Army ants? Lanchester’s Square Law vs. Raiders & Venoms

I’ve been having a debate with myself and I want to bring it to this community for discussion.

Lancaster’s Square Law was devised during WWI to describe how power differences between opposing forces effect casualty rates. To boil it down, his law states than for the number of soldiers ‘N’ that you have in your force, their power is equal to N squared (N^2).

This got me thinking, because I have 67 Drukhari Warriors, if it might be better to forgo Raiders and Venoms and instead use those points on getting more warriors on the table.

At 6 points per model, with PfP, hitting on 3+, good leadership, and poison weaponry, Warriors are one of the most point efficient units in 40k. They’ve got excellent equipment options and high mobility even without a transport.

Raiders and Venoms are some of the best transport options in the game, but at their cost we could take at least 10 more warriors and equip them. Are the 5++ saves and speed worth more than 10 more warriors with equipment?

I put it to you. 60 Kabalite Warriors with Blasters & Splinter Weapons vs 30 Kabalite Warriors in 2 Raiders and 2 Venoms?

Transported troops are more survivable and more able to achieve objectives.

Could you elaborate on why and how they are more survivable and more able to achieve objectives?

I think these are two of the key issues I’m questioning.

BlacklightZero wrote:

Could you elaborate on why and how they are more survivable and more able to achieve objectives?

I think these are two of the key issues I’m questioning.

for the dark eldar vehicles provide more wounds with a higher toughness and better saves then foot slogging troops. Plus the shooting ability is almost equivalent while inside the vehicle as they are when outside the vehicle due to being open topped.

The real reason to take them though is that your equation requires you to frame the units and there firepower involved. just because you have 300 warriors on the table doesn't mean they can from turn to turn combine enough of there firepower on different parts of the battlefield for your numbers to matter. as an opponent if your army is spread out across the field I don't need to fight them all this turn. I can use a denied flank strategy and fight a half to a quarter of your force at a time and let the ones far away from where I chose to fight twiddle there thumbs doing nothing. that way my elite mobile force of 1500 points or so can focus on 600 -800 pts of your army. thereby using the same Lancaster’s Square Law to my advantage by re-framing the battlefield. This is why mobility is important its lets me re-frame the battlefield and dictate the conflict on my own terms.

Transports aren't objective secured, so a squad of 5 kabalite warriors will always hold the object that a venom is also sitting on.

Quote :

Transports aren't objective secured, so a squad of 5 kabalite warriors will always hold the object that a venom is also sitting on.

Yes but with out the transport the enemy can focus fire on the warriors to prevent them from getting on the objective or to remove them off the objective if they are already there. The venom can make sure that the warriors get to an objective you want to hold faster and more reliably then the foot slogging warriors by themselves.

Warriors can't hold objectives they cannot reach.

Every time the warriors get shot at their effectiveness drop with each casualty, the effectiveness of a squad inside a raider or venom drops once the transport is destroyed and the squad embarked targeted again.

Warriors inside a transport can reach their target 14" to 19" away and still shoot at full efficiency.

Point per point warriors may be more efficient than warrior plus transport, but you lose the flexibility that wins you the game.

I actually think the foot warriors may Mathhammer to be sturdier than then transport. 1 venom could instead be 12 warriors. Twice as many wounds and all on different bodies counts for a lot. They are more fragile in other ways (can be locked in cc, vulnerable to morale before turn 4) but it isn't a forgone conclusion that they are more fragile. Also, they hit harder at almost every range.

Venom +5 warriors 105 points, 20 shots at 12 inches
18 warriors 108 points, 18 shots at 24 inches!

The numbers in many ways make up the lack of mobility and they blow the venom out of the water at 12 inches


The objective critique is real but a single big block in a www gets you 1 objective without transports and I think it's unusual that you would have more that are both accessible and so uncontested by the opponents that a single venom can go take it.

Frowny wrote:

I actually think the foot warriors may Mathhammer to be sturdier than then transport. 1 venom could instead be 12 warriors. Twice as many wounds and all on different bodies counts for a lot. They are more fragile in other ways (can be locked in cc, vulnerable to morale before turn 4) but it isn't a forgone conclusion that they are more fragile. Also, they hit harder at almost every range.

Venom +5 warriors 105 points, 20 shots at 12 inches
18 warriors 108 points, 18 shots at 24 inches!

The numbers in many ways make up the lack of mobility and they blow the venom out of the water at 12 inches


The objective critique is real but a single big block in a www gets you 1 objective without transports and I think it's unusual that you would have more that are both accessible and so uncontested by the opponents that a single venom can go take it.

But venoms are 2 toughness higher means wounding you on 4/5+ instead of 2/3+, also has -1 to hit and a 5++ vs a 5+ only and no -1 to hit.

And dont forget our vehicles also has fly, so we can jump on top of buildings, we can move 16" to get out of danger or an objective faster.

You are paying for all of that over the extra few warriors, vehicles for warriors are almost always better UNLESS you are taking minimum 0 upgrade warriors as bubble wrap for turn 1.

I think it depends a lot on the game itself.

Has the enemy invested a lot in s6+ d6 wound weaponry, then the kabalites on foot are more survivable.
Has the enemy invested a lot in s3/4 shots: the transport might be more survivable

Do you need to capture an objective close by
Foot kabalites have objective secured and the numbers to take it.
Is it further away, you might not reach it at all.

Do you have a lot of reavers, they can take the far of objectives while kabalites take the closer ones while moving up the board.

I think right now both are viable and it depends on the rest of the list and the enemy on what works better.

The problem with lancasters law is that it does not take into account that some things are better then others. I take empty 2 venoms (2^2 =4) and you have 5 warriors (5^5 =25) I think we all know the venoms will make short work of those 5 warriors. Or that some things are better against certain things (10 warriors without special weapons against 1 venom). Or even 10 warriors on foot of flayed skull against 9 warriors on foot of the poisoned tongue (although here who delivers the first punch is more important).

To me, it is simply far more fluffy to have transports. I could not make myself run a footslog list.

I thought it was pretty self-evident, but okay... troops in a fast, FLYing transport, are more able to respond to Maelstrom objectives, and achieve ITC-format secondaries. Guys on foot, not so much.

I am not so sure they are more able to respond to maelstrom objectives.
With a vehicle you either have 1 model which means it only works if the objective is unoccupied.
If it is occupied our infantry with the charge moves roughly as far as a normal moving vehicle. And if you want to get a far of objective use the reavers, which are more models than a transport as well.

I am not so sure they are more able to respond to maelstrom objectives.
With a vehicle you either have 1 model which means it only works if the objective is unoccupied.
If it is occupied our infantry with the charge moves roughly as far as a normal moving vehicle. And if you want to get a far of objective use the reavers, which are more models than a transport as well.

The trouble with Lanchester’s Square Law is that its based on purely infantry forces, grouping cavalry in with basic troops.
It was devised at a time when armoured transports weren't a thing (or were very, very new) and assume both sides are similarly equipped. It was based on the war as it was happening in the trenches.
By modern standards it doesn't hold up. Just look at the recent wars, far fewer troops were needed to take Iraq for example, because of superior equipment. And Lanchester’s Square Law doesn;t account for these factors.

i think too much emphasis is put on ALL kabalites needing transports. having a few with them isnt a bad idea, putting them all in transports and i think you start to end up wasting points.

Nogrim wrote:

i think too much emphasis is put on ALL kabalites needing transports. having a few with them isnt a bad idea, putting them all in transports and i think you start to end up wasting points.

I only take 3 Raiders, 10 Warriors 2 Blasters in each, i dont consider it a waste at all. It depends if you are running 10 Raider/Kabals or a few, i also have Ravagers, Grots, Wyches, Talos. So i have boots on the ground, its all about the list and not isolating the units.

as example i have 50 kabalites in my list, but only 20 are in raiders w/upgrades.

barebones kabalites are a great way to screen as they are so cheap, and unlike razorwings, can shoot and melee and dont require beast masters

Screens are only required for turtles, otherwise footslogging kabalites don't keep up with the rest of the army.

Screening was useful before the FaQ. Right now yes, you need fast screen

I haven't tested it yet but I'll invest in venom transports for the obsession and teleport a huge grotesques squad.

Sent from Topic'it App

I have 3x10 warriors with raiders in my army. And another 2 venoms for HQs and CC units. In a 2k army that is not that much of a transport tax. And raiders with dissies also do decent dmg for their points.

The point why I always put warrior squads in raiders if they are carrying blasters, is to get them in range before the enemy is able to shoot them down. With the increased mobility you are also more flexible to exploit mistakes the enemy makes during deployment.

EDIT: Of course there would be nothing wrong by taking an additional footslogging warrior squad with only splinter rifles.

Am I the only one who actually don't consider our transports as taxes, but as complete usefull units?

Cerve wrote:

Am I the only one who actually don't consider our transports as taxes, but as complete usefull units?

Flayed skull venoms are nice. Flood the battlefield with them, transporting 5 dudes with blasters. You want to get to 18 inches anyway and you hugely benefit from the obsession. I like them.