casualty-oriented squad sizes

[march10k]

Here's something I came up with to help decide what size to make your squads, strictly from a "sustainable casualties" point of view:

6 FW:

2 dead=25% check
4 dead=below 50%

7 FW:

2 dead=25% check
4 dead=below 50%

8 FW:

2 dead=25% check
5 dead=below 50%

9 FW:

3 dead=25% check
5 dead=below 50%

10 FW:

3 dead=25% check
6 dead=below 50%

11 FW:

3 dead=25% check
6 dead=below 50%

12 FW:

3 dead=25% check
7 dead=below 50%

12 FW +2 drones:

4 dead=25% check
8 dead=below 50%

As you can see, from this point of view (the ability of varying squad sizes to kill is a dead horse in other threads, please don't bring that up here!), 6-7 fire warriors is a bad choice because the number of casualties that forces a break-check and the number of casualties that makes a unit non-scoring are ridiculously low.  The 50% check on an 8 man squad is a little better, but if you're going to buy those two extra fire warriors to gain that benefit, go all the way up to 9.  For one more model, you get an improved 25% check, too.  In fact, 9 is the smallest squad that gets the maximum possible 25% check, if you don't take drones.  This is a good buy, from a "sustainable casualties" point of view.  10 gets you an improved 50% check, 11 is worthless, 12 another 50% check bump.  To get another bump in the 25% check, you have to go to 13 models, that means drones.  If you're going to take any, might as well take 2, especially since every even number (like 14)  increases the 50% check.  The only way to continue this would be to add an ethereal, but since he makes them fearless, only the 50% checks for scoring unit status would matter at that point.  This scale could also be extended for kroot, but I don't use them, so I didn't bother.

Thoughts?

[Zoomer]

Not bad.  It's a fact of the game that squads are going to get hammered, shot at, bitten, stabbed, brain-fried, blown-up, Heavy Boltered, and poked with sharp-pointy sticks.....  This helps give a reasonable guage of how much a single squad might take before collapsing.

Another thought you might not have considered is to apply this scale to enemy squads as well.  It helps to know how much firepower to apply to an enemy squad of "X" strength to negate its scoring capability.  In some scenarios, this kind of knowledge is vital, as it allows for maximum efficiency in the engagement of various targets, how much firepower should be applied to achieve the goal, and what amount of blasting is just overkill.

Cheers, and good show!

[Jestor]

I am slow some days =)  Nothing to see here... move along

[Shaso Wanax]

Welcome to those of us who believe in 10 man squads 

wanax

[Ilikebigguns]

Welcome to those of us who believe in 10 man squads 

wanax

Finally somone else who does it too!

[T0nkaTruckDriver]

Here's something I wrote up on this topic awhile back. Perhaps someone can find it helpful   

[Wargamer]

This sums up largely why I hate small-squad players...

"Oh look, one shooting phase has caused 1/3rd of your army to turn around and bugger off back to the Orcas. Maybe if you'd taken full squads, you'd have someone left to fire back..."

[march10k]

Actually, I think the logical conclusion to come to here is that 9 man squads are ideal, unless you are willing to go so far as to take 12+2.  Since 12+2 won't fit inside a DF, I'm thinking 12+2 for static squads, 9 for mounted squads....purely from a casualties-taking-ability point of view. 

/edit/ Good point, Tonka, make that a bonded 12+2 for static squads!  Especially with an Aun around to improve the chances that those 6 models will actually rally... The only downside to 12+2 is that the enemy shouldn't be in range of the drones in the beginning, and the drones are damned near impossible to take as casualties early on, so they can seem like an expensive way to boost that 50% check.  But since they're in a static unit that will likely have enemy closing in on them, they'll soon be in range, and when the enemy gets close, you'll be thankful for every additional gun in your force, especially ones with a miniscule chance of pinning the bastards.

[Shaso Wanax]

14 man is 144 points!  That is alot to invest in a unit of bullet absorbers.  Maybe I just play differently, but I don't rely upon FW for offense as much as other parts of my army.  I use them to bleed off enemy fire more than anything else.  I do want offense from them, and as efficiently as possible, but any offense from them is a bonus to my main attacks.  IOW, I use them like infantry

The usual damage done is 2 FW dead per unit per turn.  So yes anything above 8 is preferable.  9 is marginally less capable of offense than 10 and both are within the 3 loss check column.  9 is cost efficient in terms of defensive, but 10 is cost efficient offensively.  The are mostly the same.  I can see taking either, or.


I do run stealth in 5 man for the exact reasons tonka outlines a 9 man optimum.  15 or 18 shots makes few differences in outcome, and 5 and 6 have the exact same check numbers.  Save 30 points

Wanax