Killhammer Strategy: Using Tactial Squads

[Rage]

Nope, only the drop pod allows you to combat squad when you deploy the squad...it's a shame as that would be a cool idea.

[Warp Angel]

9 striking scorpions have 36 S4 attacks on the charge. They hit with 18 of them. They wound with 9. 3 Marines die. The exarch kills 1 or 2. That's a whole combat squad gone.

 

Good! I can shoot them now...the best way to deal with CC troops. So basically I lose 90pts, in return i've drawn out and could possibly destroy a ~190pt unit. Me thinks I'd be happy with that.

 

With 10 Marines, sarge is probably still alive. That's probably 2 dead Eldar and likely another full game turn of them being locked up with what's left of your tactical squad. A 5 man squad won't last until the beginning of the Eldar player's next turn.

 

Not really, if you take into account shooting before they assault you'll be down ~7 marines (possibly the PF due to taking 9 wounds after losing a couple to their shooting) by the end of the Eldar assault phase and they've lost maybe 2, in your assault phase the last marines die and the scorps can move on to cause more damage with only a few casualties. I know what you're saying but even a 10 man tac squad cannot stand up to a decent CC unit.

 

I did the striking scorpions a favor by not assuming that they'd taken any casualties from Marine shooting or their transport getting blown up in the previous turn. Every striking scorpion that's dead is literally one less armor save on average. Which means every 3 dead is one less marine dead on average.

 

Look, we don't agree. Use Killhammer and your playstyle/opponents to be a better player and run with the tactical squad loadout you want to. I'll run with mine. I'm happy with my results, you're happy with yours. I just can't use your philosophy in my local play environment without getting run over, so I don't.

[Terminus]

9 striking scorpions have 36 S4 attacks on the charge. They hit with 18 of them. They wound with 9. 3 Marines die. The exarch kills 1 or 2. That's a whole combat squad gone.

 

With 10 Marines, sarge is probably still alive. That's probably 2 dead Eldar and likely another full game turn of them being locked up with what's left of your tactical squad. A 5 man squad won't last until the beginning of the Eldar player's next turn.

Hmm, okay, so he wipes out 5 marines, and now the rest of my army (including the other combat squad) can shoot him off the table. Sounds like a win to me. With a 10-man squad, yes, the power fist may squish an Eldar or two (actually, with two attacks, statistically that's less than 1, since you miss 50% of the time, and fail to wound 16.7% of the time), but that's all the casualties they'll suffer. Then, on your turn, they finish off the squad during your assault phase, and on the Eldar player's next turn, they can move, run and assault again.

 

 

I don't see how killing one Scorpion rather than all of them is better?

 

But yeah, this is definitely a decision that's up to the individual, and based on their own local metagame. Around here, overkill happens more often than not.

[Gornall]

But yeah, this is definitely a decision that's up to the individual, and based on their own local metagame. Around here, overkill happens more often than not.

 

Yup. It's definately a commander's decision and some armies are more prone to overkill than others. That's why I like combat squads, as they give you the option of breaking apart if you need a speedbump (fighting large numbers of Genestealers) or sticking together if the fights are going to be more even (facing another MEQ). YMMV

[Resv]

Hmm, okay, so he wipes out 5 marines, and now the rest of my army (including the other combat squad) can shoot him off the table. Sounds like a win to me. With a 10-man squad, yes, the power fist may squish an Eldar or two (actually, with two attacks, statistically that's less than 1, since you miss 50% of the time, and fail to wound 16.7% of the time), but that's all the casualties they'll suffer. Then, on your turn, they finish off the squad during your assault phase, and on the Eldar player's next turn, they can move, run and assault again.

 

I don't see how killing one Scorpion rather than all of them is better?

 

I don't mean to come off as offensive to anyone but is it just me or is the above example stuffed with supposition? The example states that one would lose 5 Marines then turn around and shoot the Eldar off the board, yet that shooting 5 man unit isn't engaging anything else on the table and also hasn't been engaged by the Eldar player.

 

Using this same supposition, you have one 5 Man Squad (Fire Team A) and the other Squad (Fire Team B ). Now, we know what happens in the above example and from the sound of it, the two Fire Teams seem to work best functioning as a single unit. To accomplish the above example the two units need to maneuver close enough to one another to to allow Fire Team B to take advantage of Fire Team A's destruction, so within 18 inches to make use of rapid fire. If we extend our example to include elements of both player's might there not be a completely different result. How well would Fire Team B be able to effectively shoot and destroy the Scorpions if they had taken two or three wounds? Fire Team A still gets slaughtered and there isn't enough volume of fire to off the Eldar. 5 Man units may be able to cover one another, HOWEVER, they suffer wounds with far greater impact to their effectiveness!

 

The Marine Player also complicates and limits his movement as each Fire Team is still limited on how effective it can be relative to the proximity to other Fire Team. The advantage is to the Eldar player then as they are not under the same limitation at all. The Marine Player can't spread the two units apart with out breaking the support chain between them. They are too fragile to leave out on their own. Fire teams don't benefit from the 2 Tanks = 3 Tanks rule as each unit doesn't need as much fire power to be rendered ineffectual. Two or Three wounds and you are down 40 to 60% of their fire power.

[Terminus]

I don't mean to come off as offensive to anyone but is it just me or is the above example stuffed with supposition? The example states that one would lose 5 Marines then turn around and shoot the Eldar off the board, yet that shooting 5 man unit isn't engaging anything else on the table and also hasn't been engaged by the Eldar player.

That's right, because I use the heavy weapon combat squads as fire support, so he's engaging my support troops, he either masterfully outmaneuvered me, in which case I'm about to lose anyway, or he cleaned up all of my CC units, in which case I'm probably about to lose anyway again.

 

Using this same supposition, you have one 5 Man Squad (Fire Team A) and the other Squad (Fire Team B ). Now, we know what happens in the above example and from the sound of it, the two Fire Teams seem to work best functioning as a single unit. To accomplish the above example the two units need to maneuver close enough to one another to to allow Fire Team B to take advantage of Fire Team A's destruction, so within 18 inches to make use of rapid fire. If we extend our example to include elements of both player's might there not be a completely different result. How well would Fire Team B be able to effectively shoot and destroy the Scorpions if they had taken two or three wounds? Fire Team A still gets slaughtered and there isn't enough volume of fire to off the Eldar. 5 Man units may be able to cover one another, HOWEVER, they suffer wounds with far greater impact to their effectiveness!

This is simply not true. I do not use the two combat squads as a "single unit". My assault combat squads work in tandem, while my fire combat squads hang back. And I fail to see how taking any number of shots (even if just a single bolter, for the sake of argument) at the Scorpions is not better than taking 0 shots at the Scorpions since they are engaged. Plus, since they are unengaged, they can be targeted by other elements of my army.

 

Worst case scenario, if I fail to kill any of them, and they roll into the next combat squad and kill it too. Which is still better than losing more than half of a unit (the exarch will statistically kill at least 2 marines with a claw, and then there are 11 shuriken shots that will kill at least another 1), then kill maybe 1 or 2 if my powerfist is still intact, lose combat horribly, and probably lose more to ATSKNF. Then, on my turn, the Scorpions beat any survivors, and then charge something else. I've seen it happen too many times, which is why I switched to speed-bump combat squads against most Eldar lists.

 

And all these numbers are assuming completely average rolls. What if your opponent rolls super hot, and/or your saves rolls are sucking, and you take more than 5 wounds? Against a combat squad, this is wasted. And what if the situation is the opposite, and he's rolling crap? The full squad can kill more, but it's still only 1 attack per guy, whereas with the combat squads, you could at least assault for 5 more attacks than you would get normally, tying them up for another turn.

 

There is no supposition in my post, except for mathhammering hit/wound/save averages. This is simply my experience playing against Eldar (my two most regular opponents are hardcore Eldar players... and our group also plays Warmachine, so there is no concept of "beardy" or "cheesy"). If your experiences have shown different, well, everyone has a different meta.

 

Two or Three wounds and you are down 40 to 60% of their fire power.

If my post is stuffed with supposition, this comment is stuffed with wrong.

 

Yeah, the combat squad loses some of its firepower, but the other combat squad is untouched. And in fact, since that other squad is neither engaged nor running around in a transport, I can actually fire that missile launcher, or whatever.

 

Once again, I'll reiterate that your mileage may vary. And what's this 2 tanks = 3 tanks you're speaking of? I'm intrigued.

 

Also, I feel I should note that if all I have is one tac squad, I'm not splitting it into combat teams. I split my squads when I have at least two, so the assault teams can mount up in Razorbacks and go objective clearing, while the heavy weapons pop transports and the like. Now if I could have two special weapons per squad (and ultra-grit, damn stupid chaos <_< ), then I'd be running full squads all day.

[Resv]

That's right, because I use the heavy weapon combat squads as fire support, so he's engaging my support troops, he either masterfully outmaneuvered me, in which case I'm about to lose anyway, or he cleaned up all of my CC units, in which case I'm probably about to lose anyway again.

 

Mate, it really isn't that hard to out maneuver anyone in this game. Outflank, drop pods, turbo boosting bikes, scouts, infiltrators, and deep striking are methods any player can use to get into your back field. Your CC units aren't really that hard to get around. Even in razorbacks running forward at a full tilt.

 

This is simply not true. I do not use the two combat squads as a "single unit". My assault combat squads work in tandem, while my fire combat squads hang back. And I fail to see how taking any number of shots (even if just a single bolter, for the sake of argument) at the Scorpions is not better than taking 0 shots at the Scorpions since they are engaged. Plus, since they are unengaged, they can be targeted by other elements of my army.

 

They operate in tandem and apparently are pivotal to support each other. If this is true then they do in fact work as a "single unit." This "single unit" is made up of two Combat Squads that must maintain a certain distance to effectively cover one another. If these two separate entities are strongest when used together then you could view them as a "single unit."

 

Worst case scenario, if I fail to kill any of them, and they roll into the next combat squad and kill it too. Which is still better than losing more than half of a unit (the exarch will statistically kill at least 2 marines with a claw, and then there are 11 shuriken shots that will kill at least another 1), then kill maybe 1 or 2 if my powerfist is still intact, lose combat horribly, and probably lose more to ATSKNF. Then, on my turn, the Scorpions beat any survivors, and then charge something else. I've seen it happen too many times, which is why I switched to speed-bump combat squads against most Eldar lists.

 

I am a little confused. Your worst case scenario is if you fail to kill any of the Eldar unit and they roll from destroying one 5 man team and then into killing your second unit. You lose two 5 man squads. 10 marines. That is better than losing half a unit and not killing ANY of your enemy? You end up tossing units into the teeth of your enemy to slow them down. Seems like you are wasting points left and right in your tactics.

 

And all these numbers are assuming completely average rolls. What if your opponent rolls super hot, and/or your saves rolls are sucking, and you take more than 5 wounds? Against a combat squad, this is wasted. And what if the situation is the opposite, and he's rolling crap? The full squad can kill more, but it's still only 1 attack per guy, whereas with the combat squads, you could at least assault for 5 more attacks than you would get normally, tying them up for another turn.

 

The Eldar player may roll really hot and systematically kill off your 5 man unit. You then have to move your OTHER squad into close combat, with now 11-12 attacks (depending on load out) but they still go AFTER the Eldar unit. They are at a disadvantage even on their own turn so if they are rolling hot already and what happens if they win combat again. You don't keep them tied up for a full turn and they move on to kill again. 5 Marines are a speed bump and don't pose much of a threat at all to a unit of 12+.

 

 

Two or Three wounds and you are down 40 to 60% of their fire power.

 

If my post is stuffed with supposition, this comment is stuffed with wrong.

 

This isn't wrong at all, mate. Three wounds on a 5 Man unit is 60%. You mentioned mathhammering your way to exelent conclusions so I think we can agree on this.

 

Yeah, the combat squad loses some of its firepower, but the other combat squad is untouched. And in fact, since that other squad is neither engaged nor running around in a transport, I can actually fire that missile launcher, or whatever.

 

You go out of your way to say above that you don't run them as a "single unit" so why count them as one here? That other unit is tied down firing their heavy weapon possibly defending your home objective. Are these your last scoring units? If so are you going to focus on just challenging the other objectives or actually taking them by moving these units out.

 

Once again, I'll reiterate that your mileage may vary. And what's this 2 tanks = 3 tanks you're speaking of? I'm intrigued.

 

This is a common concept developed in World War 2. Two tanks will have the effectiveness of three tanks before you can destroy both. You should check it out, it is a really good concept and useful in deploying armor.

 

I agree with Warp Angel that it comes down to play style. You should go with what works for you. Though, I have yet to see the effectiveness of a 5 man combat squad in any battle I have been a part of. I have found that they are quite easy to take out. My point still stands that you don't have to hit them hard to make them ineffectual. Two or three wounds, easily enough to accomplish, and you have a pretty useless unit.

[Rage]

I am a little confused. Your worst case scenario is if you fail to kill any of the Eldar unit and they roll from destroying one 5 man team and then into killing your second unit. You lose two 5 man squads. 10 marines. That is better than losing half a unit and not killing ANY of your enemy? You end up tossing units into the teeth of your enemy to slow them down. Seems like you are wasting points left and right in your tactics.

 

I think he's saying that the 5 man unit will die and so the scorpions will be out in the open for shooting, therefore you will kill more of the enmy than if it was a 10 man unit stuck in CC...5 rapid firing bolters is more effective than 5 CC tacticals, more attacks, better to hit roll.

 

You wouldn't be tossing 5 man units in to slow them down, you'd be using the flexibility of the 5 men units to bait and trap or not allow yourself to get stuck in an assault that you cannot win. If you feel that you cannot cause enough death to the scorp unit then the 5 man unit still has the option of getting out of dodge before being stomped on by the scorps, again the 10 man Tac squad doesn't have this option so you will lose the extra 5 men for not much return.

 

I think there is some failure in realising that causing 1 or 2 kills more for the loss of 10 men against no kills with 5 men isn't a win for the 10 men squad. I'd rather be in a position to annihilate the squad with the rest of my force and lose 5 men than cause 2 kills and be in no position to kill the scorps. The only time I believe that the 10 men win in this situation is if you have a good CC unit to counter attack the scorps at which point locking them in CC is the ideal situation.

 

 

This isn't wrong at all, mate. Three wounds on a 5 Man unit is 60%. You mentioned mathhammering your way to exelent conclusions so I think we can agree on this.

 

This is correct if everyone is using bolters...if on the other hand you have a special weapon then that will boost the firepower upwards. In which case mathhammer gets complicated.

 

Two or three wounds, easily enough to accomplish, and you have a pretty useless unit.

 

Only if you lose both the sarg and special weapon but your point is valid and thus why I don't advocate sticking any bits on a 5 man unit...rather the points go into the 'power' units.

 

This is a common concept developed in World War 2. Two tanks will have the effectiveness of three tanks before you can destroy both. You should check it out, it is a really good concept and useful in deploying armor.

 

This makes an aweful lot of sense...and alot of players already see this e.g. 2 vindicators are better than 1 is a common statement in building a list. This does work in the favour of 2 razorback squads than a 10 man rhino squad...

[Terminus]

Mate, it really isn't that hard to out maneuver anyone in this game. Outflank, drop pods, turbo boosting bikes, scouts, infiltrators, and deep striking are methods any player can use to get into your back field. Your CC units aren't really that hard to get around. Even in razorbacks running forward at a full tilt.

Um, okay? So I guess I should just auto-forfeit? If I'm going to be automatically outmaneuvered, and for some reason I can't in any way respond to this or use those same methods myself, I may as well not even take my models out of the case. That seems to be what you're implying. You're automatically assuming failure on my part to do anything at all about my opponent's maneuvers.

 

I am a little confused. Your worst case scenario is if you fail to kill any of the Eldar unit and they roll from destroying one 5 man team and then into killing your second unit. You lose two 5 man squads. 10 marines. That is better than losing half a unit and not killing ANY of your enemy? You end up tossing units into the teeth of your enemy to slow them down. Seems like you are wasting points left and right in your tactics.

You misunderstand. The scorpions charge the 5-man squad, wipe it out, and then get shot up because they are now in the open (or are we continuing the thread of thought from your first comment, and assuming that I'm a braindead moron that will not only be outmaneuvered, but not realize I should try to at least shoot the outmaneuvering unit?). Against a 10-man squad, they kill 6 or 7, maybe lose one in return, and a few marines likely die to ATSKNF. So I've lost most of a squad, did little damage in return, and the Striking Scorpions are safe and sound from my shooting until their next turn. Yeah, totally better than losing 5 guys and then have shooting angles at them. :confused:

 

The Eldar player may roll really hot and systematically kill off your 5 man unit. You then have to move your OTHER squad into close combat, with now 11-12 attacks (depending on load out) but they still go AFTER the Eldar unit. They are at a disadvantage even on their own turn so if they are rolling hot already and what happens if they win combat again. You don't keep them tied up for a full turn and they move on to kill again. 5 Marines are a speed bump and don't pose much of a threat at all to a unit of 12+.

Okay, I guess you ARE assuming I'm retarded, because I'd have to be to assault a CC-specialist unit when I could shoot it. /sarcasm Yes, if there's a Striking Scorpion unit out in the open in the middle of my lines, I'm going to assault it with my missile launcher combat squad. /sarcasm

 

The only reason I even mentioned assaulting, was if it's down to the wire, and the Scorpions failed to kill the first 5-man squad, assaulting with another combat squad gives you better results than if they were a single unit. It's far from optimal, but it's still better than simply being stuck in combat with a 10-man squad for two turns, having them systematically beat. I don't know how many other ways I can say this. Please read Rage's response on this matter, I think he said it better and more clearly than I did.

 

This isn't wrong at all, mate. Three wounds on a 5 Man unit is 60%. You mentioned mathhammering your way to exelent conclusions so I think we can agree on this.

Once again, you misunderstand. If they take out three wounds of the 5-man unit, yes, THAT SPECIFIC COMBAT SQUAD is reduced by 60%. But this is not what we're discussing. Since we're talking about a close combat situation, the squad in question loses 100% of its firepower anyway. With combat squads, if engaged I lose the firepower of 5 men. With a full squad, I lose the firepower of all 10.

 

Also, there's the quandary that in order to use your special weapons (flamer/meltagun), you have to move to get close, which means you can't use the missile launcher the same turn. So really, by keeping the squad whole, I'm automatically reducing its firepower without my opponent having to do anything. And most of the punch from tac squads comes from the special/heavy weapons.

 

You go out of your way to say above that you don't run them as a "single unit" so why count them as one here? That other unit is tied down firing their heavy weapon possibly defending your home objective. Are these your last scoring units? If so are you going to focus on just challenging the other objectives or actually taking them by moving these units out.

I'm not counting them as one. I'm saying since the heavy weapon combat squad is unengaged, it can fire at will, whether at the striking scorpions, or something else. The fact that they aren't a single unit, but rather two parts working to support each other is the whole point. How are they "tied down" exactly? Heavy weapons are made to be fired, and defending home objectives is one of the tac squads' jobs. Doing your job is not being "tied down".

 

They operate in tandem and apparently are pivotal to support each other. If this is true then they do in fact work as a "single unit." This "single unit" is made up of two Combat Squads that must maintain a certain distance to effectively cover one another. If these two separate entities are strongest when used together then you could view them as a "single unit."

Except they aren't a single unit in every way that matters. Your opponent can't target them as a single unit, nor assault them as a single unit. Units caused in excess of 5 do not transfer to the other squad. If both squads are engaged in the same combat, the opponent has to split his attacks. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. These two squads have been forming the core of my lists lately, and it's been working.

 

10 Tac Marines; missile launcher, flamer, power fist, combi-flamer, HB razorback.

10 Tac Marines; missile launcher, flamer, power fist, combi-flamer, HB razorback.

 

They split into combat squads. The two missile launcher combat squads hang out in my deployment zone, defending my objectives, and firing their heavy weapon, or as you put it "tied down". :P

 

The flamer squads mount up in the razorbacks and go objective clearing. Two heavy bolters and two flamers (or four on one turn) will clear quite a swath through my regular Eldar, Ork, Tyranid, and Guard opponents. Even Marines will suffer quite a few wounds. Going back to the Striking Scorpions example, if they assaulted and wiped out one squad, they are now staring down the barrel of two heavy bolters, 3-4 boltguns, and 1-2 flamer templates. And that's just what's there locally. The missile launcher has quite a range, so it doesn't have to be near the action at all.

 

The squads have worked very well for me, because overkill is rampant around here. If you're charged by 30 orks, they will eat 10 marines just as fast as 5. If I'm going to lose 10 marines, I rather have it happen over two turns and get in a round of shooting with 5 of them. The only thing I'm considering is dropping the powerfists to save 50 points. Then again, so far they've bagged themselves a Dreadnaught and a Daemon Prince that both failed to kill all 5. Yes, it was kind of lucky (although statistically still quite likely), but luck is very much part of this game. I've also gotten comments objecting to the combi-flamers, but they only have to kill one or two models to pay for themselves.

 

This is a common concept developed in World War 2. Two tanks will have the effectiveness of three tanks before you can destroy both. You should check it out, it is a really good concept and useful in deploying armor.

Okay, now apply this concept to tactical squads. ;)

 

And while you're at it, could you link me to something that elaborates on this concept? I get the fact that two of something is better than one (hell, that's what I've been arguing this whole time), but I enjoy reading WW2 history and my google skills have failed me. :(

[Warp Angel]

This is a common concept developed in World War 2. Two tanks will have the effectiveness of three tanks before you can destroy both. You should check it out, it is a really good concept and useful in deploying armor.

Okay, now apply this concept to tactical squads. :D

 

And while you're at it, could you link me to something that elaborates on this concept? I get the fact that two of something is better than one (hell, that's what I've been arguing this whole time), but I enjoy reading WW2 history and my google skills have failed me. :P

 

Go google "Boyd OODA". Hit multiple links. Read multiple analysis and don't stop at wikipedia. There's a concept (OODA) which requires you to be able to force your opponent down decision paths and make him predictible while keeping your own options open.

 

By running 5 man squads as standard, you've already made yourself predictible. You've taken away one of your options and given your opponent one step towards getting inside your OODA loop. But if you've got a full tactical squad, your opponent has no idea what you're going to choose to do with it, because you're a threat at long range with the heavy weapon, at close range with rapid fire, and you're even an assault threat against weakened or weak units. Your choice.

 

A 5 man squad with no heavy weapon is almost never an assault threat except against the weakest or most vulnerable target, even at full strength. Similarly, a 5 man squad with a heavy weapon is almost always best off standing and shooting, and is almost never an assault threat. You have limited your options.

 

Your opponent, against a 5 man squad, has a variety of options to use against you that they wouldn't have if you were in 10 man strength. As pointed out earlier, it's an easy assault choice for a unit of Striking Scorpions, where the odds of being tarpitted or losing against a full tactical squad are higher (even if they aren't good). A single, otherwise weak unit choice, like guardians, stand a good chance of crippling a 5 man squad in shooting, rendering them weaker than they already are, and further limiting your options. They would need to combine efforts between two or more units to similarly degrate a full tactical squad, and have to be more careful about their deployment around them due to the unpredictibility of the full squad. Simply put, by fielding 5 man squads, you have given your opponents more choices.

 

Both limiting your own options and increasing your opponent's good options are BAD in OODA thinking. Killhammer principles incorporate OODA indirectly, and by ignoring sound Killhammer principles, you are ignoring OODA and the greatest tactical mindset used by the US military and top global corporations.

 

The "two tanks is three tanks" is also OODA disguised. Your opponent has to figure out how to deal with two tanks before ONE of them proves decisive. If he ignores both, you're already inside his OODA loop. If he focuses attention on just one of them, he's being predictible and you're getting inside his OODA loop. If he splits fire to engage them both, then the rest of your army is free to exploit without fear because his attention is elsewhere.

 

Yes my examples above are relatively simple, but they are purposely simple because the battle is incredibly complex.

 

As I've said TWO TIMES already, you and I are going to disagree about the effective deployment of tactical squads. I've presented mathhammered results and scenarios. I've explained my reasons in several different ways, referencing not only a methodology (killhammer) that has served many people well, but Boyd and the OODA loop that is the basis of it all, and I (and others) have indicated that we've had minimal or no success in our local play areas with your style.

 

Finally, I've tried to explain to you that Killhammer explicitly allows for everyone's S(ituation) to be different, and something that works for one person, against their opponents, is going to be different.

 

We understand your position, and do not agree with it. Your reasoning has contributed to this thread, and may inspire others who share your mindset. I'm not sure that we're going to get anywhere further than "my way is better than yours" at this point. I certainly believe you're never going to change your mind, and I've piled up enough evidence in research, playing, and discussion to convince me that I'm right.

 

Impasse.

 

Let's shake hands and keep this thread from devolving into a "you're wrong, I'm right" because that's NOT what Killhammer Strategy is about. Your S is obviously different than that of many of us who have recently contributed to this thread. And that's why the S is there in the first place.

[Resv]

I don't really know why I am doing it, but I am going to. I again don't mean any offense Terminus and I would appreciate it if you tone down your rhetoric while posting on these forums. I am trying to engage you in a debate, not a "who has the bigger chainsword" competition. I am attempting to understand your concepts and comments while providing counter concepts. I invite you to write your own Tactica on the subject of Tactical Marines so that we all would benefit from a definitive write up of your ideas.

 

You really are sticking up for your list, which is awesome, but I have to maintain a few key points again. I will also say this again too, I have yet to see a 5 man squad do anything other than die. This is nothing against you, you might be one of the best tacticians EVER in the history of Warhammer 40k, but from what I have experienced I believe them to be ineffectual.

 

1) 5 Man Marine squads suffer wounds much harder than a 10 Man unit. I have said this before, three wounds is 60% of your available damage output, fire power being the wrong term I grant you. That means you are down to 4 Rapid Fire Shots and 4 attacks on the charge (5 if the Sargent is alive). In my experience they become weak tea and can be ignored for bigger game. Primarily from the examples above you sight 5 Marines in every situation. My point is how well would only 2 or 3 Marines do in similar situations.

 

2) You have outlined a very complicated "support chain" between the separate 5 Man Combat Squads. This support chain limits the maneuvers of the two "forward" Combat Squads because they have to keep at certain distance to keep this chain intact. What happens if the objectives are more than 12 inches apart, say 16-18, if your goal was to take and hold more than 1 objective this provides stress to your support chain since at 18 inches the two Combat Squads are unable to come to each others aid. If this support chain is pivotal to the success of your "forward" Combat Squads then they are linked together. Their movements must complement each other binding them together.

 

3) A five man unit is a speed bump, you say it yourself in one of your posts. Five Marines do not present enough of a threat to 10-12-16-20 model units. Sure, they negate overkill but you still lose one of your "forward" units. A kill gap between your army and your opponent's army is created easily. As well, overkill doesn't mean as much when you have such a low hurdle to jump.

 

4) We haven't talked at all about where the rest of the forces on the table are doing. This is kind of the breaker for any examples we can come up with because we don't take into account where the other elements of both lists. Overall I would say that a 5 Man unit present a weak spot in your forces that can be exploited with out much effort. The rest of the army can be dealt with in turn but if you have no forward scoring units left or your opponent is already 2 Killpoints up with minimal effort then the advantage is clear.

 

We can talk about hypothetical assaults and perfect unit placement till the cows come home. We hinge our examples on perfect conditions where none may exists. There is no way to guarantee any units effectiveness in 40k due to random rolls and such. What I view as a weak spot to be exploited might be part of your overall stratagem, using preconceived notions to your benefit. I would hope that my points above stand up to some reasoning from others, but I chose not to get sucked into a Quote vs. Quote war. Our examples are moot as we cannot take into account everything that maybe happening on the board at a given time. I also grant that your play style might work great for your point range and opponents where ever you might play. I, however, have to side with others in saying that where I play a 5 man squad will get eaten alive and prove a waste.

[Rage]

As I've said TWO TIMES already, you and I are going to disagree about the effective deployment of tactical squads. I've presented mathhammered results and scenarios. I've explained my reasons in several different ways, referencing not only a methodology (killhammer) that has served many people well, but Boyd and the OODA loop that is the basis of it all, and I (and others) have indicated that we've had minimal or no success in our local play areas with your style.

 

Actually you've said that to me, not Terminus...

 

Finally, I've tried to explain to you that Killhammer explicitly allows for everyone's S(ituation) to be different, and something that works for one person, against their opponents, is going to be different.

 

We understand your position, and do not agree with it. Your reasoning has contributed to this thread, and may inspire others who share your mindset. I'm not sure that we're going to get anywhere further than "my way is better than yours" at this point. I certainly believe you're never going to change your mind, and I've piled up enough evidence in research, playing, and discussion to convince me that I'm right.

 

Is this the royal "We"? I've read this thread and seen quite a number of other players who disagree with your position. I think you'll find I am willing to support the 10 man tactical squad in certain situations but not all of them, such as if you wish to use them as a focus of your attack. I would like to point out to you that you seem to of read mine and other peoples comments about 5 man units but disregard what they are actually saying or change how it was originally posted to suit your arguement e,g, 2 five man units in Razorbacks is about the same cost as a 10 man Tac squad, but you continually ignore this point and the fact that that is how things are set-up.

 

And no we wont get anywhere further than "my way is better than yours" if you have already assumed you are right, which is based on your play group and style. If you assume the S is heavily modified by your own situtaions then everyone is actually correct in their situation, where my 5 man tac squads may die horribly in some groups your 10 man squads will prove ineffective in other groups...thus actually making a discussion on any units setup by Killhammer incredibly difficult and nigh on impossible to ever reach a common consensus due to the heavy weighting of S.

 

I never came on to start on to this discussion thread to start an arguement, I appreciate your point of view, but that is what this is, a discussion thread, we discuss the pros and cons of things. Telling people they are wrong because their idea wouldn't work in your playing group is not how these things are meant to pan out and not terribly constructive. I would like to discuss some of your last post in more detail as I disagree with how you're interpreting some of the concepts but I feel that it is a waste of my time. You should of possibly titled this "How to use 10 man Tactical squads".

[Rage]

I'm going to answer this coz I can!

 

1) 5 Man Marine squads suffer wounds much harder than a 10 Man unit. I have said this before, three wounds is 60% of your available damage output, fire power being the wrong term I grant you. That means you are down to 4 Rapid Fire Shots and 4 attacks on the charge (5 if the Sargent is alive). In my experience they become weak tea and can be ignored for bigger game. Primarily from the examples above you sight 5 Marines in every situation. My point is how well would only 2 or 3 Marines do in similar situations.

 

He has at all time said there are 2 x 5 man units, so in effect he has 10 marines...simple! Therefore you'll have the same number of marines as a 10 man unit would have after the shooting in the same area. Also remember that in both cases they have razorbacks so they would both have to be blown before you can shoot the marines, thus he has more control over when you will be able to shoot them or you have to put a disproportionat amount of HW fire into them to blow them up and be able to shoot the marines...this leaves a choice for the enemy, either blow up the razobacks or shoot the really killy stuff charging at his lines...which one would you shoot?

 

2) You have outlined a very complicated "support chain" between the separate 5 Man Combat Squads. This support chain limits the maneuvers of the two "forward" Combat Squads because they have to keep at certain distance to keep this chain intact. What happens if the objectives are more than 12 inches apart, say 16-18, if your goal was to take and hold more than 1 objective this provides stress to your support chain since at 18 inches the two Combat Squads are unable to come to each others aid. If this support chain is pivotal to the success of your "forward" Combat Squads then they are linked together. Their movements must complement each other binding them together.

 

There is nothing complicated about it, they move up in mutual support, just means they hang around together. You only need to claim one objective and contest the others, so the 2 squads can sit on one objective while the rest of the army contests the rest. 2 x 5 man Tacs in Razorbacks takes longer to wipe out than a 10 man unit in a rhino, due to the enemy having to destroy both Razorbacks and then having to shoot at 2 seperate units.

 

3) A five man unit is a speed bump, you say it yourself in one of your posts. Five Marines do not present enough of a threat to 10-12-16-20 model units. Sure, they negate overkill but you still lose one of your "forward" units. A kill gap between your army and your opponent's army is created easily. As well, overkill doesn't mean as much when you have such a low hurdle to jump.

 

Don't think of it as a speed bump...that's the wrong concept...more a bait and trap unit, you use them if you have to to draw out something dangerous that can then be destroyed next turn by shooting or counter CC. You can't perform a bait and trap with a 10 man unit unless it really gains you something massive in return or you have a CC unit to counter charge. As the 5 man unit is cheaper you can have more scoring units so not so critical if you lose one.

 

4) We haven't talked at all about where the rest of the forces on the table are doing. This is kind of the breaker for any examples we can come up with because we don't take into account where the other elements of both lists. Overall I would say that a 5 Man unit present a weak spot in your forces that can be exploited with out much effort. The rest of the army can be dealt with in turn but if you have no forward scoring units left or your opponent is already 2 Killpoints up with minimal effort then the advantage is clear.

 

How about saying that he has a unit of Vulkan and TH/SS in a LRR...what you going to shoot at? What do you want to deal with first?

 

We can talk about hypothetical assaults and perfect unit placement till the cows come home. We hinge our examples on perfect conditions where none may exists. There is no way to guarantee any units effectiveness in 40k due to random rolls and such. What I view as a weak spot to be exploited might be part of your overall stratagem, using preconceived notions to your benefit. I would hope that my points above stand up to some reasoning from others, but I chose not to get sucked into a Quote vs. Quote war. Our examples are moot as we cannot take into account everything that maybe happening on the board at a given time. I also grant that your play style might work great for your point range and opponents where ever you might play. I, however, have to side with others in saying that where I play a 5 man squad will get eaten alive and prove a waste.

 

*A damn load round of applause*

 

Possibly the truest post ever about 40k...you Sir are the man! ;)

 

And that is good night from me...

[Warp Angel]

As I've said TWO TIMES already, you and I are going to disagree about the effective deployment of tactical squads. I've presented mathhammered results and scenarios. I've explained my reasons in several different ways, referencing not only a methodology (killhammer) that has served many people well, but Boyd and the OODA loop that is the basis of it all, and I (and others) have indicated that we've had minimal or no success in our local play areas with your style.

 

Actually you've said that to me, not Terminus...

 

My apologies

 

Finally, I've tried to explain to you that Killhammer explicitly allows for everyone's S(ituation) to be different, and something that works for one person, against their opponents, is going to be different.

 

We understand your position, and do not agree with it. Your reasoning has contributed to this thread, and may inspire others who share your mindset. I'm not sure that we're going to get anywhere further than "my way is better than yours" at this point. I certainly believe you're never going to change your mind, and I've piled up enough evidence in research, playing, and discussion to convince me that I'm right.

 

Is this the royal "We"? I've read this thread and seen quite a number of other players who disagree with your position. I think you'll find I am willing to support the 10 man tactical squad in certain situations but not all of them, such as if you wish to use them as a focus of your attack. I would like to point out to you that you seem to of read mine and other peoples comments about 5 man units but disregard what they are actually saying or change how it was originally posted to suit your arguement e,g, 2 five man units in Razorbacks is about the same cost as a 10 man Tac squad, but you continually ignore this point and the fact that that is how things are set-up.

 

And no we wont get anywhere further than "my way is better than yours" if you have already assumed you are right, which is based on your play group and style. If you assume the S is heavily modified by your own situtaions then everyone is actually correct in their situation, where my 5 man tac squads may die horribly in some groups your 10 man squads will prove ineffective in other groups...thus actually making a discussion on any units setup by Killhammer incredibly difficult and nigh on impossible to ever reach a common consensus due to the heavy weighting of S.

 

I never came on to start on to this discussion thread to start an arguement, I appreciate your point of view, but that is what this is, a discussion thread, we discuss the pros and cons of things. Telling people they are wrong because their idea wouldn't work in your playing group is not how these things are meant to pan out and not terribly constructive. I would like to discuss some of your last post in more detail as I disagree with how you're interpreting some of the concepts but I feel that it is a waste of my time. You should of possibly titled this "How to use 10 man Tactical squads".

 

I noticed that you didn't respond at all to the OODA loop or the valid reasons that I presented to keeping units in 10 man squads. Which were simultaneously reasons not to use 5 man squads. I never said that I was right and that you were wrong, though your selective quoting seems to indicate that. You ignore the parts of my post that indicate you have contributed to the thread and may offer inspiration to others... because you're right, there are people that disagree with me.

 

Instead you attack the portion of the argument, that when taken out of context ,seems to be an adhominem attack by me on you. I said we were both convinced we were right, and I stated my reasons for why I believe that I'm right. I never claimed that you were wrong. Thanks for the selective quoting, taking points out of context - that context being that Killhammer is big enough for us to disagree, without either of us needing to be wrong.

[Warp Angel]

Mathematically provable reasons why a 10 man squad is superior to a 5 man squad in terms of taking and recieving damage. Note this does not take into account maneuver advantages that a pair of 5 man squads may or may not posess. I'll deal with that later.

 

If you don't care about mathhammer, and only care about your personal results and your own phenomenal dice luck, that is NOT a valid reason to disagree with these facts. Because they are facts. Enough games over time and you (or distributed over the whole WH40k community) will achieve overall normalized results.

 

Scenario: Unit is shot at by 20 S4 AP5 shots (any number of ways this could occur) at BS4

14 hits

7 wounds

 

5 man squad has to allocate wounds, which means every special weapon/heavy weapon/sergeant will have to make a save, with a 1/3 chance of dying, with the remainder of the wounds going to basic squad members. This means that there is a 33% chance of you losing the most potent (and most expensive) members of the squad.

 

10 man squad never has to allocate a wound to a special weapon/heavy weapon/sergeant, preserving the most powerful and most expensive units 100% of the time.

 

Scenario: Unit is shot at by 5 S4 AP5 shots (any number of ways this could occur) at BS4, and assaulted by 5 WS4 S4 I4 men w/3 attacks each

 

5 shots

2 hits

1 wound

1/3 failed armor save.

 

15 attacks

7 hit

4 wound

1 1/3 failed armor save.

 

Each return attack has a 1/6 chance of killing an MEQ.

 

5 man squad attacks back with 3-4 attacks.

 

10 man squad attacks back with 8-9

 

10 man squad has a fair chance of tying combat. 5 man squad has a fair chance of losing outright. Edge to the 10 man squad when recieving charges.

 

Assuming no casualties to the sergeants, 2x5 man squads have an edge when they assault, but given the wound allocation rules, that's relatively unlikely.

 

 

Scenario: 10 Marines are shooting, nobody moves

 

2x 5 man "maneuver" elements have 8/16 bolter shots, and up to 2 special weapons.

 

10 man squad has 8/16 bolter shots, 1 special, and 1 heavy weapon.

 

There is a slight edge to the 10 man squad due to the greater firepower potential of heavy weapons vs. special at rapid fire ranges.

 

At long range, 2 "support" squads slightly outgun one 10 man squad, depending on weapon mix.

 

Assuming no casualties, it's a wash overall, but given wound allocation rules and the problematic Ld of "support" squads, there is PROBABLY an edge to the 10 man squad.

 

Scenario: Making leadership checks

 

2x 5 man "support" elements have Ld 8. 10 man squad has Ld 9.

5 man squads take their leadership checks at 2 wounds, 10 man squads at 3.

Every unsaved wound after the first in shooting forces a leadership check for the 5 man squad, but a 10 man squad needs to take 6 total casualties before being in the same situation.

 

The difference between Ld8 and Ld9 means a more than 11% chance to fail pinning checks, to fall back when beaten in assault (and suffer ATSKNF wounds).

Ld8 will fail a leadership check more 25% of the time - your fire support squads are going to be pinned more than 1/4 of the time they take a wound from a pinning weapon and will fall back more than 1/4 of all leadership checks.

 

Ld9 will fail more than 15% of the time.

 

This means that every 6-7 leadership checks a Ld. 9 squad makes, they are going to fail. Since 5 man squads make leadership checks far more often, they will fail on a greater total number of occasions.

 

----------------------------

 

What this all means is that someone needs to convince me that...

 

1) Losing firepower faster

2) Failing leadership checks more often

3) Losing assaults when the opponent charges more often

 

...while...

 

4) Not gaining substantially in firepower in specific situations (and not gaining at all in absolute terms)

5) Being slightly better when sending a charge

6) Assuming that no 5 man squads have lost any of their special/sergeant models

 

...is worth breaking a 2 ten man squads apart into 5 man squads as a standard tactic.

[Rage]

I quoted the entire last part of the post in 2 parts and replied to it in turn...there was no selective quoting. My apologies if you feel that i was twisting your words, that was not the intention.

 

In your previous post you did say you were right, or as you said "convinced you were right"...if you'd stuck the "believe" in first time around we wouldn't be here. That is where my position came from.

 

As I've said TWO TIMES already, you and I are going to disagree about the effective deployment of tactical squads.

 

And the beginning of this quote does not do anybody any favours and not likely to put someone in a freindly mindset as this was obviously aimed at me...even though i was replying to someone elses comments.

 

Yes we disagree about 5 man squads, but I'm not against 10 man squads in certain situations.

 

Hey man, I said I'd like to respond but as i said I didn't believe that it would be worth my time. I was starting to get the feeling you felt what i was saying was an attack on killhammer and you were responding badly to it...or that's I felt some of it came across.

 

You ready to shake hands, move on and discuss this more?

 

I shall begin to draft my response to the OODA loop and that elusive S fudge factor that causes such problens, it's a bit like being at my work place, arguing about statistical methods to analyse data or fudge factors (they get really heated on occasions), when I finish working my way through the info on the web...I will not comment on how you use 10 man squads as I think you use the 10 men squad as it should be, I will instead write the reasoning behind the 5 man squads which i prefer, I think that'll be more constructive to this discussion and anyone who reads it...what you reckon?

[Resv]

He has at all time said there are 2 x 5 man units, so in effect he has 10 marines...simple! Therefore you'll have the same number of marines as a 10 man unit would have after the shooting in the same area.

 

If I may, you can have as many 5 man units as you wish on the board, 20 or 30 even! My point is that a unit of ONLY 5 suffers a greater hit to its effectiveness. Yes he has 10 Marines, he has 20 in fact, all together but they are arranged in 5 man units. Place them in Land Raiders if you wish, place them on the moon if that is your want. It still stands that a 5 man unit suffers a greater impact on its effectiveness from wounds. I don't know how much more I can say it.

 

Troops are the back bone of every army in 40K. If you are presented with a target that represents part of your opponents overall ability to take or hold objectives, or easy kill points, that you can render ineffectual with little effort would you take it?

 

How about saying that he has a unit of Vulkan and TH/SS in a LRR...what you going to shoot at? What do you want to deal with first?

 

You should check out Warp Angel's article on Killhammer: Target Priority to understand what I would shoot at first. That Land Raider might be filled with Killy Goodness, but I have my objective to think about. If I can strike what one would consider a softer target pivotal to my opponent's victory then I might just avoid that Land Raider. Or engage it with my own Elite and Heavy Support. 40k isn't a game of chess where attrition is how you win. You are not required to actively engage every single one of your opponent's units in any order or at all.

 

Also remember that in both cases they have razorbacks so they would both have to be blown before you can shoot the marines, thus he has more control over when you will be able to shoot them or you have to put a disproportionat amount of HW fire into them to blow them up and be able to shoot the marines...this leaves a choice for the enemy, either blow up the razobacks or shoot the really killy stuff charging at his lines...which one would you shoot?

 

This example applies to 10 man units in Rhinos just as well. In fact, I would consider this practical Doctrine for most Marine players. Your point is very valid here, but it still bodes better for a 10 man unit rather than a 5 man unit. What happens if the Razorback is caused to explode and you take an unlucky 2 wounds. In a 5 man unit my point above stands again.

 

I don't like the idea of "bait and trap." You are devoting two units to the destruction of one unit with an understanding that you are sacrificing troops to take out one unit. What if your opponent pulls the same trick? Counter Counter Assaulting your Counter Assault. What if your opponent fires at both 5 man units causing wounds and then moves to assault? I defenitly agree I couldn't do a "bait and trap" with one 10 man unit. I could do it with two 10 man units though, possibly making for an even better outcome on my end too!

 

There is nothing complicated about it, they move up in mutual support, just means they hang around together. You only need to claim one objective and contest the others, so the 2 squads can sit on one objective while the rest of the army contests the rest. 2 x 5 man Tacs in Razorbacks takes longer to wipe out than a 10 man unit in a rhino, due to the enemy having to destroy both Razorbacks and then having to shoot at 2 seperate units.

 

Moving in mutual support is quite complicated I find. You must always be mindful of the distances between these two units. They can't spread out too much, for fear of not being able to support, and they can't be too close, for fear of both being assaulted by one unit or hit by a template. I wouldn't want to push these guys off an objective, thats for sure. Though I wouldn't have a problem at all attempting to contest it. I may not kill all of your Marines but I might be able to tie them up ensuring that you couldn't claim your prize. You group your troops together preventing them from being able to exploit multiple avenues to victory.

 

In these new examples, which I must say are very well thought out (thank you), you are using two units as one. Two parts of one whole rather. However they do remain two separate units, I totally understand this. Each of which can be engaged separately though in the same turn, weather shooting, assaulting, or both. Denying you that mutual support and possibly taking out both units. Even better is NOT taking them both out in one assault phase as to protect myself from your heavy weapons. Because you chose to move them in tandem focusing on tactics that make the best of this support doesn't mean that I have to. I would attack them just the same as I would attack two 10 man squads.

 

As Warp Angel said, you make your forces predictable. You stick to a basic plan of attack and assigned roles for two units. There aren't any rules of engagement that say I need to counter one with another. I can use my strength at the weak points I am presented with.

[Rage]

Ok dude, I'll have a crack at this sucker...though:

 

1) without adding in the transport options, I don't believe we'll get a true result, so I'm going to add them in.

2) there is the fact that you assume the marines have got out of the transports in a really daft place and haven't used their mobility.

3) I advocate the purchase of only the basic 5 marines, not the whole 10. So both 5 man squads would have a RB with HB.

 

Tjerefore mathhammer isn't the greatest comparison

 

Scenario: Unit is shot at by 20 S4 AP5 shots (any number of ways this could occur) at BS4

14 hits

7 wounds

 

5 man squad has to allocate wounds, which means every special weapon/heavy weapon/sergeant will have to make a save, with a 1/3 chance of dying, with the remainder of the wounds going to basic squad members. This means that there is a 33% chance of you losing the most potent (and most expensive) members of the squad.

 

10 man squad never has to allocate a wound to a special weapon/heavy weapon/sergeant, preserving the most powerful and most expensive units 100% of the time.

 

Completely and utterly agree (though some examples of where the 20 shots come from maybe useful), which is why i say just use the basic squad with no extras. They are for objective grabbing only in the late game...think special forces and airstrikes clearing an area before the basic infantry move in to hold ground...but i digress from mathhammer.

 

Scenario: Unit is shot at by 5 S4 AP5 shots (any number of ways this could occur) at BS4, and assaulted by 5 WS4 S4 I4 men w/3 attacks each

 

5 shots

2 hits

1 wound

1/3 failed armor save.

 

15 attacks

7 hit

4 wound

1 1/3 failed armor save.

 

Each return attack has a 1/6 chance of killing an MEQ.

 

5 man squad attacks back with 3-4 attacks.

 

10 man squad attacks back with 8-9

 

10 man squad has a fair chance of tying combat. 5 man squad has a fair chance of losing outright. Edge to the 10 man squad when recieving charges.

 

Assuming no casualties to the sergeants, 2x5 man squads have an edge when they assault, but given the wound allocation rules, that's relatively unlikely.

 

Why only 5 attacking troops? Why not 10, 20 or 30? If i say 30 orks (with PF nob), about the same cost as a 10 man tactical squad...without shooting, none of that pesky combat tactics thankyou...

 

As the marines strike 1st

 

9 attacks

4.5 hits

2.25 wounds

 

lets say 2-3 orks dead...

 

104 attacks

52 hits

26 wounds

~9 dead marines

 

nob and Sarg kill 1 each.

 

 

2 points raised from this

 

1) Both a 5 man unit and 10 man unit would both die to a man without causing any significant damage to the ork mob

2) The 5 man cheaper is half the price of the 10 man unit.

 

If we then say you've had a round of shooting before they assault with 10 men and manage to kill 10 orks...

 

The marines strike, killing 2-3 orks again

 

16 norm orks left...

64 attacks

32 Hits

16 wounds

~5 dead marines

 

At this point it would be worth saying that the PF may be dead (we'll assum not)

 

the nob and sarg kill one each...making 6 dead marines and 4 dead orks

 

the 10 man unit only lose 6 marines but you may lose the sarg, special and heavy weapon. Lets assume they didn't lose the PF, the orks lost 4 orks this time, so they are down to 16. In your assault phase:

 

Marines (Sarg + 3 marines):

3 attacks

1.5 hits

0.75 wounds

Say 1 ork dead

 

15 norm Orks:

45 attacks

22.5 hits

7.5 wounds

Say 3 dead marines (I've added in the nobs leftover 0.5 kills)

 

Sarg kills 1 and Nob kills 1 more each....

 

So in the marines CC phase the results are 14 orks vs 0 Marines...

 

1) Again the 5 man unit is wiped out in the ork CC phase, but this time the 10 man unit still stands even though it lost combat, meaning you are now locked in combat so you can't shoot the orks, while the death of the 5 man unit allows the ork unit to be destroyed by shooting.

2) The ork unit is now free to charge a nearby unit with not many casualties from combat.

 

Scenario: 10 Marines are shooting, nobody moves

 

2x 5 man "maneuver" elements have 8/16 bolter shots, and up to 2 special weapons.

 

10 man squad has 8/16 bolter shots, 1 special, and 1 heavy weapon.

 

There is a slight edge to the 10 man squad due to the greater firepower potential of heavy weapons vs. special at rapid fire ranges.

 

At long range, 2 "support" squads slightly outgun one 10 man squad, depending on weapon mix.

 

Assuming no casualties, it's a wash overall, but given wound allocation rules and the problematic Ld of "support" squads, there is PROBABLY an edge to the 10 man squad.

 

You forgot the RB's...me thinks the edge goes to the 5 man squads here...I assume the 10man squad has a rhino.

 

This actually raises a really good point, where you say the 10 man squad has the edge due to Ld, what are your thoughts on the fact that the 2 support squads would have to take 4 wounds to force both of the to take a Ld test, while the 10 man squad only needs to take 3? Therefore the support squads would have to fail 2 tests to make them both useless, while the 10 man unit only has to fail one. I'm not sure I can balance out the increased Ld of the 10 man squad to give it back the edge.

 

Scenario: Making leadership checks

 

2x 5 man "support" elements have Ld 8. 10 man squad has Ld 9.

5 man squads take their leadership checks at 2 wounds, 10 man squads at 3.

Every unsaved wound after the first in shooting forces a leadership check.

 

The difference between Ld8 and Ld9 means a more than 11% chance to fail pinning checks, to fall back when beaten in assault (and suffer ATSKNF wounds).

Ld8 will fail a leadership check more 25% of the time - your fire support squads are going to be pinned more than 1/4 of the time they take a wound from a pinning weapon and will fall back more than 1/4 of all leadership checks.

 

Ld9 will fail more than 15% of the time.

 

This means that every 6-7 leadership checks a Ld. 9 squad makes, they are going to fail. Since 5 man squads make leadership checks far more often, they will fail on a greater total number of occasions.

 

See my question about the support units above it works the same for the for the Ld9 5 man squad as well...to force a ld check on both 5 man squads you need to kill 2 marines after the first one in each squad. Basically the same as a 10 man unit...but the 5 man unit has to fail 2 tests to run, the 10 mman only has to fail 1.

 

One interesting point is that one support squad could opt to go to ground, while the other would stillbe able to fire...not very likely but a thought.

 

 

----------------------------

 

What this all means is that someone needs to convince me that...

 

1) Losing firepower faster

2) Failing leadership checks more often

3) Losing assaults when the opponent charges more often

 

...while...

 

4) Not gaining substantially in firepower in specific situations (and not gaining at all in absolute terms)

5) Being slightly better when sending a charge

6) Assuming that no 5 man squads have lost any of their special/sergeant models

 

...is worth breaking a 2 ten man squads apart into 5 man squads as a standard tactic.

 

1) You kind of already are as

2) Not the case as I have tried to explain, actually I think maybe a bit riskier for the 10 man unit.

3) If you get charged by an assault unit of equal points you'll lose 10 men instead of 5, without the oppurtunity to shoot at them. If not an assault unit you are better off than a 5 man squad.

4) You can take 2 razorbacks, increasing your firepower.

5) I wouldn't use my tacs to assault anyway...not there job, so can't comment.

6) You are more likely to lose your special kit, but at the same time you gain more...e.g. if you move you can't fire the heavy weapon with a 10 man squad, the support squad doesn't need to move with the assault element so can fire.

 

I dunno, splitting the units does add some interesting extras, speedbump, bait and trap,mobile heavy weapon, but for raw staying power in the face of shooting or not very good assault units the 10 man unit wins. If you group uses really hard and nasty assault units I'd go 5 man as a 10 man unit is toast anyway, if they don't then maybe not.

[Terminus]

As I've said TWO TIMES already, you and I are going to disagree about the effective deployment of tactical squads. I've presented mathhammered results and scenarios. I've explained my reasons in several different ways, referencing not only a methodology (killhammer) that has served many people well, but Boyd and the OODA loop that is the basis of it all, and I (and others) have indicated that we've had minimal or no success in our local play areas with your style.

 

Finally, I've tried to explain to you that Killhammer explicitly allows for everyone's S(ituation) to be different, and something that works for one person, against their opponents, is going to be different.

 

Killhammer principles incorporate OODA indirectly, and by ignoring sound Killhammer principles, you are ignoring OODA and the greatest tactical mindset used by the US military and top global corporations.

This is actually the first time you've responded to me. No offense, but this comment comes across as very arrogant. Boyd, OODA loop and whatever, at the end of the day we're playing with toy soldiers with frequently illogical rules governing their use. You are not the final word on tactical squads, so please don't lump yourself with "the greatest tactical mindset" of real-life military and mercenary forces. The fact that my two razorback squads are working for me, and the fact that I'm not the only one to disagree with you is proof enough of that.

 

You said you are convinced that you are right, so any attempt by me to argue otherwise is a waste of effort. I wasn't trying to convince you (or Resv for that matter) of anything, anyway. I'm certainly not attacking your Killhammer articles, and I'm not dismissing the 10-man squad, as they definitely have their uses. My Chaos lists, for example, always use 10-man Tac squads. Since they can have two special weapons, I get all the benefits of a full squad with none of the drawbacks (I'm not "wasting" my heavy weapon by moving closer to use the melta/flamer, and I'm not "wasting" the melta/flamer by standing still and shooting the heavy). They are also far more individually capable in close combat, where strength of numbers really matters. Plus, they don't have razorbacks.

 

I just think it's extremely obtuse to simply dismiss the utility of combat squads because they didn't work for you personally.

 

I don't really know why I am doing it, but I am going to. I again don't mean any offense Terminus and I would appreciate it if you tone down your rhetoric while posting on these forums. I am trying to engage you in a debate, not a "who has the bigger chainsword" competition. I am attempting to understand your concepts and comments while providing counter concepts. I invite you to write your own Tactica on the subject of Tactical Marines so that we all would benefit from a definitive write up of your ideas.

My posting style may at times get a little bombastic, but I certainly wasn't offended by your comments and didn't mean offense in return. I am just somewhat frustrated that the points I've made don't seem to be coming across at all. Thank the Emperor Rage came along to translate for me. ;)

 

A few examples:

 

*Striking Scorpions BENEFIT from charging a 10-man squad rather than a 5-man squad, because it protects them from serious retaliation on my turn unless I have an assault squad nearby.

 

*Tactical Space Marines are sad clowns when it comes to assaults. They are outclassed in close combat by pretty much anything except Firewarriors, Termagaunts, Guardsmen, and Eldar Guardians. Adding 5 extra bolter guys is good for ablative wounds, but they're not going to kill much of anything in close combat.

 

*Tac squads are their best when shooting (and they aren't fantastic at that, either, for that matter), and since most of that comes from their special/heavy weapons, I feel combat squads allow me to maximize that potential because I can utilize both weapons fully.

 

*Continuing from the previous point, it's a great boon to be able to split my fire, and utilize my heavy weapon every turn (lots and lots of transports in my meta). The support squads pop the transports, while the flamer squads torch the inhabitants. If I run into a dread or something, I like being able to hit it with a missile launcher AND assault with a power fist.

 

*Two 5-man squads in Razorbacks are tougher than one 10-man squad in a rhino. After they disembark, I use the razorbacks as moving walls to limit opponent's retaliation against the flamer squads. I wait until my more serious assault elements are engaged and distracting the enemy before I send them at the enemy's objective. I certainly don't just throw them at the enemy without support, but rather as more pieces of a concentrated effort. They rarely die unless my opponent fixates on them, in which case I play along by sticking to cover, sucking up as much firepower with the two tank hulls as possible. Every shot at the razorback squads is one less shot at the Crusader full of terminators, or that pair of vindicators covering the mid-field objectives.

 

*And speaking of distractions, my support squads rarely get shot at, because my opponents often have other things to worry about than 5 marines in cover (sometimes reinforced cover) with a missile launcher.

 

 

 

In any case, even if work and med school left me enough time to do so, I'm not going to write a tactica, since obviously I have problems making myself understood. Maybe it's due to English being my third language, but whatever the reason, I'll leave that in Rage's far more capable hands. And anyway, while online tactics articles often make for a fun read, I don't put too much stock in them, because they are frequently highly subjective, applicable only to metagames akin to the author's, and occasionally are just a platform for self-aggrandizing and epeen stroking. And before you get excited again Warp Angel, my comments at the beginning of this post aside, the latter does NOT apply to your Killhammer articles.

[Warp Angel]

I mentioned that differing comments have been useful. I posted an (admittedly very terse) mathhammer heavy explanation of why small squads don't work well.

 

I was inspired to write a full tactica article HERE, demonstrating the weaknesses of combat squadding more thoroughly. I think I pretty convincingly demonstrate that the larger squads better protect killing capability, and are less vulnerable to leadership checks.

 

I apologize to both Terminus and Rage for not checking who I was responding to in what posts, and I'll try not to get you confused with anyone else in the future.

[Warp Angel]

@ Terminus

 

On the subject of transports:

 

I field two tactical squads as the core of my army. One has a rhino, one has a razorback.

 

I've found that the full squad jumping out of a rhino has a greater punch than one squad jumping out of a razorback. And that razorback for the second tactical squad is almost always within support fire distance and LOS to help the tacticals should they need it.

 

19 bolt gun shots (8 bolt guns, one pistol, one storm bolter) = just more 6 wounds to allocate.

Add in a melta gun and you make it over 7 average.

Add in a Razorback and it's about 9.

 

8 bolt gun shots (4 bolt guns, one melta gun) = just over 3 wounds to allocate

Double that

Razorback x2 = just about 3 wounds to allocate, and your total is a bit over 9, but not much.

 

Firepower is just about a wash.

 

I don't LOSE the benefit of the Razorback just because it's not driving 5 marines around. I can use an EMPTY razorback to screen my Rhino, and still use both to protect 10 marines moving across the battlefield.

 

Most of what you described as something you do with 2 5 man combat squads is something that I can do with one 10 man squad, and the transport from the other squad, which provides a much more durable (in terms of leadership and being able to recieve an enemy charge) Defender than either of your two fire support squads.

 

It would appear that after long analysis, the choices we make are between a _slightly_ higher offensive potential, and somewhat greater flexibility (your choice), I've gone for the durability route. Against my opponents, going into 5 man squads is asking to die horribly and never getting a chance to play maneuver and firepower games.

 

It's obvious that our target priorities are different... I don't send power fists at dreadnaughts, I send melta guns and save the power fists for tanks and infantry. Of course, if my opponents were spamming dreadnaughts at me instead of sending them in onesies and twosies, I might feel differently... but that's exactly what I've got TH/SS termies for.

 

You say tactical marines are useless in the assault, I use my other units to whittle down the enemy to give me the option to assault successfully if I should choose, and will often use them late in the game to tarpit the enemy and contest objectives (that I just might score on), as well as use assault against weakened units as a tool to advance into cover or further across the table. Depending on your army mix, you may not need/want/be able to do it.

 

You say that you deploy your combat squad firebases in cover... a lot of local games, I don't have that option, or doing so will get them eaten by outflanking units that will assault them or otherwise ignore cover. As the Guard players field more and more of their AP3, ignore cover template artillery pieces, combat squadding to maintain a firebase becomes less practical. I think that your tactics are going to need to change just based on that... pure conjecture on my part.

 

And THAT'S why Killhammer has an S. Here online, we can't account for the slight (but important) differences in terrain, enemies, etc. Where I play, I can do everything that you say that you can do offensively almost as well as you, while maintaining higher total D.

[Rage]

If I may, you can have as many 5 man units as you wish on the board, 20 or 30 even! My point is that a unit of ONLY 5 suffers a greater hit to its effectiveness. Yes he has 10 Marines, he has 20 in fact, all together but they are arranged in 5 man units. Place them in Land Raiders if you wish, place them on the moon if that is your want. It still stands that a 5 man unit suffers a greater impact on its effectiveness from wounds. I don't know how much more I can say it.

 

Troops are the back bone of every army in 40K. If you are presented with a target that represents part of your opponents overall ability to take or hold objectives, or easy kill points, that you can render ineffectual with little effort would you take it?

 

You assume that you opponent will not try and stop you, with other parts of his force, so while you focused on trying to blow apart the razorbacks and then the tacs inside, I'll be focusing on tearing the guts out of your army. You're alsio assuming I'm going to chuck my tacs at your lines making it easy...what happens if i hang back 36"? That wouldn't be a little effort to get to them through the rest of my forces.

 

It has a higher risk of losing a special or sarg, yes. When you say greater hit, if you lose a bolter marine as a percentage no it doesn't. Most of your killing is coming from the special weapon and PF/PW not the red shirts that happily catch the bullets. The point is you can't take each 5 man unit in isolation they are part of a team.

 

Anyway I think we use and think of tacs differently, bringing the chess analogy back (i'll get back to that later) while I think you use the tac squads as knights or bishops, I treat them as the king...kept behind your main line, supporting it but trying not to become to exposed.

 

You should check out Warp Angel's article on Killhammer: Target Priority to understand what I would shoot at first. That Land Raider might be filled with Killy Goodness, but I have my objective to think about. If I can strike what one would consider a softer target pivotal to my opponent's victory then I might just avoid that Land Raider. Or engage it with my own Elite and Heavy Support. 40k isn't a game of chess where attrition is how you win. You are not required to actively engage every single one of your opponent's units in any order or at all.

 

I've read it, your first objective is not to get killed so you can grab those objectives. There is absolutely no way you can ignore a LRR with killy stuff hurtling towards you, especially if the softer targets are behind it. If you do that the LRR and termies will tear through you. You can only ignore dangerous stuff if it is low on mobility and you can avoid it, a LR can get the Termies to something over 18" away...that is diameter that you have to stay out of to be able to avoid it. Your opponent is not going to let you avoid whatever you feel like.

 

How do you play chess? It is a game of movement, defence, offence, sacrifice, traps and deception. Chess is only a game of attrition if you are of equal skill, if you play someone of greater skill they will out maneuver you, out think you and win without taking many losses. You do know you can win a game in 4 moves, Fools mate, the 40k equivelent of a top tournie player playing a 12yr old new to the hobby. Sorry, I love playing chess, i like 40k aswell, but see chess as a superior game.

 

This example applies to 10 man units in Rhinos just as well. In fact, I would consider this practical Doctrine for most Marine players. Your point is very valid here, but it still bodes better for a 10 man unit rather than a 5 man unit. What happens if the Razorback is caused to explode and you take an unlucky 2 wounds. In a 5 man unit my point above stands again.?

 

And whst happens if you get unlucky and lose 5 men?

 

2 x 5 men in RB's is about the same cost as a 10 man unit in a rhino, so you have 2 tanks that need to be shot down. But also it relates to playstyle, you are looking to attack with your Tacs therefore putting them in the way of short range tank busting weapons as well as the long range. Holding them back means only long range weapons can get them meaning they'll survive longer.

 

I don't like the idea of "bait and trap." You are devoting two units to the destruction of one unit with an understanding that you are sacrificing troops to take out one unit. What if your opponent pulls the same trick? Counter Counter Assaulting your Counter Assault. What if your opponent fires at both 5 man units causing wounds and then moves to assault? I defenitly agree I couldn't do a "bait and trap" with one 10 man unit. I could do it with two 10 man units though, possibly making for an even better outcome on my end too!

 

You'd sacrifice a 10 man unit, brave!

 

2 vs 1...that's pretty much how 40k works, it's very rare that you find a single unit that can destroy another survivable unit. Anyway I'd rather sacrifice one troop unit to destroy a threat that could destroy all my troops. CCA my CA...bring forth the power of OOBA(?) :( Observe the situation, if you see a threat that would make your sacrifice not worth it, re-plan and carry out the new plan.

 

There is the other example, if you have 2 enemy units and you have enough in the area to destroy one unit + a spare 5 man unit, but the 2nd unit will destroy you (both would) but you can destroy it if you had another turn. Plant the 5 man unit in the way of of the 2nd squad so any it can be assaulted, destroy the 1st unit, once the 5 man unit dies in their turn, turn the guns on the 2nd unit.

 

 

Moving in mutual support is quite complicated I find. You must always be mindful of the distances between these two units. They can't spread out too much, for fear of not being able to support, and they can't be too close, for fear of both being assaulted by one unit or hit by a template. I wouldn't want to push these guys off an objective, thats for sure. Though I wouldn't have a problem at all attempting to contest it. I may not kill all of your Marines but I might be able to tie them up ensuring that you couldn't claim your prize. You group your troops together preventing them from being able to exploit multiple avenues to victory.

 

It really isn't that hard, practice makes perfect. You could tie them up, and i could tie up yours...a classic dog chasing its tail arguement, i do this, you do that and so on.

 

In these new examples, which I must say are very well thought out (thank you), you are using two units as one. Two parts of one whole rather. However they do remain two separate units, I totally understand this. Each of which can be engaged separately though in the same turn, weather shooting, assaulting, or both. Denying you that mutual support and possibly taking out both units. Even better is NOT taking them both out in one assault phase as to protect myself from your heavy weapons. Because you chose to move them in tandem focusing on tactics that make the best of this support doesn't mean that I have to. I would attack them just the same as I would attack two 10 man squads.

 

As Warp Angel said, you make your forces predictable. You stick to a basic plan of attack and assigned roles for two units. There aren't any rules of engagement that say I need to counter one with another. I can use my strength at the weak points I am presented with.

 

True you can engage both but you have to commit more than one unit, more if you still have to blow the transports...leaving my other more killy units unegaged and able to do as they will. Plus I can force you to engage certain parts of my force.

 

To be honest always going 10 men is just as predictable, since you ain't a fan of combat squading.

[Warp Angel]

As Warp Angel said, you make your forces predictable. You stick to a basic plan of attack and assigned roles for two units. There aren't any rules of engagement that say I need to counter one with another. I can use my strength at the weak points I am presented with.

 

True you can engage both but you have to commit more than one unit, more if you still have to blow the transports...leaving my other more killy units unegaged and able to do as they will. Plus I can force you to engage certain parts of my force.

 

To be honest always going 10 men is just as predictable, since you ain't a fan of combat squading.

 

Actually, it makes you less predictable. I don't have to advance to rapid fire. I can stand and fire my heavy weapon and remain effective from more than 12" away, forcing you to come to me if you want to close the distance. I don't have to rapid fire, I can shoot and tarpit in assault (or maybe even win).

 

A 5 man maneuver squad isn't big enough to tar pit or assault. It lacks good ranged firepower, so isn't going to stand off most of the time. It HAS to play in rapid fire (being charged) range to do well.

 

A 10 man squad can still be effective at greater ranges.

 

I have choice (even if they aren't awesome and overwhelming) when I field 10 men that I don't get when I field 5.

[Rage]

What about the RB heavy bolter? My tac squad doesn't have to go anywhere, it can shoot your tac squad at range, you can only shoot the RB with a ML, LC or possiibly a PC to destroy it. If i stick it behind cover I get a 4+ save so you dont have that high of a probability of blowing it. Wasting a whole squads firepower.

 

The RB makes the squad as flexible, it still isn't as powerful as a 10 man unit but what do you expect for half the price?

[Giga]

I might've missed it, but it appears you guys haven't mentioned kill points yet.

 

While having multiple 5 men squads with razorbacks might be great in certain situations, it also means enlarging the number of easy killpoints in your army. A razorback is, after all, only armor 11, and 5 tac marines die much faster then 10.

 

This puts you at a huge disadvantage against shooty armies such as IG, Tau, even other marines, etc. because these armies have lots of firepower they can direct at your armor 11 transports. Even with a 4+ cover save, your razorbacks are still an easy target, which means you're unlikely to be able to catch up on kill points even if your opponent doesn't pay much attention to your killy units.

 

Now, I don't know about you guys, but when I make my lists I try to have at least 3 big, durable scoring units. So if instead of 10 men tac squads I took 5 men tac squads with razorbacks, that'd send me to 6 5 men squads (6 easy kill points) + at least 3 RBs for them. That's 9 free-for-the-taking KPs. Also, 3 of your 5 men squads will footslog, thus limiting their efficiency.

 

Also, there's the point value. A 10 men tac squad with a free flamer and a free heavy weapon and a rhino is 205 pts. A 5 men tac squad with a razorback is 130 points, making two such squads 260 points, with no special weapons apart from the two tl heavy bolters. Though the tl heavy bolters are surely awesome against infantry, they have absolutely no anti-vehicle efficiency. What's more, I'm not exactly sure a tl heavy bolter can make up for the loss of a free flamer in your tac squad. Being the kind of guy who often fights genestealers, I sort of learned to appreciate my cover-ignoring flamers.

 

Finally, a problem with a razorback is, if you need it to get somewhere fast (ie. to move more then 6"), you can't shoot the heavy bolter, hence your tac squad inside loses its only heavy weapon. :/

 

EDIT: forgot to mention;

Having 5 men tac squads also means no cool stuff like plasma cannons, meltaguns etc. I believe this goes a long way towards lessening the overall efficiency of tac squads.