Killhammer Strategy: Heavy and Special Weapons

[minigun762]

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.

 

I will say that for me, the element from Killhammer that has most strongly effected my gameplay is this:

Before you can take to the battlefield, you need to understand the intended role of every unit in your army and (regretfully) assess the impact losing it will have on your army. This is the Grim Darkness of the Far Future, and the rules are set up so that everything can die. This means that it will. This lets you assess the risks that you're willing to take to manipulate the enemy to fighting the way that you want it to, and also what units are more expendable than others.

Even though this is a game with plastic soliders and I play Chaos where sacrifice and risk go hand in hand, I had a hard time grappling with the idea that I might lose 50% of my army at the end of any single turn. However the focus has now shifted to "if I can trade 50% of my army for 60% of my opponents, then its a fair trade for me".

It brings me to another quote, this one from Band of Brothers but that I think is quite appopriate:

the only hope you have is to accept the fact that your already dead, the sooner you accept that , the sooner you'll be able to function as a soldier supose to function without mercy, without compassion. without remorse. all war depends on it

If you accept that any of your units can die at anytime, it makes using them and losing them easier and won't distract you from the battle at hand.

So when your opponent gets a few lucky shots and down goes your Land Raider Crusader packed with Terminators and a Special Character, don't get frusturated. Instead re-evaluate the battlefield and make him pay for it.

[Vaaish]

I've been monitoring the discussion in these killhammer threads and I think that most of this boils down to a problem of abstract versus concrete. Killhammer is a very abstract in application contrary to the mathematical concreteness of, well, mathammer. Warp Angel starts by telling you that all the values in his "formula" are fuzzy and tops it off with a get out of jail free card known as "S" that can be used however you see fit to bend the rest of the concept to whatever situation is required. Personally, I think the whole thing is smoke and mirrors that just serves to muddy the underlying ideology which seems to be based around a form of economy of force. In any regard, the formula is moot since the real determining factor behind the whole thing is "S". I digress. Ignore the formula, examples and understand that "kill gap" is a misnomer and I think that it clears quite a bit up.

 

The primary concept seems to be "do what it takes to make sure you always roll more dice to hit and wound and your opponent rolls less" in order to better your odds of eliminating more of what your opponent needs to win than he can of yours. This seems to be what Warp Angel is calling a "kill gap" though it has more in common with maintaining a favorable balance of power than actually killing models. Since the battlefield is fluid, you have to constantly reassess the situation to determine what the best course of action is to bring this about. The second concept seems to be kill what will hurt you the most and protect what you need the most without violating the primary concept. The third concept seems to be "expect losses, but pick what you lose" since you know what is expendable, throw that in to the grinder or make it look more tempting to get your opponent to shoot at it instead.

[Warp Angel]

I've been monitoring the discussion in these killhammer threads and I think that most of this boils down to a problem of abstract versus concrete. Killhammer is a very abstract in application contrary to the mathematical concreteness of, well, mathammer. Warp Angel starts by telling you that all the values in his "formula" are fuzzy and tops it off with a get out of jail free card known as "S" that can be used however you see fit to bend the rest of the concept to whatever situation is required. Personally, I think the whole thing is smoke and mirrors that just serves to muddy the underlying ideology which seems to be based around a form of economy of force. In any regard, the formula is moot since the real determining factor behind the whole thing is "S". I digress. Ignore the formula, examples and understand that "kill gap" is a misnomer and I think that it clears quite a bit up.

 

The primary concept seems to be "do what it takes to make sure you always roll more dice to hit and wound and your opponent rolls less" in order to better your odds of eliminating more of what your opponent needs to win than he can of yours. This seems to be what Warp Angel is calling a "kill gap" though it has more in common with maintaining a favorable balance of power than actually killing models. Since the battlefield is fluid, you have to constantly reassess the situation to determine what the best course of action is to bring this about. The second concept seems to be kill what will hurt you the most and protect what you need the most without violating the primary concept. The third concept seems to be "expect losses, but pick what you lose" since you know what is expendable, throw that in to the grinder or make it look more tempting to get your opponent to shoot at it instead.

 

The first part of the original killhammer deals with assessing the kill potential and defensive potential of your units and your enemy's units in a vacuum... you aren't using K or S. When putting together a list, that's really all you've got to work with. The S doesn't come until later.

 

I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, but Killhammer uses Mathhammer to determine a baseline for unit effectiveness. It values it as a tool. Go back and read this thread, see the quotes from the original article, look at what I've got to say. And yes, S is a potential 'trumps all' concept. But if you're actually trying to use S as a calculation factor, you have a methodology for determining whether it really is a 'trumps all' concept, or if you're fooling yourself. Is the scoring potential of squad X really worth more than the killing power of squad Y? Which is the target I need to eliminate more?

 

The kill gap isn't an "I'm killing more models than you", it's about maintaining a gap in "killing potential" in your favor. Kill gap isn't a misnomer, it's maybe not as clear to you as it is to me when I wrote it. Consider Kill Gap a shortened form of "Killing potential gap" (to use your words, favorable balance of power) and the misnomer you see shouldn't cause any more issues.

 

If you go back and put kill gap in context with that clarification, you'll see that we're talking about the same thing. This should me most true if you look into the article on close combat (linked in my sig), where I emphasize that overkill isn't always the best solution for creation of a kill gap.

[Vaaish]

The first part of the original killhammer deals with assessing the kill potential and defensive potential of your units and your enemy's units in a vacuum... you aren't using K or S. When putting together a list, that's really all you've got to work with. The S doesn't come until later.

My point is it doesn't matter when "S" comes, just that it's there and it's a trump card that you use as a crutch to say well it works because it's subjective. If something is subjective, it's not really helping provide a concrete reason for taking or determining a particular actions utility much less teaching others how best to approach a tactical situation. Everything about killhammer is relative to the skill of the player and does little to help a weaker player learn to better play the game. It just gives him a more complicated approach to make bad tactical decisions since he's setting the values to begin with (this is the K and D) and even if he does get them right, he can still fail by the "S" trump card.

 

I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, but Killhammer uses Mathhammer to determine a baseline for unit effectiveness. Go back and read this thread, see the quotes from the original article, look at what I've got to say.

Never disputed this, I said killhammer is abstract and mathammer is concrete. Do you disagree? As I already stated I've been following the various killhammer threads and I've read through this one in it's entirety as well. I've thought this through for some time before commenting on any of the theories you've put out under the killhammer brand.

 

If you go back and put kill gap in context with that clarification, you'll see that we're talking about the same thing.

I know we are talking about the same thing. I was attempting to clarify things by removing the term "kill" since yper seems to be taking it as a literal difference in models killed on each side.

[minigun762]

I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, but Killhammer uses Mathhammer to determine a baseline for unit effectiveness. Go back and read this thread, see the quotes from the original article, look at what I've got to say.

Never disputed this, I said killhammer is abstract and mathammer is concrete. Do you disagree? As I already stated I've been following the various killhammer threads and I've read through this one in it's entirety as well. I've thought this through for some time before commenting on any of the theories you've put out under the killhammer brand.

 

I know its not your intention Vaaish, but comparing concrete to abstract makes it seem like Killhammer is weaker or less useful then Math-hammer.

 

It would probably be more appropriate to say that Math-Hammer is a tool where as Killhammer is a mindset/methodology.

 

Another way to look at it would be the difference between military tactics and military strategy.

 

As for this actual topic, Warp Angel, are you still going to revisit it? Because we're definately gotten off track.

If you do, you may want to expand it past weapon selection and turn it into more about unit roles and their interaction with each other (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts kinda thing).

[yperihitikos]

Reply to Warp Angel:

 

Ok, this is my last post in this killhammer thread. It is clear that you do not want to answer with killhammer terms (and I mean plain and killhammer analysis) to any example. :(

 

Your problem with the first example I gave you to analyze it was the lack of terrain and other units. Then I gave you a complicated-critical example and you didn't answer again. And you keep concentrating on the theoritical side of the problem. I hope that you didn't do it on purpose. It is true that I have tried to press you a little because I find it purposeless to refer to a theory and never use it. If it was so clear than there should have been someone until now that could answer. That's why I concentrated on you. If there is one person that possesses best a theory's basis this one is its creator and what I was expecting it was that I would get a clear answer from you. :)

 

In order to support yourself, you presented your theory as a theory that can't be used for simple examples, but only in complex situations. It is ironic that everyone can find at least one such numeral example in your articles. If you don't remember where, than you can go, for example, to your target priority article where you yourself applied killhammer on units. No terrain, no turns, no range. You used just isolated unit examples. Are you satisfied now? Is it waste of time to answer sincerely to your readers? :cuss

 

Please, don't be so melodramatic. :cuss The word "liar" has nothing to do with the lack of thorough reading. Liar is whoever doesn't tell the truth. As a Reserve Officer I had the chance to study military science thoroughly. With this knowledge in mind I told you that you can deepen more to the whole concept. There are potentials waiting to be explored. OODA is a usefull "quick" guide but not unique. ;)

 

In conclusion, I totally agree with the idea to force your opponent to fight from a disadvantage from the beginning. That's why I prefer shooty armies, fast moving units and spamming them. You can even lead the opponent to make his deployment in such way that he won't be able to take advantage of his hard shooting/hitting because of the fear to lose them.

 

 

Reply to Resv:

 

Sorry for my writing. I wanted to emphasize that both tactical squads take cover save due to ruins placed between them. There is only one tactical squad in each side. What killhammer analysis did you make to decide that the example is a trap? Land speeder is the obvious target if you wanna risk a Draw. Not all players are willing to risk a draw. What matters is to prioritize the targets best, minimizing the threat while maximizing the possibilities to win. I'm good in Mathhammer. That's why I gave the example to you guys with all the Mathhammer analysis behind the possible decisions, because you are more familiar to killhammer than me (that's what I believed). I can analyze simple examples with general killhammer, but in more complex examples as mine, I'm too affected from Mathhammer to ignore it and take objective decisions bazed on a theory that hasn't convinced me.

[Resv]

@yperihitikos:

 

It is quite the trap mate and a very narrow example to boot.

 

I can analyze simple examples with general killhammer, but in more complex examples as mine, I'm too affected from Mathhammer to ignore it and take objective decisions bazed on a theory that hasn't convinced me.

 

Your example is VERY SIMPLE mate. It isn't complicated in the slightest, it harps back at you first example of the Dreadnought and the Predator. You chose to make it complicated via your averages. The two option available are not hard to understand. There is a Land Speeder that has an excellent chance of taking out Marines and providing a challenge. You did say that this was turn 5 and in your example we are going first for the turn. Your own averages give us good odds on a turn 6 do they not? What if you manage to take out the Land Speeder on your turn, then come turn 6 fire upon the remaining Marines? What happens if you take out the Land Speeder just with your Predator before your Marines have a chance to fire?

 

Risking a draw? Really? I would imagine a draw would be better than playing for a win and blowing it. You have a good tactical situation to either force the draw or possibly winning in another turn rather than taking a major risk. A risk that I thought the averages you supply are suppose to help prevent. I would think in Killhammer terms this would be evident, engaging a high K unit in immediate reach.

 

Killhammer never dictates anywhere that you should always engage your opponents scoring units. It also never dictates that you take unnecessary risks just for kills (despite the name Killhammer).

 

I have to side with Warp Angel on this line of thought now, we need to move on. In a way I am a little disappointed that I even replied to this particular post. Furthering us from our intended topic. Yperihitikos I invite you to start a new thread where we can take this debate and explore it in detail.

 

Back on subject!

[Warp Angel]

Please, don't be so melodramatic. :P The word "liar" has nothing to do with the lack of thorough reading. Liar is whoever doesn't tell the truth. As a Reserve Officer I had the chance to study military science thoroughly. With this knowledge in mind I told you that you can deepen more to the whole concept. There are potentials waiting to be explored. OODA is a usefull "quick" guide but not unique. ;)

 

Aaaaand you ignore the rest of what I said about OODA being one of the sources of inspiration, not THE source. Dirty debate technique again, focusing in on and replying to PART of what I said, and making it seem like it's the ONLY thing that I've said. This is why we can't disucss this.

 

Congrats on your Reserve Officer status. I've spent four years active duty time in the United States Marine Corps. I don't believe that either of our qualifications make us any better or worse qualified to talk about tactics on a 4x6 table, in a game bereft of logistics, intelligence, and a true three dimensional battlespace. Though if it helps you to think so, please feel free to believe that.

[robdark1]

wow why are do people dont read the simple think that he trying to get across that it about keep you stuff alive while kill there units. the thing that warp angel keep getting at it you dont need alot of math or complex game play just know what your have in your list when you play. games are of blance and correcting you own problems thought games and researching what style you like play your self. most people agure or debate about what is the most useful unit in the game. every artice i read form warp angel tell me that the last 7 years of playing 40k was right on the money just that the system never fit my play style.

now as for the artice that i reading heavy and special weapons are needed to fill out the role of a unit requre YOU to play.aka heavly bolter and plasma gun.

or missle launcher flamer. each weapons option have there own kill points or defnese points depending on what the unit is suppose to do. that were i can up with one working there you ether going to be cc anti inf anti armor or specail killing combat unit that just kill everything really well.

the sames goes for shooting kill gap really depends on adding for a different post here everything comes done to how many unit do you want have the same thing. to much of one thing is bad depending on what it is . i would rather have some concetation in this section because there is were most people lose there army warp angel put it many time over the last 9 killhammer artices.

 

god i wish i could write what he types that would help me out so much. and in the end gamers are always going to debate over what is the better stragtegy for other people to use instead of them selfs, as i played an army that did not follow the princilpe i wanted in the end...

[Joshta]

Yper-I like food so here is my 20 word thing.

 

Killhammer does not replace mathhammer, killhammer is the use of logical thoughts to figure out what your going to do.

[Consul of Scorpions]

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.

 

Actually... having the focused tac squads is a good idea, especially if the enemy decides to evacuate the preferred targets from range, that's making him react to you, which is one of the fundamental principles of the Art of War, dictating the flow of battle.

 

So, maybe your tank killers have no tanks to kill because they all ran away, but that means part of the battlefield is devoid of tanks... are you following my logic here, so then you can move any mobile infantry killers, like say a double flamer tornado and roast anything unprotected with one and set up for a super BBQ the next turn if the enemy doesn't respond.

 

Similarly, if your flamer/HB squad is repelling enemy assaults by dint of them being killy, then you're doing just as much as if that flamer had been used in the same shooting phase as the HB and gives your 'action squads' room to maneuver.

 

However, I do see the point in having land speeders multi-tasked since they are fragile units that benefit from moving around. but there's something to be said from presenting a squadron of HF/HF LS to the enemy; the enemy will, according to the peanut gallery, focus a lot of firepower to take them out early. This is in and of itself a victory since it draws a disproportionate amount of valuable firepower away from the rest of your elements and is the same error on the enemy's part as evacuating from the MG/MM squad, that is reacting to your movements and giving you space to maneuver.

 

If you plan your army solely to mitagate loss of effect upon taking casualties, you're at a disadvantage already by unfocusing your fire control. Focused units make effective battlefield elements and distracting targets, a double-plus IMO. The only thing you need is to not spend too much on extras and increase redundancy by making multiple focused squads of the same role-type and target preferrence.

 

===

 

Personally, I tend to like missiles for their sheer flexibility and general ability to affect anything on the battlespace, but I can definately say that sort of thing is best for a middle-field firebase that needs to hit anything that threatens its airspace as well as being good for scoring units as they will need to be adaptable while remaining in a static position. Anything else, I think, is probably best at being specialised for a particular task or enemy.