Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

An interesting and important thing that needs to be considered for 5th edition is scoring units. There have been some very large changes in how scoring units work and how effective they will be. Currently it is advantageous to have many scoring units and for them to be small to medium sized with even numbers. In 5th, it looks like this will all change.

One very important change that many have been railing about is that only selections from the “troops” portion of the force organization chart will be considered scoring. This will bring these much maligned units into a more useful role on the battlefield (or at least it would appear that way). The other, very significant, change is the rules for what will keep your “troop” choices from being scoring units. Leaked pdf p 85:

“There are only three exceptions when a unit of Troops does not count as scoring:
- if it is falling back at the end of the game
- if it is a vehicle
- if it has a special rule specifying it never counts as scoring”

The importance of this is that there is no mention of reduced unit size. A scoring unit is a scoring unit no matter how many casualties it has taken. This has the ability to drastically change how we look at scoring units. As a matter of fact, thinking of them as units is probably the wrong way to go about it. Since even a single model from a scoring unit is still scoring, it is probably best to look at them as scoring models.

Since buying 2 small squads is the same price (or is very close) as buying one large one that has twice as many members, and since each individual model is scoring, lets look at why you might want to do each.

- Small squads can cover more ground. This will be useful in recon missions where there are several objectives to capture.

- Small squads are harder to kill. Where you might be able to shoot down a 10 man squad with a single unit or two, you may very well have issues finding enough fire power to spread around to kill off 2 units of 5 men each. In addition, the screening rules will make it more difficult to target both small squads. The small squads can also split up to make it more difficult to catch them in assault.

- Large squads can provide more cover. With the screening rules being what they are (or at least what they might be), the larger squad will block more line of sight to and from the enemy. This can be a double edged sword depending on what you want, but it remains a fact.

- Small squads have greater access to special weapons.

- Small squads are more resilient to special weapon fire. Due to the wound assignment rules, if a small squad takes more wounds than it has members, some members must take several wounds. If some of the wounds are special weapons (such as plasma shots), these special shots can be piled up on individual members so that a fair amount of their killing power is wasted.

- Large squads have more staying power in assault. If a large squad is assaulted, it’s more likely than a small squad to live long enough for reinforcements to arrive and help it. It’s also more likely to actually win the combat than a small squad is.

- Large squads take fewer moral checks. The large squad is less likely to break since it will take fewer moral checks from shooting and it has to take significantly more damage before it is reduced to “below 50%” and thus is unable to rally if it does break. The large squad is also less likely to be outnumbered in hand to hand


So how do you think these changes will affect the size of your troop squads? Are there any other benifits or drawbacks to small or large squads with changes to scoring units in mind?

One thing to add: You now have some sort of "combat round" which further modifies your leadership. So even LD 10 will fail pretty often if you were beaten clearly.

I would therefore put more eggs into the "large squads take fewer ld checks" basket.

Otherwise interesting posts, I am interested in the views of the dakkaites, too.

My Dire avengers will stay at 10, other eldar squads are either small sized because I can hide them (bikes and pathfinders) or are maxed (Reapers or dragons to fit in falcon). My planned banshees would be pretty maxed out, too. Don't know if I go wrong with that, it's more of a style reason.

My tyranids are pretty fearless anyhow. But I have to consider more gaunt troops... Two squads of hormas and stealers won't cut it, i fear. They are either dead (hormas) or stuck in combat far away from objectives (stealers).

Sure, small squads are more resilient to special fire, but you can trigger the "specialist-kill" faster. Some hits and the unit will have to test if the plasma gunner bites it. With ten buddies, you have to get 10 Wounds (or 20) to get a wound.

Greets
Schepp himself

Troops aren't mangled. If they are comperable in power to the other choices in the codex (i.e. marines/orks/sisters) they will see lots of play. If they are underpowered compared to the other choices in the codex (eldar) they will only see the minimum amount required unless all other useful slots are filled.

If GW really wanted people to field more troops they should try printing decent rules for them instead of forcing them down peoples throats.

IntoTheRain wrote:If GW really wanted people to field more troops they should try printing decent rules for them instead of forcing them down peoples throats.

You can do this and still sell models. It's amazing.

This may make Combat Squads almost ridiculously good...max out your Tactical Marines, split them all into Combat Squads and walla...12 scoring units.

Danger UXO wrote:This may make Combat Squads almost ridiculously good...max out your Tactical Marines, split them all into Combat Squads and walla...12 scoring units.

Unless there is specific wording for or against combat squads and the way they are handled.

I really hate the new missions systems. My plan is just to obliterate my opponents army, force a draw and then win by VPs. Thats pretty much all a Mech Tau player can do.

Orks, Sisters, IG, and Necrons are going to be able to field a sick number of effective and/or resiliant scoring units. This is really not a good idea when looking across all codexs.

Combat squads are bad.

Here's a good example of why.

You have 5 marines. One dies to shooting.

Now you have 4 marines.

You get assaulted by 22 Gaunts.

You kill 1, they kill 2 marines.

You lose combat by 1, and are below half.

You test at -2. If you have a sarge or a master, that's at best LD8 but could be LD6.

Not good really whichever way you count it.

Let's say you run away.

The gaunts catch you. Now you are subject to the 'no retreat' rule.

Let's see, 21 vs 2. So you take 10 wounds (and your unit is obliterated). Then the huge gaunt squad moves on to it's next victim. Thankfully, you only have 5 guys in rapid fire range....so they're going to light that unit up too.

Combat squads have very specific uses. Splitting everything out is the surest way to lose as a marine player. Extra KP's isn't good either.

Jayden63 wrote:I really hate the new missions systems. My plan is just to obliterate my opponents army, force a draw and then win by VPs. Thats pretty much all a Mech Tau player can do.

Orks, Sisters, IG, and Necrons are going to be able to field a sick number of effective and/or resiliant scoring units. This is really not a good idea when looking across all codexs.

Agreed on all points, sadly.

Stelek wrote:Combat squads are bad.

Here's a good example of why.

You have 5 marines. One dies to shooting.

Now you have 4 marines.

You get assaulted by 22 Gaunts.

You kill 1, they kill 2 marines.

You lose combat by 1, and are below half.

You test at -2. If you have a sarge or a master, that's at best LD8 but could be LD6.

Not good really whichever way you count it.

Let's say you run away.

The gaunts catch you. Now you are subject to the 'no retreat' rule.

Let's see, 21 vs 2. So you take 10 wounds (and your unit is obliterated). Then the huge gaunt squad moves on to it's next victim. Thankfully, you only have 5 guys in rapid fire range....so they're going to light that unit up too.

Combat squads have very specific uses. Splitting everything out is the surest way to lose as a marine player. Extra KP's isn't good either.

As I said, it MAY make Combat Squads really good, depends on the situation. I tend to disagree with your opening statement; they're not bad but have specific uses as you say at the end of your post. The nice thing about Combat Squads (especially with troops as resilient as Marines) is that you get to pick and choose when to use them (i.e. after you know who and what type of army you'll be playing against) and even though they're only 5 strong they'll still take a good deal of killing.

Why this set-up stelek? I mean with the 22 Gaunts, just curious.

Greets
Schepp himself

The more I read about the new rules, the less I like them.
Troop units under half strength still fully score. Lol.

This will severely change the game mechanics:
First, a successful army needs to max out the troop slots, and the troop units need to be kept alive (at least one member). DA/BA with the combat squad rule or Chaos with Daemon packs have even more scoring units than normally allowed.
Second, the remaining units will be used as auxiliary squads to keep the troop units alive, say by screening them or keep enemy unit away from them.

Stelek: It will become a gamble trying to kill the whole enemy army.

this is helpful to armies with mobile troop options.

eldar jet bikes with their ability to hide the whole game.
ravenwing squads with a potential 4 scoring units per slot. (of course with skimmer and rending changes i don't think i'll be fielding any 100 point landspeeders).

Another good post...

Some quick general notes from me that you all haven't really hit on too much, then my thoughts on my two armies.

Combat squads versus full tactical squads. The beauty of that formation is you can decide just as the game starts if you are going to detach them. In recon and take and hold, most of the time, combat squads are the way to go. In total annihilation, you'll almost always want a tactical squad. Having more guns consolidated into fewer units is not necessarily going to lead to 'wasted shots' for total annihilation, because rather than bringing enemy units to below 50% you are looking to wipe them out or make them run off the table. One guy lives and the unit doesn't cough up its KP.

For Take and Hold space marine players can make some interesting and fun decisions based on their opponent. It might be a smart move to keep a 10 man tac squad unbroken to guard your own node. They are much more difficult to dislodge in assault, as they protect their hidden fist better and aren't outnumbered as easily. or the force that you plan to attack their "base" with, splitting into combat squads will give your opponent a more tangled mess of potential objective contesters. Combat squads are easy as pie to roll over in assault, but hard as hell to shoot at. They will be loathe to run away from their own objective to initiate an assault, so they will probably try and shoot you, giving combat squads the advantage as a forward objective taker, and tactica squads the advantage in baseline defense.

For recon, peppering the table with combat squads will truly be king. But again there is always that threat of losing the assault and being outnumbered a fair amount. If against a numerically superior foe that looks like they are gonna charge you. (demons, nids, 10man eldar units, black templorks, orks) Then huddle up.

For marines it sounds like there will be some fun tactical choices to make with regards to cmbat squads. I'm jealous.

Another thing no one has pointed out, is that being pinned does not prevent you from being a scoring unit. Rushing to the objective on turn 1 or 2, then declaring a 'take cover' for the rest of the game is going to make killing you to a man very difficult. If you can't assault worth a damn, best idea would be for you to get to the objective first. Once the plague marine unit gets their on 2 then starts taking a 3+ cover save for the rest of the game, you're going to need to go in after them. Or hit them with some SERIOUS firepower.

I like the new missions in theory, simple concepts that seem very borrowed from tried and true video game concepts.

Take and Hold = Capture the Flag. Prevent your flag from being captured, while you take theirs. Build armies that have good "defender units" consisting of resilient troops, and also take elements in your army that are good at killing troops. The attacking force doesn't need to have too many troops, just one or two that you can shelter with LOS blocking vehicles and adequate transport rules.

Recon = Domination. Go stand on some nodes, don't get dislodged off of them. The earlier you can get to the nodes the better (take cover, random game length) Hold em as long as you can.

Total Annihilation = Deathmatch. This mission serves to counterbalance the troop based objective grab armies. You can't really go out there with 12 combat squads and some light anti infantry and hope to win this one. Big heavy hitters are going to walk over you if you don't bring you anti-tank here, which means you can't just spam heavy bolters to win the troop versus troop game. That's when the 3x leman russes are gonna sting you.



Ok...

I play necrons and Guard neither of which are uber excited about these new missions, in fact, I take a pretty big shot in the nuts for both armies, but I'm up for the challenge, and I know I'll be getting new books over the next 18 months or so.

IG. People seem to focus on how many scoring units IG can take, but again these units excel when they get to stand still, and then go take something at the end of the game. Now that the end of the game is random, I've got to move my guys early, get to a spot, then dig the hell in, repel assaulters with covering fire and hope you don't overwhelm me. The other rotten thing that has happened to guard are the ridiculous amounts of KPs that the army now coughs up. You basically can not take any units from the HQ platoon anymore, jut take the mandatory command squad and dont make any big plans for it. Every other unit you take would be an armor 10 or 6 wound 3KP pinata. Same with the heavy weapons platoon, each of those units will be out in the open and worth 2kp a piece. Lots of soft cheap troops is good for 66% of the missions but soft troops aren't great in total annihilation, a mission my IG now dread especially when faced with the prospect of 10 man marine units that can regroup under 50%, that you need to kill to a man to score against. Those same 10 man units that can unclick to become 5 man units if we happen to roll the other missions.

Necrons. When people who don't play necrons think of necron warriors, i think they are thinking of immortals. Look at every necron army out there. Its got as many immortals as warriors. Most necron armies will need to include 2+ more warrior units in their lists to even have a chance at threatening the objectives out there. More big easily assaulted units with only T4 and a bolter, too many to manage with monoliths and veils. With the new assault rules including a negative leadership modifier based on how many wounds you lost he combat by, without getting a new army book that gives us all stubborn, any half decent assault army is going to rejoice in facing this new watered down necron list.

I'm up for it though. I'll be getting new books, we all will, and once we all get up to speed with the black templar and beyond (hell even nids seem ready to go for 5th) then these fun easy to remember game archetypes will provide us with a quick to setup 'standard mission'.

Something people seem to be missing that was really the point of all this when I started it was that the number of scoring units doesn’t really matter anymore. You can have one 10 man scoring unit or you can have 10 one man scoring units and the only difference it makes is that you can cover more ground in recon missions (capture loot tokens scattered around the board). The thing is that as long as you have a model left, you are scoring and 1 scoring unit at an objective holds or contests it. That’s it. If you have one troop model on an objective and your opponent has 4 squads of 10 men (all troops) it’s still contested and no one gets it. If you want a unit to not score, you have to kill it off to a man. The thing I want to really look at is how this change from scoring unit to scoring models really affects the game.

Shep: It would seem to me that necrons are on of the ones that benefit most from this particular change in the rules. Necrons can take huge squads of extremely resilient troops that you can teleport and gate around the board almost at will. All you have to do is keep 1 guy alive from a brick of 20 warriors and you can capture / contest an objective. Do your warrior units usually get wiped out to a man? Sure they may take a hit in the assault department (which by the way is not the focus of this thread) but that would seem to give more value to the other units in the army that can prevent that sort of thing from happening. I must agree though that with the change to only troops counting as scoring, IG take a fairly large kick in the shorts.

But that teleporting/deepstriking became more dangerous. Especially near the objective with a large squad of Warriors since your opponent will almost certainly have troops there also.

Phoenix wrote:Shep: It would seem to me that necrons are on of the ones that benefit most from this particular change in the rules. Necrons can take huge squads of extremely resilient troops that you can teleport and gate around the board almost at will. All you have to do is keep 1 guy alive from a brick of 20 warriors and you can capture / contest an objective. Do your warrior units usually get wiped out to a man? Sure they may take a hit in the assault department (which by the way is not the focus of this thread) but that would seem to give more value to the other units in the army that can prevent that sort of thing from happening.

I really like necrons versus a shooty army. I can take a big unit like you said. "take cover" in a forest and take my 3+ cover save and 4+ WBB. It'll take 20 turns to take me out to a man, and a against a shooty army, I'm likely to win close combats too. So I've got the anti-shooty covered.

The problem I'm having in test games is against assault armies. I have leadership 10, and an army with mid-range at best shooting. necrons don't deploy at the table edge and snipe heavy weapons like guard does. So you get up there, you take your shots, then you allow yourself to be charged. Its unavoidable with 12"-24" shooting on your mainline guns. Now currently, I have leadership 10, and biggish sized units. So i lose, and test on a 10. Now that this step has been completed, the necrons get to play with their toys. WBB rolls, veil of darkness, monolith portal, etc. I usually lose 4-5 models, especially warriors, when I step in to those charges. No matter, i make 2-3 WBBs, then a portal gives me 1-2 more. However, in 5th edition, those 4-5 models are going to modify my leadership to a 6 or 5? Remember, ALL of my combat tricks are used AFTER i successfully pass a test. So now the 12-20 man warrior unit must save itself from being completely removed from the table on an initiative based roll-off. Almost a guaranteed fail. With the inability for me to use the 'lith of fury' tactic, preventing said assault without just plain running away is impossible.

I'm only temporarily worried. We are getting a new book at some point. I can GUARANTEE you we will be getting FNP, and the 'new' stubborn rule. That alone will bring us right into the mix of hard to budge hard to kill good short range troops, and likely top tier. I'm just pointing out that if we made the switch to 5th edition right now, tonight, necrons wouldn't make it through a 3-5 game tourney without coming up against an assault army that can and will rip up 4-5 warriors out of 20 on the charge, break em, run em, and gobble up the 360 points they were worth. Without being able to test on an unmodified leadership, warrior units will be practically jumping from the table into my figure case.

Necron agenda thread hijack over...