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.

-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.

.

Well first I want to question your premise. (Restating and somewhat correcting/refining your premise: Feel free to refine yourself if I'm wrong) The trend is SUPPOSED to be detachments that buff an iconic and/or flavor based theme list without new requirements to qualify from in-world or real world sources: The Vietnam War Green Berets doing a jungle sweep. Patton vs Rommel Tank Battles, and the Ultramarines Spear of Macragge who is currently missing in action or an Imperial Guard Armored Company. Monster Mash. Bug Tides. I assume that's enough example to permit a Yadda Yadda here? Most people can make the obvious list for what the Det is SUPPOSED to be for. Eventually some people will make the list the Det is not supposed to be for. They'll put together the layer combo that works but wasn't supposed to be made. That said I do agree GW tends to overcorrect on the balance changes, and they shouldn't be making changes to units that are only a problem in a specific Det - which says the problem is the Det - so I would suggest if you look, you're doing something similar. You're blaming the Det system for GW reactions when the problem is GW reactions. Instead of feedback chucking the Det system which probably isn't any worse (and because it even allows theme lists is probably a whole lot better) than any other system base they've come up with, provide the feedback when GW misfires on the corrections.

 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.

I'm not sure. Giving the War Walker's weapons ASSAULT might be a major benefit. Sadly the most likely downfall to War Walkers is the 1-1 Unit Composition for 110 points T7, W6, 6 Anti-Infantry or ONE ANti-Tank, self only special compared to 115 points for T9, W11, 11-14 anti-infantry potentially army wide special. In other words, I think the problem with War Walkers is they're datasheet'ed like a Sentinel, but they're costed like a Stormstrike Speeder. And wow, I didn't realize how rough they were having it until I wondered about this. Now the Falcon is better and more one-sided. If you advance with the Falcon to gain ASSAULT weapons you lose out on Deploying and thus Fire Controlling. THe Crimson Hunter is an Aircraft. While the Fire Prism already has some reroll built in and would love ASSAULT. The Hemlock is also an Aircraft, the Star Weaver is a Dedicated Transport and little more, The Night Spinner is probably 6 of 1, half dozen of the other on the Det Preference. INDIRECT ASSAULT weapons on 3" Advancing Support Weapons has some very funny potential... lets see a few more vehicles and one dedicated transport that are meh on either Det... and Wraith Constructs are infantry/Monsters not vehicles. So yeah I'd guess most of them don't care on the theory that both benefits are roughly comparable. I'd guess a couple far and away prefer one Det over the other (and probably shouldn't) while one unit gets to be absolutely hysterical doing the Keystone Cops Chase Around the Building thing - meanwhile a unit as ubiquitous as a Falcon Grav Tank having a preferred Det is a sad thing.

Edit, got a null pointer error, back, submit (again) double/triple+ most removal.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
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.

As I said, though, I don't have an issue with detachments that actually change how the army plays - by (in your example) letting you field extra dreadnoughts as characters, or by allowing the army to take allies from another army.

I have no issue with detachments doing that.

My issue is when detachments are just 'kill more'.

 vict0988 wrote:
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.

I don't think you're making the point you think you're making.

If Timmy hasn't got enough models to field a meaningful number of Destroyer Cult or Canoptek units, then it seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that this is somehow improved by having detachments that help only those units.

 vict0988 wrote:

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.

What.

So Timmy simultaneously has so few available models that he has only one army and it's a mishmash of different Necron units (so he cannot possibly field more of any unit group), yet at the same time he has enough of every single unit group that all of the detachments substantially changes how his army plays.

Could you perhaps post this 1000-pt army Timmy apparently owns that achieves this very specific distribution of units?

 KingGarland wrote:
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.

No, the obvious solution is to change the Det/Unit combo that's causing the problem. Just for a laugher, lets pretend: Vanguard Vets in 1st Company Dets are OP. Wildly overpowered. But only there because of the Det Boost combined with one of the four Enhancements resulting in +1A and +1AP and +1S to all melee attacks per 1" moved during the turn. The Obvious solution is to prevent the Vanguard Vet, Detachement, Enhancement combo from coming around by either by changing the Det rule, or preventing the Enhancement from hitting Vanguard Vets or both. Most of the time these thing are snowball layers. Any one thing isn't bad, its when you pile five not only next to each other but also on top of each other. The problem with Aggressor Bombs wasn't the Aggressors -1AP boost. It wasn't the 5+ crits in Fire Discipline, it wasn't Lethal Hits, it wasn't Sustained Hits, it wasn't getting into Dev Disc on the unit for another -1, or piling on a strat for a third -1AP: It was layering it all - plus fishing for 5's via OOM - on itslef to get a crapton of S4 Autowounding -3AP D1 woundings a third of which don't even care what your T is. GW has started by removing the 5+ Crits - which was probably the closest to a lynchpin on the Bombs. You needed that to baseline the unit at the 133-150% hit output (getting 40ish+ hits off of not quite 30ish shots) which justified investing everything else into the same basket. Maybe it needs a second pass, maybe not. This feels pretty close while still making leaving the bomb as "playable" for people who want the style, or have a "new twist on an old classic" I had Calgar in the bomb to start with. Yeah, it was pretty much overkill even before Calgar shot, let alone allowed the Aggressors to Advance (with enough movement being able to pick their -1 Target) and Shoot, then charge. Like I said, when the bomb is putting out 40ish wounds and ~30+ damage depending on target it was some ridiculous overkill. Now after the nerf? Might be worth playing. I dunno. I pretty much stuck Calgar in BGV units because advance and charge helped them more often than advance, shoot, charge was even possible for the Bomb. I still like Advance and Charge on a brick of 4++ MC Power Swords. But its not going to be automatic anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
the fact that characters can only join ZE DESIGNATED UNIT,

I don't know about the rest of your list, but this is definitely impacting list building. I want to put Tiggy and an Apothecary in a unit of 10 Hammernators as the ultimate Center Fielder. But I can't. Because Terminators don't have the Libby Radio frequency in their helmets or something. We now have a biker detachment, so I want to make a biker army. With the Bike Captain that just left for Legends. Oops.

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.

Yeah I was warning people demanding the game be dumbed down. The key is some middle ground, and unified construction theory. Everything is a USR. The bespoke rules are a combination and/or modification of USRs. Feel No Pain (FNP)X is a USR. The Bespoke Psychic Hood Rule is Unit FNP(Psychic) 4+. Its simple, and easily communicated. I assume everyone looking at the bespoke rules on the index cards noticed this? 90% of the bespokes were recycled similars that should have just been USR's referred back to and/or modified right?

I dunno, I personally quite like that certain HQs can only join certain units. The look of a squad with a unified aesthetic, by all wearing the same type of armour, is very nice.

I can't say I like the general look of a power armour leader with a unit of Terminators, or vice versa.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I can't say I like the general look of a power armour leader with a unit of Terminators, or vice versa.

That's not really the sort of problem which requires rules restrictions though...

 vipoid wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
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.

As I said, though, I don't have an issue with detachments that actually change how the army plays - by (in your example) letting you field extra dreadnoughts as characters, or by allowing the army to take allies from another army.

I have no issue with detachments doing that.

My issue is when detachments are just 'kill more'.

So your problem isn't with the detachment system, but how GW has chosen to utilize the system. Given that most detachments are 'kill more', what is the issue of the detachment deciding which units get to 'kill more'?

Take Tau for instance. We have:

Kauyon: Kill more starting in the 3rd battle round.

Mont'ka: Kill more for the first 3 battle rounds.

Retaliation Cadre: Battlesuits kill more.

Kroot Hunting Pack: Kroot kill more, are more survivable, and Kroot Carnivores are Battleline.

Auxiliary Cadre: Kroot and Vespid Stingwings help other T'au Empire kill more. T'au Empire Units make Kroot and Vespid Stingwings more survivable.

So while all the detachments help you kill more, they focus that differently.

Would it be great if GW spent less of this rules real estate on kill more and instead used it in other ways? Sure, but that doesn't make the detachment system bad as it is. The Kroot Hunting Pack and Auxiliary Cadre are going to make certain list more viable than the others. These list would never be viable in a detachment-less environment.

And that is the point of datasheet-centric detachments. They allow you to play thematic list that are viable due to the bonuses that detachment provides focusing on the units that would otherwise fail to carry enough weight to make that list work.

 alextroy wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
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.

As I said, though, I don't have an issue with detachments that actually change how the army plays - by (in your example) letting you field extra dreadnoughts as characters, or by allowing the army to take allies from another army.

I have no issue with detachments doing that.

My issue is when detachments are just 'kill more'.

So your problem isn't with the detachment system, but how GW has chosen to utilize the system. Given that most detachments are 'kill more', what is the issue of the detachment deciding which units get to 'kill more'?

Take Tau for instance. We have:

Kauyon: Kill more starting in the 3rd battle round.

Mont'ka: Kill more for the first 3 battle rounds.

Retaliation Cadre: Battlesuits kill more.

Kroot Hunting Pack: Kroot kill more, are more survivable, and Kroot Carnivores are Battleline.

Auxiliary Cadre: Kroot and Vespid Stingwings help other T'au Empire kill more. T'au Empire Units make Kroot and Vespid Stingwings more survivable.

So while all the detachments help you kill more, they focus that differently.

Would it be great if GW spent less of this rules real estate on kill more and instead used it in other ways? Sure, but that doesn't make the detachment system bad as it is. The Kroot Hunting Pack and Auxiliary Cadre are going to make certain list more viable than the others. These list would never be viable in a detachment-less environment.

And that is the point of datasheet-centric detachments. They allow you to play thematic list that are viable due to the bonuses that detachment provides focusing on the units that would otherwise fail to carry enough weight to make that list work.

Yes, my problem is primarily with the execution of the Detachment system.

I would far rather each race had just a couple of detachments that meaningfully changed how they played than 6+ iterations of "kill more".

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I dunno, I personally quite like that certain HQs can only join certain units. The look of a squad with a unified aesthetic, by all wearing the same type of armour, is very nice.

I can't say I like the general look of a power armour leader with a unit of Terminators, or vice versa.

I think it depends on which character and what else is available. A unit of Terminators around Azrael or Azrael and an apothecary? That totally works for me. Its driven me nuts that Apothecaries can't heal Guilliman given that's been the ending of nearly every book about him. They got rid of the Terminator and Deathwing Command Squad, which included the Terminator Apothecary which was a cool but fairly speed-bump sized "buff". If someone is chunking away your Terminators, healing one or resurrecting one per turn isn't going to matter, if they're just chipping the paint, you don't need to heal them. But back to the Azrael thing - do we really think a force led by the Chapter Master isn't going to (at some point) have some First Company as his personal unit? Sure maybe one battle he's surrounded by Neophytes for the story battles. And Shrike may have Vanguard instead of Terminators but still first company. Lysander from THE Bolter Chapter surrounded by Bolter master Sternguard? What unit would Roboute really make off limits to Tigurius if Tiggy said "I have seen it, I must be there, with them". There should be a couple things done: Provide datasheets for each character archtype/armor combination. Gravis Medics, Gravis Lieutenants, Libbies, etc. Spread the Special Characters around more - also work "The Stack". Chapter Masters are Tier 1 - they can lead anything and be joined by anything. Captains, Libbies, and Chaplains are Tier 2. They can join anything their level and above. Lieutenats and Judiciars are Tier 3. Apothecaries, Ancients, etc are Tier 4. (though in a perfect world, they'd be upgrades for normal squad dudes to turn them into command squads - think the Deahtwing Command Squad index sheet - they're all normal dudes with normal loads, and the unit has rules "While containing Special Dude X, get bonus Y" but its toned down The Single Datasheet dude can be Chapter Ancient and Chief Apothecary Tier 4's that follow the rule of no more than 2. The Company Heroes unit just isn't it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

Yes, my problem is primarily with the execution of the Detachment system.

I would far rather each race had just a couple of detachments that meaningfully changed how they played than 6+ iterations of "kill more".

To be fair many do: Some of the SM Dets are about theme armies. More of them would be if they had the HQ's to do it. The reason we don't see more Stormlance Task Forces is because there's only 3 outrider units and 3 Chaplains on Bike. No Captains, no Lieutenants etc. Same thing happened to the Vanguard one, all the characters/units to run it (with any depth and variety) went to legends (or crap) right after it was released. The Nid Dets are even better with little bug, monster mash, Deathwatch Copy Pasta, Gladius Doctrine style, etc.

From personal experience I'd say no, they facilitate list-building options.

The reality is that with detachments maybe 30% of a codex will be considered "strong" in a given detachment. But most units might still be strong in at least one detachment. Without detachments only 30% of the codex will be considered "strong" whatsoever. The other 70% will be considered suboptimal in any list. Likewise if you allow unrestricted allies then it gets even worse, with only 30% of the "ally-group" considered optimal meaning only a couple of good units in each codex.

And since none of the detachments hard-lock you out of using a given unit a non-optimizer isn't restricted by them at all.

Do you Detachments will change in 11th Edition?

 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.

 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.

I like being able to try differenet playstyles without having to buy a bunch of different models to do it, and I like being able to tell different stories or give the same collection of units different "personalities" based on the extra rules they get. In something like the Skysplinter detachment, Wyches can be used as a high-speed shock trooper. In a different (hypothetical) detachment that leans into arena performances, they might be more of a tarpit/pain token harvesting unit that spends time slowly playing with their food.

Tyranid units that are just kind of a screen/carpet in most lists might become a support unit that offers healing in the assimilation swarm detachment. If Battle Focus ends up being tied to the Assault keyword, then the Armoured Warhost can change a bunch of eldar skimmers from just being glorified gun platforms to instead being a cagey army that uses its mobility to flit between sources of cover as they do drive-byes.

So mechanically, a series of well-done detachments can give me new ways to play with my toys without them going stale. Narratively, having access to different detachments can help tell different stories (am I emphasizing this armoured warhost swooping in as part of the initial invasion, or am I focusing on a stealth mission being performed by this sneaky Alaitoc-ish detachment?) And in a hobby/narrative sense, it's nice to be able to choose some options that help reflect the lore you gave to your army.

All of which is why I prefer detachments that emphasize using units *differently* rather than just making certain units more lethal. You took the detachment that makes your shooty guns shoot more gunnily? How dull and probably hard to balance. You took the detachment that makes your normally plodding army mobile in a quirky way? Or the one that turns screens into support units? Or the one that creates synergy between units that normally lack it thus encouraging you to field those units together when you otherwise wouldn't? (Tau auxiliary detachment.) Now we're talking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Do you Detachments will change in 11th Edition?

Probably not. They're relatively easy to make, people get excited for them (look at Grotmas), and the current structure has resulted in a lot fewer headaches than things like allies and CP-based detachments did.

That said, my pet preference would be to ditch stratagems and do something more like this: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/815483.page

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Do you Detachments will change in 11th Edition?

Yes.
How so is unknown, but change is assured.

 Orkeosaurus wrote:
From personal experience I'd say no, they facilitate list-building options.

The reality is that with detachments maybe 30% of a codex will be considered "strong" in a given detachment. But most units might still be strong in at least one detachment. Without detachments only 30% of the codex will be considered "strong" whatsoever. The other 70% will be considered suboptimal in any list. Likewise if you allow unrestricted allies then it gets even worse, with only 30% of the "ally-group" considered optimal meaning only a couple of good units in each codex.

And since none of the detachments hard-lock you out of using a given unit a non-optimizer isn't restricted by them at all.

What do you mean by strong in a detachment? If the best list is spamming Doomsday Arks in the Starshatter Arsenal Detachment then it's pointless that Skorpekh Destroyers are the least bad option in the Annihilation Legion Detachment, because spamming Destroyers in the Annihilation Legion Detachment is still worse than spamming Doomsday Arks in the Starshatter Arsenal Detachment. Why should I take the Annihilation Legion Detachment in the first place? The skew of a bad unit vs a good unit does not have to be equally large across codexes or editions. In one edition a Doomsday Ark might be a lot more pts-efficient than a Skorpekh Destroyer and in another edition it might only be a little more pts-efficient, GW should minimize this spread and give people detachments that change how you play, not what you play, because I can take Skorpekhs in a Hypercrypt Legion Detachment even if they are worse than Doomsday Arks. The fact that Skorpekh Destroyers are more pts-efficient within the context of the Annihilation Legion means nothing, because switching to the Starshatter Arsenal costs nothing. So I'm picking the Starshatter Arsenal Detachment and taking my 3 Doomsday Arks, but now when I consider taking Skorpekhs I skip them because they're not getting the benefits they need to be even decent without the Annihilation Legion Detachment ability and Stratagems. This is all hypothetical, I don't know how pts efficient different Necrons units are at the moment. If GW can make Annihilation Legion Skorpekh Destroyers as good as Starshatter Arsenal Doomsday Arks then why not make Annihilation Legion Doomsday Arks as good as Annihilation Legion Skorpekh Destroyers and Starshatter Arsenal Skorpekh Destroyers?

The only exception is where things don't make sense from a fluff standpoint and you might need the power budget for a detachment, but that's not what most of these are, they're braindead datasheet-centric kill more detachments.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Do you Detachments will change in 11th Edition?

Well I'm hoping that the next edition they'll relax and try and open them up instead of locking them down more. I'm expecting the opposite.

Realistically the problem is the scarcity of LEADERs + UNITs - some combination of which UNITS the LEADERS can lead or how few LEADERS there are for a given UNIT. There's one Vanilla Bike HQ. One Jump Pack. 2 Gravis? 4 Terminator characters for 2 Squads? The inability to mix/match Phobos characters with Phobos units (i.e. matching the characters to the Reivers: The Reiver Lieutenant cannot reasonably join the ersatz Jump Pack Reivers is the dumbest one, but neither can the Libby or Captain, there is no Chaplain Meanwhile the generic Phobos Lieutenant is the one to go to for Reivers. Pair that with things like only releasing the new scale Shootinators and not the New Scale Hammernators in a weird way causing people to sit on that det until they have both, rather than running inconsistent sized Terminators. The dogs breakfast that is Vanguard Vets (Cent Devs have arguably better melee than Vanguard Vets right now) and your First Company Det is missing half its UNIT options.


Imagine this:

Every "armor" type (Term/Gravis/Phobos/Mounted/Jump/whatever) has every HQ (Cap/Chap/LT/Judiciar/Apothecary/Ancient/Etc)
Every Armor Type has at least three Units (Punchy, Shooty, and Special and/or target vs MEQ, vs TEQ, vs Vehicles or whatever: Each armor type can at some basic level cover all the target types)

At that point the Det is really about the mix and match. Some Dets are currently just too empty to play traditionally - think the stereotypical template army (Storm Lance: No Captain or Libby on Bike both of which are more fluffy for White Scars) Impulsors are still limit 7 so the Outflanking Rhinos still have to be Rhinos If you want to stay the fluffy 10 vs the min-max Razorback 5 - which means Tactical Squads not Assault Intercessors which are, again, more fluffy) If you actually tried to play a White Scars Bikes and Bawkses list of yore in this Det, you might quit from all the headaches. We've already went over not enough HQs, but with just the one Bike unit you've got 660 ish points of bikes 1000'ish points of Bawkses and several rounds of Strategic Reserves Math for a 500 point cap. Similar problems will exist in others, but htis is the most glaring and obvious. GW made these detachments hoping to prevent "gaming the system" so everything was locked down. Then when the system did get "gamed" they made their changes - which frequently stepped on the toes of another Det. we're still capped at a final +1 to wound modifier right? So the +1 to wound from the Anvil Seige Force is usually lost due to OOM now... yadda yadda.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Orkeosaurus wrote:
From personal experience I'd say no, they facilitate list-building options.

The reality is that with detachments maybe 30% of a codex will be considered "strong" in a given detachment. But most units might still be strong in at least one detachment. Without detachments only 30% of the codex will be considered "strong" whatsoever. The other 70% will be considered suboptimal in any list. Likewise if you allow unrestricted allies then it gets even worse, with only 30% of the "ally-group" considered optimal meaning only a couple of good units in each codex.

And since none of the detachments hard-lock you out of using a given unit a non-optimizer isn't restricted by them at all.

What do you mean by strong in a detachment? If the best list is spamming Doomsday Arks in the Starshatter Arsenal Detachment then it's pointless that Skorpekh Destroyers are the least bad option in the Annihilation Legion Detachment, because spamming Destroyers in the Annihilation Legion Detachment is still worse than spamming Doomsday Arks in the Starshatter Arsenal Detachment. Why should I take the Annihilation Legion Detachment in the first place? The skew of a bad unit vs a good unit does not have to be equally large across codexes or editions. In one edition a Doomsday Ark might be a lot more pts-efficient than a Skorpekh Destroyer and in another edition it might only be a little more pts-efficient, GW should minimize this spread and give people detachments that change how you play, not what you play, because I can take Skorpekhs in a Hypercrypt Legion Detachment even if they are worse than Doomsday Arks. The fact that Skorpekh Destroyers are more pts-efficient within the context of the Annihilation Legion means nothing, because switching to the Starshatter Arsenal costs nothing. So I'm picking the Starshatter Arsenal Detachment and taking my 3 Doomsday Arks, but now when I consider taking Skorpekhs I skip them because they're not getting the benefits they need to be even decent without the Annihilation Legion Detachment ability and Stratagems. This is all hypothetical, I don't know how pts efficient different Necrons units are at the moment. If GW can make Annihilation Legion Skorpekh Destroyers as good as Starshatter Arsenal Doomsday Arks then why not make Annihilation Legion Doomsday Arks as good as Annihilation Legion Skorpekh Destroyers and Starshatter Arsenal Skorpekh Destroyers?

The only exception is where things don't make sense from a fluff standpoint and you might need the power budget for a detachment, but that's not what most of these are, they're braindead datasheet-centric kill more detachments.

It is true that having different units strong in different detachments is only meaningful if there's some qualitative difference between detachments, which prevents a strict comparison of their power level. If every detachment only gives some numeric buff then you can easily compare Unit A in Detachment X to Unit B in Detachment Y and figure out which has better numbers, which means the detachments are just another layer of math and not a meaningful decision. So that is a valid point against unit-specific buffs.

But I think a conflating factor is that these same novel rules that allow for different gameplay also affect units asymmetrically even if applied universally. Let's say that the "Stealth Division" gives every unit in the army Infiltrate. That will certainly be a huge boon to some units and pretty much worthless to others. So now the internal balance of the units has reconfigured from what it would be with just the codex. Maybe "Deathanators" are normally considered pretty weak but become top-tier when you're able to infiltrate them. A Stealth Division list is now considered sub-optimal without multiple units of Deathanators.

And then things become further complicated by the lore. Because most Deathanators aren't supposed to be in the Stealth Division, they're supposed to be in the "Shock Company". And the Shock Company doesn't infiltrate. So gameplay and lore are all out of whack. But at the same time there are people who currently play Stealth Division with Deathanators and don't want their army banned. The imperfect but practical solution is to increase the cost of Deathanators so that they're viable but not super-strong in the Stealth Division, and then give all Deathanators in the Shock Company some sort of numerical buff to compensate for the fact that they're now pretty awful without Infiltrate.

That of course means the collateral damage is that if you try to bring Deathanators in a third detachment, with neither Infiltrate nor the numerical buff, they're now garbage and you wasted $90 on the Deathanators kit. But I suppose those are the vagaries of wargaming.

11th detachments will resemble (in structure and application) those of the last 2 codexes for 10th to come out. Keep your eyes peeled for them, it's always very telling about the direction of the game system. I'm guessing minor differences as the balance team have no passion for experimentation and prefer to balance 'low', instead of my preferred 'high'. I guess I'm using outdated terminology here. Balancing low is like Warcraft 1, same functionality different colour/model. where as balancing high is like Red Alert 2/Star Craft 1, lots of variance between factions, yet all can compete.

 Orkeosaurus wrote:

Spoiler:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Orkeosaurus wrote:
From personal experience I'd say no, they facilitate list-building options.

The reality is that with detachments maybe 30% of a codex will be considered "strong" in a given detachment. But most units might still be strong in at least one detachment. Without detachments only 30% of the codex will be considered "strong" whatsoever. The other 70% will be considered suboptimal in any list. Likewise if you allow unrestricted allies then it gets even worse, with only 30% of the "ally-group" considered optimal meaning only a couple of good units in each codex.

And since none of the detachments hard-lock you out of using a given unit a non-optimizer isn't restricted by them at all.

What do you mean by strong in a detachment? If the best list is spamming Doomsday Arks in the Starshatter Arsenal Detachment then it's pointless that Skorpekh Destroyers are the least bad option in the Annihilation Legion Detachment, because spamming Destroyers in the Annihilation Legion Detachment is still worse than spamming Doomsday Arks in the Starshatter Arsenal Detachment. Why should I take the Annihilation Legion Detachment in the first place? The skew of a bad unit vs a good unit does not have to be equally large across codexes or editions. In one edition a Doomsday Ark might be a lot more pts-efficient than a Skorpekh Destroyer and in another edition it might only be a little more pts-efficient, GW should minimize this spread and give people detachments that change how you play, not what you play, because I can take Skorpekhs in a Hypercrypt Legion Detachment even if they are worse than Doomsday Arks. The fact that Skorpekh Destroyers are more pts-efficient within the context of the Annihilation Legion means nothing, because switching to the Starshatter Arsenal costs nothing. So I'm picking the Starshatter Arsenal Detachment and taking my 3 Doomsday Arks, but now when I consider taking Skorpekhs I skip them because they're not getting the benefits they need to be even decent without the Annihilation Legion Detachment ability and Stratagems. This is all hypothetical, I don't know how pts efficient different Necrons units are at the moment. If GW can make Annihilation Legion Skorpekh Destroyers as good as Starshatter Arsenal Doomsday Arks then why not make Annihilation Legion Doomsday Arks as good as Annihilation Legion Skorpekh Destroyers and Starshatter Arsenal Skorpekh Destroyers?

The only exception is where things don't make sense from a fluff standpoint and you might need the power budget for a detachment, but that's not what most of these are, they're braindead datasheet-centric kill more detachments.

It is true that having different units strong in different detachments is only meaningful if there's some qualitative difference between detachments, which prevents a strict comparison of their power level. If every detachment only gives some numeric buff then you can easily compare Unit A in Detachment X to Unit B in Detachment Y and figure out which has better numbers, which means the detachments are just another layer of math and not a meaningful decision. So that is a valid point against unit-specific buffs.

But I think a conflating factor is that these same novel rules that allow for different gameplay also affect units asymmetrically even if applied universally. Let's say that the "Stealth Division" gives every unit in the army Infiltrate. That will certainly be a huge boon to some units and pretty much worthless to others. So now the internal balance of the units has reconfigured from what it would be with just the codex. Maybe "Deathanators" are normally considered pretty weak but become top-tier when you're able to infiltrate them. A Stealth Division list is now considered sub-optimal without multiple units of Deathanators.

And then things become further complicated by the lore. Because most Deathanators aren't supposed to be in the Stealth Division, they're supposed to be in the "Shock Company". And the Shock Company doesn't infiltrate. So gameplay and lore are all out of whack. But at the same time there are people who currently play Stealth Division with Deathanators and don't want their army banned. The imperfect but practical solution is to increase the cost of Deathanators so that they're viable but not super-strong in the Stealth Division, and then give all Deathanators in the Shock Company some sort of numerical buff to compensate for the fact that they're now pretty awful without Infiltrate.

That of course means the collateral damage is that if you try to bring Deathanators in a third detachment, with neither Infiltrate nor the numerical buff, they're now garbage and you wasted $90 on the Deathanators kit. But I suppose those are the vagaries of wargaming.

Or here's a wild idea: If Deathanators are too good in Stealth Division (where they shouldn't be) and not good enough in Shock Company (where they should be), fix Stealth Division and Shock Company to correct the imbalance!

Simple fixes like: Stealth Division gives non-Deathanator units Infiltrate; Shock Company gives Deathanators an additional bonus.

This is the entire point of datasheet-centric (or at least not datasheet-agnostic) detachments. You boost up a subset of an army to make it more attractive in that detachment without providing unintentional bonuses to the "wrong" units.

 Orkeosaurus wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Orkeosaurus wrote:
From personal experience I'd say no, they facilitate list-building options.

The reality is that with detachments maybe 30% of a codex will be considered "strong" in a given detachment. But most units might still be strong in at least one detachment. Without detachments only 30% of the codex will be considered "strong" whatsoever. The other 70% will be considered suboptimal in any list. Likewise if you allow unrestricted allies then it gets even worse, with only 30% of the "ally-group" considered optimal meaning only a couple of good units in each codex.

And since none of the detachments hard-lock you out of using a given unit a non-optimizer isn't restricted by them at all.

What do you mean by strong in a detachment? If the best list is spamming Doomsday Arks in the Starshatter Arsenal Detachment then it's pointless that Skorpekh Destroyers are the least bad option in the Annihilation Legion Detachment, because spamming Destroyers in the Annihilation Legion Detachment is still worse than spamming Doomsday Arks in the Starshatter Arsenal Detachment. Why should I take the Annihilation Legion Detachment in the first place? The skew of a bad unit vs a good unit does not have to be equally large across codexes or editions. In one edition a Doomsday Ark might be a lot more pts-efficient than a Skorpekh Destroyer and in another edition it might only be a little more pts-efficient, GW should minimize this spread and give people detachments that change how you play, not what you play, because I can take Skorpekhs in a Hypercrypt Legion Detachment even if they are worse than Doomsday Arks. The fact that Skorpekh Destroyers are more pts-efficient within the context of the Annihilation Legion means nothing, because switching to the Starshatter Arsenal costs nothing. So I'm picking the Starshatter Arsenal Detachment and taking my 3 Doomsday Arks, but now when I consider taking Skorpekhs I skip them because they're not getting the benefits they need to be even decent without the Annihilation Legion Detachment ability and Stratagems. This is all hypothetical, I don't know how pts efficient different Necrons units are at the moment. If GW can make Annihilation Legion Skorpekh Destroyers as good as Starshatter Arsenal Doomsday Arks then why not make Annihilation Legion Doomsday Arks as good as Annihilation Legion Skorpekh Destroyers and Starshatter Arsenal Skorpekh Destroyers?

The only exception is where things don't make sense from a fluff standpoint and you might need the power budget for a detachment, but that's not what most of these are, they're braindead datasheet-centric kill more detachments.

It is true that having different units strong in different detachments is only meaningful if there's some qualitative difference between detachments, which prevents a strict comparison of their power level. If every detachment only gives some numeric buff then you can easily compare Unit A in Detachment X to Unit B in Detachment Y and figure out which has better numbers, which means the detachments are just another layer of math and not a meaningful decision. So that is a valid point against unit-specific buffs.

But I think a conflating factor is that these same novel rules that allow for different gameplay also affect units asymmetrically even if applied universally. Let's say that the "Stealth Division" gives every unit in the army Infiltrate. That will certainly be a huge boon to some units and pretty much worthless to others. So now the internal balance of the units has reconfigured from what it would be with just the codex. Maybe "Deathanators" are normally considered pretty weak but become top-tier when you're able to infiltrate them. A Stealth Division list is now considered sub-optimal without multiple units of Deathanators.

And then things become further complicated by the lore. Because most Deathanators aren't supposed to be in the Stealth Division, they're supposed to be in the "Shock Company". And the Shock Company doesn't infiltrate. So gameplay and lore are all out of whack. But at the same time there are people who currently play Stealth Division with Deathanators and don't want their army banned. The imperfect but practical solution is to increase the cost of Deathanators so that they're viable but not super-strong in the Stealth Division, and then give all Deathanators in the Shock Company some sort of numerical buff to compensate for the fact that they're now pretty awful without Infiltrate.

That of course means the collateral damage is that if you try to bring Deathanators in a third detachment, with neither Infiltrate nor the numerical buff, they're now garbage and you wasted $90 on the Deathanators kit. But I suppose those are the vagaries of wargaming.

How many detachments give a basic and common USR like that? I mean the Vanguard Spearhead Det has a Detachment rule that doesn't make people Infiltrate, it makes people who already infiltrate do it better with a somewhat parallel somewhat toned down version of the Phobos Libby's bespoke on an army wide rule. In other words from what I've seen army wide INFILTRATE is far "bigger" than any Det Rule I've seen. Likewise if you do Tor Garradon, and some Heavy Intercessors you're suddenly recreating something similar to the Imperial Fists Chapter Tactic (Bolter fire that ignores cover and gets a bonus to wound.

The whole point of detachments surely is to allow for multiple "best lists"? I.E. it isn't 100% cast iron that spamming doomsday arks in the starshatter arsenal detachment is the best way to run Necrons.

10th does seem to have been quite successful on that. I guess you can make the perfect the enemy of the good, and sure most people will cookie cutter. But the moment the internet comes up with "this detachment is awful" someone, somewhere will usually do well in a tournament with it. Which I feel didn't happen so much in the old days. (Weirdly in some respects I think this undermines discussion of the meta, because... there's not much to say when you can successfully run so many different things.)

Its difficult to put hard numbers to this. But I think if you went 7th->8th->9th->10th, GW has brought more and more of the unit range into competitive tournament lists (at some point in the edition). Which given the number of factions and datasheets is an achievement.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I like being able to try differenet playstyles without having to buy a bunch of different models to do it, and I like being able to tell different stories or give the same collection of units different "personalities" based on the extra rules they get. In something like the Skysplinter detachment, Wyches can be used as a high-speed shock trooper. In a different (hypothetical) detachment that leans into arena performances, they might be more of a tarpit/pain token harvesting unit that spends time slowly playing with their food.

Counter point - lets say you don't have many Destroyer Cult units and don't want to buy more so you turn to detachments. Are you really going to think "Wow, the handful of Destroyer Cult units I have get either a reroll when they charge or a weak and conditional bonus to ranged attacks - now it really feels like I'm playing a Destroyer Cult army!"?

With the Skysplinter detachment, what you forgot to mention is that one unit of Wyches can be used as a high-speed shock trooper. If you enjoy playing multiple units of Wyches, then only one of them actually gets to leap out of their transports into battle; the rest can only sit around and watch. Because Stratagems are the absolute nadir of game design.

I mean, I agree with you in theory that Detachments could provide different ways to play your army. I just think the vast majority of them fail dismally at it.

 vipoid wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I like being able to try differenet playstyles without having to buy a bunch of different models to do it, and I like being able to tell different stories or give the same collection of units different "personalities" based on the extra rules they get. In something like the Skysplinter detachment, Wyches can be used as a high-speed shock trooper. In a different (hypothetical) detachment that leans into arena performances, they might be more of a tarpit/pain token harvesting unit that spends time slowly playing with their food.

Counter point - lets say you don't have many Destroyer Cult units and don't want to buy more so you turn to detachments. Are you really going to think "Wow, the handful of Destroyer Cult units I have get either a reroll when they charge or a weak and conditional bonus to ranged attacks - now it really feels like I'm playing a Destroyer Cult army!"?

Ideally what I'd like to see is for unit selection to be what makes a list a "destroyer cult army," and for the detachment to change up how that destroyer cult behaves. So the fact that you're fielding a bunch of destroyer units means that, compared to other 'cron armies, you're playing a bunch mid-toughness multi-wound models that pack a punch instead of a tide of warriors or a monster mash type list. And then the detachment would give you options like making those destroyers teleport around the table with advanced tech (hypercrypt), or maybe they're extra durable because you're healing them with with scarabs (sort of a cron assimilation swarm), or maybe they're less uppy downy and more generally mobile, flying in formations to act as a sort of infantry-scale flight wing (what shatter star says it is but actually isn't.)

Most of the 'cron detachments kind of stink in this regard because they're generally just about making a handful of units more killy/durable without really changing what actions those units take during a battle.

With the Skysplinter detachment, what you forgot to mention is that one unit of Wyches can be used as a high-speed shock trooper. If you enjoy playing multiple units of Wyches, then only one of them actually gets to leap out of their transports into battle; the rest can only sit around and watch. Because Stratagems are the absolute nadir of game design.

Totally agree. Oh hey, look at this post I made a few days ago: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/815483.page

I mean, I agree with you in theory that Detachments could provide different ways to play your army. I just think the vast majority of them fail dismally at it.

Agreed. This is why I tend be annoyed at detachments with lots of kill-more-betterer rules. Because they tend to take the approach of using detachments as a way to just increase/spike damage in usually very boring ways rather than treating detachments as an opportunity to change how an army behaves or what an army can look like.

I like hypercrypt, the grotmas tau detachment, and assimilation swarm because, whatever their flaws in terms of balance, they fundamentally change what your units are doing. I like the Reaper's Wager because it lets me take a combination of units I otherwise couldn't. I'm less excited about something like the starshatter detachment because it mostly just makes units better at the actions they were already doing.

Tyel wrote:
The whole point of detachments surely is to allow for multiple "best lists"? I.E. it isn't 100% cast iron that spamming doomsday arks in the starshatter arsenal detachment is the best way to run Necrons.

10th does seem to have been quite successful on that. I guess you can make the perfect the enemy of the good, and sure most people will cookie cutter. But the moment the internet comes up with "this detachment is awful" someone, somewhere will usually do well in a tournament with it. Which I feel didn't happen so much in the old days. (Weirdly in some respects I think this undermines discussion of the meta, because... there's not much to say when you can successfully run so many different things.)

Its difficult to put hard numbers to this. But I think if you went 7th->8th->9th->10th, GW has brought more and more of the unit range into competitive tournament lists (at some point in the edition). Which given the number of factions and datasheets is an achievement.

I don't think it is possible by defintion to have multiple best lists. If you want better balance between the best list and a mediocre list ypu would remove detachments because more complexity is harder to balance. So that cannot be why we have them. Variation in how people want their army represented seems the right reason, I either want to represent feignting and trapping with Kauyon or aggressively hunt my foe with Montka. Making one into Fire Warrior spam and the other Crisis Suit spam and balancing them against eachother is nonsense because you might as well have no detachments and just balance points. So Crisis spam, Fire Warrior spam and Tau highlander should be balanced in as many detachments as possible.

I cannot speak on internal balance too much, external balance got reigned in rather well in 10th. I looked up some detachment stats, very impressive play rate spread and win rates, GW did a really good job on this. But 6 lists being viable is not enough there should thousands of variations.

 vict0988 wrote:

I don't think it is possible by defintion to have multiple best lists. If you want better balance between the best list and a mediocre list ypu would remove detachments because more complexity is harder to balance. So that cannot be why we have them. Variation in how people want their army represented seems the right reason, I either want to represent feignting and trapping with Kauyon or aggressively hunt my foe with Montka. Making one into Fire Warrior spam and the other Crisis Suit spam and balancing them against eachother is nonsense because you might as well have no detachments and just balance points. So Crisis spam, Fire Warrior spam and Tau highlander should be balanced in as many detachments as possible.

I cannot speak on internal balance too much, external balance got reigned in rather well in 10th. I looked up some detachment stats, very impressive play rate spread and win rates, GW did a really good job on this. But 6 lists being viable is not enough there should thousands of variations.

The problem I think is that its very hard to balance via points while keeping things interesting/fluffy/just different. (Its easy if you don't care about these things - but GW does.)

I mean you can adopt AoS 1st Edition rules.
This unit has swords. 1 attack, WS3+, Wound on 4s, AP-
This unit has axes. 1 attack. WS4+, Wounds on 3s, Ap-

Oh look, they math out the same. Assuming no other rules impacting things, they can be the same points.
But I suspect GW got the feedback that this isn't all that fun. They also have to cope with S/T breakpoints, impact of character buffs etc etc.

The result of this is either you effectively turn Crisis Suits into "3 Fire Warriors stuck together" or one package or the other is going to be better for the points. If anything this grows more likely, as rosters expand and the amount of role duplication increases.
GW's historical method of balancing has just been to shove stuff around whenever the next codex drops - but clearly this hasn't been great.

Detachments however provide this extra dimension. You now can have a system where you might want to take fire warriors in X detachment - or crisis suits in Y detachment. You might even want both in both - but you;d use them differently in game.

There's an argument that this isn't perfect. I think some of the detachments are half-baked and could be much more interesting. But a system of say 6 lists is better than 1.
You might want a third dimension - where GW somehow tailors rules specifically for how your list (Crisis Spam/Fire Warrior spam/Just big guys) might interact with Montka/Kauyon etc. But I think that's probably beyond GW's skills - and I'm not sure is strictly needed.

Different Toughness, Wound and Sv values have different weaknesses, unlike AoS 40k profiles are not just multiples of eachother. They can be good in different situations.

I do not understand why I take the Destroyer spam detachment and spam Destroyers with +1 to wound to get a 45% WR instead of taking DDA spam starshatter arsenal with +1 to wound with a 55% WR but I won't spam Destroyers in a world without datasheet centric detachments because of 45% win rate because I want to spam DDAs to get a 55% win rate.

If the Destroyer detachment is more interesting than +1 to wound then why not just make Destroyers interesting? Give them thematic abilities and stats and make those rules and stats matter unlike in AoS.

 vict0988 wrote:

I don't think it is possible by defintion to have multiple best lists.

Semantically, I'd say that's fair.

The issue is that words like "good" "better" and "best" are too vague to mean anything, and shouldn't have been used in the first place.

If you LOVE melee, and think shooting is dull, YOUR best list is probably melee heavy... But then you can't just call it it the "Best List" you have to say "It's the best Melee list." And you might want to go further and say "This is the most efficient melee list for dealing equally with horde, elite and armour threats" which would be different from "This is the most efficient melee list for dealing with armour."

Specificity in debate is crucial.

 vict0988 wrote:

If the Destroyer detachment is more interesting than +1 to wound then why not just make Destroyers interesting? Give them thematic abilities and stats and make those rules and stats matter unlike in AoS.

I would add to this that 40k desperately needs to stop moving unit rules to stratagems.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

I don't think it is possible by defintion to have multiple best lists.

Semantically, I'd say that's fair.

The issue is that words like "good" "better" and "best" are too vague to mean anything, and shouldn't have been used in the first place.

If you LOVE melee, and think shooting is dull, YOUR best list is probably melee heavy... But then you can't just call it it the "Best List" you have to say "It's the best Melee list." And you might want to go further and say "This is the most efficient melee list for dealing equally with horde, elite and armour threats" which would be different from "This is the most efficient melee list for dealing with armour."

Specificity in debate is crucial.

I know it might seem pointlessly pedantic, but I'm trying to understand why best Starshatter Arsenal list and best Annihilation Legion list being different is an achievement. Starshatter Arsenal (vehicle spam) and Annihilation Legion (Destroyer spam) both being viable is great because it means that both Destroyer spam and vehicle spam is viable, but you can measure and judge that without datasheet centric detachments. It's a bit like celebrating graduation of scholarly institutions, rather than celebrating that students of those institutions having been taught the relevant skills and knowledge.

If datasheet centric detachments are good design, then I'd design the same number of my fandex detachments that way that GW is currently doing, I'm fairly sure designing datasheet centric detachments is easier because they're automatically different even if the rules are basically the same +1 to wound, if one affects infantry and the other bikes they're different. I'd say they're not meaningfully different.

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

If the Destroyer detachment is more interesting than +1 to wound then why not just make Destroyers interesting? Give them thematic abilities and stats and make those rules and stats matter unlike in AoS.

I would add to this that 40k desperately needs to stop moving unit rules to stratagems.

They did stop doing that, every single unit in 10th has a bespoke ability. Unit-specific Stratagems are fairly rare. I do think unit-specific Stratagems are good design though, they encourage taking the unit without encouraging spamming them, unlike detachment abilities. I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

 vict0988 wrote:

I would add to this that 40k desperately needs to stop moving unit rules to stratagems.

They did stop doing that, every single unit in 10th has a bespoke ability. Unit-specific Stratagems are fairly rare.

Sorta. In my recent Proposed Rule thread, I talk about how things like Jink and the old jetbike assault move are now reduced to strats and the reasons that's not great: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/815483.page

(I do intend to respond to your post in that thread by the way. Sorry for the wait.)

I do think unit-specific Stratagems are good design though, they encourage taking the unit without encouraging spamming them, unlike detachment abilities. I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

It's a double-edged sword. No one likes facing triptide spam because riptides are the flavor of the month OP unit or whatever. But on the other hand, strats being limited to once per phase can really hurt thematic, not necessarily OP army concepts. Not to keep harping on bikes, but they're a great example. In editions where eldar jetbikes could do assault phase moves, you could field a whole army of jetbikes and keep them alive via move-shoot-move. In 10th, you rarely see a list fielding more than one squad of windriders at a time because one squad will use the move-shoot-move strat to hide while any subsequent squads are left hanging in the wind.

So now you just don't see thematic Saim-Hann lists unless the eldar player is willing to take a big hit to their chances of winning.

And then there's the old rules that became strats that then got homogenzied or dropped. My swooping hawks lost the grenade packs and haywire grenades that were their most iconic weapons. Now they just have the Grenades keyword which really isn't the same experience at all. The haemonculus crucible of malediction did some time as a strat (meaning it rarely saw play), and now it's an enhancement meaning you'll only see it if people are fielding the appropriate detachment. And RSR is generally considered the worst of the current Dark Eldar detachments meaning you're less likely to be playing it. Which is to say that shifting the crucible off of the datasheet and into the realm of strats (and then enhancements) has borderline removed a classic piece of wargear from the game.

That latter example is only partially strats' fault and more of an example of how bad implementations of strats as a concept in 8th and 9th did some damage that hasn't been fixed in 10th.

So you take at most 1 unit of Windriders because they lack MSM (let's ignore that points would make 3 mandatory if pts were low enough), a unit that used to be troops and that were meta to include 3-6 of and the solution is a single detachment allowing people to effectively use more than 1? What if I don't want to play bike city, I just want 3 units of Windriders supporting my Wraithguard list? You're barely solving the Windrider issue here. I'm not the expert on Windriders, but you're saying they need MSM, why not give them that as a unit ability?

Another thing is, what's the problem in giving other units MSM? Is it because paying the price of mobility makes it ineffective to stay in the same ruin all game unlike the Dark Reapers of 8th? If Windriders are useless without MSM, infantry are not, isn't MSM a bigger buff to Windriders than infantry? Following this logic you can just have a MSM detachment. If infantry benefit more from MSM than Windriders then Windriders ought to be better in other detachments than Infantry and the only problem is too high a points cost. It cannot be a fluff issue since infantry have had MSM in previous editions.

 vict0988 wrote:
So you take at most 1 unit of Windriders because they lack MSM (let's ignore that points would make 3 mandatory if pts were low enough), a unit that used to be troops and that were meta to include 3-6 of and the solution is a single detachment allowing people to effectively use more than 1? What if I don't want to play bike city, I just want 3 units of Windriders supporting my Wraithguard list? You're barely solving the Windrider issue here. I'm not the expert on Windriders, but you're saying they need MSM, why not give them that as a unit ability?

There are plenty of ways to address those points. However, I don't want to get lost in the weeds. My post was mostly addressing this statement you made:

I do think unit-specific Stratagems are good design though, they encourage taking the unit without encouraging spamming them, unlike detachment abilities. I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

I agree with you. Stratagems as they're designed do encourage people to take units without spamming them. For instance, by discouraging you from taking more than 1 unit of windriders. My point was that that's not necessarily a good thing. It's easy to fall into the trap of writing a one-per-phase stratagem instead of providing a rule that can be used by multiple units

Another thing is, what's the problem in giving other units MSM? Is it because paying the price of mobility makes it ineffective to stay in the same ruin all game unlike the Dark Reapers of 8th? If Windriders are useless without MSM, infantry are not, isn't MSM a bigger buff to Windriders than infantry? Following this logic you can just have a MSM detachment. If infantry benefit more from MSM than Windriders then Windriders ought to be better in other detachments than Infantry and the only problem is too high a points cost. It cannot be a fluff issue since infantry have had MSM in previous editions.

Who says I have a problem with giving other units MSM? My thread I linked earlier that you yourself have participated in basically gives MSM options to every bike and skimmer in the detachment. I don't particularly mind expanding that to also benefit infantry, although I do think there's some fluff merit in emphasizing mobility for skimmers/bikes as they're meant to "feel mobile" and largely don't as a result of various rules that have been removed over recent editions. Also, I've been asking for Strands of Fate to get replaced with Battle Focus since the start of 10th and am glad that we seem to be getting that change in the codex.

So I have no problem with MSM being more of a thing. I have no problem with the idea of an MSM detachment. I have no problem with windriders swapping their bland kill-more rule for something that makes it more viable to field multiple squads of them regardless of detachment. I *do* think that making bikes and skimmers better at being mobile than infantry has some merit from a fluff/narrative-forging perspective, but I'm not dying on that hill.