Killhammer Strategy: Heavy and Special Weapons

[Warp Angel]

This article was inspired by a discussion on Marine Armored Columns, but isn't just about Armored Columns (or the title would reflect that). You need to have read previous Killhammer articles (particularly the one on Target Priority) to get the most out of this one.

 

Over the past six months or so, I've been looking at (and understanding) focused fire strengths and weaknesses, without understanding it in a conscious fashion, let alone in a way that was easy to articulate, but today, something clicked.

 

Please bear with me, as this article has a bit more "thinking" required than a lot of other Killhammer articles, and I may not be entirely clear in my explanations. As always, please provide feedback, commentary, critique, and criticism.

 

First, I want you to look at the following two army lists and think about which one is stronger.

 

HQ 1) Captain on a bike, relic blade, hellfire

Troop 1a) Tactical with PF/melta/heavy bolter/Rhino

Troop 1b) Tactical with PF/flamer/multi melta/Razorback

Fast 1a) Land Speeder with heavy flamer and multi melta

Fast 1b) Land Speeder with heavy flamer and multi melta

Heavy 1) Predator with TLLC and heavy bolter sponsons

 

vs.

 

HQ 2) Captain on a bike, relic blade, hellfire

Troop 2a) Tactical with PF/multi melta/melta/rhino

Troop 2b) Tactical with PF/flamer/heavy bolter/TLLC Razorback

Fast) 2a Land Speeder with 2x heavy flamer

Fast 2b) Land Speeder with 2x multi melta

Heavy 2) Predator with AC and HB sponsons

 

They are nearly identical in points and they are nearly identical in weapons mix. Now, I know that this assessment of mine will be up for criticism and nitpickyness, but assume that you are building for an all-comers army, have no idea who your opponents will be, and that these are the only army lists that you can make with your models. Think of this in the abstract, not in the concrete. My examples are intended to be exactly that.

 

From a Killhammer perspective, the total army K is superficially the same. The first army arguably has greater S than the second, because you've got better weapon redundancy, and losing one unit won't knock out having that same weapon available elsewhere. But that comes at a price, one that I'm not sure is worth it. That price is focus. Focus that directly translates to kill gap creation.

 

This leads me to the creation of a new Killhammer Principle. "Kill Gap Creation should be given a very strong S rating"

 

So let's compare the list focuses...

 

HQ1 vs HQ2 - wash... included because a list needs an HQ and this is my favorite HQ choice.

 

Troop 1a vs Troop 2a - 1 gives you one small chance to mess up an enemy vehicle in shooting OR mess up one enemy infantry unit in shooting. It's not particularly good at either one. 2 gives you focus. You stand a VERY good chance of taking out a vehicle entirely. Even in later turns, you aren't losing a lot of anti-infantry capability.

Troop 1b vs Troop 2b - Again, 1 is a generalist, able to engage with a small chance of success infantry OR vehicles, while 2 is about as potent an anti-infantry unit as a low cost tactical squad can get... You have the ability to MAYBE engage a vehicle and to MAYBE inflict a couple casualties on infantry, but not great against that either.

 

Just comparing the troops, you need two units to bring the upgrade weapons capability to bear to significantly threaten a single target with the first pair, where each unit in the second list can act independentely and engage two different targets with good threat levels on both targets. Your choice is essentially to create a kill gap of two units of enemy capability vs. a similar chance to create a kill gap against one enemy unit. From a Killhammer perspective, it's always better to try and significantly degrade or destroy two units instead of one. For those of you who are advocates of combat squads, this is EXACTLY the kind of benefit you gain from a balanced combat squad. You gain the ability to better focus.

 

Looking at Fast attack, the benefit from focus is a bit smaller because if you focus, your opponent can pick which is the bigger threat to his plans and work on (relatively) easily eliminating either target. But if you are thinking about the creation of the Kill Gap as being your number one priority and manage your deployment and movement well, you can probably make sure that your opponent will either have problems killing the one he's most afraid of or that he's got to dedicate a greater than usual amount of firepower to destroy it. Like the tactical squads, its a choice between engaging one vehicle OR troop successfully

 

Even if he does manage to destroy it, it's still managing the Kill Gap in your favor! You've taken a lot of his firepower or attention and directed it where it might be more effective. You're starting to dictate their tactics, and that's only a good thing.

 

Finally, looking at Predator 1 and Razorback from Troop 1b vs. Predator 2 and Razorback from Troop 2b... your anti-tank armor becomes weaker, and it's really not arguable that a twin linked heavy bolter is a better anti-infantry than a single autocannon. But if you look at it from the Kill Gap Creation standpoint, you still have a TLLC to fire at enemy armor, and now your Pred is pure anti-infantry. In this case you're not getting quite as much benefit (TLLC ain't that great), but it's still gaining FOCUS.

 

 

 

So at this point, I hope that things are making sense to you.

 

 

 

Now we look at how we can exploit our opponent's army. The first article that I wrote on Target Priority is still completely valid. But here's some advanced thinking when looking at your enemy weapon upgrades. To be honest, it's probably something you've already figured out.

 

1) Dispersed firepower (say three lascannons, one in each of three tactical squads), aren't focused. If your opponent wants to spend three squads trying to kill your Thunderfire Cannon in cover, let them. Three units to go after one of yours? Yes please. That's both low K and low S, and takes away from their Kill Gap creation potential. Let them stay inefficient for as long as you've got better targets.

2) Concentrated firepower that's good with a single purpose (say a Devildog with a Multi-Melta or a 4 heavy bolter Devastator squad), needs higher priority attention. Not just because their K is high, but because they are able to create contribute to the Kill Gap on their own against a single kind of unit, without support.

3) Those elite units that are capable of contributing to a kill gap entirely on their own against EITHER infantry or armor should be looked at as a far greater threat than the single purpose units. The former can have their lines of sight blocked, be presented with a threat they don't handle well, etc. The all-comers are going to present a problem because they have an answer for everything.

 

In general, units that fall into category 1 will be Defenders and weak Hunters. Units that fall into category 2 will most often be Cleaners, Hunters, and Firebases. Units in category 3 will be high-end Firebases, top shelf Cleaners, and of course, Killers.

 

If you're able to eliminate the concentrated threats early, you force your opponent to engage what you have left less efficiently. As I pointed out above, you need to be aware of spending too much effort to take down one of these concentrated threats. Continuous evaluation of the D1, so you efficiently use your resources is important. You don't want to fall into the same traps you're setting for your opponent.

 

Good luck!!!

[Jackelope King]

Good writeup, and spot on where it counts (the tactical squads and heavies), but I do have one quibble:

 

Land Speeders are far, far better with the Multi-Melta / Heavy Flamer combo, rather than doubling up on either one. Taking one of each on a Speeder is a small price to pay for a far more versatile weapons platform. After your opponent's vehicles are gone, what's your double-Multi-Melta Speeder going to do? Have a slightly-better-than 50% chance of killing a single infantry model per turn?

 

Far better to have the option of BBQing infantry with a heavy flamer or popping armor with a Multi-Melta. You're going to be losing shots with one or the other when you move anyway, so you might as well use the points for versatility.

[Warp Angel]

Good writeup, and spot on where it counts (the tactical squads and heavies), but I do have one quibble:

 

Land Speeders are far, far better with the Multi-Melta / Heavy Flamer combo, rather than doubling up on either one. Taking one of each on a Speeder is a small price to pay for a far more versatile weapons platform. After your opponent's vehicles are gone, what's your double-Multi-Melta Speeder going to do? Have a slightly-better-than 50% chance of killing a single infantry model per turn?

 

Far better to have the option of BBQing infantry with a heavy flamer or popping armor with a Multi-Melta. You're going to be losing shots with one or the other when you move anyway, so you might as well use the points for versatility.

 

I'm going to disagree.

 

1) If I'm out of tanks, there's usually still Monstrous Creatures, Terminators, Feel No Pains, or WBB to deal with. The MMs are far from useless. That's before I consider using the vehicle to provide cover or to contest objectives.

2) If I'm out of tanks, there's a good chance there isn't much in the way of infantry left to deal with either, because the philosophy delineated above gives me a chance to go after BOTH at the same time instead of just one or the other.

3) Heavy Flamers are still marginally useful against light and rear armor if for some reason the infantry is gone. Which it never seems to be.

 

The whole point here is to go for a quick overkill against as many units as possible, rather than disperse your fire and do similar damage over multiple game turns. The longer it takes you to achieve a kill, the slower you create the kill gap. The longer it takes to create the kill gap, the harder it is to achieve victory. If you ever achieve it at all.

 

Assuming that a "kill" is equal to immobilized, wrecked, or destroyed, and you're shooting a multi melta at close range against AV12:

 

2/3 hit * 1/12 glance * 1/3 kill = 1/54 chance of getting a glance and killing.

2/3 hit * 5/6 pen * 2/3 kill = 20/54 chance of getting a pen and killing.

So each shot is 21/54 total chance of killing with any one shot. You need almost three shots to guarantee a kill. Having one unit with 2 MM means you need one unit for a good shot instead of two.

 

Your odds get worse against AV13 and 14. How long do you want to have 2 units tank hunting?

[Vaaish]

Looking at Fast attack...

 

your reasoning has little to do with the actual loadout for why focus is better here; what you wrote is equally true of the MM/HF as it is of 2x MM or 2x HF speeders. I would greatly disagree about focus on a LS. MM/HF is more effective than 2 of each because it grants tactical flexibility and masks intent. You cannot move and shoot both weapons or DS and shoot both with either configuration and this makes either route equally effective in engagement of whichever target type is chosen. 2x of the same weapon just makes it easier for your opponent to know what you will do with the unit. Also both of the options you post are suicide units and could probably be better focused with just a single weapon of each type.

[Aidoneus]

I agree with the Speeder issue, in that MM/HF is the way to go. With either the melta weapon or the template weapon, you will need to be close to make good use of it. This means you'll want to move the full 12" and fire, rather than just 6", in almost every case. This means one of your weapons is being wasted anyway, so diversifying doesn't so much matter. In this case, flexibility can still be a plus, because one turn you can bust a tank and the next go after infantry. Often players will screen important infantry with a tank, or visa versa, and you need to be able to deal with the one before you can get to the other. If you're operating on a flank (as speeders need to do to survive), you often won't be able to count on supporting friendly units to help out, so flexibility can be a great boon.

 

In your tactical squads, I have another complaint, although it's not necessarily in contradiction with your main point. First off, a multi-melta is a horrible heavy weapon in a non-Pod tac squad, because by the time you've set up and waited a turn, any enemy vehicle will have moved away, at least outside of 12", and possibly even outside of 24". So having the MM to match the meltagun doesn't really help any, if the two aren't being used together. Similarly with the flamer/heavy bolter. If you've been sitting still for a turn, and can now fire the HB, no sane opponent will still have troops within flamer range. If anything, perhaps you'll hit 1 or 2 at the extreme edge of your range, but in all probability not even that. So again, the dedication in the unit doesn't come into play.

 

I think the point matter much more on vehicles. I've stressed for years that the TL-LC+HB predator is a stupid idea, because you're wasting either the turret or the sponsons every turn. Similarly with dreadnoughts: if they have a long-range weapon, they should not also have a DCCW, because they're either wasting their range (and protection that comes with it) or their CC abilities. These are the cases where focus really trumps flexibility.

 

I guess, overall, my point is that your idea is valid, but perhaps you overstate your case.

[Koremu]

I have to agree that Multi-Melta/Heavy Flamer setup is preferable to pairing up the weapons. The Multi-Melta is short range for its frontal tank-busting shot, and at long range is benefitted heavily by movement into the rear arc of the target. The Heavy Flamer is the same - you will usually find yourself needing to move 12" in order to use either weapon effectively, especially if you want to keep out of reach of enemy units, so mounting a pair of identical weapons is too often simply redundant expenditure.

 

Better by far to have the flexibility to move 12" and either roast an infantry unit or strike a tank.

 

Moving 6" is generally a bad idea for a Land Speeder.

 

Regarding the pairing of a Meltagun and a Multi-Melta, I have said before that I disagree with you analysis of the weapon fit for a Tactical Squad. My reasoning is very simply that the two weapons have no good range overlaps. Within 6" it is better to use the Meltagun alone and then assault with Krak Grenades, at 6" to 12" you would be better served moving forward into 6" range of your meltagun (and then assaulting) than standing still and using the Multi-Melta, and beyond 12" you would have been better served bringing a Missile Launcher.

 

I would pair a Plasma Gun with a Multi-Melta under almost all circumstances. Both weapons (and the Boltguns) share a weapon range banding of 12/24. The Plasma Gun is a decent light vehicle killer and a good heavy infantry killer, and backs up both the Multi-Melta and the Boltguns as an objective sitting squad par excellence.

[Marlow]

I agree with your principle of having focused units it will make them better at there role. However, like others, I disagree on Land Speeders. The number of times they move less than 12" is about once per game (on average) so the chance of firing both weapons is remote.

[Warp Angel]

I agree with your principle of having focused units it will make them better at there role. However, like others, I disagree on Land Speeders. The number of times they move less than 12" is about once per game (on average) so the chance of firing both weapons is remote.

 

SIGH

 

I didn't want to get sidetracked with discussions about the viability of each unit as an individual piece. The discussion is about creating a Kill Gap.

 

If I'm fielding one land speeder and want it to be an up close and personal attacker, I'm going to go with the Hvy Flamer/Multi Melta combo, because it's awesome.

 

If I'm fielding two land speeders, I'm probably not going to to field tornado patterns at all due to the move and fire issue.

 

That said, the PRINCIPLE behind going with a melta-melta and a flamer-flamer is so that you can engage and degrade the enemy faster by successfully attacking two enemy units with two of your own, instead of attacking one enemy unit with two of yours.

 

I'd like to focus on the principles behind attacking the greatest amount of enemy units successfully with the fewest numbers of your units. As a PA army, this is important because you're going to be outnumbered more often than not.

[Vaaish]

That said, the PRINCIPLE behind going with a melta-melta and a flamer-flamer is so that you can engage and degrade the enemy faster by successfully attacking two enemy units with two of your own, instead of attacking one enemy unit with two of yours.

 

This doesn't follow because you have the exact same capability to engage and degrade the enemy with two MM/HF speeders as you do with with each speeder containing two MM or HF but you have the added benefit of redundancy with two MM/HF speeders because the enemy must concentrate on two separate units to eliminate your capability to effectively engage both his troops and his vehicles thereby expending a disproportionate amount of firepower to neutralize two relatively inexpensive units. Why is it that you would be attacking one enemy unit with both MM/HF speeders rather than engaging multiple targets.

[Warp Angel]

That said, the PRINCIPLE behind going with a melta-melta and a flamer-flamer is so that you can engage and degrade the enemy faster by successfully attacking two enemy units with two of your own, instead of attacking one enemy unit with two of yours.

 

This doesn't follow because you have the exact same capability to engage and degrade the enemy with two MM/HF speeders as you do with with each speeder containing two MM or HF but you have the added benefit of redundancy with two MM/HF speeders because the enemy must concentrate on two separate units to eliminate your capability to effectively engage both his troops and his vehicles thereby expending a disproportionate amount of firepower to neutralize two relatively inexpensive units. Why is it that you would be attacking one enemy unit with both MM/HF speeders rather than engaging multiple targets.

 

 

a) You're focusing on speeders. Please don't.

 

:) If you have a single unit that is anti-tank with a better than 2/3 chance of killing most tanks and a unit that has the ability to degrade an infantry unit by 1/2 or more this is better from a kill gap creation standpoint than having to use those same two units to have one or the other and no ability to do both.

 

It's about killing the enemy as fast as possible.

 

Let's pretend we're playing Imperial Guard for a second.

 

You can have your choice of a Hellhound with a multi-melta and a Devil Dog with a heavy flamer OR you can have a Hellhound with a heavy flamer and a Devil Dog with a multi melta.

 

Curiously, this is a very similar weapons and force org use as the speeders, but isn't speeders.

 

In order to get two melta shots at an enemy land raider, you have to use BOTH tanks from the first pair, or you can use just the Devil Dog from the second list, leaving your Hellhound free to go after infantry.

 

Which pair kills the enemy the fastest? Because that's the whole point of Killhammer... kill them faster than they kill you.

[Vaaish]

If the example for your principle is speeders, be prepared for people to continue speaking in the terms defined by the example. I understand that you are trying to kill the enemy as fast as possible and that you are trying to engage and degrade the most enemy units with the fewest of your own, but the conclusion of your reasoning based on the principle you stated is flawed in relation to speeders which is relevant to a discussion of marines.

 

If you have a single unit that is anti-tank with a better than 2/3 chance of killing most tanks and a unit that has the ability to degrade an infantry unit by 1/2 or more this is better from a kill gap creation standpoint than having to use those same two units to have one or the other and no ability to do both

 

I assume you are stating the odds of 2x MM shots doing this damage to kill the tank and 2x HF shots for the infantry? If this is the case, it is an unlikely scenario because of the limitations of firing multiple weapon when moving and deep striking with vehicles even if given the "fast" attribute. Basically if you move, you fire a single weapon making it irrelevant if you have 2MM or a MM/HF anything because you only get one shot at the target per vehicle either way.

[Gen. Confusion]

I think I understand what you are saying. Having one unit that can kill something on its own is better than having two units kill one. This frees up the other unit to kill something else. For the landspeeder example it might be better to define thier roles by using totally different types. For example you can have a landspeeder with multimelta and have a landspeeder with typhoon missiles. The multimelta speeder is going to be better at knocking out tanks at close range while the typhoon will be more suited to target infantry from afar.

[Warp Angel]

I think I understand what you are saying. Having one unit that can kill something on its own is better than having two units kill one. This frees up the other unit to kill something else. For the landspeeder example it might be better to define thier roles by using totally different types. For example you can have a landspeeder with multimelta and have a landspeeder with typhoon missiles. The multimelta speeder is going to be better at knocking out tanks at close range while the typhoon will be more suited to target infantry from afar.

 

Listen to this man. He gets it. :P

[Blood Scorpion]

I suspect most people get it, it's about desiging your units so that as many weapons as possible can be utilised against their most opportune target. Anything that doesn't fire or is less effective is detremental to you quickly and decisively creating the Kill Gap and in a sense is a waste of points.

 

However, I think that Landspeeders are a bad example because yes, in terms of this thread they are better having one type of weapon so they can hit with maximum force in any given turn, but in reality they are better suited to having a mix of weapons due to a variety of other factors, most importantly the need to keep them moving over 6" so they don't get destroyed in combat so easily!

 

Just one other point, it shouldn't just be about unit vs unit as each have differnt points values and worth. There are plenty of examples where a medium cost unit can easily squash a far cheaper unit, but a greater Kill Gap may have been created by combining two medium cost units to kill a more expensive and threatening unit!

[Bosco]

I take issue with role specialization on a unit by unit basis, particularly in an all-comer's list. With the increasing preference for mechanized armies in the current edition (or at least at my FLGS), it becomes imperative in my eyes that each unit in an army must be capable of contributing to vehicle removal, at minimum against AV12. Also, given that orks and IG can easily field mechanized/semi-mechanized lists and still greatly outnumber marines at a given points level, it remains important that these same units be capable of removing infantry as well.

 

Having some units focus on one target type (vehicle/infantry) at the near-exclusion of the other has been reliably ineffective for me in the past (and by past I mean since 3rd ed) and I have found that a versatile unit role gives me more consistently positive results in my games. Against a skilled mechanized opponent they simply eliminate the tank-hunting units early and then enjoy a rather significant advantage for the remainder of the game as the majority of the remaining units pose minimal threats to the rest of their army. A clever horde opponent does the opposite, removing your dedicated anti-infantry and then overwhelms your army as your remaining anti-tank units barely scratch their numbers, removing one model at a time as they try in vain to thin the incoming enemy. While both of these general examples are extreme, they are still likely to resemble the outcome against a smart opponent of either type.

 

By making sure that every unit in the army is able to contribute every turn against any given opponent, you can ensure that you do not have effectively useless elements in your list remaining stagnant against a specialized opponent who can exploit the considerably diminished potency of your list. If you bring a force that, by points, is roughly 25% dedicated anti-infantry, 25% dedicated anti-vehicle, and 50% mixed against an opponent who is 100% vehicle (mechanized) or infantry (horde) you are beginning the game fighting with an effective 25% handicap, and losing the 25% dedicated to the opposing list type early further reduces your effectiveness to 50%. Now consider a list where every unit presents some threat to either vehicle or infantry throughout the game. You begin the game on relatively equal footing against either dedicated type of opponent and are not nearly as dependent upon a small portion of your list surviving AND having a consistently amazing game.

 

True, in terms of creating a 'kill gap' this versatile unit roles approach is not going to be the most effective setup against some opponents, but it does ensure that your lists are effective against all opponents, which is key in any tournament setting. Given that many marine lists typically do best by focusing on a single point of the enemy army and then rolling through their lines, it is not uncommon to direct several elements of an army against a relatively small number of opposing targets to guarantee complete destruction (and thus begin to establish this 'kill gap' you speak of), so I do not consider a 1-on-1 unit kill rate to be necessary or particularly dependable, outside of targeting vehicles with 2+ point-blank melta weapons from a single unit, which in my builds is only possible with my bikes having 2 flamers, a multi-melta attack bike, and a combi-weapon sgt, or my drop-pod tac squad with flamer, multi-melta, and combi-melta sgt.

 

Examples I would point out from the sample lists provided in the initial post I would field differently include the speeders (which have already been discussed, thoroughly), and the devastator squad (I would go with 4x missile launcher or possibly 3x missile launcher and a single lascannon) to give them a means of properly filling both anti-infantry and anti-vehicle roles rather than being forced to wait for a vehicle to be popped to spill passengers to shoot at when playing a mechanized opponent since those heavy bolters are spitballs against AV12+. Typically, I prefer my tac squads have the versatility they are intended to wield, commonly giving them a missile launcher or plasma cannon for just that intent, but I see nothing wrong with equipping them with a lascannon, multi-melta, or heavy bolter either, provided there are redundancies elsewhere in the list, and almost exclusively with the flamer for the assault weapon. I do not mean to suggest that units should not be built (dominantly through unit upgrades) with a bias towards a given role, after all assault marines, for example, are always going to be better at fighting infantry, but giving them something for tanks beyond kraks can be a huge boon, often without sacrificing their effectiveness in a given role (a TH or meltabombs for their sgt for example).

[Warp Angel]

Bosco, you've made fair points for the most part, and all things that I tried to touch upon in the original post when I said,

This leads me to the creation of a new Killhammer Principle. "Kill Gap Creation should be given a very strong S rating"

 

Following Killhammer principles, S is completely dynamic and dependent on you, your opponent, your terrain, and the battlefield situation. I probably worded it pretty poorly, but it's essentially me saying, "you should strongly consider...". I don't actually follow the advice in this article perfectly. Most of my units are really good at one thing, and "good enough" at another. They fall into category 3 of the evaluation of enemy units section of the article more often than not.

 

And yes, I admit it again, the Landspeeders were a horrible example.

[SeattleDV8]

Finally, looking at Predator 1 and Razorback from Troop 1b vs. Predator 2 and Razorback from Troop 2b... your anti-tank armor becomes weaker, and it's really not arguable that a twin linked heavy bolter is a better anti-infantry than a single autocannon. But if you look at it from the Kill Gap Creation standpoint, you still have a TLLC to fire at enemy armor, and now your Pred is pure anti-infantry. In this case you're not getting quite as much benefit (TLLC ain't that great), but it's still gaining FOCUS.

I understand the point you're making here and agree, given the weapon load-outs of the tanks.

I do have a problem in your comparing a twin linked Heavy Bolter to the Auto Cannon and coming to the conclusion that the AC equals the TLHB.

Chance to wound: --T3 -- T4 --- T5 --- T6 --- T7 --- T8 --- T9 --- T10

Twinlink Heavybolter 2.19- 1.74- 1.32- .87-- .45-- .45-- --- ---

Auto Cannon---------- 1.10- 1.10- 1.10- .88-- .66-- .44-- .22-- .22

 

 

As a troop killer the TLHB is far better. The AC is a better light armour and MC killer.

[rat of vengence]

I think I understand what you are saying. Having one unit that can kill something on its own is better than having two units kill one. This frees up the other unit to kill something else. For the landspeeder example it might be better to define thier roles by using totally different types. For example you can have a landspeeder with multimelta and have a landspeeder with typhoon missiles. The multimelta speeder is going to be better at knocking out tanks at close range while the typhoon will be more suited to target infantry from afar.

 

Listen to this man. He gets it. ;)

He does. I do too, but despite being a great fan of your work here, I think the others have good points. The Theory, aqnd the kill gap creation are spot on, but we must take into account the likelyhood of a unit being able to perform optimally to achieve this. A LS (for example :) ) with 2 MM will rarely have the chance to fire both, thus negating the benefit of the 2 weapons, and reducing the kill gap.

 

In theory, absolutely spot on. In practice, that LS just isn't going to be around long enough to get off 2 close range multimelta shots.

 

But love your work anyway mate :(

 

RoV

[yperihitikos]

I agree that specialized units can do better their job, but if you lose them what are you going to do? There shouldn't have been all that talk about the land speeder. AV10 is too low. They are simply not made to get close to the enemy, until all the major threats are destroyed, otherwise you may lose them before they even ge the chance to do anything. For the same points you could get a typhoon, heavy bolter speeder and a multimelta, 2linked bolter attack bike. Both give you specialization. Both can be combined with other units in the army to maximise their effectiveness.

 

I haven't read all the articles about the killhammer theory. From what I've read it's the same with the "common sense" theory, known as "logic". If you load a unit with lots of expensive and powerfull toys it concentrates enemy's focus. If it lacks the ability to absorb heavy fire while maintaining the ability to fire/fight back, then you have wasted unwisely your points. Assuming that you want an all-corner army list, I can't see the reason you mix the types of the weapons in both lists and why you preffer to give away the element of surprise. Your battle plan in the second list is obvious you can do nothing else but that. The way I see, for example, your second list is that not only you do not specialize it but you immobilize it. Your only assault element is one combat squad or one 10man squad, that you bought for the free heavy weapon that you'll almost never will have the chance to use.

You gave lots of points to the infantry, based all your severe threat element on them and the only way to do some damage is to wait the enemy to attack them. What will you do if he's got long range weapons such as missile launchers and he's not going to come into CC assault range until last 2 turns?

 

In order to increase the kill gap you need weapons that make a good amount of damage before you get in CC. Softened enemy units permit you to spend less points for expensive tools for your infantry. And these spare points can be spent to some more specialized tools designed for both anti-infantry and anti-tank role.

The best way is to bring the deadliest weapons to the least expensive units. Of course, these are the most fragile but it's an one-way road.

[Gornall]

I agree that specialized units can do better their job, but if you lose them what are you going to do? There shouldn't have been all that talk about the land speeder. AV10 is too low. They are simply not made to get close to the enemy, until all the major threats are destroyed, otherwise you may lose them before they even ge the chance to do anything. For the same points you could get a typhoon, heavy bolter speeder and a multimelta, 2linked bolter attack bike. Both give you specialization. Both can be combined with other units in the army to maximise their effectiveness.

 

I haven't read all the articles about the killhammer theory. From what I've read it's the same with the "common sense" theory, known as "logic". If you load a unit with lots of expensive and powerfull toys it concentrates enemy's focus. If it lacks the ability to absorb heavy fire while maintaining the ability to fire/fight back, then you have wasted unwisely your points. Assuming that you want an all-corner army list, I can't see the reason you mix the types of the weapons in both lists and why you preffer to give away the element of surprise. Your battle plan in the second list is obvious you can do nothing else but that. The way I see, for example, your second list is that not only you do not specialize it but you immobilize it. Your only assault element is one combat squad or one 10man squad, that you bought for the free heavy weapon that you'll almost never will have the chance to use.

You gave lots of points to the infantry, based all your severe threat element on them and the only way to do some damage is to wait the enemy to attack them. What will you do if he's got long range weapons such as missile launchers and he's not going to come into CC assault range until last 2 turns?

 

In order to increase the kill gap you need weapons that make a good amount of damage before you get in CC. Softened enemy units permit you to spend less points for expensive tools for your infantry. And these spare points can be spent to some more specialized tools designed for both anti-infantry and anti-tank role.

The best way is to bring the deadliest weapons to the least expensive units. Of course, these are the most fragile but it's an one-way road.

 

I'm pretty sure those were just lists for illustration purposes and not actual lists.

 

As for the discussion on mixing weapons, there is an interesting article from the IGMB on the subject that might be worth reading. While I do agree in being efficent on vehicle platforms in choosing weapons that can fullfill the same role, I tend to use my Tacticals as all-rounder stop-gaps that aren't specialized. That way they always have something to "do" (or at least try). Their effective range (even with transports) is somewhat limited compared to vehicles, so I like them to at least be able to effect anything that does get close, whether it's a vehicle/MC/horde. That and I tend to play a more reactionary/water style, so the flexibility helps keep my opponent guessing. I will be the first to admit, however, that taking flexibility too far can cripple your firepower, as if each unit has one weapon to deal with hordes and another weapon to deal with vehicles, then shooting at either is going to waste one weapon, effectively cutting your firepower in half. That's why I think you need dedicated, specialized units along with a few jack-of-all-trades (something Marines are good at) that can affect most enemy units, even if not as well as your specialized squads.

[Resv]

@ yperihitikos: You might want to check out the Killhammer articles. There is a lot more to them than just "Logic" and "Common Sense." Both of which are perfectly good playing philosophies.

 

I asked Warp Angel about something similar to this in this tread in which I asked him about redundancy of units. Like buying two of almost the exact same unit just to cover any losses and I think the answers are very well laid out.

 

I don't like the idea of redundant units in elite armies like Marines/Eldar where individual model cost is so high. Guard? Hecks yes.

 

I think having redundant CAPABILITY is critical. Like Olesh said, if all of your anti-tank is in one squad/unit, kill that one unit and the rest of your tanks are safe. In the Killhammer: Army Building I go into it in a little bit more detail. The idea is that if you lose your main unit, you've got SOMETHING that can do the job (even if they're not as good) as a backup.

 

My Thunderfire is obviously my best anti-horde mechanism. To back that up, I've got a plasma cannon, a heavy bolter razorback, a couple of flamers, and the bikes rapid firing twin linked bolters can make a mess of the light infantry. I also have a form of horde control in the Ironclad and Vindicator.

 

Against elite infantry I've got my plasma cannon, the vindicator, usually the Ironclad, and the Terminators.

 

Against armor, I've got a melta/melta tactical squad, my bikes, the Typhoon for light armor, the Terminators, and the Dreadnaught

 

See where I'm going here? I don't have redundant units, I have redundant capability!

 

The concept is that you are outfitting every unit to be able to engage another unit of a certain type effectively all by its lonesome. The discussion isn't around OVER specializing units at all.

[Warp Angel]

@ yperihitikos: You might want to check out the Killhammer articles. There is a lot more to them than just "Logic" and "Common Sense." Both of which are perfectly good playing philosophies.

 

I asked Warp Angel about something similar to this in this tread in which I asked him about redundancy of units. Like buying two of almost the exact same unit just to cover any losses and I think the answers are very well laid out.

 

I don't like the idea of redundant units in elite armies like Marines/Eldar where individual model cost is so high. Guard? Hecks yes.

 

I think having redundant CAPABILITY is critical. Like Olesh said, if all of your anti-tank is in one squad/unit, kill that one unit and the rest of your tanks are safe. In the Killhammer: Army Building I go into it in a little bit more detail. The idea is that if you lose your main unit, you've got SOMETHING that can do the job (even if they're not as good) as a backup.

 

My Thunderfire is obviously my best anti-horde mechanism. To back that up, I've got a plasma cannon, a heavy bolter razorback, a couple of flamers, and the bikes rapid firing twin linked bolters can make a mess of the light infantry. I also have a form of horde control in the Ironclad and Vindicator.

 

Against elite infantry I've got my plasma cannon, the vindicator, usually the Ironclad, and the Terminators.

 

Against armor, I've got a melta/melta tactical squad, my bikes, the Typhoon for light armor, the Terminators, and the Dreadnaught

 

See where I'm going here? I don't have redundant units, I have redundant capability!

 

The concept is that you are outfitting every unit to be able to engage another unit of a certain type effectively all by its lonesome. The discussion isn't around OVER specializing units at all.

 

I did say that this would be a hard article, and that a solid killhammer foundation was important... It's obvious that I didn't communicate my intentions nearly as well as I wanted to to be as useful for an audience not already deep into Killhammer, and even confusing for some who were.

 

Thanks for adding clarity for me Resv.

[Resv]

@Warp Angel: Sighting and footnoting Mate. Giving you credit where credit is due.

 

It is an interesting concept all in all. However, it can fall into Mathhammer semantics rather easily; clouding the in game application. Thus illustrating my frustration with Mathhammer as a whole. Averages are a fantastic way to gain insight as to how a battle should logically play out. The logical solution doesn't always come out on top, nor does it fully take into account battlefield conditions. Both in 40k and in my real life I have witnessed moments that defy logic. In 2001, while in Gaza, I watched a bunch of students and children fight off an Israeli APC with nothing more than sling shots launching small chunks of concrete. Just the other day, I played a game where I was denied an objective by three suddenly fearless and invulnerable Sisters of Battle holding up 7 Space Marine Bikers, 1 Attack Bike, and my Bike Captain on the last turn.

 

This is something I have noticed with local Marine players at my store, on these forums, and in my own army until recently. They tend to move toward the "Jack of All" units except for the almost accepted tactics and one trick ponies that many players seem to rely on to win their battles. The averages Mathhammer provides factor in very heavily with their tactics, with only considerations and concessions to the battlefield situation.

 

A perfect example that gets written about quite a bit is the Land Raider filled with Assault Terminators. I run one of these bad boys myself. However, just because it features some of the best Mathhammer averages some people view it as THE monumental fire magnate of their army leaving the rest of their army free and clear to maneuver (this argument was slightly covered in the later portion Warp Angel's article on Tactical Marines). While the Land Raider does rank high on the kill priority list in both Killhammer and Mathhammer, as well as common sense, the subject of this article is that this Land Raider and its occupants can effectively engaged and possibly delayed by as few resources as necessary. Leaving the other units in your army able to attack other targets of opportunity.

[yperihitikos]

I see that we have a different approach to the mathhammer theory. There is the simple form where you calculate how much damage can a rapid fire bolter can do against a chaos space marine and the complete form where you calculate each weapon against every toughness and armour value and in different ranges(the most important). If you want to include imponderable factors you can use a multiplier near 0.85~0.95 to decrease the efficiency due to intervening terrain, for example. The aim is to find the best combination on each "platform" to maximize wounds/point fraction. It also helps you to understand when and against who you can attack and what results you should expect.

 

For example, Land Raiders are undoubtedlyt huge point sinks!!! For their points you can get other units with more firepower. The loss of AV14 can easily balanced by the fact that the opponent should split the firing units increasing the possibility to miss and as a result to make less damage to your plans. Another example is multimeltas. They can pop raiders without much effort. A footslogging squad will ever have the chance to use it? Maybe. A drop poded Dreadnought? Almost certainly. Which one can accomplish the task faster? The Dradnought. Does it worth to spend 50 points more? Yes.

Now, we all agree that 5 assault terminators are good. Does it worth to throw away 5~6 more assault terminators to give them a babysitter can? Of course not. You know that every player is prepared to face raiders. Who is so naive to believe that this combination will rock the place?

 

Maths offer you a statistical view of what can happen and what you should avoid. There is no guaranteed method to eliminate luck factor. If they just made 3-4 quick calculations they shouldn't blame mathhammer. It is them who didn't thoroughly examined the subject before denying it.

 

Until now mathhammer has served me well. I followed the links and tried to look more closely into the killhammer theory and I found it a good way to introduce someone into mathhammer. It is the theoritical side for those who do not like maths and want tactical advices. Mathhammer requires from players to already have the general tactical thinking to exploit the capabilities and weaknesses of each unit.

[Warp Angel]

I see that we have a different approach to the mathhammer theory. There is the simple form where you calculate how much damage can a rapid fire bolter can do against a chaos space marine and the complete form where you calculate each weapon against every toughness and armour value and in different ranges(the most important). If you want to include imponderable factors you can use a multiplier near 0.85~0.95 to decrease the efficiency due to intervening terrain, for example. The aim is to find the best combination on each "platform" to maximize wounds/point fraction. It also helps you to understand when and against who you can attack and what results you should expect.

 

For example, Land Raiders are undoubtedlyt huge point sinks!!! For their points you can get other units with more firepower. The loss of AV14 can easily balanced by the fact that the opponent should split the firing units increasing the possibility to miss and as a result to make less damage to your plans. Another example is multimeltas. They can pop raiders without much effort. A footslogging squad will ever have the chance to use it? Maybe. A drop poded Dreadnought? Almost certainly. Which one can accomplish the task faster? The Dradnought. Does it worth to spend 50 points more? Yes.

Now, we all agree that 5 assault terminators are good. Does it worth to throw away 5~6 more assault terminators to give them a babysitter can? Of course not. You know that every player is prepared to face raiders. Who is so naive to believe that this combination will rock the place?

 

Maths offer you a statistical view of what can happen and what you should avoid. There is no guaranteed method to eliminate luck factor. If they just made 3-4 quick calculations they shouldn't blame mathhammer. It is them who didn't thoroughly examined the subject before denying it.

 

Until now mathhammer has served me well. I followed the links and tried to look more closely into the killhammer theory and I found it a good way to introduce someone into mathhammer. It is the theoritical side for those who do not like maths and want tactical advices. Mathhammer requires from players to already have the general tactical thinking to exploit the capabilities and weaknesses of each unit.

 

I completely disagree on the Land Raider front, and on mathhammer being an uber guide to whether or not units are worthwhile. I don't leave home at 1500 points or more without a Land Raider Crusader. I would never take TH/SS terminators or any other hand to hand footslogging unit without one in a loyalist force. Rather than explain myself in detail here, I'm going to ask you to click on the link in my sig to the Killhammer target priority article to see how I view every game, and to the philosophy underpinning my decisions.