Killhammer Strategy: Bigger squads are better squads

[Warp Angel]

The following comes from a discussion in the Killhammer Strategy article on Tactical Squads, but applies pretty uniformly for any unit that has a choice, and I thought it worth of discussion on its own.

 

Many thanks to Rage and Terminus for helping me clarify my rather fuzzy (but firm) reasons why I think combat squadding is USUALLY (but not always) a bad idea.

 

There are some assumptions that I make in my arguments, that I think most of us can agree on.

 

1) The "killers" in a unit are the heavy weapons, special weapons, power weapons, and upgrade characters. I will call these "upgrades" throughout the article.

2) Any unit without any of 1 has a significantly lower K (killing power) than a unit that does.

 

RISKING UPGRADES VIA WOUND ALLOCATION

 

The rules call for wounds to be allocated before saves are rolled. I'm coining three terms here that are important, they are:

 

"Risk" - the number of wounds a squad can sustain before having to allocate a wound to an "upgrade". (Unit Size - # of upgrades)

"Full Risk" - the number of wounds a squad can sustain before having at least one wound allocated to every "upgrade". (Unit Size)

"Double Risk" - the number of wounds a squad can sustain before having to allocate more than one wound to an "upgrade". (Unit Size + Risk)

Logically, there is triple and quadruple risk, but once you're at double risk, you need to do some thinking about how you got there, and if you want to keep putting yourself in that situation.

 

Below are some examples of units and their risk numbers. (Risk = "Risk/Full Risk/Double Risk)

 

10 man tactical squad (Risk= 7/10/17)

5 man "maneuver" combat squad w/sgt and special (Risk= 3/5/8)

5 man "shooting" combat squad w/heavy (Risk = 4/5/9)

8 man bike squad + attack bike (Risk= 5/9/14) though the attack bike's 2 wounds skews the numbers slightly in favor of less Risk.

20 man Khorne footsloggers w/2x plas pistol (Risk= 17/20/37)

10 man devastator with 4 heavy weapons (Risk= 5/10/15)

5 man devastator with 2 heavy weapons (Risk = 2/5/7)

5 man devastator with 4 heavy weapons (Risk = 0/5/5) OUCH!!!

5 man assault squad with 2 specials (Risk = 2/5/7)

10 man assault squad with 2 specials (Risk =7/10/17)

 

The more often you are at risk, the faster you are going to lose your "upgrades", significantly degrading your KILLING capability. Losing non-upgrades just degrades your ability to create risk (at least for the purposes of this conversation... overall it degrades unit effectiveness, but far more slowly than losing your "killing upgrades" does.

 

CREATING RISK

 

So how do you Create Risk (CR)? That's easy. You wound your opponent.

 

More specifically, you create a number of wounds. Risk creation is different than kill generation. Risk creation is using weight of dice to place upgrades at risk, and the actual odds of Risk producing wounds is directly related to your opponent's armor save.

 

A melta gun in the hands of a Marine is a great weapon for generating kills. But its just a high strength, one shot weapon for the purposes of creating Risk. Your opponent is going to assign the melta wound to a non-upgrade model whenever possible, which means that the melta usually never places the upgrades at Risk.

 

Template weapons are a bit wonky. They have a variable (and unpredictable) risk generation that we've been trying to quantify reliably for years with no success. My suggestion for figuring out the risk generation of a template weapon is to just guess. I will note, however, that throwing 4 S6 tempates into an enemy unit (from a Thunderfire) generate a stupidly high amount of risk in my personal experience.

 

The formula should be very familiar to mathhammer folks:

 

(# models x # shots x fraction to hit x fraction to wound)

 

So taking one marine with one bolter shot at a T4 model, you get:

1 x 1 x 2/3 x 1/2 = 1/3 Creation of Risk (CR).

 

Now, taking a full squad of tactical marines, with a melta gun and multi melta within 12", you get:

Bolters: 8 x 2 x 2/3 x 1/2 = 5 1/3 CR

Meltas: 2 x 1 x 2/3 x 5/6 = 1 1/9 CR

 

This gives you a total unit CR of slightly more than 6. If you eliminate the multi melta and fire a bolt pistol instead (the squad moved) the CR remains about the same.

 

This means that a 10 man tactical squad puts EVERY 5 man squad in the game at Total Risk, and some of them at Full Risk.

 

Conversely a 5 man "maneuver" combat squad in the same has the following CR:

Bolters: 4 x 2 x 2/3 x 1/2 = 2 2/3 CR

Melta: 1 x 1 x 2/3 x 5/6 = 5/9 CR

 

This gives you a CR of slightly higher than 3. Which is not enough to put another 5 man combat squad at Risk, let alone threaten a full tactical squad.

Two 5 man "maneuver" squads together also cannot threaten a full tactical.

 

LEADERSHIP RISK

 

Related to Risk is Leadership Risk. This is the understanding of how casualties are going to affect the number of leadership rolls that you are going to need to make.

 

First of all, there are some numbers that are important for you to know.

 

Ld 8 will FAIL leadership checks more than 1/4 the time (27.76%)

Ld 9 will FAIL leadership checks about 1/6 of the time (16.65%)

Ld 10 will FAIL leadership checks about 1/12 of the time (8.32%)

 

For a combat squad, or a marine squad that has lost its sergeant (this is why you don't want him to be put at risk, and want the larger squad), you are going to run away or be pinned more than 1/4 of the times you are forced to make a leadership check. This is bad. You don't want to make Ld8 checks. So when you combat squad into a "maneuver" and a "shooting" element, your shooting element is going to run like guardsmen.

 

But squad size plays a role in this as well. Your Leadership Risk number is pretty simple to figure out. It's your current squad size divided by 4, rounded up (25% casualties), unless you are fearless.

 

Here are the Leadership Risk (LR) numbers based on current squad size:

 

17-20 = 5

13-16 = 4

9-12 = 3

5-8 = 2

2-4 = 1

 

Looking at the chart, if you start with a squad size of 5, all you need to do is have two unsaved wounds before you risk running. After your first casualty, all someone needs to do is force one unsaved wound and you're in trouble. A squad of 10 has to sustain six unsaved wounds before they're checking every unsaved wounds.

 

By being at Risk more often, a sergeant "upgrade" in a smaller squad is more likely to die, losing the squad the Ld9 and creating a greater chance of the squad failing a leadership check. A combat squad that never has a Ld upgrade, is already in a bad place.

 

Even if the "upgrade" sergeant is never placed at Risk, the smaller squad size means that frequency of leadership checks WILL occur more often, which means a higher total number of failed leadership checks over the course of many games.

 

That just doesn't sound good to me.

 

SUMMARY

 

There is a time and a place for small squads. But they are distinctly disadvantaged in the following ways:

 

1) Preservation of killing capability

2) Threatening of enemy killing capability

3) Leadership checks

 

Those are some heavy disadvantages to overcome, and most of the time, I don't think it's worth it.

[Warprat]

Warp Angel,

 

You made some decent points. Generally, I think though, that Combat Squads can be useful when the heavies and specials can be better applied seperately, than together.

 

*Devestators against a vehicle rich enemy.

*Tacticals where the heavy is to stay put, while the special moves forward. Especially when the heavy and special can negate saves or cause massive damage seperately.

*Against a large enemy formation(s) or firepower, where the enemy can destroy a squad a turn, large or small.

*When there are a lot of objectives.

*Small point games.

*When you can use that Combat Squad to create a larger overwhelming force, in a localized area. Such as a flank.

*When it allows you to use cover more effectively.

*Against more mobile opponents.

*Against a "pin happy" opponent.

 

 

Warprat ;)

[Gornall]

I'm not sure of the difference between Risk and Full Risk. Is Full Risk when EVERY upgrade has an allocated wound?

 

EDIT: Removed my stupid comments which I blame on lack of sleep today.

[Warp Angel]

Warp Angel,

 

You made some decent points. Generally, I think though, that Combat Squads can be useful when the heavies and specials can be better applied seperately, than together.

 

*Devestators against a vehicle rich enemy.

 

You have cheaper (and more durable) choices to field the same amount of firepower as a small devastator squad.

 

*Tacticals where the heavy is to stay put, while the special moves forward. Especially when the heavy and special can negate saves or cause massive damage seperately.

 

And it's very easy for me to determine whether your heavies or manuever elements are a threat and cherry pick. Two casualties to your heavies and there's a fair chance you're running off the table. 25% to run, and then off the table depends on where you deployed them. I'll play that game, because that's a great example of a unit with HIGH Leadership Risk, and a pretty good example of other risk. Once that heavy weapon is destroyed, that squad fails to serve the task that you set for it. It's almost certainly without a transport and has four bolters remaining with which to threaten the enemy.

 

The maneuver element is at risk to even damaged 10 man squads, and if you lose that special weapon (say a flamer) before you get to use it, you are left with a sergeant and four guys with bolters. Oh, and you've got a 1 in 6 chance of running if I inflict two casualties.

 

*Against a large enemy formation(s) or firepower, where the enemy can destroy a squad a turn, large or small.

 

Here's where I agree there's a place for combat squadding or small squads. But in my mind it has to be more than "can", it needs to be "will almost always". Because you have to actually make good on killing (not risking) 8 guys before a 10 man tactical squad loses it's upgrades, but only three to start messing with a 5 man maneuver element.

 

*When there are a lot of objectives.

 

I completely disagree here. You need exactly ONE objective to win, and contest or eliminate the enemy at the rest. I think I've pretty well confirmed that a 5 man squad is more prone to flee from an objective, be destroyed outright, or be unable to inflict enough casualties on an enemy unit to preven them from at least contesting the objective.

 

*Small point games.

 

Depends on your opponent. There are some small points matchups where you don't want to combat squad at all. I'm not disagreeing here, just saying that it's not a given that because the points are small that combat squads are a good idea. I honestly think it has more to do with the "can destroy a squad a turn" argument.

 

*When you can use that Combat Squad to create a larger overwhelming force, in a localized area. Such as a flank.

 

When does a small squad ever become a "larger, overwhelming force?"

 

*When it allows you to use cover more effectively.

 

Cover only matters if your enemy can't ignore it or has a LOT of high AP weaponry. I've found that against many of my opponents, cover is irrelevant for infantry. (Necrons and Tyrandis come to mind really quickly). Additionally, it may just be the boards that I play on, but if I can get half of a combat squad in cover, I can usually get half a tactical squad in cover too.

 

*Against more mobile opponents.

 

Actually, doing that against mobility is a disadvantage, since they can now cherry pick which of your squads is a threat and go after those more easily. Don't like sarge and the flamer, kill them. Don't like the plasma cannon, go after that. Or they can split and put both units at risk at the same time.

 

Let's take a Wave Serpent with 7 Dire Avengers (no exarch).

 

Wave Serpent shoots it's twin linked multi laser and twin linked shuriken catapults at one squad while the Dire Avengers go after another.

Wave Serpent CR = (1 x 3 x 3/4 x 5/6) + (1 x 2 x 3/4 x 1/2) = 1 7/8 + 6/8 = 2 5/8, which is almost enough to risk a short combat squad, and enough that you're in danger of having to make a leadership check for either squad.

Dire Avenger CR = (7 x 2 x 2/3 x 1/2) = 4 2/3 This is just about enough to put a shooting element at risk and will put a maneuver element at risk.

 

Combined, they don't get to Total Risk on a 10 man squad like they will do for a 5 man squad, though they still pose a Leadership Risk. Since the 10 man squad never has to risk the sergeant, they will always be making those checks on Ld 9. You can't say that about either of the 5 man squads.

 

*Against a "pin happy" opponent.

 

A shooting element of a combat squad has leadership 8 and a 1/4 chance of being pinned every time they suffer a wound. If they need to make a Leadership Check for morale, there's a better than 1 in 3 chance that they will be running OR pinned. If you like having that happen, please, combat squad against a pin happy opponent.

[Warp Angel]

I'm not sure of the difference between Risk and Full Risk. Is Full Risk when EVERY upgrade has an allocated wound?

 

EDIT: Removed my stupid comments which I blame on lack of sleep today.

 

 

Edited Full Risk to say "every" upgrade.

[Gornall]

What affect do things such as PBS from the IG have on the leadership portion of the article?

[Twin .44]

Warp Angel, I must thank you for the 800th time for helping me out. Next week I finally have a game that's not spur the moment and I can prepare in advance and think on the game to come. One thing I had been thinking of was Combat squads. Looking at it now, It's not such a good Idea, especially against Thousand Sons. Thanks once again for helping me out on things!

[Warp Angel]

What affect do things such as PBS from the IG have on the leadership portion of the article?

 

To me, at least, it's pretty straight forward.

1) Lower leadership is not a good thing.

2) Making more leadership checks is not a good thing.

3) It would follow that if you have a lower leadership than normal and are making more leadership checks than normal, you've combined two not good things into a worse thing.

 

Leadership Risk increases with two things, lowering of leadership and reduction in squad size. PBR lowers leadership and increases total Risk. It makes it far easier for a guard army with PBR to pick and choose which squad to break (using far less total effort) if you combat squad. At least with the bigger squads, he's forced to do more casualties.

 

That has to be balanced against losing ALL of your capability to a failed leadership check, but given guard's current ability to bust a 5 man unit out of cover without much trouble (using the right equipment), and you're likely to lose both combat squads anyway.

[Bannus]

From the perspective of protecting these "assets" from being quick casualties - I think your calculations are spot on...but I think that your evaluation is incomplete.

 

Combat Squads have their advantages (as many have already pointed out) in terms of allowing heavy weapons to fire, cover more ground and limiting casualties from more dangerous weapons (you can't suffer more than five casualties if that is all you have in the unit and it was going to be annihilated anyway scenario - like the calssic "speed bump").

 

Don't get me wrong, I think it is an excellent article - it just needs to be "fleshed out" a bit more to consider these other factors.

 

If people are successful using Combat Squads, then there might be something to it. ;)

[Warp Angel]

From the perspective of protecting these "assets" from being quick casualties - I think your calculations are spot on...but I think that your evaluation is incomplete.

 

Combat Squads have their advantages (as many have already pointed out) in terms of allowing heavy weapons to fire, cover more ground and limiting casualties from more dangerous weapons (you can't suffer more than five casualties if that is all you have in the unit and it was going to be annihilated anyway scenario - like the calssic "speed bump").

 

Don't get me wrong, I think it is an excellent article - it just needs to be "fleshed out" a bit more to consider these other factors.

 

If people are successful using Combat Squads, then there might be something to it. ^_^

 

I've never said there aren't times and places for Combat/small Squads. What I have shown, is that small squads degrade a lot faster in effectiveness than large squads, and are more likely to break. I'm at a complete loss as to show why two "maneuver" elements acting in concert can concentrate firepower better.

 

I can either

 

a) make the assumption that both small squads make it to the same place, intact, and in mutual supporting distance to act like a larger squad

b ) assume that they are likely to be split and/or degraded.

 

If I make assumption a) then I can say that the CR is approximately the same, but the killing power is greater.

If I make assumption b ) then I can say that the CR is lower, the killing power is lower, and the chances of an upgrade being gone are much higher.

 

The proponents of combat squadding say that a) is the more likely case. My play experience says b ) is more likely on any turn after the first.

 

Until that dilemma can be solved (at which point you've probably solved all of the game calculus), I'm not sure that I can impartially assess capability.

 

Essentially, each general has to decide if faster degredation of combat capability and vulnerability to failed leadership is worth it.

 

I welcome input that would help to create a "why small squads are better than large squads" article.

[Marlow]

I think the only advantage of small squads is that the Heavy Weapon gets to fire while the Special/Sgt advances. As was said this benefit has to be weighed against the weaker overall performace of the two squads, it has it uses agaisnt some opponents - usually those where you have a decent chance of forcing a leadership test with a small amout of wounds inflicted.

[Terminus]

Warp Angel, I must thank you for the 800th time for helping me out. Next week I finally have a game that's not spur the moment and I can prepare in advance and think on the game to come. One thing I had been thinking of was Combat squads. Looking at it now, It's not such a good Idea, especially against Thousand Sons. Thanks once again for helping me out on things!

Thousand Sons won't have many more problems with a full squad than they would with with a combat squad. The shooting alone will claim 6-7 marines, and if they can assault, goodbye to all 10.

 

I've never said there aren't times and places for Combat/small Squads. What I have shown, is that small squads degrade a lot faster in effectiveness than large squads, and are more likely to break. I'm at a complete loss as to show why two "maneuver" elements acting in concert can concentrate firepower better.

I welcome input that would help to create a "why small squads are better than large squads" article.

If you want input on why 5x2 squads have more firepower than a 10x1 squad, see my response to you in the other Tac. Squad thread.

[Warprat]

Warp Angel,

 

You made some decent points. Generally, I think though, that Combat Squads can be useful when the heavies and specials can be better applied seperately, than together.

 

*Devestators against a vehicle rich enemy.

 

You have cheaper (and more durable) choices to field the same amount of firepower as a small devastator squad.

 

*Tacticals where the heavy is to stay put, while the special moves forward. Especially when the heavy and special can negate saves or cause massive damage seperately.

 

And it's very easy for me to determine whether your heavies or manuever elements are a threat and cherry pick. Two casualties to your heavies and there's a fair chance you're running off the table. 25% to run, and then off the table depends on where you deployed them. I'll play that game, because that's a great example of a unit with HIGH Leadership Risk, and a pretty good example of other risk. Once that heavy weapon is destroyed, that squad fails to serve the task that you set for it. It's almost certainly without a transport and has four bolters remaining with which to threaten the enemy.

 

The maneuver element is at risk to even damaged 10 man squads, and if you lose that special weapon (say a flamer) before you get to use it, you are left with a sergeant and four guys with bolters. Oh, and you've got a 1 in 6 chance of running if I inflict two casualties.

 

*Against a large enemy formation(s) or firepower, where the enemy can destroy a squad a turn, large or small.

 

Here's where I agree there's a place for combat squadding or small squads. But in my mind it has to be more than "can", it needs to be "will almost always". Because you have to actually make good on killing (not risking) 8 guys before a 10 man tactical squad loses it's upgrades, but only three to start messing with a 5 man maneuver element.

 

*When there are a lot of objectives.

 

I completely disagree here. You need exactly ONE objective to win, and contest or eliminate the enemy at the rest. I think I've pretty well confirmed that a 5 man squad is more prone to flee from an objective, be destroyed outright, or be unable to inflict enough casualties on an enemy unit to preven them from at least contesting the objective.

 

*Small point games.

 

Depends on your opponent. There are some small points matchups where you don't want to combat squad at all. I'm not disagreeing here, just saying that it's not a given that because the points are small that combat squads are a good idea. I honestly think it has more to do with the "can destroy a squad a turn" argument.

 

*When you can use that Combat Squad to create a larger overwhelming force, in a localized area. Such as a flank.

 

When does a small squad ever become a "larger, overwhelming force?"

 

*When it allows you to use cover more effectively.

 

Cover only matters if your enemy can't ignore it or has a LOT of high AP weaponry. I've found that against many of my opponents, cover is irrelevant for infantry. (Necrons and Tyrandis come to mind really quickly). Additionally, it may just be the boards that I play on, but if I can get half of a combat squad in cover, I can usually get half a tactical squad in cover too.

 

*Against more mobile opponents.

 

Actually, doing that against mobility is a disadvantage, since they can now cherry pick which of your squads is a threat and go after those more easily. Don't like sarge and the flamer, kill them. Don't like the plasma cannon, go after that. Or they can split and put both units at risk at the same time.

 

Let's take a Wave Serpent with 7 Dire Avengers (no exarch).

 

Wave Serpent shoots it's twin linked multi laser and twin linked shuriken catapults at one squad while the Dire Avengers go after another.

Wave Serpent CR = (1 x 3 x 3/4 x 5/6) + (1 x 2 x 3/4 x 1/2) = 1 7/8 + 6/8 = 2 5/8, which is almost enough to risk a short combat squad, and enough that you're in danger of having to make a leadership check for either squad.

Dire Avenger CR = (7 x 2 x 2/3 x 1/2) = 4 2/3 This is just about enough to put a shooting element at risk and will put a maneuver element at risk.

 

Combined, they don't get to Total Risk on a 10 man squad like they will do for a 5 man squad, though they still pose a Leadership Risk. Since the 10 man squad never has to risk the sergeant, they will always be making those checks on Ld 9. You can't say that about either of the 5 man squads.

 

*Against a "pin happy" opponent.

 

A shooting element of a combat squad has leadership 8 and a 1/4 chance of being pinned every time they suffer a wound. If they need to make a Leadership Check for morale, there's a better than 1 in 3 chance that they will be running OR pinned. If you like having that happen, please, combat squad against a pin happy opponent.

 

 

Sternguard and Melta Bikes over Devestators, yes I know that argument... But my point still stands for using "Devestators." While we are on the subject of Sternguard though, they too can Combat Squad pretty well. Great for Drop Podding combi-meltas to hit Land Raiders, then hit the survivors with combi-flamers or combi-plasma.

 

Cherry picking heavies with what? If my Combat Squad with heavy(s) is in decent cover, how are you going to get enough hits at range without using a huge amount of long range firepower? OK, you can Deep Strike them and whatnot, but generally my other units will thank you.

 

The manuever element need not be at a huge risk. Using a Rhino, it can team up with a full sized squad and together use thier specials on a smaller enemy force (like a full sized squad.) The Combat Squad is protected against small arms as it rolls up. It has mobility, so a flank attack is possible. It can use the cover of the Rhino. The other half of the Combatted Squad can use it's heavy to support, while in the protection of cover.

 

If your opponent has greater mobility than you as a Marine player, your pretty much screwed anyway. Bikes come to mind here. Staying in full sized squads will not really help. At least many small squads can split up and hope to engage over a larger area. The bikes have to be slowed/destroyed or you lose.

 

Like I said though, you made some good points...and I agree with most of them. I just think your limiting your vision somewhat. Combat Squadding should be used carefully. Rule of thumb, maybe for roughly 1/4 of your units. The ones that will benefit by having exactly the right kind of weapons to fit an enemy's weakness. It's a Water strategy.

 

Warprat ;)

[Warp Angel]

Like I said though, you made some good points...and I agree with most of them. I just think your limiting your vision somewhat. Combat Squadding should be used carefully. Rule of thumb, maybe for roughly 1/4 of your units. The ones that will benefit by having exactly the right kind of weapons to fit an enemy's weakness. It's a Water strategy.

 

Warprat ;)

 

Killhammer IS water strategy with logic behind why some choices are better than others. ;) Way of the Water Warrior was a big inspiration to Killhammer.

 

That's why I use "better" instead of best instead of most of my topics, and the subtitle this this article contains "usually".

[Vaaish]

I think I've pretty well confirmed that a 5 man squad is more prone to flee from an objective, be destroyed outright, or be unable to inflict enough casualties on an enemy unit to preven them from at least contesting the objective.

 

I agree with this if it is a SINGLE 5 man squad, but if you have four of them on the objective I'd wager it can make it a good bit harder to force all of them off or remove enough of their weapons to keep them from returning a good bit of damage. of course it's very situational because there isn't a point in doing this if your opponent isn't running units that can shed a full 10 man squad in a single round of shooting.

[Warprat]

I think such a sweeping and inflamatory statement (especially the "cheating" part) requires some substantiation.

 

Okay. He advocates measuring beyond your weapon range so you can gauge distances. That is cheating. He dismisses "earth" and "fire" (which are bogus labels anyway, considering how few armies are narrow in focus enough to fit solely in one category) playstyles as "dull" or "one track", while hailing his own preferred style as "highly intellectual." Well, I've been playing 40k in one form or another for 15 years, and I can tell you with certainty that playing with fast units that zip around the table doesn't take any more brainpower than a successful Rhino rush. Even SAFH armies, which could be most easily argued to be "one tracked" make allowances for counter-charge units, and dealing with flankers/deep strikers/etc.

 

Now dismissing the rest of the tactics as "spam Land Raiders" is likely misguided on my part, as I've only skimmed the article. If at some point I'm able to stomach my distaste over the measuring thing and general attitude of the post, I'll give it a more honest and thorough reading. I'll have to get drunk or something. ;)

 

Anyway, please don't let me derail the discussion, I'm ADD as hell so I can't help it. :P

 

 

I think "Water Strategy" has evolved beyond the actual original article. When I say Water Stategy, I am just refering to the adaptable, middle of the road, better than average stats of Marines to exploit an enemy's weakness. Using all rounder units vs. specialized...

 

Killhammer, to me, means applying strenght to weakness. Which can be applied in all sorts of different styles, with all sorts of different units.

 

Warprat ;)

[Terminus]

Yes, I understand the concept. Use units capable in both assault and melee, watch what your opponent tries to do, and do the opposite. If they try to assault you, side step and shoot him. If he tries to shoot you, get in his face and assault him. It's a relatively simple approach, all things considered. I guess I don't need to read half a dozen pages of self-aggrandizing after all. :blink:

 

I did enjoy Brother Tual's elucidation on basically the same concept: http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=124179. I guess because the ideas were presented more objectively, and account for the fact that few armies are so one-dimensional. .... Nah, it was probably just the formatting and section headings, I like purty colors! :mellow:

[Bannus]

I have deleted the OT discussion. Let's keep it positive and constructive - shall we? :devil:

[Gornall]

I have deleted the OT discussion. Let's keep it positive and constructive - shall we? :devil:

 

Danke.

[Terminus]

:)

[Ming]

I agree. I seldom if ever combat squad or use demi-squads (unless they are terminators). In many games, small squads become easy kill points, or become things that cannot take and hold objectives, or die too quickly to the horde armies, or othewrwise get overwhelmed, putting the "killy" part of the unit at risk quickly. Great article and like the "math theory" proving out the game. There are times for say, 750 point games I'd consider demi-squading, but not in a 1500+ point game. SMEs are otherwise just too fragile.

[Rage]

*Against more mobile opponents.

 

Actually, doing that against mobility is a disadvantage, since they can now cherry pick which of your squads is a threat and go after those more easily. Don't like sarge and the flamer, kill them. Don't like the plasma cannon, go after that. Or they can split and put both units at risk at the same time.

 

Let's take a Wave Serpent with 7 Dire Avengers (no exarch).

 

Wave Serpent shoots it's twin linked multi laser and twin linked shuriken catapults at one squad while the Dire Avengers go after another.

Wave Serpent CR = (1 x 3 x 3/4 x 5/6) + (1 x 2 x 3/4 x 1/2) = 1 7/8 + 6/8 = 2 5/8, which is almost enough to risk a short combat squad, and enough that you're in danger of having to make a leadership check for either squad.

Dire Avenger CR = (7 x 2 x 2/3 x 1/2) = 4 2/3 This is just about enough to put a shooting element at risk and will put a maneuver element at risk.

 

Combined, they don't get to Total Risk on a 10 man squad like they will do for a 5 man squad, though they still pose a Leadership Risk. Since the 10 man squad never has to risk the sergeant, they will always be making those checks on Ld 9. You can't say that about either of the 5 man squads.

 

Mate, could you give some clarification why you chose those numbers for the Dire Avengers? 7 seems a bit of a weird number and without an exarch as well. I'm not trying to be a pain I'm just interested, is it points based?

 

That kind of analysis is a bit subjective, a 10 man dire avenger unit with Exarch can put 10 wounds on a marine squad when bladestorming, also with Eldar you could add in Guide and Doom...at which point it becomes 20.

 

Yep they can cherry pick but they can also maneuvre multiple units to attack your 1 unit...actually Eldar Mech Lists just suck to play against! Tac squads of any description will lose every day off the week without proper support.

[Warp Angel]

*Against more mobile opponents.

 

Actually, doing that against mobility is a disadvantage, since they can now cherry pick which of your squads is a threat and go after those more easily. Don't like sarge and the flamer, kill them. Don't like the plasma cannon, go after that. Or they can split and put both units at risk at the same time.

 

Let's take a Wave Serpent with 7 Dire Avengers (no exarch).

 

Wave Serpent shoots it's twin linked multi laser and twin linked shuriken catapults at one squad while the Dire Avengers go after another.

Wave Serpent CR = (1 x 3 x 3/4 x 5/6) + (1 x 2 x 3/4 x 1/2) = 1 7/8 + 6/8 = 2 5/8, which is almost enough to risk a short combat squad, and enough that you're in danger of having to make a leadership check for either squad.

Dire Avenger CR = (7 x 2 x 2/3 x 1/2) = 4 2/3 This is just about enough to put a shooting element at risk and will put a maneuver element at risk.

 

Combined, they don't get to Total Risk on a 10 man squad like they will do for a 5 man squad, though they still pose a Leadership Risk. Since the 10 man squad never has to risk the sergeant, they will always be making those checks on Ld 9. You can't say that about either of the 5 man squads.

 

Mate, could you give some clarification why you chose those numbers for the Dire Avengers? 7 seems a bit of a weird number and without an exarch as well. I'm not trying to be a pain I'm just interested, is it points based?

 

That kind of analysis is a bit subjective, a 10 man dire avenger unit with Exarch can put 10 wounds on a marine squad when bladestorming, also with Eldar you could add in Guide and Doom...at which point it becomes 20.

 

Yep they can cherry pick but they can also maneuvre multiple units to attack your 1 unit...actually Eldar Mech Lists just suck to play against! Tac squads of any description will lose every day off the week without proper support.

 

It was completely arbirtrary in my choice of 7 Dire Avengers with no support to show that a less than full squad, with less than solid support can create Risk to the small squads... representing that a depleted enemy that wouldn't be too much for a 10 man squad is now a Risk to a 5 man squad.

 

A 10 man bladestorming squad with guide and doom support is... ugly. :devil: But it needs to be since Eldar are squishy.

[chunky04]

Another excellent article Warp Angel. I tend to prefer combat squadding in non-KP missions, but the article elucidates the reasons why it should be a considered choice rather than something to do automatically.

 

My local metagame is certainly a lot different to yours - I only played Necrons for the first time the other day, and have only played Nids once so far. The main things I play are other Marines, Daemons, IG and Tau. The IG in particular with that damn plasma cannon tank of doom have made cover almost mandatory for most of my squads until I can manage to pop the bugger.

 

I'd be interested to some more detailed views on combat squadding full bike squads. I made the switch to bikes (largely after reading your articles) but have had a lot of trouble coming to grips with how to use them properly. I intially ran a unit of 6 plus attack bike while I acquired the remaining models, and found them to be extremely awkward in that ideally you want the unit to shoot and assault, but one often precludes the other depending on weapon loadout. Melta weaponry wanting to be deployed against tanks, but wanting to charge the infantrynearby for example. The sheer table footprint of a bikesquad is also a pretty big problem.

[Warp Angel]

I'd be interested to some more detailed views on combat squadding full bike squads. I made the switch to bikes (largely after reading your articles) but have had a lot of trouble coming to grips with how to use them properly. I intially ran a unit of 6 plus attack bike while I acquired the remaining models, and found them to be extremely awkward in that ideally you want the unit to shoot and assault, but one often precludes the other depending on weapon loadout. Melta weaponry wanting to be deployed against tanks, but wanting to charge the infantrynearby for example. The sheer table footprint of a bikesquad is also a pretty big problem.

 

I don't combat squad them, always have a bike captain attached, and one of my special weapons is always a flamer.

 

1) This gives me a good shoot and assault against basic infantry (flamers eat hordes)

2) This gives me a good shoot and assault against more elite (but not CC) infantry with the higher model count/number of attacks

3) The weapons loadout conserves high anti-tank while providing a fair amount of anti-infantry

4) My special weapons stay alive longer, especially with the captain being there for wound allocation.

 

Footprint CAN be a problem, but I've found that the higher numbers, preserving my killing units, allow me to be more flexible for longer. And as a scoring unit, being able to contest or race to an empty objective late in the game with the last surviving bike or two is always a good ace in the hole.

 

I may need to rethink combat squadding against heavy mech guard, but I haven't seen that enough to estimate how actual game performance is going to work out.

 

And as far as the plasma tank of doom goes: 190 + 40 for sponsons, with rear armor 11. :mellow: Add Pask and you're at 280. That's a lot of eggs in one basket and reason #4683 that I have an Ironclad w/melta and heavy flamer dropping in first turn in my army list.

 

Use the pod to block LOS on critical lines of advance while the Dread draws all of the enemy attention. It's a GREAT compliment unit to the large bike squad.