Killhammer Question - Balancing Points vs. Effectiveness

[Warp Angel]

When I started writing the Killhammer articles, I was just plain excited to share what I thought was a good way to evaluate the game, and a common lexicon for discussing units and how they were used. My goal was to, at a minimum, start people thinking and hopefully help make them better players, even if they ended up rejecting most of what I had to say or incorporating it into their own philosophy.

 

I'd like to think I succeeded. I tend to get a small number of private messages asking me questions about army lists, unit loadouts, tactics, etc. It's those messages that support my thinking that I succeeded.

 

But I'm NOT some uber 40k genius that has all the answers. I DEFINITELY have opinions though. But sometimes there's a question that I get asked that really needs to be shared so that the people who ARE uber 40k geniuses can put their two new imperial cents in.

 

Here's the most recent PM that I got:

 

Hi Warp,

 

Thanks for the excellent Killhammer articles. I've just finished reading them all twice, along with all of the follow-up discussion threads. I'm a relatively inexperienced player (on and off for 2 years), so my battlefield analysis will be limited by my knowledge of other armies' abilities, but I'm learning!

 

A big question I have has to deal with army building. In the army construction article, you bring some really good discussion to bear on filling particular roles and eliminating certain types of threads. My question is this - how do you evaluate the cost of a unit, in terms of point value, versus its effectiveness. For example, a 10-man termy squad decked with heavy weapons and a few chainfists is certainly a great killer unit, but at a cost of ~475 points, it is insanely expensive, esp. for a 1500-point game. How do you manage point cost versus killhammer rating when building a list?

 

Obviously we could mathhammer it to death and try to figure it out that way, but there are certain things that just don't shake out well in mathhammer, such as how the number of units you put on the table limits your ability to defend against multiple threats or concentrate firepower. Do you work with a guideline (this many units for this size of a game, or try to have at least two "killer" roles filled)? Or do you really just go for outright prime killiness, regardness of point cost?

 

I'm really looking forward to testing out your theories on target priority this weekend. Thanks for the obviously significant amount of work you did in putting all of this together.

 

Thanks,

Rampsputant

 

The important part of the PM that I'd like to respond to is:

 

How do you evaluate the cost of a unit, in terms of point value vs. it's effectiveness?

 

It's simple - I don't pay a lot of attention to points until I start to run out of them.

 

I sort of keep a running tally of offensive and defensive capability (Killhammer rating) for the army as a whole. Essentially, I ask myself:

 

"Is it killy enough and can it last long enough to create the kill gap and exploit it until the end game (and presumably viictory)." If it's not, I retool the list.

 

The next thing that I do is I evaluate my overall capability. Can I handle a horde army with this list? What about monstrous creatures? How do I deal with mechanization or even worse - mechanized land raiders? Do I have an answer for elite units like plague marines and terminators that require more firepower than usual to deal with? This, of course, can be tweaked based upon the army you're expecting to face. If you KNOW you're playing against guard, there's not a whole lot of reason to worry about monstrous creatures, walkers, or elite infantry, but a lot of reason to consider mech and horde.

 

Finally, I put every unit up on the chopping block and ask myself some hard questions:

 

"Is there a better or cheaper way to do this with another unit and achieve comprable results?" - A good example is a shooty bike command squad compared to a regular bike squad with a similiar weapons mix. Or by comparing jump pack equipped Vanguard to jump pack equipped Assault Squads in the role you intend to use them in.

 

"Can I shave some points from one or more units, without reducing effectiveness, to add another weapons system?" I've found that 8 assault terminators tends to be overkill, and six works just fine. That allows me 80 points more to play with and I can add attack bikes, speeders, upgrade weapons around my army, or get most of the way to a dakka predator, whirlwind, thunderfire, or basic tactical squad. Any one of those is argubly worth the loss of two terminators from a still very strong squad.

 

Although, to be honest, I ask myself these questions pretty unconsciously these days. I've done enough playing that I know my particular playstyle, and which units are most effective for it. My guess is that you'll eventually come to an instinctual understanding of your playstyle and the units that are most effective for you.

 

It's not about the points, it's about effectiveness. And by the time you've gotten to the most effective, you're probably at the most killy.

 

Using your example of a pimped out terminator squad at 475 points, you've got the ability to split into two units, good anti-horde, anti-elite, and anti-mc capability as well as fantastic anti-tank. You've got some flexibility in deployment, but your only real options are to combat squad or not to combat squad, and whether or not you'll deep strike. (Assuming no additional units).

 

Going through my process, I want to cover the same capabilities as your ten man squad:

 

If I'm looking for CC effectiveness, 10 terminators is overkill, and a lot of wasted potential. I can probably shave some models off the total and still be as effective in hand to hand, but I lose substantially in the shooting capability. I'm going to have to replace that someplace.

 

It makes sense to go back to the five basic terminators and start evaluating capability from there... In this case, I get 275 points to play with after the termies. It's a personal opinion, but I believe that terminators should ALWAYS have a Land Raider transport - that's a minimum of 240 points for the Redeemer. But I'm in love with a MM equipped Crusader at 260 points. That leaves me with 215 points left.

 

The Crusader has the potential to fire one twin linked assault cannon, a multi melta, and up to 12 twin linked bolter shots, I've already about equaled the shooting capability of a terminator squad, albeit not quite an exact match. Like the terminators, it can fire all of that and still move 6". And it can split fire on two separate targets. I'm not losing a whole lot in shooting capability.

 

Since I've got the shooting covered, there's no reason not to go whole hog into the close combat capabilities and go with assault terminators. I prefer the TH/SS, but there may be reasons to mix or go with just the claws. I'm not quite as effective as a full 10 man squad in combat, or two 5 man squads would be, but I'm also not having the same issue with overkill that I would with a single 10 man squad, and the one squad I do have is far more effective and durable in most situations than the standard terminator equivalent.

 

I've lost some killyness potential in exchange for better D, and a different (and in my opinion better) S, without sacrificing K.

 

That's better ARMY Killhammer rating, with lower individual unit Killhammer ratings.

 

It's never about one unit, it's about your army.

 

I hope that answers Rampsputant's question, and I'd love to hear how other people evaluate their units and the armies that they belong to.

[Rampsputant]

Thanks for the quick response. This is sort of what I had figured, and I have been spending the week building different lists and trying to evaulate their strengths and weaknesses. It's just difficult sometimes to figure out what the best choices are given a limited number of models (I, for example, do not own assault termies or a land raider).

 

Some of the key guidelines I'll be taking from your post include:

 

"Is it killy enough and can it last long enough to create the kill gap and exploit it until the end game (and presumably viictory)." If it's not, I retool the list.

...

Finally, I put every unit up on the chopping block and ask myself some hard questions:

 

"Is there a better or cheaper way to do this with another unit and achieve comprable results?"

...

"Can I shave some points from one or more units, without reducing effectiveness, to add another weapons system?"

 

Basically I was doing these sorts of things already, but I think I lack the experience to make the finer judgements between units. I am experienced enough to make the more obvious judgements (captain in a razorback with a command squad is generally more effective than a footslogging chapter master with a tac squad, even though both cost similar points). It's the finer judgements that are more difficult. For example, which is a stronger firebase for the same points - a 10-man dev squad or a fire support dread combined with a predator. Decked out, both options might be similar points, and arguments about effectiveness can be made both ways.

 

I suspect that the ability to make these finer judgements will come with a combination of experience and careful analysis.

 

I look forward to reading responses on army building strategies that some more experienced players have. Thanks in advance.

[minigun762]

How do you evaluate the cost of a unit, in terms of point value vs. it's effectiveness?

 

I hope that answers Rampsputant's question, and I'd love to hear how other people evaluate their units and the armies that they belong to.

 

 

I ask myself, does this unit, at this particular point value, create a valid threat to the opponent? I define a valid threat as one that has a reasonable chance of destroying/disabling its intended victims.

If so, then I keep the unit as is.

If no, then I either have to replace the unit or make it stronger.

 

Example:

3 Chaos Terminators, 1 Combi-Melta

 

Q: Does this unit create a valid threat to the opponent?

A: With a single 1 shot anti-tank weapon, this squad is not a valid threat.

Solution: Add more Combi-Meltas to increase threat.

 

The next step of this is to either expand upon the unit's original goal, if its feasible point wise or increase the effectiveness of the squad in its original goal. **

Example:

3 Chaos Terminators, 3 Combi-Melta

 

Q: Can I easily expand this unit's capabilities for a modest price?

A: Yes, if I add a 4th Terminator with a Heavy Flamer, I will have a substantial threat to infantry units for a 33% increase in the cost of the unit. Or if I add a 4th Terminator with another Combi-Melta, I will increase my anti-tank firepower by 33%, giving me more confidence in my ability destroy armor with this squad.

 

Continue doing this (with all of your units) until you reach a point where its not feasible to give them new capabilities.

Example:

4 Chaos Terminators, 3 Combi-Melta, Heavy Flamer

 

Q: Can I easily turn this into a dedicated HtH unit?

A: No, to make it a dedicated HtH unit, I would require a 5th Terminator as well as a Land Raider for transport. As this would increase the cost of the squad by more then 150%, it is not feasible to give them that capability.

 

In the end, most units and squads will find that happy middle ground where they are not naked/stock nor are they decked out with every option and piece of wargear available.

 

**This decision usually revolves around the play style of the army's owner. Do they prefer multi-purpose units or specialized squads?

[Deathwing]

I think the points vs. effectiveness argument must be a hangover from 3rd and 4th edition when victory points was still used for determining the victor. It almost required you to have units that could earn their points back at the least.

 

In this day and age of objectives and kill points the cost of the unit isn't as important as can it hold an objective, how many kill points does it give up and how many kill points can it get.

Consider something like a land speeder typhoon (codex pattern typhoon). It can't hold an objective, but it's speed allows it to contest most any objective, it only gives up one kill point (but if you set up your army correctly no one will bother ot target it) and depending on load out can easily get more than one KP back.

There are also some units, like tactical squads, that don't kill much but are essential. You need them to hold objectives, they are fairly resiliant but they can't really kill anything on their own so they lose the ability to get a KP.

 

I suppose along these lines you could have a table with three columns, one for Objective holding/contesting (+1 if the unit can do either easily, -1 if it can't), KPs the unit gives up (+1 for each KP the unit gives up and you have to take transports into account) and KPs the unit can get back (1 if it can get at least 1 back, +2 if it can get more than 1 easily, and -1 if it can't easily get a KP by itself)

 

Ideally you'd want the KPs given up to be less than the KPs gotten back (at the least even) and the Objective count to be at least +1. It's a crude way to look at army construction and the values would be very dependent on your experiences of what a unit can and cannot do. It could also be expanded to include columns for anti-infantry KPs, anti-tank KPs, anti-MC KPs, etc.

[Iron_Chaos_Brute]

I have to disagree that points vs. effectiveness is a holdover.

Making its points back certainly is, in 5th that kind of thinking hampers your ability to win.

But in points vs. effectiveness, you are judging investment (spending points) vs. return (battlefield effectiveness).

Why do you think you see so few 10 man vanguard squads with relic blades?

[Deathwing]

A vanguard squad is a perfect example (at least in my experience) of cost vs. effectiveness.

 

On paper it costs an immense amount of points (one I've seen is a 10 man squad in a Vulkan list with two Thunder hammers, two power weapons, two melta bombs and a relic blade, some 430 points I think) but it is quite effective when used properly. My opponent used heroic intervention combined with a drop pod locator beacon to drop it in the middle of my gunline and over the course of the game proceeded to destroy two tactical squads, a predator and helped with a land raider.

Points wise the unit made up it's value but only just. The big thing was that it didn't give up a kill point and gained 3 on its own. Almost won the game single-handedly for my opponent. Heck the same unit could run rampant through an Imperial Guard gun line and rack up 4 or 5 kill points before making its points value back but it will still only give up 1 kill point compared to the many it gained.

 

Could another unit have done the same thing for less? Possibly yes, possibly no. Any other deep striking assault unit has to weather the storm and might be wiped out before they get the chance to assault at the same time the vanguard might not have a locator beacon to guide them in and then scatter to god knows where.

 

Mind you this is sort of a vacuum situation as it is only considering kill point missions. In objective based missions having more units is preferable so the 430 points spent on the vanguard could be better spent on two units of something else (or even possibly more). Although with a full 10 man squad you could combat squad them upon deployment for a little more flexibility.

 

Anyways, I don't want to drag this into another 'are vanguard good?' type thread. I just think that points vs. effectiveness might be a hangover from 3rd and 4th as victory points were used to determine the victor. We should (in my opinion) think of units in terms of not getting their points back, but getting kill points or objectives (mind you it is not that big of a difference between victory points and kill points but it is a difference)

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Deathwing:

 

I'm going to have to disagree with the validity of your conclusions because of your premises. That vanguard squad only performed that well because, to put it bluntly, you were doing it wrong by having a gunline. You also didn't manage to destroy the vanguard squad, despite it being no harder to kill than any other 10 marines. If i were to play a game against an opponent who used unit X, and throughout that game i completely ignored the unit and let it rampage through my army it would look pretty powerful to me. I'm not saying this is what you did, but its the same situation. You think his vanguard squad is good because you saw it perform well. But that does't make it good, it just means that it did well once. Even grots can somtimes do really well.

 

 

On the topic of Killhammer:

 

This game has a lot of variables. Killhammer is effective, but it doesn't cover everything. For example, it doesn't really account for survivability of units, or for units that allow other units greater achievements. It does acknowledge them, but evaluating something like the value of a lash sorcerer or prince is just a bit beyond its scope (our scope?) as there are simply too many variables.

 

I like the idea of Killhammer overall, but at the same time it seems a bit pointless. For better or for worse, all the top lists in the game have been figured out. We already know the ideal roll and setup for every unit, and the best combinations of units in any given points value. If you want to know what these are, you just need to look up the recent big tournament winners.

 

The real test of killhammer is this: If you take any specific army and follow killhammer to its logical conclusion, will you be looking at a top tourny list? And if not, what adjustments need to be made and additional considerations taken into account for you to be?

[Rampsputant]

I like the idea of Killhammer overall, but at the same time it seems a bit pointless. For better or for worse, all the top lists in the game have been figured out. We already know the ideal roll and setup for every unit, and the best combinations of units in any given points value. If you want to know what these are, you just need to look up the recent big tournament winners.

 

The real test of killhammer is this: If you take any specific army and follow killhammer to its logical conclusion, will you be looking at a top tourny list? And if not, what adjustments need to be made and additional considerations taken into account for you to be?

 

I don't want to speak for you, but based on what you're saying here, I think you may have missed the point of Killhammer. Killhammer is *not* an army building technique. Killhammer is strategic approach to playing the game - namely prioritizing target acquisition in order to generate a "kill gap."

 

A lot of discussion has been generated on army building, because I think it is much easier to think about things like defense and "killyness" when you're looking at an army in a vaccuum. But that's not the end-point of Killhammer, that's the beginning. What we're talking about when we discuss killhammer in army building is - how can I construct an army to best take advantage of the principles of Killhammer?

 

I could go look up the winning tourney lists, true. I can even do that and apply the principles of Killhammer when playing such an army. (In fact, the principles of Killhammer can be applied to any army list - tournament-winning or garbage.) But why would I want to? Playing someone else's tournament-winning list just doesn't seem like much fun to me, and that's why I play - to have fun. To win, yes, but also to have fun. Also, I don't have the kind of cash needed to go out and buy all the models for a tournament-winning list! I would much rather figure out good ways to build solid armies using the models that I have that takes advantage of the decision-making strategy offered by Killhammer.

[Deathwing]

Drudge:

How do you know I was doing it wrong? It's not like I planned on all my tac squads to have their transports destroyed the same turn the vanguard squad performed their heroic intervention. Admittedly I probably should have targetted the locater beacon drop pod as soon as it dropped but he had a lot of dreadnoughts (5 in total) coming towards my stuff. His list was designed to keep the pod alive by presenting other more killy targets (at least more killy at first glance) which allowed him to deploy his really killy unit right in to the soft side of my army. Remember a unit doesn't exist in a vacuum by itself so why should its effectiveness be judged that way?

 

The reason I didn't focus on killing the squad? Simple, there were other things that needed attention (like his 5 dreadnoughts) and I couldn't deal with it with what I had on my side of the board (my melee units on the other side of the board dealing with opponent's shooty stuff, vindicator couldn't get a bead on them as they were in combat on my turn, they hid out of sight behind my wrecked land raider, etc.). On a positive note for myself, it was the only squad left on his side and it was down to 4 marines if I recall and I still won the game because my other units created a big enough kill gap.

The vanguard may not have killed more points than it was worth, but as long as it can at least gain one kill point more than it gives up it is worth it given the new victory conditions for annihilation. Again back to can the unit I am using get more KPs than it gives up?

 

As I said, there probably are other units that can do the same job and probably at a cheaper price but used properly you just need to ensure the unit you choose gains more KPs than it gives up (at least in KP missions). This goes along with what the rest of the army has in it. i.e. The locator beacon on the drop pod ensured a safe drop for the heroic intervention in the middle of my lines and in killhammer terms increased one of its K and D values (I think I'm using the right terms).

 

The huge point sink unit considered by itself is just that, a huge point sink. Consider what other units you have in your army and that huge points sink will be something better (should be something better otherwise your army construction isn't focused enough). It does no good to add units without considering how much synergy they have with the rest of your army. That is what can help you evaluate the effectiveness of each unit. Remember, units don't exist by themselves so their effectiveness should not be judged that way.

 

One thing no one has mentioned either is that play testing a list is incredibly valuable as it can sometimes show you synergies that you didn't see (some combinations are better vs. some armies) or show you that some of the synergies you thought were there aren't actually there (some combinations aren't that great vs. some armies). This will also give you a base of experience so that you can answer the questions that Warp Angel poses more effectively.

[thade]

My opponent used heroic intervention combined with a drop pod locator beacon to drop it in the middle of my gunline and over the course of the game proceeded to destroy two tactical squads, a predator and helped with a land raider.

 

Deathwing: your friend broke the rules if he assaulted after deepstriking with a drop pod. Vanguard can only use Heroic Intervention (assault the turn they deepstrike) if they are using jump packs.

[Skoby]

My opponent used heroic intervention combined with a drop pod locator beacon to drop it in the middle of my gunline and over the course of the game proceeded to destroy two tactical squads, a predator and helped with a land raider.

 

Deathwing: your friend broke the rules if he assaulted after deepstriking with a drop pod. Vanguard can only use Heroic Intervention (assault the turn they deepstrike) if they are using jump packs.

You're right they cannot assault afterusing a drop pod, but he meant that they used the locator beacon upgrade to allow them to deepstrike without scattering.

[Giga]

Another important part of the effectiveness vs points, is the general theme/strategy you intend to employ with your army.

 

Look at a unit, and ask yourself; does it complement the rest of my army, and the general game plan I want to pull off? This can be more important than its points value.

 

 

 

An example of this would be a drop podded sternguard squad with combimeltas. Sternies in DP sure as hell are a good way to murder big vehicles in the first turn. They aren't too expensive (~200 pts, together with the drop pod), and they can potentially cripple the enemy's army early on by popping or immobilizing key vehicles, such as land raiders.

 

However, put this sternguard unit into a Khan outflanking list. Suddenly, this unit's efficiency vs points value rapidly worsens simply because the other elements of the army wont be able to properly assist the sternguard. Hence you ditch the sternguard, and spend the points on something that would instead be more efficient for your general strategy/theme at hand (such as attack bikes, since these can outflank along the rest of the army, and do the same job of melta-ing vehicles).

 

Look on this as sort of the list-making S value. :lol:

[Rampsputant]

Just wanted to post a little note - I played two games this weekend with my revised "killhammered" lists and won soundly both games. The first game was against a tau player. The second was a kill points game vs necrons - I tabled them on turn 4.

 

I'm interested in army list feedback. What do you think I could have done better with my available models - you can see the list and comment here.