Killhammer Strategy: Heavy and Special Weapons

[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.

 

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.

 

 

Killhammer is all about estimating kill potentials. In Mathhammer you calculate the corpses on the ground. You could call it Corpsehammer or Deadhammer if you like the sound of it more.

 

Let's have an example. In an open terrain one side has one predator with one autocannon and heavy bolter sponsons. The other side has one Dreadnought with one assault cannon and a missile launcher. For that turn, they are the only contestants and they are at 38'' distance. Mathhammer informs us that the Predator has 44% propability to hit the Dreadnought. The Dreadnought has 22% propability to hit the Predator and within 30'' (24''+6'') it's 66%.

 

At >30'' the Predator can do double damage than the Dreadnought. This is the critical point everyone fails with Mathhammer. Their calculations are incomplete and their conclusions far from truth.

 

If you calculate the point/hit ratio, you will realize that you spent for the predator 193.18 points for every hit and for the dreadnought the result is 568.18 points for every hit. (Within 30'' it becomes 189.39 almost equal to predator's.)

 

Then, 568.18 / 193.18 = 2.94~3 times the cost. So, at >30'' that dreadnought is half efficient and if it will shoot instead of running it will have cost 3 times more points then the predator's shot.

 

Having that in mind you can valuate the threats and the opportunities. That's what killhammer lacks. I would be grateful if you could explain me the example above with killhammer terms and numeral values, no fuzzy symbols.

However, I recognize that your method is a fast method for ingame use.

 

If I have the time maybe I will write a "complete guide to mathhammer" with some excel tables.

 

For now, give it a shot; try my method if you really wanna know which one of your lists is more efficient.

[Ricter]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think something that contributes to the benefit of versatility of land speeders is when used in squadrons - which is very, very common these days, and can be applied outside of the C:SM to many other lists. Essentially, having the 2 MM/HF ls means getting two preferred weapon shots, while having 1 MM/MM and 1 HF/HF means you always have to fire a less useful weapon at your target.

 

Also, by having the different weapons, you allow for a doubling up of the weapons you want for a turn, rather than being stuck having to fire both weapons each turn. The double MM speeder can only shoot down 1 tank per turn, while the MM/HF pair have the potential to knock down two. Same situation with the heavy flamer. It's a lot safer of a way to generate the double shot than forcing one speeder to only move 6" if you need two shots from it.

[Warp Angel]

Killhammer is all about estimating kill potentials. In Mathhammer you calculate the corpses on the ground. You could call it Corpsehammer or Deadhammer if you like the sound of it more.

 

Let's have an example. In an open terrain one side has one predator with one autocannon and heavy bolter sponsons. The other side has one Dreadnought with one assault cannon and a missile launcher. For that turn, they are the only contestants and they are at 38'' distance. Mathhammer informs us that the Predator has 44% propability to hit the Dreadnought. The Dreadnought has 22% propability to hit the Predator and within 30'' (24''+6'') it's 66%.

 

At >30'' the Predator can do double damage than the Dreadnought. This is the critical point everyone fails with Mathhammer. Their calculations are incomplete and their conclusions far from truth.

 

If you calculate the point/hit ratio, you will realize that you spent for the predator 193.18 points for every hit and for the dreadnought the result is 568.18 points for every hit. (Within 30'' it becomes 189.39 almost equal to predator's.)

 

Then, 568.18 / 193.18 = 2.94~3 times the cost. So, at >30'' that dreadnought is half efficient and if it will shoot instead of running it will have cost 3 times more points then the predator's shot.

 

Having that in mind you can valuate the threats and the opportunities. That's what killhammer lacks. I would be grateful if you could explain me the example above with killhammer terms and numeral values, no fuzzy symbols.

However, I recognize that your method is a fast method for ingame use.

 

If I have the time maybe I will write a "complete guide to mathhammer" with some excel tables.

 

For now, give it a shot; try my method if you really wanna know which one of your lists is more efficient.

 

And I do use (and acknowledge) mathhammer as a tool to figure out on-the-spot K and D potentials. Or at least I'm familiar enough with the odds that I don't have to run the numbers to know that the dreadnaught needs to close the distance to have a real shot at the predator, while the pred is probably better off keeping the distance long.

 

But mathhammer doesn't provide me with the any insight into the less odds based aspects of the game. Going back to the land raider example, it never takes into account the cover that the LR provides, it's 1 in 6 chance to break Ld8 during tank shock, or the ability to deliver TH/SS terminators up to 20" forward into an assault in one turn, and giving them the benefit of frag grenades instead of them having to footslog it or spend a turn being shot at after deep striking. All it does is tell me the odds of it being killed while making the delivery, or the odds of it killing in any snapshot circumstance.

[Ming]

I can see where you are going in the original hypothesis of this thread. Focus is important. You create the right tools for the right jobs.

 

A great way to size up the original discussion - if you have a speeder w/ 2 MMs, and another speeder w/ 2 HFs, you can create a scenario where you have one speeder hit a rhino with the two MMs, vastly improving your chance to take it out, and then the other speeder, artfully waiting nearby, flames the disembarked survivors. Or alternatively, if the transportees were already disembarked, the speeder can flame both the troops and the Rhino, possibly damaging both before you MM your choice of the targets.

 

I use focus when possible - the devs are usually AT or AI, the Pred is usually AT. Overall I try to spam on low AP, high S weaponry (including CC weapons but not combi weapons) to be able to throw as many killing dice as possible against my opponents key armored units (be they vehicles or troops). I try to create a kill gap or transport gap ASAP. I use force multipliers. I try to kill at range. It works pretty well. I try to size up whether the opponent is to rely on shooting me or assaulting me to get his win, and then modify my priority list accordingly, while I follow my own strategic path (e.g., capture objectives, etc.).

[yperihitikos]

Killhammer is all about estimating kill potentials. In Mathhammer you calculate the corpses on the ground. You could call it Corpsehammer or Deadhammer if you like the sound of it more.

 

Let's have an example. In an open terrain one side has one predator with one autocannon and heavy bolter sponsons. The other side has one Dreadnought with one assault cannon and a missile launcher. For that turn, they are the only contestants and they are at 38'' distance. Mathhammer informs us that the Predator has 44% propability to hit the Dreadnought. The Dreadnought has 22% propability to hit the Predator and within 30'' (24''+6'') it's 66%.

 

At >30'' the Predator can do double damage than the Dreadnought. This is the critical point everyone fails with Mathhammer. Their calculations are incomplete and their conclusions far from truth.

 

If you calculate the point/hit ratio, you will realize that you spent for the predator 193.18 points for every hit and for the dreadnought the result is 568.18 points for every hit. (Within 30'' it becomes 189.39 almost equal to predator's.)

 

Then, 568.18 / 193.18 = 2.94~3 times the cost. So, at >30'' that dreadnought is half efficient and if it will shoot instead of running it will have cost 3 times more points then the predator's shot.

 

Having that in mind you can valuate the threats and the opportunities. That's what killhammer lacks. I would be grateful if you could explain me the example above with killhammer terms and numeral values, no fuzzy symbols.

However, I recognize that your method is a fast method for ingame use.

 

If I have the time maybe I will write a "complete guide to mathhammer" with some excel tables.

 

For now, give it a shot; try my method if you really wanna know which one of your lists is more efficient.

 

And I do use (and acknowledge) mathhammer as a tool to figure out on-the-spot K and D potentials. Or at least I'm familiar enough with the odds that I don't have to run the numbers to know that the dreadnaught needs to close the distance to have a real shot at the predator, while the pred is probably better off keeping the distance long.

 

But mathhammer doesn't provide me with the any insight into the less odds based aspects of the game. Going back to the land raider example, it never takes into account the cover that the LR provides, it's 1 in 6 chance to break Ld8 during tank shock, or the ability to deliver TH/SS terminators up to 20" forward into an assault in one turn, and giving them the benefit of frag grenades instead of them having to footslog it or spend a turn being shot at after deep striking. All it does is tell me the odds of it being killed while making the delivery, or the odds of it killing in any snapshot circumstance.

 

 

Leave the Land Raider aside and please answer to my question. We don't want answers bazed on logical assumptions. I gave you an example and the numeral results using Mathhammer Everyone reading this topic doesn't care if you "...don't have to run the numbers to know that the dreadnaught needs to close the distance to have a real shot at the predator, while the pred is probably better off keeping the distance long." We all know that. Mathhammer told as why it is true and how many times the predator would be more killy then the dradnought. It has no subjectivity; just cold maths. Math proved it and now we expect from you to use your formula and give as your numeral results.

 

My tone isn't aggressive at all. I just need a clear answer. It is too frustrating for everyone to have to read long posts and topics about something that should have been end in a couple posts. That's why I insist so much. Please share with as your killhammer theory applied to the dreadnought-predator example. It's the simplest example and it's already calculated with Mathhammer. In this way, we could see how killhammer serves as. For me, it took me less than 2 minutes to open my excel and calculate the killyness for both. I understand that you can't do that in the middle of a battle, but when you build a list in your home you have as much time you can get to make a proper built. Telling as that the autocannon has greater K1 then missile launcher and predator has same K2, greater D1 and less D2 first of all they are obvious and secondly they doesn't tell me how many times my opponent throws on the damage table, so killhammer is pretty much useless when you want to calculate corpses. Making the killing gap larger doesn't mean anything, while making 3 more kills than before means a lot.

 

Please, do bother to apply your theory on predator vs dreadnought and show us your formula in action.

[Balog]

You're rather missing the point yper. The theoretical killing power of one unit vs another is nice information to have, but does nothing to speak of tactical consideration.

 

A 12.7mm heavy machine gun has far more killing power than a 7.62mm rifle round. You could do all types of math to show this; calculate the difference in range, trajectory, terminal ballistics etc. But when the Soviets invaded Chechnya, the MG was useless in city fighting while the rifle was vital. Why? Because the MG couldn't be elevated enough to return fire on the RPG teams sitting on top of burned out buildings firing down into the Soviet's armour. Similarly, while open top vehicles that allow pintle modifications such that the gun can in fact be traversed high enough to return fire are nice, if the first indication you have of an attack is a Molotov breaking on your head your theoretical increase in killing power is useless.

 

A unit's theoretical killing power is nice, but it is not the be all end all panacea you seem to be suggesting. The consideration of how that unit will be brought to bear most efficiently is every bit as vital as it's theoretical optimum killy-ness. And maths are not able to tell us how to do this.

[Resv]

@yperihitikos: Wow, mate, your pretty passionate about all of this. If I may, Mathhammer is very narrow in scope, it doesn't take into account battle field conditions. Yes, the averages of one unit attacking another unit can be helpful but there are factors that just can't be quantified in a solid value. The Predator and the Dreadnought, for instance, can be subject to many factors on the rest of the board. What other units are on the board? Where are they at in relation to the principle unit? Are there better targets in range? What turn is it? Is this Kill Point, Objective, or a Scenario match? Is the Predator or Dreadnought behind cover? Do they still have all of their weapons? Is your opponent playing a defensive or aggressive game? Has your opponent been rolling hot? How have you been rolling?

 

These are variables that really can't be given solid numerical values in an attempt to play for averages. Killhammer in it's philosophy is much more directed to dealing with these variables as variables. It took you 2 minutes to come up with averages, good for you mate! What then is the value of those averages outside of your spread sheet? The entire notion for using a D6 is that there will always be a random element that cannot be accurately predicted and accounted for.

[chunky04]

@yperihitikos: you obviously haven't read (or understood) the Killhammer articles, since what you're asking doesn't really mesh in with the way it works. Its not intended to provide solid numbers - anyone with a calculator can do that for a specific scenario. Its about providing a framework to consider some of the less obvious parameters in the game with target priority at its core.

 

If you want a more obvious example, look at say a Dakka Pred vs a TLAC Razorback. Pretty easy to work out the damage comparison vs MEQ at 24" and they're pretty close. So you're basically looking at extra armour, more "hits" (more weapons for weapon destroyed results) and range vs better mobility (which nullifies some of the shorter range) and transport capacity. What you prefer in that tradeoff is going to be mostly dependant on what else is in your list and your playing style, which is where S comes in. The more vehicles you have in your force the less the poor armour of the Razorback would count against it for example.

 

Killhammer is an analytical philosophy, mathematics is a tool for analysis. They're two distinct but complementary entities.

 

Using only averages with no risk analysis also makes for exceptionally poor decisions IMO. Sensitivity and standard deviation must be taken into account, which is why rerolls are so powerful in this game.

 

In your Dreadnaught/Predator example, the question you're asking is too narrow for Killhammer. By setting the range and situation you've already taken the subjectivity out of the equation and straight mathhammer is sufficient to answer that question.

 

And yes, your tone is aggressive. Whether intended or not, thats how it comes across.

[Giga]

What the above three posts have said is 100% true.

 

Mathhammer has an important part to play in 40k, and we all have our own mathammer calculator working in our heads while playing. It gives you a rundown on probabilities, based on isolated examples. It doesn't take the wider game into account.

 

Killhammer, on the other hand, is a gaming philosophy, and therefore it's abstract. It teaches you to see the wider game, and to constantly decide what in your opponent's army is the biggest threat not based on its sheer statistics, but the battlefield situation and its potential to actually use its statistics.

 

Take the following example; there are 3 objectives. One is on your side of the table, and you're holding it. One is on your opponent's side of the table, and it's being held by him. The last objective is in the middle, and it's being contested by your opponent's land raider with terminators inside, and a tactical squad that was lowered to 3 men. The only units you have left nearby is a squad of 3 attack bikes with multimeltas, close to the enemy's LR. It's turn 5.

 

Mathammer and common unit use tells you to use your attack bikes to blast the land raider. Mathammer tells you one of your bikes is going to miss, but the two hits should penetrate, and would statistically have a great chance of destroying the LR.

 

Killhammer, on the other hand, tells you that the S worth of those 3 tactical marines holding the objective is a lot greater then the worth of the LR. So great in fact, that you decide to shoot them with your attack bikes in hope that you'd kill them or at least force them to run off the objective. Statistically, you should only hit and kill 2 marines, and the last one would statistically pass his leadership test, and your bikes would be owned in the next turn by the assault terminators. However, the tactical's S worth is so big, that you will risk shooting 3 multimeltas into them and hoping you kill them - because if you succeed, it means the game will be a draw, rather then a loss for you. It doesn't matter that multimeltas are probably wasted against infantry, or that statistically there should be the 6th turn - killhammer looks at the situation as it is, and tells you that you're under a big risk of losing the game, and that you should ensure a draw as soon as possible, because there just might not be the 6th turn.

[yperihitikos]

Thanks for the replies guys! And I am still waiting for Warp Angel's answer to my question.

 

I heared about killhammer theory from my local group and they told me that maybe it is a good theory to maximize unit's efficiency, but after some games we were frustrated. We were frustrated because what it could provide us was already fullfilled by logic. In all of your examples, really good examples, you invoked killhammer but none of you used it. You defended killhammer's supremacy to other methods using plain logic.

 

Sun Tzu wrote that you should never make a front assault against a heavily armed enemy. Isn't it obvious? Yes, it is. Do you need to read his book to figure it out? No. In WWI many thousands soldiers died because the generals ordered them to storm the german trenches eventhough they knew that their soldiers would face heavy machine gun fire. There are lots of examples in history with similar human mistakes. It's all about wrong persons in vital roles.

 

Warhammer is a war-game. A good tactician can confront effectively most powergaming builts because he has good understanding of tactics. A below average player will always make the same mistakes. A good tactician doesn't need killhammer. He already owns the game. A below average player will never be able to use it effectively because he lacks tactical thinking and will never estimate correctly the S value. After all killhammer is all about S and S is subjective. However, it could be used as a Brain-Trainer for that player.

Maths are a tool of science. When bridges are built, several factors can influence the durability of the structure. Several factors are taken into account and they are introduced in the formulas as multipliers. These multipliers make sure that the structure will endure and none will die even if the load exceed the specifications. Building the bridge with the hope that the bridge will endure a 7 scale earthquake you cannnot offer much.

 

Chunky04, you called killhammer as "...an analytical philosophy, mathematics is a tool for analysis. They're two distinct but complementary entities."

Warp Angel wrote two army lists and asked which list is more efficient. If his theory is an analytical philosophy and you need to know beforehand the opponents' lists and the terrain of the "battlefield" then noone (not even Warp Angel) will ever be able to use his theory. It's brilliant only for use between player's turn when you take tactical decisions. As a result the topic is pointless from the beginning.

[Balog]

By your logic a "good tactician" doesn't need mathhammer either.

[Warp Angel]

Thanks for the replies guys! And I am still waiting for Warp Angel's answer to my question.

 

I heared about killhammer theory from my local group and they told me that maybe it is a good theory to maximize unit's efficiency, but after some games we were frustrated. We were frustrated because what it could provide us was already fullfilled by logic. In all of your examples, really good examples, you invoked killhammer but none of you used it. You defended killhammer's supremacy to other methods using plain logic.

 

Sun Tzu wrote that you should never make a front assault against a heavily armed enemy. Isn't it obvious? Yes, it is. Do you need to read his book to figure it out? No. In WWI many thousands soldiers died because the generals ordered them to storm the german trenches eventhough they knew that their soldiers would face heavy machine gun fire. There are lots of examples in history with similar human mistakes. It's all about wrong persons in vital roles.

 

Warhammer is a war-game. A good tactician can confront effectively most powergaming builts because he has good understanding of tactics. A below average player will always make the same mistakes. A good tactician doesn't need killhammer. He already owns the game. A below average player will never be able to use it effectively because he lacks tactical thinking and will never estimate correctly the S value. After all killhammer is all about S and S is subjective. However, it could be used as a Brain-Trainer for that player.

Maths are a tool of science. When bridges are built, several factors can influence the durability of the structure. Several factors are taken into account and they are introduced in the formulas as multipliers. These multipliers make sure that the structure will endure and none will die even if the load exceed the specifications. Building the bridge with the hope that the bridge will endure a 7 scale earthquake you cannnot offer much.

 

Chunky04, you called killhammer as "...an analytical philosophy, mathematics is a tool for analysis. They're two distinct but complementary entities."

Warp Angel wrote two army lists and asked which list is more efficient. If his theory is an analytical philosophy and you need to know beforehand the opponents' lists and the terrain of the "battlefield" then noone (not even Warp Angel) will ever be able to use his theory. It's brilliant only for use between player's turn when you take tactical decisions. As a result the topic is pointless from the beginning.

 

Your example of predator vs. dreadnaught is a perfect example of why mathhammer is an incomplete tool. In order to have your example work at all, you specifically excluded other units and terrain from the equation, discounted movement, and set the range.

 

A real battlefield has got multiple enemy units within range or within potential range. It has terrain. Movement matters. You've got multiple units to maneuver. 2/3 of the time, you've got objectives and scoring units to worry about.

 

Let's expand your predator vs. dread scenario to include the following:

 

Game turn 5. Two objectives.

 

Predator is on top of a hill, giving it a commanding view of the table. It is 6" to the right of an objective in its deployment zone, and has a relatively clear field of fire to pretty much anywhere on the table, except for a stand of woods taking up approximately 8" circle 7 inches diagonally towards the far left corner of the battlefield. The predator's surviving teammates are a partial tactical (6, no powerfist/heavy/special weapons left) squad hunkered down on the enemy objective, obscured by the drop pod from any direct enemy fire. The drop pod is not close enough to contest the objective.

 

The surviving enemy is a dreadnaught with no good shooting angle to the Predator's tactical squad allies, but it IS within assault distance of them. The predator's surviving friends are a partial tactical (5, no heavy/special) squad hiding in the woods.

 

Now, mathammer will tell you the odds of killing the dreadnaught if you shoot at it with the predator, and it will tell you the odds of killing/breaking the Marines.

 

It doesn't tell you what move is the right one.

- Stay static and soot the dread and hope that it isn't able to charge your Marines?

- Stay static and shoot the Marines, preventing them from hurting you back?

- Move to get within contesting distance (and likely assault distance) of the enemy tactical squad and shoot them?

- Move and shoot at the dread instead of the Marines?

- Move 12" and try and tank shock/block the enemy advance towards your objective?

 

What's the best path to victory? You can math the odds of doing damage and surviving damage, but going by those metrics only, you're likely to a) avoid damage and :turned: go for the most certain shots.

 

Since pure mathhammer says that you're more likely to get a turn 6 than to not get a turn 6, do you play for the win then or in try for turn 5? All you get with mathhammer are odds of success on d6 rolls.

 

Killhammer gives guidelines on what tactics to choose in a given situation.

 

Mathhammer tells you what your odds of successfully executing your chosen tactic are.

 

Sun Tzu was a wise man. But you can't take any one of his statements at face value without considering all of the others. You should try not to place yourself in a position where you have to make a frontal assault against a superior foe, but, like he also says, "When in death ground, fight!" Essentially saying, sometimes you don't have a choice and when that happens, you do whatever it takes and pay any price for success.

[yperihitikos]

Ok, you decided to evade again. I'm dissapointed but I can do nothing but to accept it. I wished you could express yourself with your killhammer terms, but you chose again not to. Ok, ok, we got it.

Just don't expect from others to use methods that even you don't use.

 

I understand that you don't like what I say and I hate being treated like politicians do to their audience. It was a clear question for a clear situation where a clear answer was enough. Instead of that you chose to make the example complex, you came up with more questions and finally you didn't answered even to yours with your theory. If you take a close look to math-theory you will see that when you know your objective goal and the outcome of every possible tactical decision, you can compare them and take the best. It's something you can't deny. The superiority of maths turn up when you realize that you can be informed about how much better is doing something then something else, while killhammer tells you just which one is better and not how much better. When you make a list in your home you need to know the maximum and minimum effectiveness of the list and not a general-philosophical approach. In theory everything can do anything. While it is the perfect theory to quickly correct an ingame mistake or turn a situation to your favour, it fails you to get to the edge of the game.

 

And at least stop calling it "killhammer". It has nothing to do with killing. The term you use means the art of killing in Warhammer. And as you said "Killhammer gives guidelines on what tactics to choose in a given situation." Name it something else, name it Tactichammer. It confuses the readers when you use a term that has nothing to do with the content.

[Warp Angel]

Ok, you decided to evade again. I'm dissapointed but I can do nothing but to accept it. I wished you could express yourself with your killhammer terms, but you chose again not to. Ok, ok, we got it.

Just don't expect from others to use methods that even you don't use.

 

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt for having read the original Killhammer articles and grasping the fundamentals. Please forgive my misunderstanding. I'm not evading anything.

 

Your static example of empty table pred vs. dread has no reason to use Killhammer. None. The choice is simple. You shoot them. Roll dice. See what happens. Mathhammer tells you the probability of what happens. It's not a game, it's a vacuum where math can give perfect answers.

 

My example provides a (relatively) realistic scenario for having few units left alive on the table (turn 5) and provides some targetting choices. Since you obviously don't understand the Killhammer formulas for target priority, let me explain how you might use them to choose the appropriate target.

 

Your predator has two valid target choices. The tactical squad in the woods or the dread across the table. Let's run a killhammer threat assessment.

 

The tactical squad, if you stay more than 12" away has an effective K of 0. It can't hurt you this turn. It's D is pretty high, given the number of shots you have vs. the number of models in the squad, and their ability to make saves vs. your shooting and survive any follow-on leadership checks. K 0 - D High = bad target so far.

 

The dreadnaught could hurt you, though it isn't likely to. And you've got a low chance of hurting it. It has a low K and a lower D than the tactical squad. K low - D moderate to high = moderate target so far.

 

If all you were looking to do was make a kill and avoid being killed, you shoot at the dreadnaught. The tactical squad can't hurt you if you don't close the distance, and you've got better odds of hurting the dread than you do the tactical squad.

 

But using my scenario, you've got a Situational (S) choice. And that's a purely SUBJECTIVE choice. You know the relative chances of success based upon the killhammer principles of K and D (which you can use mathhammer to figure out), but the S modifier might outweigh the math.

 

If you don't find that a useful way of analyzing a battlefield, you and I have no basis for further communication. Let's agree to disagree, shake hands, and walk away.

 

I understand that you don't like what I say and I hate being treated like politicians do to their audience. It was a clear question for a clear situation where a clear answer was enough. Instead of that you chose to make the example complex, you came up with more questions and finally you didn't answered even to yours with your theory. If you take a close look to math-theory you will see that when you know your objective goal and the outcome of every possible tactical decision, you can compare them and take the best. It's something you can't deny. The superiority of maths turn up when you realize that you can be informed about how much better is doing something then something else, while killhammer tells you just which one is better and not how much better. When you make a list in your home you need to know the maximum and minimum effectiveness of the list and not a general-philosophical approach. In theory everything can do anything. While it is the perfect theory to quickly correct an ingame mistake or turn a situation to your favour, it fails you to get to the edge of the game.

 

Your clear question was an unrealistic scenario, and the logical equivalent of an intellectual trap. The only good answers to your fixed scenario were your answers. I responded with a more likely actual game situation, making it more complex, and because that didn't give you something neat and clean, I'm the bad guy? As I said above, I gave you credit for understanding killhammer principles that you apparently didn't and avoided the repetition of formulas that I assumed you knew. As anyone who has followed killhammer for a while seems to get (and I did indicate that you should be familiar with it before reading the whole article) the use of the formula is an individual thing, since the S value is a weighted one based upon each player and situation.

 

Math tells me percentages. It tells me the chances of one outcome happening versus another. As I stated in the original killhammer article:

 

Games of Warhammer 40k are numbers games. You're using a relatively limited random number generator (the d6), in sufficient quantities that you should see statistics play out over the course of a game, and let you somewhat rely on them. Since you can somewhat rely on statistics to produce results, and have no real control over the results of the individual die results, you need to manipulate the QUANTITY of dice in your favor. This is best achieved by reducing the number of opponent dice rolls affecting your army negatively while maximizing the number of your dice rolls to continue reducing your opponent's effective number of dice. This is the basic principle of Killhammer.

 

Lots of "Mathhammer" time and discussion is dedicated to squad equipment choices, engagement ranges, and predicted assault results. It's somewhat reliable, and you can searchy it to your heart's content. It helped me in formulating the theory behind this general tactica for target priority, and certainly helps in formula application, but isn't required reading. Going back to the assumptions used in this article, everything we're talking about is subjective. Help it along with some objective criteria, but that pesky "S" value in the Killhammer formula will punch "Mathhammer" in tender places if you rely exclusively on objective criteria.

 

which I recommended you read before reading this one, I said that math was a TOOL that can be used to support killhammer. I'd love to see math give me an absolute best answer to my scenario (yours is frankly a joke as far as real games go) and tell me what the correct and proper choice is. And I'd love to see you present it in a way that a 15 year old kid without a calculator can do in a 6 turn game that he's got an hour and a half to play and still get all 6 turns in.

 

You can't. If you could, then anyone could have a quick reference sheet on hand and know in any situation what the best choice is and there would be no agonizing choices to make.

 

And as far as "getting to the edge of the game" goes... not quite sure what you mean by that, but in the original Killhammer article (you did read it, right? because it certainly doesn't seem like you have), Killhammer starts with an assessment of your army list as you build it, indicates assessment of your list and your opponent's list when you can compare them, and then indicates that you do a constant reassessment as the battle develops. If there's an "edge" of the game that I didn't cover in the original article, please let me know.

 

And at least stop calling it "killhammer". It has nothing to do with killing. The term you use means the art of killing in Warhammer. And as you said "Killhammer gives guidelines on what tactics to choose in a given situation." Name it something else, name it Tactichammer. It confuses the readers when you use a term that has nothing to do with the content.

 

From the original Killhammer article, which I have a harder and harder time believing you've actually read, the second sentence:

 

It doesn't matter what mission type you've got set up, or what the battlefield looks like. Your objective is to kill your opponent and render him ineffective in preventing you from achieving victory. You need to create a "kill gap" in your favor. This is done by creating a Killhammer assessment for every unit on the table. You need your high Killhammer units and your opponent needs fewer of theirs.

[minigun762]

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.

 

I thought I'd try to steer the conversation back to the original point Warp was trying to make.

Looking at your 3 catergories, I see something pop out to me.

A player can be successful by using sufficient numbers of 2's backed up by 1's. The reason being that the concentrated 2's serve as the first choice where as the dispersed 1's are able to function as the backup/redundant choice, thereby helping you to minimize the number of 2's you'll need.

An example is in order.

 

A drop pod filled with Sternguard with a few Combi-Melta/Plasma and a Power Fist could easily be considered a concentrated anti-tank/anti-MC squad (High K value). Using a single squad is probably good enough to remove a single target, say an Eldar Wraithlord. However since this is Killhammer and you want to stack the odds on your side as much as possible, you could support that concentrated squad with a dispersed squad of Sniper Scouts and a Heavy Bolter. This second squad is more all purpose than the Sternguards and not as effective against the Wraithlord, BUT they do have some moderate amount of killing power (medium K value).

This method allows for a cheaper option to help ensure the destruction of their unit and promote a killgap while maintaining a more balanced army because you don't have 2 specialist units.

 

Long story short, many times a high K matched with a medium/low K is the more cost effective choice instead of 2+ high K's.

 

That being said, I think most players are looking for the units of the 3rd type, but these tend to be few and far between OR they're prohibitately expensive to spam. The most obvious example in 5th Edition is the Nob Bikerz, able to take out anything and everything, they are in essence an army unto themselves. The TH/SS Terminators in a LRC are a similar example.

If you could spam these units types, you'd find making an effective army very easy and very boring. However you're best off using these uber-flexible, do anything units as either your ace in the hole when things turn south or as the spearhead of your army, creating such a killgap that the opponent is never able to recover.

[Warp Angel]

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.

 

I thought I'd try to steer the conversation back to the original point Warp was trying to make.

Looking at your 3 catergories, I see something pop out to me.

A player can be successful by using sufficient numbers of 2's backed up by 1's. The reason being that the concentrated 2's serve as the first choice where as the dispersed 1's are able to function as the backup/redundant choice, thereby helping you to minimize the number of 2's you'll need.

An example is in order.

 

A drop pod filled with Sternguard with a few Combi-Melta/Plasma and a Power Fist could easily be considered a concentrated anti-tank/anti-MC squad (High K value). Using a single squad is probably good enough to remove a single target, say an Eldar Wraithlord. However since this is Killhammer and you want to stack the odds on your side as much as possible, you could support that concentrated squad with a dispersed squad of Sniper Scouts and a Heavy Bolter. This second squad is more all purpose than the Sternguards and not as effective against the Wraithlord, BUT they do have some moderate amount of killing power (medium K value).

This method allows for a cheaper option to help ensure the destruction of their unit and promote a killgap while maintaining a more balanced army because you don't have 2 specialist units.

 

Long story short, many times a high K matched with a medium/low K is the more cost effective choice instead of 2+ high K's.

 

That being said, I think most players are looking for the units of the 3rd type, but these tend to be few and far between OR they're prohibitately expensive to spam. The most obvious example in 5th Edition is the Nob Bikerz, able to take out anything and everything, they are in essence an army unto themselves. The TH/SS Terminators in a LRC are a similar example.

If you could spam these units types, you'd find making an effective army very easy and very boring. However you're best off using these uber-flexible, do anything units as either your ace in the hole when things turn south or as the spearhead of your army, creating such a killgap that the opponent is never able to recover.

 

This article is in need of revision, and I'm going to probably steal your ideas for that future revision.

[minigun762]

This article is in need of revision, and I'm going to probably steal your ideas for that future revision.

 

You're more then welcome to Warp.

I guess I went off on a slight tangent, discussing more the idea of redundancy and that "redundancy of role" is just as viable as "redundancy of unit" (aka unit spam) if you're smart about it and can actually give you some tactical advantages by using different FOC choices or incorporating multi-taskers with specialists.

[yperihitikos]

I did read TARGET PRIORITY AND KILLHAMMER BASICS and ARMY BUILDING. I did understood the general principles and I didn't found anything useful for specific practical use. If your theory cannot be used in a clear example, I'll give you a little more complicated.

 

Objective game. Turn 5. First player (us). One autocannon heavy bolter predator next to a 3-man tactical squad with one missile launcher on an objective. On the other side, there is one double heavy flamer land speeder 10.5'' away from the tacticals with clear line of sight and has moved flat out in 4th turn. Moreover, the player owns an objective with a 3-man squad with missile launcher 27'' away from the other and some ruins between them and the two enemy units providing 4+ cover save to both.

 

-Protect your objective and remove opponent from his objective.

-66,67% there will be one more turn

-Predator against speeder 1.11 (~0.50 ramming) / against tacticals 1.26

-3-man squad against speeder 0.50 / against tacticals <0.50

-Land speeder against predator 0.17 side/ 0.33 rear / against tacticals 1.33

-3-man squad against predator 0.11 front/0.22 side/ 0.28 rear / against tacticals <0.50

-83.33% tacticals will pass their Ld test / 16.67% they will fail.

 

-If we concentrate fire on tacticals: <1.76 kills. 16.67% they will fail their Ld test.

-If we concentrate fire on speeder: 1.61 times on damage table.

-If they concentrate fire on our tacticals: 1.88 kills. 16.67% we will fail our Ld test.

 

-You've better not move away from the objective(obvious).

-Playing 6th turn more than certain.16.67% there will be 7th turn(for now, 50% if there will be next turn). So, 6th turn will more possibly decide the winner.

-If the game ends now, it's a draw. It could be a draw even if you both concentrated on tacticals. Only lack can change this.

-His tacticals can kill <0.50 and the speeder 1,33 tacticals (it is 2.66 as deadly).

-Land speeder must not use it's weapons to full effectiveness.

-Land speeder must not contest.

-Tactical manoeuvre. Predator can be used as shield for the tacticals. If it moves the effectiveness is decreased to 0.89 against the speeder.

-One tactic is to move the Predator in such way that it will cover the tacticals from the speeder leaving the missile launcher to fire to the other tacticals. And in such way that the speeder could not contest this turn. Then you shoot the speeder with the autocannon to prevent it from firing. If autocannon was not enough then you shoot with the tacticals. With 0.89 rolls it is more possible that the speeder won't shoot. Near 0.59 that it will be destroyed-stunned-immobilized. 0.15 it will lose one heavy flamer.

-Effective tactic. Everything stationary. Predator shoots the speeder. Tacticals follow. 1.07 (0.74 from predator) the speeder will not be able to contest the objective. 0.27 it will lose one flamer.

-Second effective tactic. Everything stationary. Tacticals shoot the speeder first. 0.33 the speeder will not be able to contest the objective If the job is done, the predator can shoot the tacticals.

 

-If you play with caution you take the first, if you don't want to risk a draw you take the last.

 

I would like to see the killhammer analytical approach to this example and the proposed outcome.

 

In your last quote you confirmed what I said. You named it kill-hammer because you want create a kill-gap. However, kill-gap doesn't get a defined form anywhere in the following analysis. The killing gap is increased when you kill more/lose less units then your opponent. This can be done only if you know the weapon potentials of each race. After thorough math analysis, you make a clear image of what should be used against any enemy unit and the actual effectiveness in plain numbers.

You make some examples, you see the outcome and then you assimilate them to the "tactical sense". As a result, when you play against any army you know from the beginning which unit of yours is in danger and which one of yours is the one that can confront the danger quickly and more effectively.

 

If you deny even this then I will have to agree that we disagree.

 

My tactical approach during a battle is:

-Concentrate on the mission objective (logic)

-Estimate the threatening units (quick mathhammer and "tactical sense")

-Prioritize the threats and assign them to the appropriate units (logic)

-Cover weak units (logic and act)

-Shoot and/or Assault (act)

 

If you want some more ideas to fill in your theory to make all corner tactic-based lists download some military manuals. You can find them all over the Internet.

[Paulochromis]

Do either of you (Warp/yper) play chess?

One school of thought is if you study openings and the middlegame, you never need to learn how to play the endgame, you've already established material superiority or delivered checkmate before it gets that far.

Another is that if you study middlegames and endgames, then provided you survive the opening, you're all set.

 

It turns out that the openings/middlegame approach relies a lot on memorisation, since the possbilities within the position after only just a few moves are simply too large to calculate effectively (much like the complexities of large numbers of units, terrain, etc).

On the other hand, by the time the endgame is reached, the board is much emptier, there's a lot less to cope with simultaneously, and calculation becomes a lot simpler.

 

As a relatively inexperienced player at w40K (but quite eperienced at chess) I often find myself surprised that I am still in the game come turn5/6/7, despite what seemed like horrendous setbacks earlier. I do find that my w40K endgames let me down though.

 

Without trying to make enemies here, it does seem that the Killhammer approach is rather "go for the jugular" (ie openings and middlegame).

Interestingly, yper's concrete example is very much endgame-related.

I kind of suspect that neither of you will be able to provide satisfactory answers for one another.

 

That said, I have yet to see a decent expose on last turn tricks and manoeuvres. A bit like the Checkmates 101 section in Chess for Dummies.

It might be a very useful addition to the Librarium.

 

Cheers, Paul.

[minigun762]

Do either of you (Warp/yper) play chess?

One school of thought is if you study openings and the middlegame, you never need to learn how to play the endgame, you've already established material superiority or delivered checkmate before it gets that far.

Another is that if you study middlegames and endgames, then provided you survive the opening, you're all set.

 

It turns out that the openings/middlegame approach relies a lot on memorisation, since the possbilities within the position after only just a few moves are simply too large to calculate effectively (much like the complexities of large numbers of units, terrain, etc).

On the other hand, by the time the endgame is reached, the board is much emptier, there's a lot less to cope with simultaneously, and calculation becomes a lot simpler.

 

As a relatively inexperienced player at w40K (but quite eperienced at chess) I often find myself surprised that I am still in the game come turn5/6/7, despite what seemed like horrendous setbacks earlier. I do find that my w40K endgames let me down though.

 

Without trying to make enemies here, it does seem that the Killhammer approach is rather "go for the jugular" (ie openings and middlegame).

Interestingly, yper's concrete example is very much endgame-related.

I kind of suspect that neither of you will be able to provide satisfactory answers for one another.

 

That said, I have yet to see a decent expose on last turn tricks and manoeuvres. A bit like the Checkmates 101 section in Chess for Dummies.

It might be a very useful addition to the Librarium.

 

Cheers, Paul.

 

Interesting idea there Paul, because you're discussing things on a larger level then individual tactics, but rather a player's own preferred tactical methodology. I haven't read the Checkmate 101 section but there are a few last turn tricks out there. The most used one is the fast vehicle dash and contest. With anything that can move 12+ you dash forward last turn and contest an objective.

Other options could be focus firing a particular unit to destroy them, consolidating after an assault to contest/claim an objective and blocking LoS to a key shooting unit with a sacrificial unit (Rhinos often).

 

As for what we've discussed here, I will say that personally I take some aspects of Killhammer mixed with a solid foundation of Mathhammer and then thoroughly diluted by my own personal preferrences and unit tastes.

[Paulochromis]

I take some aspects of Killhammer mixed with a solid foundation of Mathhammer and then thoroughly diluted by my own personal preferrences and unit tastes.

Shaken, not stirred, of course!

[Warp Angel]

I did read TARGET PRIORITY AND KILLHAMMER BASICS and ARMY BUILDING. I did understood the general principles and I didn't found anything useful for specific practical use. If your theory cannot be used in a clear example, I'll give you a little more complicated.

 

Okay. We have nothing to discuss. You gave me a overly simplified example that I dismissed as being overly simple and gave a more complicated, realistic scenario which utilized Killhammer formulae and indicated that the S (situational modifieer) would be up to you, and your decision would determine what the best course of action is, you responded with another, more complicated example.

 

You have yet to directly speak to my arguments or statements, have avoided my questions for you and challenges to you and have instead continued to avoid having to prove your points by declaring my responses to be invalid. I don't find this sort of discussion productive and see no reason to continue any discussion with you. Please feel free to engage in discussion with everyone else in this and other killhammer threads if you believe that you have something valuable to contribute. The whole point of these threads is to provide value to the community.

 

I've done my best to support killhammer as a philosophy and am unwilling to discuss it any further with you because I don't feel that our discussions are in any way productive and feel (whether it's your intention or not) that you're using debate and discussion tactics that avoid accountability for your positions and force me to defend mine with changing conditions against poorly defined criticisms.

 

Your original objections to Killhammer were based upon mathhammer and odds of prosecuting battle. Using mathhammer as a primary means of prosecuting battle was what I objected to. As an example of how you are moving goalposts, I'd like to point out how you define your approach (which I don't necessarily disagree with because Killhammer is a loose formula for doing just that - your quick mathhammer is the K and D ratings of a unit and tactical sense is S) in your most recent post has NOTHING to do with mathhammer.

 

My tactical approach during a battle is:

-Concentrate on the mission objective (logic)

-Estimate the threatening units (quick mathhammer and "tactical sense")

-Prioritize the threats and assign them to the appropriate units (logic)

-Cover weak units (logic and act)

-Shoot and/or Assault (act)

 

The end result is that you are working towards discrediting my philosophy by starting with one argument tactic, and when that doesn't work, presenting a different methodology while still claiming to be arguing from the same basis that you started from. You simply aren't. It's dishonest debate technique.

 

I continue to question your deep familiarity with Killhammer that I've assumed you possessed as evidenced by your insulting statement below.

 

If you want some more ideas to fill in your theory to make all corner tactic-based lists download some military manuals. You can find them all over the Internet.

 

This particular bit, I find personally offensive, and it indicates that you haven't read killhammer beyond skimming it. You essentially call me a liar by implying that I haven't done any research. I can and have done research in military manuals, taken particular inspiration from the concepts involved in OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act), getting inside your opponent's decision loop, doctrines of maneuver warfare, concentration of firepower, etc. Essentially, if you've read Killhammer like you say you have prior to having this discussion, you're calling me a liar. Please reference this post from the original Killhammer article, that you claim to have read, for some of the discussion of real world military principles behind this.

 

I don't believe that you and I can have a productive discussion at all. So I'm not going to continue to waste my time. It's sad, because I don't think, based upon your most recent post, that we are that far apart in actual playstyle.

[Warp Angel]

Do either of you (Warp/yper) play chess?

 

Not competetively in a long time.

 

One school of thought is if you study openings and the middlegame, you never need to learn how to play the endgame, you've already established material superiority or delivered checkmate before it gets that far.

Another is that if you study middlegames and endgames, then provided you survive the opening, you're all set.

 

It turns out that the openings/middlegame approach relies a lot on memorisation, since the possbilities within the position after only just a few moves are simply too large to calculate effectively (much like the complexities of large numbers of units, terrain, etc).

On the other hand, by the time the endgame is reached, the board is much emptier, there's a lot less to cope with simultaneously, and calculation becomes a lot simpler.

 

The number of permutations of a battlefield in 40k are in some small ways far more simple than chess, and in other ways a lot more complicated. The simplicity comes from the often much smaller number of elements to account for, but the complexity comes from a literally infinite number of board configuration and movement possibilities. Instead of always being successful in a given gambit, you can never actually count on success. A knight moving two spaces forward and one to the right, landing on a bishop, will always kill a bishop. An unwounded bloodthirster can lose a fight to a unit of 6 grots. Unlikely, but possible. Chess also only ends one of three ways. You get checkmated, your opponent gets checkmated, or you draw. 40k has anihilation, kill point victory, 1-0 controlled objectives, 2-0 controlled objectives, etc.

 

As a relatively inexperienced player at w40K (but quite eperienced at chess) I often find myself surprised that I am still in the game come turn5/6/7, despite what seemed like horrendous setbacks earlier. I do find that my w40K endgames let me down though.

 

Without trying to make enemies here, it does seem that the Killhammer approach is rather "go for the jugular" (ie openings and middlegame).

Interestingly, yper's concrete example is very much endgame-related.

I kind of suspect that neither of you will be able to provide satisfactory answers for one another.

 

Based upon his most recent post, yper and I seem to agree more than disagree though his argumentation style doesn't make it seem like it. Both of us rely on the ability to assess odds of success, make tactically sound decisions, and execute.

 

The reason that I advocate going for the jugular in 40k is that unlike chess, your enemy doesn't always succeed in their gambits. The odds of them succeeding are directly related to the number of successful dice they are able to roll and that you fail to save against.

 

This article was originally intended to explain some of that, but as I've said, needs some revision to reflect that.

 

If the second game turn starts with my army:

 

HQ, 3 troop, 2 troop transports, 2 heavy, 1 elite, 1 fast I have 10 elements with which to engage the enemy.

 

Assuming I'm fighting guard, they may have

 

2HQ, 8 troop, 2 troop transports, 2 fast, 3 heavy, giving them 17 elements that I need to engage and that they need to engage me with.

 

Killhammer target priority has you assess your army's ability to successfully engage their army for the greatest impact. It's not just odds of success. My thunderfire cannon is virtually guaranteed to kill a 3 model heavy weapons squad out in the open. But that heavy weapons squad may be pinned and out of command radius, and thus present zero threat during my opponent's next turn. Pure mathhammer says I should shoot and kill them becuase I'll have success, but it may be better for me to shoot through cover to engage a command squad that has a Master of Ordinance and Creed in it, because if I can do enough damage to that squad, I gain a massive advantage in later turns. I reduce my enemy's firepower for next turn and in subsequent turns, and potentially eliminate or significantly reduce their ability to create good shooting chances against my units, and keep the odds in my favor. A guard command squad is FRAGILE against S6 template weapons, even with cover. Max of 10 guys, all of which will die instantly if hit and fail their cover save. More than half of them are upgrades of some kind, and all of them could be.

 

My chances of success are lower, but my return on investment is higher. Killhammer seeks to help you make those choices, and as the original article says, uses mathhammer to help advise you on what to do.

 

More simply though, if I can kill four of my opponent's maneuver elements, stay out of range of three more, and be durable enough to ignore most of the shooting from half of the rest, my army has 5 effective units the next turn, while I should still have most of my 10. I manage that by assessing which of my opponent's units are the best targets (assessing kill potential vs. defense vs. battlefield situation) and my ability to both go after them and survive doing so, and doing my best to execute.

 

That means the next turn, my opponent may have 10 units to use against my 10 units, but 5 of them will be relatively ineffective (as an example, think guard squad with grenade launcher and heavy bolter vs. land raider), so it's really 5v10. That's a kill gap.

 

The next turn, I've got 10 against 13 (because 3 were out of range, not ineffective or dead), and might kill three, avoid two. That means that my opponent has got 8 effectives (I'm assuming ranges are closing and units can coordinate shooting) If he kills/renders three, I've got 7 to 8 at the start of my turn. I'm an elite army, so I probably still have the advantage in terms of kill capacity.

 

I should be able to eliminate 3 again (notice, my killing stays relatively consistent, I gain from closing range just like he does, despite casualties), and avoid one, he's 4 on 7... The advantage is still mine.

 

Now if I'm focusing just on odds of success (pure mathhammer), it's possible that the game is an objectives game and that his 5 surviving units are scoring units and he's on all of the objectives. That's where the S comes in. I have to acknowledge that the scoring is more important than his ability to kill me, and more important than the odds of me killing a particular unit is the NEED for me to kill the scoring ones.

 

K-D+S

 

I've been long winded, but the idea here is that it's possible in 40k to sieze the enemy by the throat early and force them to fight from a disadvantage from the get go. It preserves the number of dice you roll (increasing your total number of successes) while reducing the number of dice they get to roll (decreasing their total number of successes), while selecting the targets that have the greatest impact on my opponent's ability to prosecute the game.

 

The flip side here is that I can't say on turn 1 that the scoring units gotta go as the highest priority targets because even with the scoring units gone, my opponent can still table me or force a draw. Troops tend to be the least lethal units in an army list, so killing them first generally degrades your enemy's effectiveness more slowly than concentrating on his elites, heavies, hq, and fast attack dows.

 

I'm not necessarily satisfied with my response here, and if I've left you with questions, please ask.

[Warp Angel]

As for what we've discussed here, I will say that personally I take some aspects of Killhammer mixed with a solid foundation of Mathhammer and then thoroughly diluted by my own personal preferrences and unit tastes.

 

Which is his way of saying he uses Killhammer. :) I go out of my way to say that Killhammer is a philosophy that doesn't try to override or stamp an identity on a particular player or playstyle, merely provide a framework for evaluation of what your options are and why some of them are better than others most of the time.

 

There's no way to account for your battlefield, playstyle, enemy playstyle or army list, or any of a gazillion other factors. That's why Killhammer assessments ALWAYS have an S, to account for those thought processes.

[Resv]

I had a similar experience to what Paul has described with learning the game Go in college. I was introduced to it by one of my professors who taught me the basics and then started training me through matches. When I say training I really do mean training. The philosophy of the game is that every move one possibly make has been studied and named. It would take a life time of careful research and study to learn every move and the mathematics behind them. Instead masters spend their days watching water move over rocks and ants marching as well as studying.

 

When I first started playing I was amazed at how much like Go 40k can be. It isn't just a game about points or math. There is tons of room for philosophy as well. This is why I took to Killhammer so quickly, it gives a defined school of thought on how to approach the game but also builds up an almost instinctive quality to, at least my, play. It becomes even more like Go in a way. Move for move I'm looking for the best possible way to make a kill gap, playing for advantage rather than blunt force.

 

In short Killhammer is a Philosophy as well as a School of Tactics and should be viewed as such.

 

Mathhammer on the other hand is just math. It can give you information in the form of averages however it cannot give a frame of thought on how to use that information. So in that way Mathhammer is limited. It isn't a tactical anything other than a tool. And as a tool it never in really comes into conflict with Killhammer.

 

@yperihitikos: I applaud you for giving us averages in his scenario above it allows us a starting point. However, would it not be far simpler to look at the possible K1, K2, D1, and D2 values rather than pulling out your calculator.

 

Also If I may, you example is SUPER limited yet again. You outline a battle true enough but you place the units in your example in such away that there is only one viable answer to achieve victory, shoot down the Speeder. Doesn't matter how you do it at all. There isn't a tactic in your example, it is a blunt force observation with number attached. This amounts to yet another Intellectual Trap.

 

In your example you point out that our opponent has a 3-Man squad left holding his objective, a Land Speeder and also...

 

Moreover, the player owns an objective with a 3-man squad with missile launcher 27'' away from the other and some ruins between them and the two enemy units providing 4+ cover save to both.

 

What are these units and why are they not in your example? Because in your example these two units don't matter. Your example is only concerned with immediate survival, because as you write there is a turn 6 to worry about. The two units could be Vindicators, Whirlwinds, or Land Raiders stuffed with Terminators. Whatever these two units are however, from your example, they are too far away behind ruins and such to provide a threat to your scoring unit.

 

This is why your example is a trap, it doesn't matter what is on the rest of the field because you don't provide that information. There is no tactical decision to make. No logic other than playing for the draw or making it to turn 6. No common sense other than Heavy Flamers = Dead Marines. The answers are plain, there just happens to be numbers attached.

 

In your last quote you confirmed what I said. You named it kill-hammer because you want create a kill-gap. However, kill-gap doesn't get a defined form anywhere in the following analysis. The killing gap is increased when you kill more/lose less units then your opponent. This can be done only if you know the weapon potentials of each race. After thorough math analysis, you make a clear image of what should be used against any enemy unit and the actual effectiveness in plain numbers.

You make some examples, you see the outcome and then you assimilate them to the "tactical sense". As a result, when you play against any army you know from the beginning which unit of yours is in danger and which one of yours is the one that can confront the danger quickly and more effectively.

 

There isn't a kill gap to make in your example because it already exists. A you point out, you have a 3-Man squad and a Predator. Your opponent has a 3-man Squad, a Land Speeder, and at least 2 unknown units that could be anything. Right now your opponent has the Kill Gap in his favor and from the sounds of it has for at least a turn. Knowing your enemy is a great thing, in fact Warp Angel wrote an Article on that very subject for Guard. Just having number doesn't take into account special abilities or movement speed. Things that might make a real impact while playing the game rather than making averages and assumptions.

 

The last senetence of yours...

As a result, when you play against any army you know from the beginning which unit of yours is in danger and which one of yours is the one that can confront the danger quickly and more effectively.

is what Killhammer is all about, almost that is. As I have been learning S is one of the most important concepts in Killhammer and one of the hardest to master. Dealing with enemy units efficiently is what this article about too (HA, didn't think I could tie it all back did you!) by taloring units to be able to create an effective Kill Gap on their own. "Confronting the danger more effectively" and therefore putting your opponent at a disadvantage.