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.

One of the things I think the 40k community can unanimously agree on is that the squadron rules leave a lot to be desired. The topic has been covered before, but I'd like to submit my ideas for making Squadrons of vehicles more attractive.

The first, and I think less radical and more balanced idea is as such:

"If, during a shooting phase, a vehicle in a squadron suffers an immobilized support, the player controlling the vehicle has two options. They may choose to either have the vehicle's crew abandon the vehicle, treating it as a wreck. Alternatively, the player may choose to immobilize the whole squadron. The crews of the squadron band together to protect their squad mates and materiel until repair and rescue can be arranged."

This rule keep things simple and fair. It's going to make squadrons more attractive to IG players, who probably might not care if their Leman Russ Squadrons or artillery batteries can't move, so long as they can get maximum firepower. This is of course balanced by the fact that there are now 2-3 vehicles that will be auto-hit in close combat.

Option 2 is as follows:

"Due to the exacting and precise nature of squadron maneuvers, crew members must be possessed of great focus and resolve. Squadrons of vehicles ignore Crew- Shaken and Crew - Stunned results."

This option is more of a trade off. Squadrons are still just as fragile as before, but so long as they don;t take any immobilized results, you should still get maximum firepower most of the time. This also makes glancing hits against squadrons either fatal, or ineffective. Chaos vehicles can take Daemonic Possession, so the concept isn't unbalanced in principle.

I'd be eager to hear thoughts on my suggestions, and of course, anyone else's ideas for fixing one of the more annoying rules in our beloved game.

Option 1 is a situational boost to many vehicles and a big boost to artillery squadrons.
Option 2 is a flat-out bonus.

I'm curious as to why you feel that squadrons need a boost.

I never found them annoying. What I find more annoying are spammed lists in the first place, particularly spammed armor lists, and players trying to find ways to avoid the shortcomings of trying to squeeze 9 tanks into 3 FOC slots.

Yeah, I'd have to say squadrons are fine as they are.

Easiest way to fix squadrons? Take them out.

I dunno. Guard squadrons are part of their strengths, I guess, but it seems kinda cheesy that only the humans can do it (as far as I remember).

Interesting. These are some very different opinions than what I normally hear. My personal feelings are that the additional fragility of taking vehicles in a squadron is not balanced by the additional firepower squadrons provide, nor by the fact that vehicles in a squadron ignore Crew - Shaken results. This is a sentiment shared by many players who use squadrons.

@TheRedArmy: I believe Eldar can take squadrons of War Walkers

Do neither. Squadrons aren't underpowered. In fact, a smart player using squadrons will find that his vehicles gain resilience.

Im an IG player and I HATE squadrons.. its fine with sentinals but on a Russ or basilisk.. its heart breaking to add another destroyed result to the damage table

Squadrons already do ignore shaken and stunned results...

Fetterkey wrote:Do neither. Squadrons aren't underpowered. In fact, a smart player using squadrons will find that his vehicles gain resilience.

Unless you consider a more than 50% increased chance of vehicle death a bad thing, in which a smart player using squadrons will find that his vehicles lose resilience.

Agreed. Yes, you can abuse allocation, but that does not necessarily equate to more inherent resilience. It is merely a way to mitigate damage.

@shealyr: Sorry, friend, but they do not. Page 64, Damage Result Against Squadrons:

"To represent this, treat all immobilized results as destroyed (wrecked) and all stunned results as shaken."

So no, they in no way, shape, or form ignore Stunned results. Do render me the courtesy of assuming I've done the basic research on a subject before starting a thread on it.

Well then, my foot goes in my mouth and I apologize.

Matt65 wrote:Im an IG player and I HATE squadrons.. its fine with sentinals but on a Russ or basilisk.. its heart breaking to add another destroyed result to the damage table

Fetterkey wroteo neither. Squadrons aren't underpowered. In fact, a smart player using squadrons will find that his vehicles gain resilience.

Unless you consider a more than 50% increased chance of vehicle death a bad thing, in which a smart player using squadrons will find that his vehicles lose resilience.

How nice for you that you can take Leman Russes in a squadron.

I've love to take my Predators in a squadron too.

You should be happy that you get extra out of your heavy support choices which are supposed to be in the back shooting anyway, and should be able to deal with the trade-off that you're slightly more squishy, but get more tanks.

ph34r wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Do neither. Squadrons aren't underpowered. In fact, a smart player using squadrons will find that his vehicles gain resilience.

Unless you consider a more than 50% increased chance of vehicle death a bad thing, in which a smart player using squadrons will find that his vehicles lose resilience.

I'm no expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just basing this off of what I've seen played.
1) You use the facing of the closest tank to see what armor value you hit.
2) Once down to one tank, it no longer suffers the immobile = death.

So a squadron of 2 Russes can deploy and get AV14 against most of the table. Should you kill one russ, the 2nd no longer suffers the squadron issue.
Honestly, 2-4 chimmeras running a screen for 2-4 Russes with camo (3+ obscured save) is really a bitch to kill.

Warwalkers, vypers, land speeders and killa kans are all squadrons; but marine/eldar/ork players don't seem to be complaining.

IMO, squadrons are fine.

Warwalkers, vypers, land speeders and killa kans are all squadrons; but marine/eldar/ork players don't seem to be complaining.

Yeah, but think about it. All the things you just listed were not AV 14 Tanks with lots of a heavy weapons on them that can easily be screened by tons of ~disposable~ transports.

The IG are in a very unique (and in my opinion unfair) position to take full advantage of the rules.

HawaiiMatt wrote:Warwalkers, vypers, land speeders and killa kans are all squadrons; but marine/eldar/ork players don't seem to be complaining.

IMO, squadrons are fine.

I think the problem is with the rules' assumption that the player wants their vehicle squadron to move; an IG player wants his artillery sat still anyway, so why should a thrown track or damaged engine stop the gun from firing?

I admit, as long as it is balanced then it doesn't need fixing, but it seems slightly odd that e.g. 140 points for one artillery vehicle, or 280 points for two with a higher chance of losing the first casualty; I suppose the balance is the ability to take more than one in a FOC slot in the first place.

I think the problem is two-fold. One is that aside from a few exceptions (war walkers being one of them), IG has all the options when it comes to vehicle squadrons. Which boils down to the obvious problem, as shown in tournament record - IG has all the options, and thus, all the power. Only need a few vehicles? Fill up that FOC with single-man squads. Need 7? Squadron it up!

Imagine, if you will, suddenly fielding a number of hammerheads in squadrons, or fire prisms. It's not as scary, due to armor 14 on the russ, but the point is taken. Imagine 6 hammerheads with permanent 4+ cover against everything from 12" away, firing at separate targets thanks to target locks. That mech list you had just got torn to shreds.

I dislike squadrons since the penalties outweigh the benefit, particularly for guard (who moves a russ?), and because they essentially allow guard to take 3 russes, 3 artillery, and a deathstrike if they want. Tau have to contend with having 4 decent heavy supports and never being able to take more than one of each if they want variety.

Actually, squadroned Hammerheads would be terrifying if only for Target Locks and being able to buy one Disruption Pod to benefit both tanks.

The rules are fine as is, and these proposed 'fixes' are anything but.

Considering you can take 9 Hydras, a CCS, 2PCS and 4 standard squads at 1000 points... yeah I feel no sympathy

I think they have always tried to make large amounts of tanks easier to kill, for example does anyone remember the 'Lucky glance' rule for old school armoured companies? Option 1 seems to have an ulterior motive 'Oh Noes! I can't move my 3 Hydras!!! Woe is me!'. Option 2 seems also to have an ulterior motive, 'These rules are rubbish, it means no matter what result on the damage table i can't shoot with at least 1 of my hydras!'. In my opinion maybe 'squadron: immobilised-wrecked' could be repaired by teck priests etc?

Your poll is missing an option:

"Option 3: Leave everything as is."

Seriously, vehicle squadrons are perfectly acceptable as they currently work. If you don't want the drawbacks (and advantages) of being a squadron, just run a single tank per FOC.

Or rather, switch option 1 a little. Instead of making it the player's choice, say that if one of the vehicles is immobilized, the squadron is immobilized for one turn. If, by the end of the next turn, that immobilized result isn't fixed, they leave it, and it's 'destroyed'. If it is, then Hey! They can move again.

Or why not when a squad vehicle gets immobilized it breaks off from the group and is treated like an immobilized vehicles of its type? Makes sense, doesn't it?

I'm ok with squadrons as is, simply if there wasn't a drawback they'd be a tad OP

grayspark wrote:

Warwalkers, vypers, land speeders and killa kans are all squadrons; but marine/eldar/ork players don't seem to be complaining.

Yeah, but think about it. All the things you just listed were not AV 14 Tanks with lots of a heavy weapons on them that can easily be screened by tons of ~disposable~ transports.

The IG are in a very unique (and in my opinion unfair) position to take full advantage of the rules.

It's been awhile since I played, but way back in September, a 55 point chimmera still blocked 50%+ of a Russ.

-Matt

rivers64 wrote:Or why not when a squad vehicle gets immobilized it breaks off from the group and is treated like an immobilized vehicles of its type? Makes sense, doesn't it?

That is a worst scenario of all listed.
Do the new vehicle become additional KP? Anyway this would be only drawback. Suddenly you have 2 units from one FOC. You can shoot 2 different targets, enemy has to shoot 2 different targets. On a static artillery unit this would actually benefit the owner of the squadron.

Yeah, I definitely don't think the community 'unanimously' thinks that the squadron rules are busted. I don't think the community 'unanimously' thinks anything!

But I personally do agree that perhaps since when the squadron rules were written they only applied to light vehicles (which wasn't so bad when you lost one of them) they probably are *maybe* a bit more of a penalty than a benefit that originally intended.

Although taking Guard tanks in a squadron (as opposed to individually) is a way to 'spam' the army where you wouldnt' normally be able to fit that many of that unit type into the army, so I actually believe that the squadron rules aren't *supposed* to be an equal trade-off, but rather they are specifically designed to be a bit of a penalty because you are able to fit way more of these vehicles into the army than normally allowed.

Frankly either of your alternatives seems like reasonable suggestions to me, again assuming that the inherent penalty isn't what the games designers want.