Minimum Unit Size

[BigRed]

I was reading a thread the other day about Uhlans, and someone mentioned they take a minimum unit when they use them. This got me thinking, does anyone take minimum unit sizes? I have never taken one in MK1, i havent been in a position where taking one has crossed my mind in yet in MK2, but with the new MoW unit preview i have started thinking about it. I usually play 35pt games, so has anyone else thought about or use minimum unit sizes?

[OldOneEye]

Depends on the unit. I take minimum units with cavalry-- both the Uhlans and Raptors in my Legion army. Part of that is because buying the extra models is so expensive, but I think they're cost effective at that point.

Generally, though, I take full units. For infantry, it increases their effectiveness and lengthens their productive time on the table.

[DemonCalibre]

Kossites, I never run them at a full unit, why? because there is only so many optimal deployment spots for Ambush, more dudes are more guys unlikely to make attacks.

After that I don't know, WG get some flexibility, because Rockteers can fill the out.

[PG_Lord Stormbringer]

I was reading a thread the other day about Uhlans, and someone mentioned they take a minimum unit when they use them. This got me thinking, does anyone take minimum unit sizes? I have never taken one in MK1, i havent been in a position where taking one has crossed my mind in yet in MK2, but with the new MoW unit preview i have started thinking about it. I usually play 35pt games, so has anyone else thought about or use minimum unit sizes?

I very rarely take minimum units in Mk2. The way points costs are structured, it's almost always a significantly better value to take a full sized unit. As others have mentioned, it also increases the resistance to attrition significantly and keeps an effective damage output even when attrition kicks in.

Cavalry is something of an exception to that. The sheer expense of cavalry, and the way the points stack up, mean that there's more value to a smaller unit. In general, if they bog down they're doomed anyway, so attrition is less of a factor . And even one or two will hit like a ton of bricks. So yes, there is definitely some value to taking a minimum unit.

[Yertle4]

I run 3 Demo Corps in my eButcher list, because the 3 extra points is better spent elsewhere, and because 3 is all I need to do what I want them to do.

[zee]

In certain situations, when trying to plug a hole in my list, and taking a minimum of one unit will allow me to fit a certain crucial unit or solo in, I'll do it. This would be an example of Variety being worth its cost in point cost. More often than not though, I just live with the weaknesses and vulnerabilities that abound in Khadorian lists, and just try to maximize my main strategy and take the maximum of my central units.

[Avecrien]

I don't know, but I intend to run minimum units of Kommandos with full flamethrowers.

[Garangoor]

I make it as OldOneEye, depend on the unit. Most units will be taken at maximum unit size, others not (mostly Kossite's here).

[marskitten]

I'm going to agree with everyone here: depends on purpose and unit. Generalists like the IFP/WG deserve full points as part of their role is fodder. Specialists require less. Though I've not seen anyone take a full unit of uhlans since mk2.

[testuser]

I have played some games with MoW:ST min-unit as kinda part of my casters (eIrusk) defense and that worked pretty well, a full unit is pretty expensive

[i_like_tool]

I've actually just started playing around with non full strength units just to see how much it changes the game

So far, mixed results. Some units do well at minimum unit(sometimes plus UA)like the:
Kayazy Assassins but UA REALLY helps
Demo Corp, 3 does pretty well
Ironfang Pikemen do pretty good but also like the UA. Not needed, but good
Battle Mechaniks
Uhlans do just fine as a Min Unit
Assault Kommandos are 50/50 as a Min unit

[BigRed]

Thats very interesting. I agree that units like WG and IFP are best used as full units, since they are generally the main unit of troopers. Since i usually play at 35 points i have stated thinking that taking a min size unit of MoW would be the best way to get them in my lists, its good to hear that they can be effective.

[Ravnak]

I'm going to agree with everyone else:

I'd pretty much say that the rule is to max out the unit if the people in it cost a point or less. And to go smaller if they cost 2 points or more.

Ie. MoW work well in 3s, because you have plenty of UA to fill up on, and spreading out is helpful. for the slow, semi-tough guys.

[PG_Kevin B]

Having read this post its interesting to see everyones view. In games like this the only real "currency" we have is the pts total of the game so tough choices have to be made.

- Larger unit can last longer.
- Larger units cost more, but normally on a pts/model size ratio work out better
- Larger units = less drops on table which can mean opponent can read game easier
- Larger units = less variety of units which can mean less options


Based on my personal games I find that the "fodder" units are better small to get in the way, be cheap, take the hit to set up the real hit etc. While I put the points into my alpha units to last longer and dish out the hurt.

Even though I may keep my more "expendable" units to the smaller size it doesnt mean I wont give them WA or US if it helps them - the IF officer is great for keeping my IF mobile yet keeping their armour high for example.

In games upto 35pts ( biggest ive played so far) a minimal unit of battle mechs is fine (2 mecks/jack works for me) so again thats a point ive saved for other toys.

It really is a case of use/expendability/survivability/plan.

Just my thoughts

[PG_Caecus Scius]

I am starting to run Kayzay at min with UA, because you don't need 10, 6 do the same job... Mine are all but immortal, so I end up with too many clumped up behind doing nothing.