Re: [Epic] Average detachment size

From: <duckrvr_at_...>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:34:38 -0500

At 08:10 PM 6/20/97 -0700, you wrote:

FWIW, I have an observation about where to target your points values.

Go for just over x-hundred and 50. For example 256, or 361.

One reason is that you lose morale for broken detachments the same for
everyone, but you want to keep your morale/detachment even, so you don't
have to round up. You dont' want to lose 7 points for a 13 morale
detachment, when you could add a couple units and make it a fourteen morale
detachment, and your opponent has to kill more stands to get the same morale
benefit. That puts you between 150 and 200, or 350 and 400, etc.

You then want to stay as close to the x-hundred and 50 because, loss of
morale comes not only from broken detachments, but also from BMs.
Therefore, you want to stretch your detachments for as much morale as
possible, so you set them at a value that rounds up, i.e. x-hundred and 51
or more.

For these same reasons, you want to try for an odd number of units so your
opponent has to kill just over 50%, rather than exactly 50% to get the benefit.

Just to illustrate, let's take an example detachment at 145 points and 10 units:

It has 3 morale, so it can "soak" 3 BMs, and gives up 2 after 5 units are
destroyed.

If you add 1 unit, and make it, say 156 pts:

It has 4 moral, so it can soak 4 BMs but still only gives up 2 when broken,
and your opponent has to kill 6 models to get the same benefit. That one
model buys you a lot in terms of staying power.

Min-maxing? Absolutely. Will it help win? Maybe. I believe one of the
games Allen and I played was something like -10 to +4 at the end. Since we
started with 55 and 51 morale with the same amount of points, if I hadn't
squeaked out an extra BM in several detachments, it would have been a tie.
Obviously, if he had done the same, he still would have lost . . . unless I
needed that one more stand to break a detachment.

Temp
Received on Fri Jun 20 1997 - 14:34:38 UTC