Double units in army...why?

[Grendelsbane]

Ok...I've seen many people highly recommend that if you take a dread or almost any vehicle you should take doubles. I suppose this is for redundancy....but is there any other reason?

 

I mean does it really matter if you get 2 predators vs a predator and a dreadnought for the same points?

[spartan249]

No real reason. Some of us are OCD and like to see symmetry in our lists. Do whatever you want, as long as it gets the job done.

[Dremen]

Its to force a choice. If you have say a Dread with CCW and an Assault cannon and one Pred with Autocannon and HB sponsons you can choose which is the threat to your current setup and kill it off first. But two dreads or two preads, seperated on the board. Which do you kill? Eliminating one doesnt eliminate the threat.

 

Least thats my logic to it.

[Corby]

Ok...I've seen many people highly recommend that if you take a dread or almost any vehicle you should take doubles. I suppose this is for redundancy....but is there any other reason?

 

I mean does it really matter if you get 2 predators vs a predator and a dreadnought for the same points?

 

Dremen is pretty much spot on.

 

 

It increases the surviability of said units. ie. you've two predators with an autocannon turret and lascannon sponsons. your opponent has to then choose which he wants to fire at (Which is opportunity cost in a grey area , as your opponent must fire at predator 1 or predator 2 and thus by firing at predator 1 wastes his resources to fire at predator 2 and vice versa. ) , weighing up the possible benefits of destroying each one relative to its posistion on the table top or he can split his fire between the two in hoping to render both ineffective which in turn dilutes his chance of destroying one.

 

Where as your example of the predator and a dreadnought , your opponent no longer has the same level of opportunity cost , as the decision to shoot at one unit is more black and white with more obvious results yielded from shooting at either the predator or the dreadnought.

[maturin]

It increases the surviability of said units. ie. you've two predators with an autocannon turret and lascannon sponsons. your opponent has to then choose which he wants to fire at (Which is opportunity cost in a grey area , as your opponent must fire at predator 1 or predator 2 and thus by firing at predator 1 wastes his resources to fire at predator 2 and vice versa. ) , weighing up the possible benefits of destroying each one relative to its posistion on the table top or he can split his fire between the two in hoping to render both ineffective which in turn dilutes his chance of destroying one.

 

 

I've never really understood this logic. Having 2 predators doesn't increase their AV, doesn't give them cover (a la squadron rules), and certainly doesn't decrease the amount of incoming fire from your opponent as a whole. Presumably your opponent will do what I do when faced with multiple vehicles - shoot the greatest threat until it's dead, and shift fire to the second greatest threat....etc. And if I can't decide which is the greatest - it doesn't really matter. A dead vehicle is still dead. Certainly don't rely on this plan to somehow confuse your opponent into making a mistake - any good opponent will have already prioritized his targets regardless of whether they're "identical" units or not. Just think - when you face 2 Fire Prisms, or 2 Leman Russes, or 2 of anything- are you somehow suddenly paralyzed with indecision?

 

This thinking would be valid if fire had to be declared before results were rolled, allowing some fire to be "wasted" on a dead unit - but that's not how it works. You can fire at something until it's dead, then shift fire. No opportunity cost there.

 

 

Now, the more vehicles you have, the more you WILL potentially overload your opponent's AT assets. So having 2 preds instead of one is good, and 3 is better than 2. Add in lots of rhinos - even better. But that's more of a overall concept and doesn't restrict you to identical units in any way.

 

What having identical units in your list WILL enhance the reliability of your own battle plan against mishaps. Let's say your plan is to have a vindi charge into your opponent's face, covered by a combipred. Certainly having 2 of each of those units (were that possible) would increase the chances of that plan working in the face of enemy fire. But now the opportunity cost is your own - you've decreased the flexbility of your force to enhance reliability. For example, by giving up that assault dread for an identical predator, you've lost the ability (for example) to guard your backfield and lock up an outflanking enemy unit in CC.

 

I see identical units as having a cost and benefit like any other decision in this game - but it's not about individual unit survivability. It's about durability of your battle plan, at the cost of flexibility. This suits some people's playstyles, and not others.

[Corby]

It increases the surviability of said units. ie. you've two predators with an autocannon turret and lascannon sponsons. your opponent has to then choose which he wants to fire at (Which is opportunity cost in a grey area , as your opponent must fire at predator 1 or predator 2 and thus by firing at predator 1 wastes his resources to fire at predator 2 and vice versa. ) , weighing up the possible benefits of destroying each one relative to its posistion on the table top or he can split his fire between the two in hoping to render both ineffective which in turn dilutes his chance of destroying one.

 

 

I've never really understood this logic. Having 2 predators doesn't increase their AV, doesn't give them cover (a la squadron rules), and certainly doesn't decrease the amount of incoming fire from your opponent as a whole. Presumably your opponent will do what I do when faced with multiple vehicles - shoot the greatest threat until it's dead, and shift fire to the second greatest threat....etc. And if I can't decide which is the greatest - it doesn't really matter. A dead vehicle is still dead. Certainly don't rely on this plan to somehow confuse your opponent into making a mistake - any good opponent will have already prioritized his targets regardless of whether they're "identical" units or not. Just think - when you face 2 Fire Prisms, or 2 Leman Russes, or 2 of anything- are you somehow suddenly paralyzed with indecision?

 

This thinking would be valid if fire had to be declared before results were rolled, allowing some fire to be "wasted" on a dead unit - but that's not how it works. You can fire at something until it's dead, then shift fire. No opportunity cost there.

 

 

Now, the more vehicles you have, the more you WILL potentially overload your opponent's AT assets. So having 2 preds instead of one is good, and 3 is better than 2. Add in lots of rhinos - even better. But that's more of a overall concept and doesn't restrict you to identical units in any way.

 

What having identical units in your list WILL enhance the reliability of your own battle plan against mishaps. Let's say your plan is to have a vindi charge into your opponent's face, covered by a combipred. Certainly having 2 of each of those units (were that possible) would increase the chances of that plan working in the face of enemy fire. But now the opportunity cost is your own - you've decreased the flexbility of your force to enhance reliability. For example, by giving up that assault dread for an identical predator, you've lost the ability (for example) to guard your backfield and lock up an outflanking enemy unit in CC.

 

I see identical units as having a cost and benefit like any other decision in this game - but it's not about individual unit survivability. It's about durability of your battle plan, at the cost of flexibility. This suits some people's playstyles, and not others.

 

It increases it surviability by diluting the amount of anti-tank firepower coming towards it. The more your opponent fires at predator A to secure its demise the less fire left for predator B and the rest of your army to take.

 

At least thats how I see.

[maturin]

It increases it surviability by diluting the amount of anti-tank firepower coming towards it. The more your opponent fires at predator A to secure its demise the less fire left for predator B and the rest of your army to take.

 

At least thats how I see.

 

 

Well sure - as I said, the more armor you have in your list, the more likely you are to overwhelm your opponent's AT capabilities.

 

But that doesn't help Predator A's chances of survival any if your opponent chooses to focus fire on it first. Let's say I've got 6 lascannons in my army and you've got one predator. I'm going to lascannon it until it's dead, if I deem it to be threat #1. Now let's say you've got two identical predators - A and B. If I deem predator A to be the greatest threat, I'm STILL going to shoot it with lascannons until it's dead. It won't take me any more or less lascannon shots to kill Predator A if it's alone or not. And I'm not going to split my fire "just because" they're identical units. If anything, having 2 preds to shoot at ensures that all my lascannons will have a target in clear LOS, thus decreasing their survivability. :)

 

 

After it dies, you've got Predator B, sure - but you always have to consider what you're giving up in return for the reliability of having duplicates in your list.

[chaplain belisarius]

i find a pair of anything is much more effective-1 vindicator scares the enemy and gets hammered with anti tank fire, achieving little. 2 or 3 vindis are able to survive long enough to fire their "massive gun of doom!"

 

hope this helped...:)

[Iron Father Rik]

It increases it surviability by diluting the amount of anti-tank firepower coming towards it. The more your opponent fires at predator A to secure its demise the less fire left for predator B and the rest of your army to take.

 

At least thats how I see.

 

 

Well sure - as I said, the more armor you have in your list, the more likely you are to overwhelm your opponent's AT capabilities.

 

But that doesn't help Predator A's chances of survival any if your opponent chooses to focus fire on it first. Let's say I've got 6 lascannons in my army and you've got one predator. I'm going to lascannon it until it's dead, if I deem it to be threat #1. Now let's say you've got two identical predators - A and B. If I deem predator A to be the greatest threat, I'm STILL going to shoot it with lascannons until it's dead. It won't take me any more or less lascannon shots to kill Predator A if it's alone or not. And I'm not going to split my fire "just because" they're identical units. If anything, having 2 preds to shoot at ensures that all my lascannons will have a target in clear LOS, thus decreasing their survivability. :)

 

 

After it dies, you've got Predator B, sure - but you always have to consider what you're giving up in return for the reliability of having duplicates in your list.

 

But then once you've taken all your AT to eliminate predator A, predator B turns around and shoots you. So while you did everything you could to eliminate the threat imposed by predator A, it doesn't actually save your unit because the other predator then drives over and shoots you in place of predator A shooting you.

 

2 tanks are thrice as good as 1 tank. There is twice as much firepower and also twice as much to kill. Works out more than twice the threat.

[Hellios]

It increases it surviability by diluting the amount of anti-tank firepower coming towards it. The more your opponent fires at predator A to secure its demise the less fire left for predator B and the rest of your army to take.

 

At least thats how I see.

 

 

Well sure - as I said, the more armor you have in your list, the more likely you are to overwhelm your opponent's AT capabilities.

 

 

Not entirely true.. It is about having enough of the right armour... For example If I have 2 Leman Russ Battle Tanks and add 3 chimeras I probably haven't helped my Leman Russ Battle tanks survive... However if I have two Hydras and add three Chimeras I have now helped them all because the same weapons will be used on all of them while a lot of the weapons that will kill chimeras won't touch a russ so no one is going to shoot at them anyway. So if I can force you to shoot at 2 AV 13 facings their is a better chance of them surving compared to two vehicles with one AV12 facing and the other having an AV13 facing... although I admit it often isn't isn't a huge difference.

 

There is also threat range if I know one of your tanks can't shoot me next turn I may as well pop the other tank and then focus on the tank that can't hurt me now the turn after. I don't know if you have ever played against a mech list where rather than trying to destroy the enemy you just tried to stun/shake as many of his vehicles as possible and if you did better that was a bonus.... It is that kind of thing. It might not be such a big issue with marines but when you have armies that put out more dakka it can be.

[Corby]

It increases it surviability by diluting the amount of anti-tank firepower coming towards it. The more your opponent fires at predator A to secure its demise the less fire left for predator B and the rest of your army to take.

 

At least thats how I see.

 

 

Well sure - as I said, the more armor you have in your list, the more likely you are to overwhelm your opponent's AT capabilities.

 

But that doesn't help Predator A's chances of survival any if your opponent chooses to focus fire on it first. Let's say I've got 6 lascannons in my army and you've got one predator. I'm going to lascannon it until it's dead, if I deem it to be threat #1. Now let's say you've got two identical predators - A and B. If I deem predator A to be the greatest threat, I'm STILL going to shoot it with lascannons until it's dead. It won't take me any more or less lascannon shots to kill Predator A if it's alone or not. And I'm not going to split my fire "just because" they're identical units. If anything, having 2 preds to shoot at ensures that all my lascannons will have a target in clear LOS, thus decreasing their survivability. :)

 

 

After it dies, you've got Predator B, sure - but you always have to consider what you're giving up in return for the reliability of having duplicates in your list.

 

But then once you've taken all your AT to eliminate predator A, predator B turns around and shoots you. So while you did everything you could to eliminate the threat imposed by predator A, it doesn't actually save your unit because the other predator then drives over and shoots you in place of predator A shooting you.

 

2 tanks are thrice as good as 1 tank. There is twice as much firepower and also twice as much to kill. Works out more than twice the threat.

 

 

This. If you deem predator A to be threat number 1 , then should PredatorB with an identical loadout to predator A not be threat number 1 as well?

[maturin]

@Chaplain Belisarius - yes, of course 2 or 3 vindis is better than one. But the cost involved....and your own opportunity cost are quite high. If nothing else, the first vindi has served to draw fire from your other units.

 

@Iron Father - I would say that your argument has made the case that 2 predators is better than one, and not much more. Your opponent has killed one, and faces the return fire of the other predator. But in the case where you only have one predator, you've failed to take into account that your opponent still faces return fire from whatever other unit you spent the ~120 points on instead of the predator. So not quite as unequal a match as you've described.

 

@Helios - I entirely agree with you. I just didn't want to break it down to that level as it's not the main point of the OP, I think. You do have to choose the armor composition of your force carefully to effectively dilute AT fire.

 

@Corby - it depends on where each predator is, as the tactical situation will usually make one pred more of a threat than another. And if they're in the same place, it doesn't matter which one I kill first. The point is that Predator A will have an equal chance to die to whatever AT assets I have, regardless if it's accompanied by its twin or not.

 

 

I understand where most of the posts are coming from, I think. But what most of the arguments fail to take into account is the cost of adding these duplicate units in to the list. Of course 3 vindis are better than one, and will increase your chance of causing some damage to your foe. Well why not take 6? Or 20? Heck, why not take 100 Land Raiders filled with TH/SS termies to distract your enemy's AT fire from your lone dakka pred? I exaggerate, of course, but the point is that few people address the opportunity cost to YOU, when you take duplicate items. Your list will do one thing very well - but will be limited in other ways.

 

How else could you be spending those points invested in the duplicate units? Another scoring unit? An outflanker? Alpha strike potential? Midfield security? More transports? I'm just saying it's not necessarily a "no-brainer" to take duplicate units - you must consider what you're potentially giving up in order to fit duplicates into your list.

[LardO'Blood]

1 Multi melta can only kill one land raider per turn.

one land raider

Land Raider shoots once, then dies the next turn

Two land raiders

Both land raiders shoot, one dies the next turn

The second land raider shoots, then dies that turn

So two land raiders is theoretically worth three.

[maturin]

1 Multi melta can only kill one land raider per turn.

one land raider

Land Raider shoots once, then dies the next turn

Two land raiders

Both land raiders shoot, one dies the next turn

The second land raider shoots, then dies that turn

So two land raiders is theoretically worth three.

 

True, but if your opponent has 2 multimeltas, then they both die on turn two and 2 landraiders = 2 land raiders, not 3. And if your opponent has no multimeltas, then 2 land raiders STILL = 2 land raiders, as they'll both live. And if your opponent has first turn, then potentially 1 or 2 landraiders = no landraiders.

 

 

I guess I'm arguing that while duplicates are great for effectiveness in a role, it's entirely possible to force your opponent into difficult decisions on target priority without having to duplicate. As an example, I used to run a list with a LRC filled with TH/SS termies, vindi, and 2 tac squads in rhinos. My opponent was faced with this quandry: Do they shoot the very-hard-to-kill LRC charging toward him, filled with very scary termies waiting to beat his face in? Or do they shoot the easier-to-kill vindi which still has a _very_ scary gun and the potential to kill a lot of units quickly? Or do they shoot the rhinos which are moving out to claim objectives? Tough choices I've forced on my opponent - and no duplicates. I'd argue that a properly mixed force retains the threats of duplicate units, but is more flexible in that they can respond to a greater variety of situations.

[Corby]

1 Multi melta can only kill one land raider per turn.

one land raider

Land Raider shoots once, then dies the next turn

Two land raiders

Both land raiders shoot, one dies the next turn

The second land raider shoots, then dies that turn

So two land raiders is theoretically worth three.

 

True, but if your opponent has 2 multimeltas, then they both die on turn two and 2 landraiders = 2 land raiders, not 3. And if your opponent has no multimeltas, then 2 land raiders STILL = 2 land raiders, as they'll both live. And if your opponent has first turn, then potentially 1 or 2 landraiders = no landraiders.

 

 

I guess I'm arguing that while duplicates are great for effectiveness in a role, it's entirely possible to force your opponent into difficult decisions on target priority without having to duplicate. As an example, I used to run a list with a LRC filled with TH/SS termies, vindi, and 2 tac squads in rhinos. My opponent was faced with this quandry: Do they shoot the very-hard-to-kill LRC charging toward him, filled with very scary termies waiting to beat his face in? Or do they shoot the easier-to-kill vindi which still has a _very_ scary gun and the potential to kill a lot of units quickly? Or do they shoot the rhinos which are moving out to claim objectives? Tough choices I've forced on my opponent - and no duplicates. I'd argue that a properly mixed force retains the threats of duplicate units, but is more flexible in that they can respond to a greater variety of situations.

 

 

Of course forcing hard target priority on your opponent without duplicates is certainly possible. But duplicates of units make that target priority that much harder due to have two of the unit.

[maturin]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - I still don't see why it's harder to choose to shoot at one of two predators instead of choosing between a predator and a rhino with a scoring unit. I suppose it all depends on your army list, and how you're able to use said army list to force your opponent to make hard choices. Some people do it better with duplicates, and some better without.

 

I still disagree with the statement that duplicates make a vehicle more survivable. What it does is make your army more viable/durable...

[wolf2.3]

1 Multi melta can only kill one land raider per turn.

one land raider

Land Raider shoots once, then dies the next turn

Two land raiders

Both land raiders shoot, one dies the next turn

The second land raider shoots, then dies that turn

So two land raiders is theoretically worth three.

 

Or add a cheaper dev squad (for army slot comparison only) which can't be effectively killed by a multi melta and puts out long range firepower to help prevent that melta from killing your tank.

Thats the flaw with the "2 is betta" idea. You do so at the cost of less variety of threats. The two units could do a similar job therefore being of equal target priority but won't be eliminated by the same counter. Or even better provide an entirely new threat which will increase the chances that he won't have sufficient variety of weapons to take on certain elements of your army.

[TyrionTheImp]

I don't think it's just about survivability, but also about firepower output.

 

If you want to take a single Vindicator to have your opponent go "AHH VINDIE! KILL IT!" and have them shoot at it you can be certain your vindicator won't be shooting. If you want to actually use that big tasty gun though, bringing 2 or 3 gives you a much higher possibility of doing that, especially when coupled with the rest of your army. Of course, I don't like vindicators, so I don't use them.

 

When I build an army I always try to bring doubles of everything I can, and if I can't, I make sure that unit is resilient enough to not really need a second one (Land raiders come to mind), reliable enough firepower and cheap enough to expend if it gets shot up (combi-melta spam sternguard), or the rest of my army is threatening my opponent will hopefully ignore it long enough for it to accomplish its purpose (IE sniper scouts objective camping)

 

Of course in smaller games it's harder to bring duplicates for points constraints, and in larger games it's sometimes hard to justify 2 slots to bring the same thing, but I've never really regretted it.

[Paulochromis]

how did this get to 18 posts without anyone mentioning Lanchester's Square Law?

google it.

[Luis_CC]

I think that redundancy implies 3main effects:

possitive effect: As your army includes several units of the same class, probably the other player´s list won´t be especialized enough to face it.

For example, tri-land raider list, 20 TH/SS terminators list, 3vindicators list, 150orks list, 5leman russ list...

negative effect: Redundacy reduces the versatility of your list, as you have neccesarily to include less "types" of units in your list,

neutral effect: The reduction of data that affect the game implies that you will have more knowledge of your list (it is easier to use) and the enemy will be able to "predict" your movements with more accuracy.

[Brother Tual]

Maturin, you have presented a valid point but you are going against the bandwagoning of ideas for multiple units. As a gamer I agree with you. Multiples dont increase the effect of a single unit at all. All multiples will do is turn the game into a scissors, paper, rock game as you either completely overwhelm the enemy because you have maxed out on a single rule set (AV rules) or you get owned because your enemy has maxed out on the counter to your rule set exploitation. Neither of these is indicative of a brilliant strategist or a good gamer/collector.

 

The interesting point (or oversight) of most of the pro- 'multiple units is king ideal' is that they state that having multiples of one unit will ensure that the said unit or unit type will be able to atleast have some effect on the game. My favourite example being a trio of vindicators with the ideas presented by TyrionTheImp (I am not picking on you but you posted exactly the type of argument I and Maturin are trying to counter)

 

If you want to take a single Vindicator to have your opponent go "AHH VINDIE! KILL IT!" and have them shoot at it you can be certain your vindicator won't be shooting. If you want to actually use that big tasty gun though, bringing 2 or 3 gives you a much higher possibility of doing that, especially when coupled with the rest of your army. Of course, I don't like vindicators, so I don't use them.

 

My answer is you are using your vindicator/s incorrectly. Your deployment is wrong, your target priority is flawed and your strategies are weak if you rely on multiples as a sole means of applying the said (or any) unit to FORCE it to work. Change the WAY you use the unit. Not add more.

 

The above is an example of the bandwagoning of ideals as well.

Of course, I don't like vindicators, so I don't use them.

which is soo prevalent here. Rifleman dreads are another favourite of mine. Nobody has them but everyone swears by them.

 

 

Paul, as for Lanchester's Square Law, this idea concerns forces when considered in a void or with no situational factors affecting the course of battle. Being aware of it is a good thing but it is not absolute.

[Jackelope King]

which is soo prevalent here. Rifleman dreads are another favourite of mine. Nobody has them but everyone swears by them.

I swear by 'em. And I use 'em.

 

Three Brother-Knights of the Eighth Company, the Honored Fallen

 

And yes, redundancy is king. The trick is to pick units that themselves have significant duality, and are able to threaten multiple types of enemies effectively. Your force can weather losses better than a battleforce army when you take multiples.

[TyrionTheImp]

And yes, redundancy is king. The trick is to pick units that themselves have significant duality, and are able to threaten multiple types of enemies effectively. Your force can weather losses better than a battleforce army when you take multiples.

 

This is why everyone swears by riflemen, Typhoons, MM/HF speeders, and sternguard, each of these units has duality (and sometimes more) and bringing these units will never hurt your army. Of course you can't build an army with just those things in it (Well you could actually), but having specialists does also help and I also think is needed.

 

Personally, I've never seen a competitive winning list (We are talking competitive right? I assume people asking about tactics want to know what's the best things to use, not what would be fluffy or pretty looking) that has doubles of absolutely nothing in it, if someone could link one I'd love to see it personally, it'd be a nice change of pace.

[Dremen]

The essence of the pro Argument is based on opponents, most notably newer players, getting tunnel vision on one and ignoring the other. Splitting fire reduces, statistically, your chances of killing either of the big threats. Whereas, focusing on one, leaves the other free to cause mishcief.

 

Turn by turn yes one or the other may supercede the other in its current threat. Assuming it survives the onslaught you still have another identical firepower threat to deal with. Now im not trying to degrade my local player base, yet, the tournaments I enter I seem to get people unwilling or unable to reasses a threat turn by turn, they tunnel vision on Pred A and Pred B, how to put this in a PG fashion, spends the night without buying them dinner or flowers.

 

Redudancy and statsistics are the name of the game. Having one unit able to do something "terrible' to another is always good, by that logic two of said unit is better. This ensures that a lucky shot or freak circumstance ( or even an "oh crap I cant beleive I left it in the open" moment) doesnt destroy your lists' viability.

 

Its also an illusion of sorts. The human mind is attracted to symetrical designs. So by making two of a larger unit you can throw in something thats a little different and it may be ignored entirely, giving you an advantage.

[maturin]

When I hear Jackelope King and TyrionTheImp talking about redundancy and duality, the thing that pops into my head is - well, they're opposite sides of the same coin, really. And if you can have multiple identical units with dual functions, why not have multiple different units covering the same functions?

 

To put it another way - why not have duality be king, instead of redundancy? As long as you cover the threat range, I don't see why having 2 different units each able to threaten both vehicles and infantry would be inherently inferior to two identical units able to do the same thing.

 

In my area, smaller point games tend to be the rule - 1250 to 1500 points. And when your point restrictions are that tight, having redundant units really makes you more vulnerable to the rock-scissors-paper effect Brother Tual pointed out. I have plenty of units which are multi-role; I choose to balance my force instead of trying to pre-weight my force in a certain direction. Personally, I'd rather have a fighting chance each battle, rather than feel like I've won/lost by turn 1

 

(@Jackelope King - nice army, I love the orange)

 

EDIT: @Dremen - The psychology of dual units is something that I haven't explored, and you may very well be right in that it has a significant effect on your foe (presumably more of an effect on an untested foe, as you point out). However, I must take issue once again with your second sentence. Splitting fire reduces the chance that any given threat is taken out. It does NOT, however, change at all the fact that for a given amount of enemy AT fire, one tank or another is going to die. Cumulative damage results in any given turn don't give any kind of bonus. 6 lascannon shots have a set % probability to penetrate and destroy AV13, no matter if that is directed at 1, 2, or 6 different AV13 targets.