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.

The current trend seems to be detachments whose abilities and stratagems disproportionately affect certain datasheets. Now, I'm a big fan of themed lists (I once ran a White Scars list consisting solely of bikers and flyers, back when FOC allowed it). I just feel that this focus on synergies is at risk of taking list-building options off the table. Especially if a datasheet-centric detachment finds success in tournaments, causing GW to raise the points costs on affected units until they're nonviable in any other detachment.

E.g., Sisters Repentia seem to be currently priced (at 18 pts per T3 1W 5+++ model) under the assumption that they'll be benefiting from the Penitent Host detachment bonuses, meaning it's hardly worth it to take them unless you go all-out with the penitent theme.

.

The value of a given datasheet in detachment X vs detachment Y isn't necessarily exclusive to detachments clearly themed around one or two units. Right now, eldar have access to two detachments. One of them gives a war walker with bright lances the ability to reroll a to-hit and to-wound roll each time it shoots meaning that its overall accuracy is way higher than in the other detachment which provides no major benefits to the war walker. Neither of those detachments is really the "war walker detachment," but one definitely benefits war walkers more than the other, and setting the points cost of the war walker without knowing which of those an eldar player is using is presumably quite tricky.

That said, I do prefer it when a detachment seems to be designed around supporting a style of play rather than just existing to buff one or two specific datasheets.

Personally I think the detachment system is really good and I like how they are themed around different army structures and give out benefits based on those themes.

However I also know that it can create the problem you are talking about were one unit becomes too strong in a single detachment so they have to nerf it for all of them.

The obvious solution, that GW is too lazy to do, is to adjust the points cost in the detachments causing problems. In your example make the Sisters Repentia 18 pts in the Penitent Hosts but less in the others.

I think its a problem in theory, but not really in practice. I mean say you think Repentia should be 18 points in this subfaction - and what? 17 points in another? 16? Unless you are going to have such significant points changes across the whole roster that the other subfaction can bring whole extra units I'm not sure its materially adding up to very much.

I've not kept up with every codex, but I think most have some sort of generic detachment (not great for those still waiting perhaps) which gives some benefit to everything. So if you want to "go wide" in terms of unit selection, you are covered. That may (rather, it does) benefit certain units more than others - and it may not be the best (or meta) detachment for that faction to play.

But does it really matter? You can go down the road of "I can't run this and expect to win the LVO" - but would you anyway? Stuff just has to be close enough.

There are some things I still don't like about 10th. I really want more options for characters (which could bring its own problems - and I often argued in the past people went for cookie cutter builds so does it matter? Turns out it does.)

But while its perhaps not true in all cases, but I think GW is doing a better and better job at making units viable. And you kind of see that across the various lists that place in tournaments. Its a world away from the dark days of 7th edition ITC where haves and have nots seemed to be playing a different game.

It's not really the detachment system itself as much as specific implementations. For the most part, detachments do a good job of encouraging different playstyles and getting different units on the table. It creates different design spaces where units can shine. As much as Repentia would be better if they were cheaper, the reality is making them "good" displaces something else, while making them good in a specific detachments creates space for both units.

Now, the detachments that get things right are the ones that encourage certain units but still have some general utility. A lot of the index detachments do this quite well. The more focused ones work when their focus is pretty broud. Ironstorm for example is vehicle focused by has a lot of variety on what vehicles you can build around.

The detachments that get things wrong are generally overly focused. Bully Boyz is a strong detachments, but its strategems literally only buff two units in the army and demands a level of spam that isn't at all healthy. Even there though, there's a need for utility units that makes the system work a lot better than one where you were locked into a unit subset as is often the case with these kind of subfaction rules.

I think overall the detachments make more things viable without hugely limiting what your army can look like. There are definitely some that do a better job of encouraging different builds than others though and units that just aren't great no matter what detachment they end up in.

You are not forced into detachments, I was working on a nutty "Honoured Dead Who Walked" Dreadnought army even before the Detachment for them came out for Custodes.

It's just a happy accident that I can now drop the infantry for more suits.

What's stifling list-building is the replacement of points with PL, the removal of virtually every option and piece of wargear (and the remainder being locked into awkward combinations), the fact that characters can only join ZE DESIGNATED UNIT, and the fact that the core rules are about as deep as a paddling pool.

Detachments might be a factor, but even if you did away with them entirely it still wouldn't make list-building any less dreary.

-Guardsman- wrote:
The current trend seems to be detachments whose abilities and stratagems disproportionately affect certain datasheets. Now, I'm a big fan of themed lists (I once ran a White Scars list consisting solely of bikers and flyers, back when FOC allowed it). I just feel that this focus on synergies is at risk of taking list-building options off the table. Especially if a datasheet-centric detachment finds success in tournaments, causing GW to raise the points costs on affected units until they're nonviable in any other detachment.

E.g., Sisters Repentia seem to be currently priced (at 18 pts per T3 1W 5+++ model) under the assumption that they'll be benefiting from the Penitent Host detachment bonuses, meaning it's hardly worth it to take them unless you go all-out with the penitent theme.

Given the nature of the Detachment system, GW shouldn't be trying to fix a unit that is too good in one detachment by raising the units points. They should modify the detachment to make the unit just good in that detachment.

The overall point is that each detachment should raise up certain playstyles and/or units at the cost of not enhancing other units you need to take regardless of that fact. If the detachment is so good as to remove the need for non-enhanced units, the detachment is the problem.

To take your example, if Penitent Host makes Sisters Repentia too good, then nerf how Penitent Host enhances Sister Repentia rather than raising the points value of Sisters Repentia for all detachments.

Detachments are better then they give a few blanket abilities not dependent on it being specific datasheets. Like the new guard one, there's zero reason to bring vehicles with it, they get no bonuses and are worse for the power of your list then just taking more infantry. Instead detachments should be granting universal special rules or something similar to every unit in the army, sure some will get more value out of it but there isn't a hard reason to just not take units at all like currently.

I can't agree with that. Giving units an ability that is useless or next to useless to them is tantamount to not giving them anything at all.

On the other hand, giving solid (not OP) bonuses to a select subset of units allows a detachment to allow a specific type of army to be effective without overpowering other aspects of that army. This increases the opportunity for players to have fun without allowing a detachment to overpower the army as a whole.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
The value of a given datasheet in detachment X vs detachment Y isn't necessarily exclusive to detachments clearly themed around one or two units. Right now, eldar have access to two detachments. One of them gives a war walker with bright lances the ability to reroll a to-hit and to-wound roll each time it shoots meaning that its overall accuracy is way higher than in the other detachment which provides no major benefits to the war walker. Neither of those detachments is really the "war walker detachment," but one definitely benefits war walkers more than the other, and setting the points cost of the war walker without knowing which of those an eldar player is using is presumably quite tricky.

That said, I do prefer it when a detachment seems to be designed around supporting a style of play rather than just existing to buff one or two specific datasheets.

Oddly enough GW doesn't seem to find anything tricky about it. For loyalist space marines of all kinds, this is visible very clearly. Apothecary too strong thanks to one relic, in one detachment? Gets hit with the nerf bat for everyone. Venguard Veteran were good in index BA, and only index BA, thanks to jump pack sangpriest, and option that doesn't exist anymore? GW rises the point cost of VenVets anyway. This way of writing and adjusting rules , plus the way they treat non ultramarines codex players, tells a lot about GW ways of designing rules. They do have specific builds and lists in mind, hate if people builld something of their own , becuase those builds get killed very fast, and don't really care about what else is in the codex. Release a "white scar" detachment without actual units to play it in the SM codex? not a problem, because it was tested to be a Space Wolves detachment.

On the other hand, giving solid (not OP) bonuses to a select subset of units allows a detachment to allow a specific type of army to be effective without overpowering other aspects of that army.

More or less how builds are, or at least were, created. With the slight correction that GW doesn't care that much, if something is OP or the opposit of OP.
GW has zero problems with releasing a detachment that buffs already powerful armies/units (new necron detachment), or have a good idea which maybe would have been fun to see in practic if it only wasn't for the fact that the rules writer forgot/didn't check, the army rules for the army he was writing, and an interesting set of rules ended up a DoA because of it (vide 1ksons detachment would have been fun for GK, and is not very fun for 1ksons).

 alextroy wrote:
I can't agree with that. Giving units an ability that is useless or next to useless to them is tantamount to not giving them anything at all.

On the other hand, giving solid (not OP) bonuses to a select subset of units allows a detachment to allow a specific type of army to be effective without overpowering other aspects of that army. This increases the opportunity for players to have fun without allowing a detachment to overpower the army as a whole.

Nobody is saying detachment abilities should be useless, so you're making a strawman.

1)In your Command phase, select one enemy unit. Until the start of your next Command phase, each time a NOBLE, LYCHGUARD or TRIARCH unit from your army makes an attack that targets that unit, add 1 to the Wound roll.
2)In your Command phase, select one enemy unit. Until the start of your next Command phase, each time a NECRONS unit from your army makes an attack that targets that unit, add 1 to the Wound roll.
3)In your Command phase, your opponent selects one of their units. Until the start of your next Command phase, each time a NOBLE, LYCHGUARD or TRIARCH unit from your army makes an attack that targets that unit, add 1 to the Wound roll.
4) In your Command phase, your opponent selects one of their units. Until the start of your next Command phase, each time a NECRONS unit from your army makes an attack that targets that unit, add 1 to the Wound roll.

1 and 2 are more solid (not OP), 3 and 4 are useless because your opponent will select an irrelevant unit for you to target. 1 and 3 only affect a handful of datasheets, heavily encouraging spamming them at the exclusion of everything else as there is little reason to include units in your army not benefitting from your detachment ability, especially if the Stratagems are also encouraging the use of those same datasheets. You can get around it to a degree by encouraging a few more datasheets with Stratagems, but GW is basically building your list for you instead of giving you a detachment and asking you what you feel would be cool, fun or powerful. Is it more likely a detachment ends up broken when 30 datasheets could be broken within rather than 5? For sure, but the Detachment could be OP even if it just buffed one datasheet, so GW aren't really saving themselves from much trouble but they are massively hurting the amount of fun people can have with list building and trying out lists.

^Good post gave me a slightly diff perspective. In addition when a detachment singles out specific data sheets it will often bring them to GWs attention and they'll 'derp nerf' it for every other detachment. Pricing it only for the most powerful iteration of itself, rendering it a feels bad in other detachments.
I'd rather have a det that gives 'all of my units auto advance 6" ' and let me decide if I want to use my Chimera as mini Hellhounds, or apply that to Bullgryn, etc. Give me a theme and let me fill in the blanks as I see fit.

 vict0988 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I can't agree with that. Giving units an ability that is useless or next to useless to them is tantamount to not giving them anything at all.

On the other hand, giving solid (not OP) bonuses to a select subset of units allows a detachment to allow a specific type of army to be effective without overpowering other aspects of that army. This increases the opportunity for players to have fun without allowing a detachment to overpower the army as a whole.

Nobody is saying detachment abilities should be useless, so you're making a strawman.

I'd posit that you didn't read the post prior to alex's, and therefore didn't read alex's in context, so I'd be careful before throwing the term "strawman" about.

When read together, alex was objecting to Gibblets' suggestion of detachments providing "...a few blanket abilities..." - the problem with blanket abilities being that there tend to be units for which said abilities will provide little-to-no benefit to them, something even acknowledged by Gibblets in their post.

Giving everything in a Guard detachment +1A on the charge is unlikely to benefit any Field Artillery, for a very quick and off-the-cuff example. There may be edge cases where it helps, but they'd be few and far between.

Assuming I'm reading alex's post as intended, all that he's doing is suggesting he prefers the current approach of more targetted buffs to Gibblets' suggestion of blanket abilities - which, in turn, would make it tricky to be a strawman.

Now, will you please leave the windmills alone, vict?

Thank you for clearly stating my intention Dysartes. We have already gone through editions of failed general subfaction abilities that warp the value of some units for all detachments. I prefer a few general detachments plus these focused detatchments

You can complain that these focused detachments “write your list for you”. If so, you are missing the point. They are supposed to do exactly that to a strong extent. The Tau Kroot detachment is supposed to be mostly Kroot unit! That’s why it exist.

Conditions on what units benefit never increases the number of viable units in a detachment.

A benefit being conditional is not superior to one that is unconditional.

Field artillery not deriving much benefit from +1 A on the charge is unfortunate, only giving infantry +1 A on the charge and thereby making cavalry bad in the detachment is bad design Gibblets pointed out.

some will get more value out of it but there isn't a hard reason to just not take units at all like currently

I can't agree with that. Giving units an ability that is useless or next to useless to them is tantamount to not giving them anything at all.

Reading it Dystartes way would make it an irrelevant quibble about the degree of effect and the second part of the post makes no sense, why write "On the other hand..." after an irrelevant quibble about how much benefit edge cases get from inclusive detachment benefits (little or none)?

detachments should be granting universal special rules or something similar to every unit in the army

I can't agree with that. Giving units an ability that is useless or next to useless to them is tantamount to not giving them anything at all.

Makes the second part of the post make sense as the two options are clearly being compared and given the context of a detachment ability that applies only to infantry units makes sense. One useless USR is irrelevant to all units vs a targeted datasheet specific buff makes an impact and is therefore the way GW should design detachments, which only makes sense if you ignore the option of buff that is useful to a large number of units. I would also argue that +1 A on the charge is bad design, if you want a fix bayonets detachment you could increase lethality outside your deployment zone and give the detachment enhancements and stratagems to encourage melee. Make the largest number of units viable, let people forge their own narratives.

If you wanted to do something where it makes no sense to apply to every unit, like rapid re-deployment with jump packs and the entire power budget of the detachment ability is taken up by giving jump packs or jetbikes this thing, then fair enough, but in the case of Bridgehead Strike it's literally just GW going "here use this list we think is cool". I actually think completely banning units has more merit than simply not letting them benefit from a detachment ability, because maybe Nurgle Daemons work really well with Tzeentch Daemons for some reason, but in the lore they don't get along. Then this detachment can ban Tzeentch Daemons to make room in the power budget of the detachment to buff Nurgle Daemons even further and make the fluffy list viable, because even if you just buffed the Nurgle Daemons people would still bring Tzeentch Daemons for some combo in this scenario.

It would be great if codex's came with 2 generalist detachments and 4 themed dets. The themed detachments should have a list of data sheets barred from use in them w/e it makes sense, as Vict pointed out, to reduce unintended consequences. The trade off being the buffs for themed datasheets can be strong enough to be role changing like getting, Battleline, a free 6" move at the end of your turn, Psyker access for sargeants, mounted characters, etc.


As an aside, +1A to anything in the Guard book is akin to useless. I have to assume you were trying to be preposterous with that suggestion; it really wounded your chances for me to take you seriously after that.

 Gibblets wrote:
It would be great if codex's came with 2 generalist detachments and 4 themed dets. The themed detachments should have a list of data sheets barred from use in them w/e it makes sense, as Vict pointed out, to reduce unintended consequences. The trade off being the buffs for themed datasheets can be strong enough to be role changing like getting, Battleline, a free 6" move at the end of your turn, Psyker access for sargeants, mounted characters, etc.

I think having some 'generalist' detachments in each codex is a good idea.

That said, I'm not convinced detachments really serve much purpose. About 90% of them are just "kill more". Sometimes it's a specific unit that gets to kill more and sometimes units get to kill more under certain conditions. But it's still just amounts to 'kill more'.

Is this really worth having detachments for?

I would think it would be better for detachments to change the way an army plays - like allowing more FA units or making Bikes Battleline (ideally with some sort of trade-off). However, we've already all but abandoned any meaningful structure to army-building.

I'll add, too, that these aren't new complaints. However, they're more of an issue in 10th because detachments have become such a core part of a given army's rules and options.

Frankly, I don't think any unit should come with Battleline as standard - the units which are Battleline should be specified in the detachment.

 Dysartes wrote:
Frankly, I don't think any unit should come with Battleline as standard - the units which are Battleline should be specified in the detachment.

If a unit is fine as Battleline in Detachment A, then why isn't it fine as Battleline in Detachment B? I don't want spam of any kind to be widely popular. I think taking 3 copies of a unit gives your list a thematic throughline. If the unit is particularly cheap or expensive, I could see reason for an exception, but in general rule of 3 is great.

 vipoid wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:
It would be great if codex's came with 2 generalist detachments and 4 themed dets. The themed detachments should have a list of data sheets barred from use in them w/e it makes sense, as Vict pointed out, to reduce unintended consequences. The trade off being the buffs for themed datasheets can be strong enough to be role changing like getting, Battleline, a free 6" move at the end of your turn, Psyker access for sargeants, mounted characters, etc.

I think having some 'generalist' detachments in each codex is a good idea.

That said, I'm not convinced detachments really serve much purpose. About 90% of them are just "kill more". Sometimes it's a specific unit that gets to kill more and sometimes units get to kill more under certain conditions. But it's still just amounts to 'kill more'.

Is this really worth having detachments for?

I would think it would be better for detachments to change the way an army plays - like allowing more FA units or making Bikes Battleline (ideally with some sort of trade-off). However, we've already all but abandoned any meaningful structure to army-building.

I'll add, too, that these aren't new complaints. However, they're more of an issue in 10th because detachments have become such a core part of a given army's rules and options.

They create interesting list building opportunities and allows people to use their model collections in different ways. If Timmy has a highlander list with 1000 pts, then 2 different generic detachments gives him twice as many options for how his army performs on the battlefield as 1 generic detachment, allowing Timmy to switch it up once in a while or choose the one that feels best to him. They're all kill more because GW chose to do kill more, kill more (but just for unit A), kill more (but just for unit B) instead of kill more, move more, defend more representing the different strengths and thematic elements of the factions' fluff.

The Awakening Tomb Detachment represents a Necron tomb awakening and being defended mainly by Canopteks and Battleline units.

The Dynastic Court Detachment represents the high nobility of a dynasty assembling into an unbreakable and elite force.

The Execution Phalanx Detachment represents the genocidal tendencies of the Necrons.

The Obeiscance Nexus Detachment represents Necrons predicting opponents and using fear to win battles.

The Star Raiders Detachment is all about the Necron mastery of dimensional technology and teleportation technology.

You could use the exact same list of units and face the exact same enemy detachment and have different strategic options and considerations depending on which you use. They're all just beta version fandex detachments, so probably not equally strong, but you'd at least be intrigued to see if you could make things work in every detachment and not be blocked by a stupid datasheet locked ability.

Awakened Dynasty is kill more for characters. But I can still use Tomb Blades.

The Annihilation Legion is kill more for flayed ones and destroyers. But I can still use Triarch Praetorians.

Canoptek Court is kill more for Canopteks. But I can still use nobles and vehicles.

These 3 official detachments add minimscule amounts to the faction. What's the likelihood of character spam being viable within Awakened Dynasty, the same time Destroyer spam is viable within Annihilation Legion, the same time Canoptek spam is viable within Canoptek Court? Approximately 0%.

 alextroy wrote:
Thank you for clearly stating my intention Dysartes. We have already gone through editions of failed general subfaction abilities that warp the value of some units for all detachments. I prefer a few general detachments plus these focused detatchments

You can complain that these focused detachments “write your list for you”. If so, you are missing the point. They are supposed to do exactly that to a strong extent. The Tau Kroot detachment is supposed to be mostly Kroot unit! That’s why it exist.

Since you said Dystartes got you right, that must mean I misunderstood your argument and was wrong to say you made strawman. I am sorry alextroy and thank you Dystartes for pointing it out. I still don't think your take makes any sense. How is +1 A on the charge for infantry better design than +1 A to everyone?

A spam detachment doesn't add anything new to the game, I can spam Kroot in any detachment, the fact that the Kroot Detachment makes everything else less worth taking doesn't add anything. You can still field triple Riptide + 60 Kroot with or without it, so you're not forcing or allowing players to make super narrative lists. Just because a Kroot detachment exists does not mean it will be used. If I cannot normally effectively spam Kroot without using Riptides for some reason then a Kroot Detachment that bans Riptides but buffs Kroot enough will create something new.

So, just to be clear, Vict-you're of the opinion that removing options makes more new options?

 vict0988 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Frankly, I don't think any unit should come with Battleline as standard - the units which are Battleline should be specified in the detachment.

If a unit is fine as Battleline in Detachment A, then why isn't it fine as Battleline in Detachment B? I don't want spam of any kind to be widely popular. I think taking 3 copies of a unit gives your list a thematic throughline. If the unit is particularly cheap or expensive, I could see reason for an exception, but in general rule of 3 is great.

Firstly, and I'm away from my books so I can't check, but if it doesn't the Rule of 3 should scale by the size of the game. Fixing it to 3 regardless of 1,000 points or 3,000 points is daft.

Secondly, as I see it, a detachment is meant to be giving narrative theme as a framework for building your army around. That narrative hook may dictate that certain units are more likely to be prevalent in it than others, and some that might in a "default" view be your battleline units may not be suitable in others.

I don't have the 'Nid book, so I'm talking theoretical here - a "default" Tyranid army should probably have Termagants, Hormagants, Neurogants, maybe Rippers/Gargoyles as Battleline. However, those units don't make as much sense for a Vanguard list, or a Nidzilla list - so I would prefer it if the Battleline for each detachment was specified on it, based on what makes sense for the theme of the detachment.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, just to be clear, Vict-you're of the opinion that removing options makes more new options?

That sounds like a paradox, so I probably wasn't clear enough. Could you quote the part or parts of my post that suggested this.

A detachment with a datasheet focus creates a few options, at least theoretically, a detachment without one creates many more options. Removing datasheet-focussed detachments would be a bad idea, nerf or replace them instead. After a faction has its first 15 detachments could I see a datasheet focussed detachment or 2 exist? Maybe. But they shouæd not make up more than 1/10 detachments.

Kroot plus Riptides are bad and limit options.
Kroot who cannot take Riptides are good and add options.

That’s what you said, far as I can see.

 vict0988 wrote:

They create interesting list building opportunities and allows people to use their model collections in different ways. If Timmy has a highlander list with 1000 pts, then 2 different generic detachments gives him twice as many options for how his army performs on the battlefield as 1 generic detachment, allowing Timmy to switch it up once in a while or choose the one that feels best to him.

Surely this could be done by just using different combinations of units?

You know, the way it used to work before 8th edition.

 vict0988 wrote:

The Awakening Tomb Detachment represents a Necron tomb awakening and being defended mainly by Canopteks and Battleline units.

The Dynastic Court Detachment represents the high nobility of a dynasty assembling into an unbreakable and elite force.

The Execution Phalanx Detachment represents the genocidal tendencies of the Necrons.

The Obeiscance Nexus Detachment represents Necrons predicting opponents and using fear to win battles.

The Star Raiders Detachment is all about the Necron mastery of dimensional technology and teleportation technology.

Again, though, why are these needed over just using different units?

Surely if Timmy wants to focus on Destroyer Cults, he can just take a lot of Destroyer Cult units in his army. Then if in the next game he wants to focus on Canoptek units, he can take lots of those instead.

Without the current detachment for the Solar Spearhead I cannot physically field my Dreadnought heavy Custode army... the Detachment allows me to make 2 dreadnoughts into Characters.

Without the Questoris Forgepact Detachment an Imperial Knight player can't take AdMech allies.

Detachments do add playstyles that would be impossible without them.

 vipoid wrote:


Again, though, why are these needed over just using different units?

Surely if Timmy wants to focus on Destroyer Cults, he can just take a lot of Destroyer Cult units in his army. Then if in the next game he wants to focus on Canoptek units, he can take lots of those instead.

Sometimes detachments also suggest narrative potential. The progression from the Brood Brother detachment representing the first wave of hosts infected by Purestrains before any hybrids are mature, to the middle detachments, to the most recent when the Tyranids arrive is an obvious narrative arc created by detachments.

Playing a roster based campaign where you have 3k available but usually field 500-1k at time, detachments offer a tactical choice that provides structure. I think I still prefer 9th's implementation, where the flavour rules came from the subfaction and detachments were purely organizational choices- but the reason I liked that so much is that multi-detachment armies were a thing. The sisters army I'm working with right now consists of units that were born and raised on the planet where the campaign takes place, and they venerate a local Saint. But as the army grows (escalation) the reinforcements are arriving from off-world. The arrival of these reinforcements is not without conflict; some senior members are interfering with promotions of locals, and few know much about the Local Saint. Organizing these troops in separate detachments is perfect signfier of this conflict, just as the eventual mixed detachments (or those imposed by the Inquisition) will be signifiers of increasing trust or external oversight.

In 9th, it would have been possible to maintain that feeling of separation, yet still fight together in the same battle. You don't NEED rules to make it happen- my Witch Hunter force from 3rd - 5th was never so much a 3000 point army as it was a 1500 point Inquisition Army and a 1500 point Sisters Army; frequently, they fought together, but just as often it was one or the other. But detachments having rules DOES make the choice seem to matter more, and it does offer narrative hooks. I also like it when enhancements suggest possible conversion work.

Without detachments, this game would not have enough crunch to entertain me.

I liked how you were forced to take troops and an HQ when including allies, as opposed to taking 3 Riptides or a Soul Grinder because they have an insane formation or the unit is just undercosted, 8th style detachments really made them feel like different forces coming together as PenitentJake says.

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

They create interesting list building opportunities and allows people to use their model collections in different ways. If Timmy has a highlander list with 1000 pts, then 2 different generic detachments gives him twice as many options for how his army performs on the battlefield as 1 generic detachment, allowing Timmy to switch it up once in a while or choose the one that feels best to him.

Surely this could be done by just using different combinations of units?

You know, the way it used to work before 8th edition.

Timmy only has 1000 points so far, he's using everything he's got every single game. He started out with a highlander collection to see what he likes, he's planning to go up to 3000 points, so he'll be able to switch out the 1000 points he feels the least like using and get some real variety. But so far he's just got the 1000 points, every hyper-focused datasheet detachment is almost useless to him because it just isn't interesting to see if something so clearly not designed to be used for his collection will work. Even worse is Spike who has been watching competitive content for a few months before joining and starts building his 1000 points towards his eventual competitive tournament build for his focused detachment, that detachment gets nerfed before he even gets to 2k pts and he quits the game because his list was only viable in this one detachment and it got nerfed because it had a 56% win rate in tournaments and the units it buffed to high heavens are now overpriced without it.

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

The Awakening Tomb Detachment represents a Necron tomb awakening and being defended mainly by Canopteks and Battleline units.

The Dynastic Court Detachment represents the high nobility of a dynasty assembling into an unbreakable and elite force.

The Execution Phalanx Detachment represents the genocidal tendencies of the Necrons.

The Obeiscance Nexus Detachment represents Necrons predicting opponents and using fear to win battles.

The Star Raiders Detachment is all about the Necron mastery of dimensional technology and teleportation technology.

Again, though, why are these needed over just using different units?

Surely if Timmy wants to focus on Destroyer Cults, he can just take a lot of Destroyer Cult units in his army. Then if in the next game he wants to focus on Canoptek units, he can take lots of those instead.

Timmy's destroy cult army performs differently if becomes a unkillable blob in one detachment, if it has to herd enemies into staying in a single table quarter in a second detachment to efficiently annihilate them, if it quickly flanks and surrounds enemies in a fourth detachment, if it can teleport in a fifth detachment. Timmy might not have any Canoptek units, but if he does he can do all the same things with Canoptek units or an infinite rainbow between full Canoptek and full Destroyer. The detachment rules can just be fun and interesting.

 vict0988 wrote:
I liked how you were forced to take troops and an HQ when including allies, as opposed to taking 3 Riptides or a Soul Grinder because they have an insane formation or the unit is just undercosted, 8th style detachments really made them feel like different forces coming together as PenitentJake says.

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

They create interesting list building opportunities and allows people to use their model collections in different ways. If Timmy has a highlander list with 1000 pts, then 2 different generic detachments gives him twice as many options for how his army performs on the battlefield as 1 generic detachment, allowing Timmy to switch it up once in a while or choose the one that feels best to him.

Surely this could be done by just using different combinations of units?

You know, the way it used to work before 8th edition.

Timmy only has 1000 points so far, he's using everything he's got every single game. He started out with a highlander collection to see what he likes, he's planning to go up to 3000 points, so he'll be able to switch out the 1000 points he feels the least like using and get some real variety. But so far he's just got the 1000 points, every hyper-focused datasheet detachment is almost useless to him because it just isn't interesting to see if something so clearly not designed to be used for his collection will work. Even worse is Spike who has been watching competitive content for a few months before joining and starts building his 1000 points towards his eventual competitive tournament build for his focused detachment, that detachment gets nerfed before he even gets to 2k pts and he quits the game because his list was only viable in this one detachment and it got nerfed because it had a 56% win rate in tournaments and the units it buffed to high heavens are now overpriced without it.

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

The Awakening Tomb Detachment represents a Necron tomb awakening and being defended mainly by Canopteks and Battleline units.

The Dynastic Court Detachment represents the high nobility of a dynasty assembling into an unbreakable and elite force.

The Execution Phalanx Detachment represents the genocidal tendencies of the Necrons.

The Obeiscance Nexus Detachment represents Necrons predicting opponents and using fear to win battles.

The Star Raiders Detachment is all about the Necron mastery of dimensional technology and teleportation technology.

Again, though, why are these needed over just using different units?

Surely if Timmy wants to focus on Destroyer Cults, he can just take a lot of Destroyer Cult units in his army. Then if in the next game he wants to focus on Canoptek units, he can take lots of those instead.

Timmy's destroy cult army performs differently if becomes a unkillable blob in one detachment, if it has to herd enemies into staying in a single table quarter in a second detachment to efficiently annihilate them, if it quickly flanks and surrounds enemies in a fourth detachment, if it can teleport in a fifth detachment. Timmy might not have any Canoptek units, but if he does he can do all the same things with Canoptek units or an infinite rainbow between full Canoptek and full Destroyer. The detachment rules can just be fun and interesting.

So we shouldn't have any more focused detachments because they might make the hypothetical new kid feel bad?
Sorry, but I've got bad news for this hypothetical new kid. He's just joined into a GW game. GW WILL screw up whatever he's building towards, no matter what various detachments look like. Especially if he's building a tourney meta list.

It's not good for people that play tonnes (or players with small collections) because they won't be able to switch between different detachments to prevent their faction from getting stale.

It's not good for casual players because they can't pick from among several detachments to pick the one that is most thematic because half of the detachments provide no thematic benefits to their army, just kill more for various focus groups. It also doesn't reward players for not taking OP units and focusing on the narrative in any meaningful way, if Riptides are OP then they're still OP in the Kroot Detachment.

It's not good for competitive players because it reduces variation in the lists and playstyles they face.

It's not good for list builders because it encourages cookie-cutter lists in the focussed detachments.

If you want to make a focused detachment and you make it clear it's just for you? I got no problems with that. GW makes 15 detachments and the 16th is focused? No problem. But within the paradigm of each faction getting 1-7 detachments, it's bad design for the reasons outlined above. Merry Christmas.