wounds onto 'nonessential' models, and still have a 6 man squad alive.

3) anytime you want to be able to tarpit/win CC against anyone other than guard. 5 tactical marines lack the attacks and wounds to last for much more than a turn against most units.

 

I guess it all comes back to the way they're used and the S.

 

For point 1) I tend to use the 3 Tac squads as a firebase, so the extra friepower from the TLHB on the Razorbacks is very handy, as is the transport space for transitioning from defence to offense. Use the elites and fast attack to cear the objectives, then drive on up and claim them.

 

2) This is really the key point of difference for us - for me, two combat squads in close support are more durable than the single ten man squad. Yes in the situation where you get 4 or 5 wounds you're more vulnerable to losing K, but in almost every other situation you're either equal or better. 1,2 or 3 and its no different either way. 6 and above you start to benefit from overkill and less is more situations. The 5 man squad is also better able to take advantage of smaller terrain pieces for cover saves. It may be on account of the local metagame that this happens to be the sort of situations I'm facing of course.

 

3) One turn is usually all I'm after in this situation - survive the first turn and dying the second is actually the preferred outcome against assault units, so that they can be shot at again in my turn (even better if they've had a poor consolidate roll and are still vulnerable to blasts and templates). 5 marines are also very capable of tying up most non-assault oriented squads for quite some time unless they get assistance from dedicated close combat troops.

[CompanyOfTheFallen]

I combat squad in not-KP missions all the time. Maybe its cause of our local player but 5 marines with a flamer or melta and a pfist are almost the same threat as 10 men, but on the other hand the remaining 5 shoot with plasma/laser/rockets. Furthermore I see no disadvantage in taking a razorback inseat of a rhino - against gunlines I use if at max speed for 2 turns and then it acts as firebase and against CC-Armies its going slower and shoots but since the enemy comes to me it is exactly what I want.

[Tranc]

Despite the formula which you have developed (and I - honestly still don't understand :P)

 

Hey Warp Angel, I read your article and I think perhaps some of the difficulty bannus (and maybe others) have had is due to an inconsistency in your article.

 

Early on, you present the formulas as this

 

Your opponent's units: (K1-K2) - (D1-D2) + S = Opponent Unit's Killhammer Rating

Your opponent's units: (K1-K2) + (D1-D2) + S = Your Unit's Killhammer Rating

 

But later, you say

 

Yours: (K1-K2)+(D1+D2) + S

Theirs: (K1-K2)+(D1+D2) + S

 

Furthermore, you define D2 as "How soon can it be destroyed", which to me sounds like D2 is high if it can be destroyed very soon, and low if it takes a while to bring enough firepower to bare. But, later you state that "D2 goes up if it's deployed in a way that reduces the number of effective weapons that can be brought to bear", which is the reverse of what I got out of your definition (maybe it should be re-worded as "How LONG until it can be destroyed?").

 

Assuming D2 is how long it takes to bring enough firepower to kill it, my internal logic wants to re-write your formulas as

 

Yours: (K1-K2)+(D1+D2) + S

Theirs: (K1-K2)-(D1+D2) + S

 

For your own units, the more firepower (K1) and tougher (D1) they are, the better. So those terms should have '+' signs. The less mobility or range they have (K2), the worse off they are, so that term should have a '-' sign. D2 involves how long it takes your opponent to kill them, and the longer the better, so D2 should also have a '+' sign.

 

For your opponent, the more firepower (K1) they have, the more prudent it is to take them out early (so '+' sign). However, the tougher they are (D1), and the longer it takes to kill them (D2), the less attractive they are to target (both '-'). Finally, the less mobility/range that they have (K2), the less of a threat they present, so this also makes them less attractive targets ('-' sign).

 

Is my interpretation of your theory correct?

[CompanyOfTheFallen]

The minus signs are not improtant if you work with negative numbers.

 

I use it in this way:

 

(K1+K2) + (D1+D2) + S = Rating.

 

K1 starts with 0 on units which do not do any harm and increases as they get more firepower.

K2 starts with 0 on units which do not do any harm and increases as they get faster into combat or/and shooting range. (here is where you wuld put a minus sign but which isn't nessisary)

D1 starts somewhere where you decide it to as there are no units who die when the game begins so it isn't 0 and it increases as the units get thougher.

D2 is pretty much the same as D1 - if it takes your enemy longer to get to kill them it is it increases.

 

The problem is that usually S is by far more important then everything else put together :P

[Warp Angel]

It's quite possible that I made a typo in one of the Killhammer articles.

 

And after running through a lot of complex scenarios in my head, it's clear that I need to update Killhammer to be more clear.

 

Thanks guys. Your input is appreciated.

[Tranc]

The minus signs are not improtant if you work with negative numbers.

 

I use it in this way:

 

(K1+K2) + (D1+D2) + S = Rating.

 

K1 starts with 0 on units which do not do any harm and increases as they get more firepower.

K2 starts with 0 on units which do not do any harm and increases as they get faster into combat or/and shooting range. (here is where you wuld put a minus sign but which isn't nessisary)

D1 starts somewhere where you decide it to as there are no units who die when the game begins so it isn't 0 and it increases as the units get thougher.

D2 is pretty much the same as D1 - if it takes your enemy longer to get to kill them it is it increases.

 

The problem is that usually S is by far more important then everything else put together ;)

 

Well, reading Warp Angel's article, my interpretation is that 1) your score tells you your most dangerous units while 2) your opponent's score tells you your targeting priority. These two things are not the same, and therefore their equations should be different.

 

E.g., say you have 1 Devastator Squad and 1 Predator tank. Both units have comparable firepower (K1) and range (K2, although the predator has a slight edge due to mobility). However, it could be argued that the Devastator Squad has significantly higher resilience (D1). Therefore, the Devastator Squad is your more powerful unit and should have a higher killhammer score.

 

Now consider if your opponent has 1 Devastator Squad and 1 Predator tank. Both have comparable firepower (K1), but the Devastator Squad is more resilient (D1). It usually takes you longer to kill off those 10 space marines than pop the Predator tank. What's your targeting priority? You would want to target the predator first so that it couldn't fire back. If you target the Devastator Squad first, will take you longer to eliminate one of the threats and in the mean time both the Devastators and the tank will be able to retaliate. So when evaluating your opponent's units, that D1 term needs to have a negative sign because the Predator should have the higher score (it is of higher targeting priority).

 

QED, I stand by my original assessment that the signs matter :P

[Warp Angel]

Well said.

 

Which is why I've never tried to assign numbers to the formula. It's all conceptual and fuzzy. B)