Killhammer Strategy: Bigger squads are better squads

[twistinthunder]

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

 

 

is this assuming you upgrade your sergeant with a power/special weapon, as sergeants are free under the new codex.

 

sorry if this sounds REALLY smartass i was just pointing it out.

[Warp Angel]

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

 

 

is this assuming you upgrade your sergeant with a power/special weapon, as sergeants are free under the new codex.

 

sorry if this sounds REALLY smartass i was just pointing it out.

 

It's not smartass, but is wrong. The sergeant is an upgrade.

 

1) Base sergeant has a higher leadership, and provides that bonus to the squad.

2) Base devastator sergeant has the ability to provide a weapon with BS 5.

 

He's never just an ablative wound, he just becomes a greater risk if you add additional equipment to him.

[twistinthunder]

sorry completely forgot the signum

 

 

my bad

[Warp Angel]

Here's why a sergeant is always an upgrade:

 

1) His leadership is higher, providing an 11% better chance of passing leadership checks against shooting.

2) His leadership is higher, providing a higher starting point for subtracting negatives in the event of a CC loss. (8 down to 6 is far worse than 9 down to 7 in a 2 wound loss). In that instance, it's the difference between running ~1/4 of the time with sarge or 3/5 the time without.

3) He has one more attack in hand to hand combat.

 

Then you start talking about signums and adding wargear... Unless you think those qualities listed above don't make him an upgrade for purposes of this discussion?

[twistinthunder]

thank for clearing that up.

[Ricter]

One small bonus of combat squads I haven't seen mentioned is the ability to provide cover to each other. While you mention the ability for the opponent to attack whichever element they find more threatening, on the flip side, I can protect the element that I find more threatening from low AP fire by screening it with the other. Essentially, I double the number of wounds that the smaller unit needs to take (4+ cover save, or 3+ if GtG is viable) and get to keep 5 marines out of the deal. Might not come up very often, but it is there.

[Warp Angel]

One small bonus of combat squads I haven't seen mentioned is the ability to provide cover to each other. While you mention the ability for the opponent to attack whichever element they find more threatening, on the flip side, I can protect the element that I find more threatening from low AP fire by screening it with the other. Essentially, I double the number of wounds that the smaller unit needs to take (4+ cover save, or 3+ if GtG is viable) and get to keep 5 marines out of the deal. Might not come up very often, but it is there.

 

The vast majority of the weapons in the game will use the better 3+ save of the Marines instead of the 4+ cover save.

The 5 men provides a maximum of a 15" wall, which shrinks by as much as 3" for every casualty you sustain. Assuming I've got more than one unit that I can shoot at the pair of combat squads with, I can easily shrink that wall to remove the 50% cover.

5 men is also insufficient in most cases to provide cover against an enemy that can maneuver AP3 or better weapons.

 

Very dubious value, but a minor consideration. I still don't think it offsets the risk of smaller squads.

[Ricter]

Right, like I said - a small bonus. The ap3 weapon spam seems to be less so lately anyways, so it probably won't come up, it's just something to consider.

[Ryjak]

I couldn't say why this just popped into my head, but an army-building philosophy I've used for years when fielding infantry squads is this: What can this unit do at 50% strength? If you take a 5-man Assault Squad, and loose 3 guys, the answer is basically "Not very much". If you have a 5-man Combat Squad with a Heavy Weapon, and they loose 3 guys, the answer is basically "Keep firing the Heavy Weapon."

 

This, of course, assumes your 'important' models survive in the first place, which is now hard to achieve, especially with small squads. 2-3 Marines with bolters aren't going to do very much. Even 5 Marines with bolters aren't particularly valuable, except when they're camping on an Objective.

 

You can do the same thing with vehicles, but it's a bit harder to define 50% strength. I usually go with a single 'Weapon Destroyed' result. Most are essentially worthless when they loose a weapon

[Brother Tual]

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

 

 

what if I combat squad 3 full units every game I play with list x - even in kill point missions - and I always find it advantageous - This is because my list is DESIGNED to be combat squadded - it doesnt work nearly as well when I dont.

 

What combat squading does do, besides the negatives that you have mentioned, is allow for a division or spread in power that is rarely achievable with marine lists - and this can be critical when playing certain lists...

 

My list uses 3 x 10 man units with HB + flamer and PF with a Razorback -

 

Thats 6 HB's which provide a healthy amount of cross table fire - Sure, it is easier in theory to deny me my shooting through wound allocation, but in reality, I have 6 units which require different weaponry, all of which will most likely be at range and thus require the application of your LIMITED ranged firepower and further more, you have to SPREAD your fire over 6 units - If I took JUST 3 x 10 man units with a rhino - You have only 3 targets to shoot at and my firepower is halved through my own selection before you even fired a shot - If you are using combat squads to apply effective long range firepower which then in turn brings the humble razorback into selection, you can increase your firepower beyond what you can readily reduce in any given turn if I had otherwise opted to retain the 10 man unit and a rhino.

 

 

Bannus hit it on the head -

 

I think your calculations are spot on...but I think that your evaluation is incomplete. If people are successful using Combat Squads, then there might be something to it.

 

 

Even when you look at the other 5 men (PF and special) - they are not much weaker at all then 10 men and a fist and a special in combat - Return attacks may be more telling but this is an issue that can be negated through proper use (match units that they can actually beat) or double team or add in IC's. And I think that this is the strong point of a 5 man unit over a 10 man unit - IC's. A 5 man unit with a fist can be upgraded through the attachment of a character - a 10 man unit cannot.

 

 

A 10 man unit has NO options in what ride it can take or who can ride with them - as a option I have characters which can run with the 5 man units with the fist and flamers - This 5 man unit and character punches well above that of a 10 man unit in rhino which you cant attach a charater to - I really dont see how a 10 man unit is better in APPLICATION than a 5 man unit and character in a razorback - sure the points are different, but in the context of an army, ignoring OPTIONS in deployment though the narrow lense of mathhammer will give deductions which go againt experience - The staying power of a 5 man unit and an IC is comparable, if not better than the 10 man unit. Intiative 5, higher WS and wargear options (and only 2 less wounds) should instantly deny SOME return attacks whilst still retaining the defense against AV through str 8 PF on the vet sergeant...

 

 

That is my view on combat squadding - it depends on your build and your options - if you play a traditional list with traditional options and a traditional playstyle, then the 10 man unit is as strong as you will get - if you use the options in the dex in a different manner and tactics and options that were otherwise left out, they can become much stronger to THAT list/player - I wouldnt discount combat squads as a method as strongly as you have - But including them just because is also problematic. Its a tactic or option that has to built into or rejected in the design of your list. If your list is designed not to use combat squads, your mathhammer will reject them and you will get the numbers and percentages that you have ascertained - My list will fail if I were to use your numbers as a guide because I have built my list to include combat squads..

[Brother Icipher]

@Brother Taul:

Do you run with the same approach in Kill Point missions?

If so, does the additional firepower offset the risk of giving away extra KPs?

If not, how do you reconfigure your Troops?

[Warp Angel]

@Brother Taul:

 

How effective are your 5 man squads after they've taken 3 casualties?

When you've got a character with them, how much more effective is the character + 2 models?

 

I always advocate that you're the general, and you know best your playstyle and your army, so if combat squadding works for you, great.

 

But from a casualty absorbing and damage dealing preservation standpoint, combat squads seem to be demonstrably weaker in a provable fashion.

 

I'm not going to deny the benefits of using them entirely, because I can and do (and in some places advocate using them), but when going for reliability and durability, the 10 man squads are generally superior.

 

I'm glad that they work for you.

[Brother Tual]

Do you run with the same approach in Kill Point missions?

If so, does the additional firepower offset the risk of giving away extra KPs?

If not, how do you reconfigure your Troops?

 

I tend to favour combat squadding even in KP missions - Its not about the offset of firepower over cheap KP's - its about utility and application - I wont lie and say that I ALWAYS combat squad with the LIST which uses it. My opponents list and the table will be the deciding factor - Not if the mission is KP's or not - It is important to remember that I do this because I built a list to do it - not because I feel like it - This wont work with most standard lists.

 

 

How effective are your 5 man squads after they've taken 3 casualties?

When you've got a character with them, how much more effective is the character + 2 models?

 

The 5 man squad after 3 casulaties is much the same as a 10 man squad after 3 casualties in a sense of output - more so at range - The heavy weapon is the one that supplies the important shots - not the bolters. Its a fine line but when I gain the squad for 80 points including the heavy, it is a fairly cheap and somewhat effective unit that is scoring - (otherwise I would be running 5 man units in razorbacks, just more of them... ) - I am not sure how well it will work with devs or expensive upgrades - I like neither so I dont use either and thus dont know.

 

If you consider the other half - after 3 casualties, providing the fist is alive, the equation is much like that of the HB - I pay alittle more for this part the unit, but they are protected more by the transport - As long as the fist gets to swing, then what am I missing out on? 3 WS 4 str 4 attacks? But I try and avoid this - placement and target priority reduce the need to match units which will supply a mutual destruction - 5 marines taking on 5 tau for example - I dont need 10... Providing that you can do this, you wont need 10...

 

Inregards to the IC and 2 models -

 

Consider without the sergeant left -

 

The 2 extra bodies can do one of two things in this senerio - I can, given the charge, contact high threat (hidden PF) upgrades by putting one of the two bodies in base to base with it - this will almost ensure my IC gets to round number 2 as the upgrade has to allocate against the unit he is in base to base with - and for combats, an IC and attached unit are counted as 2 units... This also works against enemy ICs, pull them out of combat with my IC if they are too strong - OR pull the enemy unit out of equation in forming some sort of barrier in which both our IC's can battle it out -

 

 

Next, I can use the IC to SAVE my dying scoring unit by trying to take the hard knocks - Do the opposite as to above and take the hard hits on the IC. This will take most of the kill power out of the enemy unit and apply it on my IC rather than my troops. Most marine IC's have an invul save so even the hardest hitting upgrades will fall short (less than 25% chance to get A hit to stick)

 

With the PF sergeant still involved, you get alittle more from the two bodies in troops but they behave much the same. It will all depend on position and the enemy - do I need this scoring unit where it is? does my enemy need this scoring unit where it is? etc...

 

 

But from a casualty absorbing and damage dealing preservation standpoint, combat squads seem to be demonstrably weaker in a provable fashion.

 

I'm not going to deny the benefits of using them entirely, because I can and do (and in some places advocate using them), but when going for reliability and durability, the 10 man squads are generally superior.

 

Yo are right here - and you are right when you say that it is

your playstyle and your army

- no body has presented the other side of the story thus far and as a result are inclinded to never combat squad due to your informative but strong words..

 

Both sides work, but it is more than the math of it that should determine if you do or dont..

[Consul of Scorpions]

You made some clerical errors... (or maybe not, accounting for all sergeants as assets)

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

3 upgrades, negative; Risk= 8/10/18 check

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

2 upgrades, negative; Risk= 4/5/9 (5th ed: assumes sergeant with upgrades)

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

1 upgrade, negative; Risk= 5/5/10 ... 4/5/9 w/sergeant

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.

1 upgrade w/2 wounds, negative; Risk = 9~10/9~10/18~20 8~9/9~10/19 (w/accounting for acceptability of loss of one W on upgrade)

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

2 upgrades, negative; Risk= 19/20/39 18/20/38

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

4 upgrades, negative; Risk= 7/10/17 6/10/16

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

2 upgrades, negative; Risk= 4/5/9 3/5/8

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

4 upgrades, negative; Risk= 2/5/7 check

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

2 upgrades, negative; Risk= 4/5/9

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

2 upgrades, negative; Risk= 9/10/19 8/10/18

 

"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)

When you say 'sustain a wound' does that mean fail the armor save? or take a wound that needs to be saved? if the former the equation should be [uS+1-#Up, except where all members of a squad have upgrades status, the US-#Up] which is what I worked off of. If the latter, reduce primary and tertiary risk values by one.

[Koremu]

"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)

When you say 'sustain a wound' does that mean fail the armor save? or take a wound that needs to be saved? if the former the equation should be [uS+1-#Up, except where all members of a squad have upgrades status, the US-#Up] which is what I worked off of. If the latter, reduce primary and tertiary risk values by one.

I haven't bothered to recheck the math from this year+ dead thread, but risk is essentially the concept of "how many pre-save wounds can the unit taking before it has to roll saves for upgraded marines?"

 

"Risk" should really be called "no risk" - i.e. there's no risk of you losing an upgrade.

[Warp Angel]

Koremu - not a bad way to rephrase, although maybe it's more appropriate to speak to "risk avoidance".

 

Consul - a naked sergeant is still an "upgrade". He's an LD bump and has an extra attack in hand to hand base. The math should hold if you assume that.