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.

aware there is an immediate question "Ideal for doing what?"

but what are peoples thoughts, having played a few games, on unit sizes?

specifically for armour it seems units of two or three models are too small and far to easily outright deleted - though obviously can be in several places and two pairs of Sicaran are harder to remove than one quartet - however the quartet is harder to cause a morale check on.

smaller is thus more flexible, but larger more robust.

thoughts on the balance point?

Otoh if you have 2x3 ls 6 if opponent kills 4 then msu he wasted kill and remainng won't have to take morale test.

Also extra actions goodx

And due to limited split fire advantage of big advantage diminishes.

In terms of raw power smaller is better but for that reason bigger squads get point discount.

Lots of small det's mean also broken detachment faster as you run out of detachments to add to formation and need multiple formations.

It's actually nice balancing act to get suitable and likely depends on what role you plan for the detachment. And playstyle

yes its nice its not so clear cut, and the limited slots in a detachment does mean they break faster - though unless you planned on charging this is less important for some formations than others

started wondering as I was running an armoured formation, a pair of Kratos and three pairs of Sicaran. didn't usually last too long - tried two triples which didn't go much better

partly an issue with the Sicaran being out ranged by things that can kill it and partly unit size. have some more under construction and wondering on a more beefy unit running quads or quints

Only issue broken has for charginj is extra -1 if you lose.

Just in case it's march(handy for getting to objectives) and 1st fire you can't do. And morale tests from shooting become scarier.

If you have 6 sicarans how are they more durable as 6 than 3x2?

If opponent kills 2 you have 4 left either way. If he kills 3 then 3x2 he loses kill and no morale. 1x6 he loses 3 and remaining 3 takes morale test.

I would arque msu is actually more durable. It's in 40k and there you can split fire reducing overkill.

oh MSU is certainly more durable, specifically because of the "no split fire", especially for marines, less so slightly for SA if stuff survives

e.g. 2x3, kill two in a unit, the third tests, kill two from a unit of six and they don't - but in general so far anything that can kill two usually can kill three

once broken larger will stick about a bit more and not really a game thing but a human thing, a unit or two or three fits the "what can I kill in one shot?" bucket in a way a larger units doesn't

Something big to consider is smaller detachments are easier to hide in obstructing terrain/area terrain in many case and in general in terms of having a smaller footprint and being able to consolidate that footprint to stay out of los. It can be difficult to hide a detachment of 16 bases.


16 bases does miraculously still fit in the confines of a cd rom however if you're looking to make area terrain/craters/swamps.

Larger units benefit from cheaper cost per model and put out more firepower per activation, allowing you to kick out the maximum damage output in fewest activations. They are also more likely to still be relevant and worth spending an activation on after taking damage, whilst an army built around MSU might end up with lots of dregs that aren't a priority for activating.

The inability to split fire is a big counter to all this though as it means that if your opponent takes much smaller units then a lot of that firepower output might end up being wasted in overkill. Bigger units are also harder to hide and more vulnerable to being on the receiving end of the enemy's large units as your opponent isn't wasting firepower against them on overkill.

I've not had a chance to actually play LI yet so I'm not sure how the balance will work out in practice. The answer might turn out to be "1.5 times larger than whatever sized unit your opponent is taking", or it might be best to take a mix with a few big units backed up my a number of smaller units. A large unit of tanks will be great for blapping a high threat or resilient target at the start of the shooting, whilst having some smaller minimum sized units will be useful for finishing off dregs, diverting to claim objectives or hunting hiding enemies. They also boost your activations which is handy during movement so you have some capacity to respond to your opponent and delay committing your big blocks. Or it might be that the game is so lethal that large units are just too vulnerable and you need to take MSU to force overkill and use concealment.

I think it's something that will vary depending on what your opponent takes.

You want enough units that you have more activations than your opponent to have the manoeuvring advantage, but not HEAPS more such that your opponent effectively gets an "alpha strike" where they've fired off their whole army before you've fired off any.

Probably a mixture of units, large units with good firepower-per-activation and then a bunch of smaller MSU units to get your activations-per-turn higher than your opponents.