Double units in army...why?

[Dremen]

@Maturin- Im speaking in terms of volume of fire rather than an individual shot. Yes a Missile launcher at st8 has a set cheance to dmg a certain armor value. 2 shots, both of which have the same chance to penetrate, ensures a larger likelyhood of success. aka, while the shots themselves have a sert amount its taking the volume of fire from a squad away from other targets.

 

For example, a standard Space Marine unit (Tactical squad in this case) has one heavy weapon. They shoot it at Pred A, it hits but fails to damage the tank. So they player has to use another squad to fire at that tank to eliminate its threat, reducing the odds that Pred B will be shot. Its more in the volume of fire you're forcing an enemy to allocate than individual shots themselves. Even if an opponent damages a tank they may decice to try and finish it, taking more fire away from other viable targets.

 

So if you micro down to a single shot you are right. However, when factoring in multiple shots and the loss of that squads shooting on other targets I beleive I'm right.

 

Given ten AT shots, divided (this is an example no particular codex in mind) amongst 3 squads, giving you 3/3/4 shots repsectivly. Squad1(3 shots) fires at PredA, Squad 2 fires at PredB, whichever target Squad3 fires at has a lower chance of surviving the round, regardless of the type of AT weapon shot. This is a gross oversimplisation, however, it shows that at least one of the Tanks has less incoming fire, thus more of a chance of survival. This is not factoring in rolls to hit. Most forces cannot, in my experiance, evenly split thier firepower to deal with twinned threats. So on a turn by turn basis one of the two has a larger chance of survivng the round.

 

Then consider that the two tanks, in the case of preds, are both attracting fire from targets and shunting it away from softer targets than themselves. "Do I shoot the tanks or the infantry they support?" kind of mentality. This logic is based on the idea that heavier weapons (doubly so in the case of devestator squads) will force the rest of a unit to "waste" thier shooting because they simply cant hurt a target.

[Brother Nihm]

It is not just because of redundancy, it is also to present multiple threats, making choices harder for your opponent.

 

Vehicles are notoriously hard to kill (sometimes) in 5th ed. so if you are going to field one, you may as well field two - to make sure one is always performing its intended role.

[spartan249]

I don't see what the big deal is here. It's not having two of the same unit that is the good idea. The good idea is having all of your units able to deal with many situations. If that happens to be one type of unit, then it's one type of unit.

[Hellios]

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

 

I would say if you have lost by turn 1.. excluding freak luck that can happen or against an Alpha strike list (Where the whole point is to win early in the game) I would say you are building your list wrong... I don't see taking two units that are the same as suddenly crippling my army... if you take too many of one kind of unit (lets say anti-tank) and leave your army deficient in anti-infantry dakka then that is a mistake in building your list (Hence why popular units are often good against vehicles and infantry or shooting and close combat!).

 

I often play smaller games as well and I've got list that have redundancy and lists that don't (and I'm not always making serious list either way). Eldar are an example of an army that shouldn't have redundancy if any army shouldn't... each unit is designed for a task and will only do that task... However improvements to eldar vehicles in the newest codex (hard in 4th ed as well as 5th ed) have made more people go mech. Since everything is going mech why not use the aspect warrior that benefits the most... the one that needs to get close but not into combat... the fire dragons! Again we have a unit that will slag almost any vehicle in the game (I'm looking at you Monolith!), burn almost any MC into Ash (I'm looking at you Avatar of Khaine!) and ten melta guns are also pretty useful for killing tactical marines.... might not be great against units that come in groups over 10... although you can take the dragons breath in that case but units of 30 will still cause issues! Thats why the scoring units tend to be blade storming dire avengers who will kill 30 orks without blinking and can also wipe out tough units via volume of fire... the transports may also be armed with scatter lasers or shuriken cannons. Heavy support tends to be the area where Eldar have the most diversity in a mech force with fire prisms and falcons often being used but war walkers for scout and even more scatter lasers appearing as well.

 

My list isn't anything like the one I have described but I since 5th ed has been realsed I see a lot of Eldar list that lack variety.

[Brother Tual]

Looking at the OP, my advice is No. You dont NEED multiples of a unit for it to work. The underlying notion that if you take a certain unit then it is best to repeat/multiple that unit is not always good advice.

 

When is it good to multiply,

 

1) When you enjoy a unit sooo much that you want two - fun factor

 

2) You want a certain behaviour from a unit/list but have no other option but to repeat the selection (scouts/bike army/tacticals + rhino etc) in order to advance your strategy but not a spam list designed to exploit the rules.

 

When is it not such a great idea

 

1) Because everytime you take a vindi it dies first turn, taking three will still get one, two or three killed first turn. This is not viable answer and it will not help you with fixing the problem.

 

2) Overloading the table with AV in an effort to move the game beyond your opponent because you have selected to exploit a gaming rule set. Similar to the first reason but alittle bit more involved. Mech spam lists are the result of this with mutliple AV 11 + (or less for xenos) employed in the hope of having too much to kill so something will get through.

 

3) In response to a player, or even in anticipation of a player who overloads their list with Mech, you respond by overloading your list with AT. Vulcan + Melta spam lists are the result of this type of response.

 

All in all, to me, the previous 3 points reflect a narrow approach to gaming assuming that the only way to deal with an on table problem is to either increase your dice odds, increase the amount of dice rolled or both.

 

I suggest, and I practice, taking different units with overlapping roles in an effort to add to the desired outcome but also to negate unit weaknesses. The dread + pred combo is perfectly fine and would provide more sound results than 2 x preds. Similar output at range but the latter has 0 combat capacity or defense from combat. I urge players to consider more than just increasing stat lines and engaging in theory hammer based on math hammer calculated in a void. There are other ways to complete a given task, some more effective than others yet often more restictive.

 

Nice riflemen dreads, I have used them also, I bought enough AC's for two kits and I sometimes use them however I prefer a typhoon. Thats just me though. Your advice on riflemen dreads is something I would seek as I know you use them. The hype connected with them given not many people actually use them is what concerns me.

[Hellios]

1) Because everytime you take a vindi it dies first turn, taking three will still get one, two or three killed first turn. This is not viable answer and it will not help you with fixing the problem.

 

2) Overloading the table with AV in an effort to move the game beyond your opponent because you have selected to exploit a gaming rule set. Similar to the first reason but alittle bit more involved. Mech spam lists are the result of this with mutliple AV 11 + (or less for xenos) employed in the hope of having too much to kill so something will get through.

 

3) In response to a player, or even in anticipation of a player who overloads their list with Mech, you respond by overloading your list with AT. Vulcan + Melta spam lists are the result of this type of response.

 

I do not see why these are bad in themselves... well maybe overloading... however if it is the amount needed to get the job done it isn't overloading... If I've made a list that is pretty good at killing everything quickly and is able to do so without taking much damage then that is a good list? It might not be an interesting list, a fun one or one that I would want to take myself...

 

When I've been teaching people sword play the first thing I always teach is to work on your defence, if they can't harm you they can't beat you (might not apply everywhere where time is involved and so on but you get the idea). So making a rock hard list is like having a really good defense... some lists don't naturally seem that tough but when used correctly (which might involve correct support between units) they can become a lot harder to deal with... The other defense is along the lines of the first rule of combat... kill them before they kill you or the saying that a good offense is the best defense... this would be what Alpha Strike lists are based around.

 

In the end it isn't how you do something but the end result. Different paths can reach the same destination and some might be better to take than others or make people think of you in a different light but 40K has a pretty limited scope.

[Jackelope King]

I don't see what the big deal is here. It's not having two of the same unit that is the good idea. The good idea is having all of your units able to deal with many situations. If that happens to be one type of unit, then it's one type of unit.

This is a key point, and one I've been working on developing in the series in my sig.

 

What you say is 100% true. However, not all units are created equal, especially as the game grinds on and the battlefield develops. Take two relatively similar units: a Land Speeder with a Heavy Bolter and Typhoon Missile Launchers and a Predator tank with Heavy Bolter Sponsons. Turn 1, these two vehicles have a similar Threat Profile against many types of enemy threats. The Typhoon has an edge against Light Vehicles and MCs early game (more pronounced against the latter than the former in most cases).

 

"Similar" isn't "the same", though. Once the Predator reaches midfield, it has a stronger threat profile against Light Infantry than the Typhoon. And the Typhoon is much more maneuverable, meaning it'll be much more likely to be able to swing onto a flank by moving 12", then putting shots into weaker side or even rear armor of vehicles (treating even most heavy vehicles as Light Vehicles). The Typhoon is also less durable with its lower AV.

 

Now multiply this across three of each. They'll probably both spend turn 1 trying to open up or at least slow down enemy transports. Turn 2, the Typhoons have maneuvered so they can get side armor shots against heavy vehicles. Turn 3, the Predators that are left will probably be midfield and chewing through exposed infantry, while what Typhoons remain (which mostly depends on how much long-range anti-light-vehicle weaponry the enemy brings) will be along the flanks trying to maintain a low threat-profile and flinging little blast markers around the table at exposed light infantry or popping a handful of shots off against exposed heavy infantry.

 

Each of these units can handle many different threats (expressing strong Duality). And remember that Redundancy is Support: each redundant unit you put on the table increases the likelihood that you'll be able to complete the mission you have in mind for those units. Your opponent is forced to make harder choices when presented with 3 identical units with strong Duality (3x Rifleman Dreadnoughts, for example) as opposed to three kinda-similar units (1x Rifleman Dreadnought, 5x Devastators with 4 missile launchers, 1x Dakka Predator). They all might do a similar job, but the art of gameplay becomes apparent in this case. Each of those units falls into a different weight class (Light Armor, Heavy Infantry, and Heavy Armor, respectively), so depending on what weaponry I have available, my target priority is more clear. Without an obvious target priority, your opponent is forced to make more difficult calls based on positioning, distance, and troop movement patterns. And since I'm more likely to have that critical unit on the table when I need it most (increased Durability), I hold another edge. The more chance I have to fire a particular weapon, the greater the odds are that I will achieve the outcome I want. Until we can replace dice with some resolution mechanic that rewards us for being such good little generals, I'll play the odds :)

 

And thanks for the compliments on the paint-scheme.

[maturin]

When we have such well thought out replies by Jackelope King, Hellios, and Brother Tual, I find myself agreeing with most of what all of them have said, even though they address this point from different views. But this type of advice I have no problem with - it explains very coherently why certain choices are being made, and the benefits and potential liabilites of this choice. What I suppose I object to is the simple-minded "more is better" mantra without accompanying commentary. I have my quibbles about specifics still, but they are differences in playstyle and list building philosophy and as such should be discussed in detail elsewhere.

 

@Hellios - I exaggerated (a tiny bit :) ) when I said I felt lost by turn 1. And your comment about Eldar is right on - they are an army that is very, very specialized. But the beauty of the Marine Codex is we have many units that are good at different things - and I feel that including many different units still allows us to cover all the necessary roles an armylist should have. In the end though what you said about different paths applies most here, I think.

[Wildfire]

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.

 

The thread could have stopped here, as this guy is exactly correct.

 

Most people build their forces with a few standard battle plans in mind. You want to to be able to handle the loss of a specific unit and still be able to function. The easiest way to do this is to include multiples of essential units, but not the only way. There's also the point that often a given FOC will have only one or two ways of getting a certain function a player is looking for.

 

For example, if your army needs long-range anti-tank from it's HS slots you've really got only a couple of choices: devs or preds. In a vehicle-centric list that means you'll probably use preds.

[DarkGuard]

I've been following this list for some time now, and I agree with pretty much all points. No double units are not needed, but it doesn't hurt to do it. Spamming units that are good at things is done because they are good at it, it's worth remembering that. However, such lists can tend to be narrow minded and play in a single way. Of course, it does mean you're opponent will find it hard to stop you playing that way, but it will also make you more predictable and less flexible. Not spamming things does the opposite, it will make you more flexible and less predictable, but less effective at certain tasks.

 

One example I can give are Typhoons and Vindicators, two of the more spammed choices. In a recent doubles tournament, I took one of each (well two in one squadron for the Typhoons), and both were fantastic. True the Vindicator killed a grand total of 7 Wyches, a Guard heavy weapon team and a Guard infantryman, but it did its job by drawing firepower away from our transports. It was shot in every match, losing its gun in two of them, but IMO we didn't really notice that loss as we were expecting it. The Typhoons were also amazing, killing lots of things, both infantry and tanks. It does similar things to the Vindy, such as killing tanks and infantry, but with less destructive power. That being said I wouldn't spam them as they are too fragile.

 

This thread has now got be thinking about the spam I use in my lists (typically two Vindicators, two Rifleman, two identical Tactical squads), and had be considering that I don't like the look of at least on of each spammed unit. So I'm going to put pen to paper and consider using a list that hasn't been spammed, but can still do what my list can do, and take it for a spin. Perhaps I'll like it enough :confused:.

[Shadowstalker Grim]

Hmm, I don't like multiples particularly, though thats more because I just like taking as many little toys as possible to make the list look as diverse as possible. There are a few units where multiple loadouts I can justify as acceptable, but generally I prefer lots of diverse things. This tends to be more of a choice thing (I feel like having lots of unique things in my army makes them more characterful individually), but I quite happily understand why multiples are solid choices and are well worth taking.

 

One thing I disagree on from this thread is this ideology:

 

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

 

I'm not picking on the poster (more than a few have said it), but by the logic in this, if the first land raider hadn't died, 4 land raiders would have been firing. To me I just can't see how this forumula works out, its like it assumes for every round a land raider is firing another one has sprung from the ground, or that you have to +1 for every time it lives through a round. I see it as 'My 3 land raiders fired for 4 turns, so theres 12 of them.'

 

But this is something i've started to dislike about suggestions on multiples. Taking 2 of something, doesnt give you 3. Yes I know, by this very example there is the output of 3 land raiders over 2 turns, BUT that is by 2 land raiders over 2 turns. The rule, to me, suggests you're getting an extra shot out of nothing, when in reality this isn't the case.

 

I perfectly condone taking multiples and I think Brother Tual makes some very valid and solid points, I also believe that there is a lot of benefit in multiple units for redundancy or for taking more of what you like. JK also makes the valid point that some units are better suited for certain jobs than others and so taking the multiples of the same units because of their skill in that particular field makes sense, though I would debate that in some cases the margins are small enough that it doesn't matter if you take something else.

[waaanial00]

Ive stepped away from multiple choices in lists for now, simply because it makes for very dull lists which dont have much depth to them. Building everything the same and taking lots of it makes for effective if one dimensional games.

 

"Ohh I have lost Squad A but Squad B will be able to cope"

"Hang on wasnt that Squad C?"

"I can see the confusion as they are exactly the same"

 

Having specialist units makes for a more fun game, it stops the game just descending into a mindless dice rolling exercise where basically you lose or win (barring freakish dice rolls) based on what list you take.

 

Still from a tactical perspective taking 2 identical units does improve your ability to use at least 1 of them, however they both have to be in similar locations to be exactly redundant. Taking 2 units which have the same job but do them slightly differently means that you dont have true protection.

 

For example taking 2 Typhoons means that you have exactly the same capability and the same enemy shooting to take them out.

 

However taking a Rifleman and a Typhoon means that you basically are aiming to do the same thing (kill transports) however they have different capabilities against other units. In addition the enemy can potentially kill the different units using vastly different shooting/assault options. A dreadnought can be held in combat, Typhoon is vulnerable to small arms (when close enough) etc.

 

Spamming, which is all we are really talking about here, is a way of winning games. Its not exactly the most fun thing to do though, but hey not everyone tries to win and have a cool hobby army with character.