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.

I don’t care about having an optimized list I just want to feel like different lists I put together embody different types of forces, like an elite infantry force, or a force of mostly jump packs and bikes flanking and doing hit and run tactics, or heavy weapons infantry, tanks and heavy assault infantry for siege forces and what not. I want to build thematic lists that don’t autolose to the half or accidentally optimized lists by virtue of belonging to a force with better rules (and not necessarily designed to capitalize on them). Maybe armywide rules should come from the same pool and you figure out how to make your army what you want it to be, like just take the loyalist custom chapter table and smack it as a universal faction trait table. Roughly of course because some of it clearly isn’t going to work...

The FOC should scale based upon the size of the game, and you shouldn't be able to just add what you want without significant dedication of resources (ie. Aux Elite/FA/HS slot should just cost 3 CP, so if you need a 4th HS choice, then fine, but pay for it).

Slipspace wrote:
The problem with detachments is they don't offer any meaningful restrictions.

That's my problem with them.

I'm limited to 3 HS slots, unless I spend some regenerating abstracted resource, and suddenly I have 5 more, so really I didn't have 3 HS slots, I had as many as I needed.

PenitentJake wrote:
I like detachments.

I've never been a soldier, but detachments seem to make tactical sense to me more than an FOC ever did.

Furthermore, detachment abuse was MOSTLY and 8th thing, when the number of CP you got was based on which detachments you used.

Now, the only detachments that don't COST you CP are the ones that have troops built in (Patrol, Battalion, Brigade), and even then, they're only free if they include your Warlord, so you're incentivized to only include one.

So if you include a detachment of another army, first off, it breaks you purity bonus, and second, you pay for the second detachment, even if it's a Patrol, a Battalion or a Brigade.

And if you include multiple subfaction- say SOB Valorous Heart + Bloody Rose, you get to keep army purity, but you still pay for the second detachment with CP.

Complaints about detachments were totally legit in 8th. In 9th, I just don't see it. Am I missing something?

No, you're not. It's just that some players run armies that work perfectly with the old FOC limitations and hate when other factions perform better than them by using armies that would break the old FOC. In fact giving up CPs in order to customize the list is already a choice and a limitation, sometimes even a strong one.

I for example can't stand LoWs and flyers so when a list with those wins against me I always have to hold back the feeling to convince my group of players to house rule the game and ban those units once and for all .

I actually find the NEW FOC more restrictive than the 4th edition one in some cases because the Imperial Guard's faction identity was killed.

Platoons are gone, command squads are optional, so even with 6 elites slots I am totally full and bloated and forced to use one Platoon Commander as a Company Commander.

In 4th edition I actually have ZERO elite slots filled.

Granted in 9th I could put any elites I wanted to take in a Auxiliary Detachment and pay 2cp each (for them and another 2cp if I wanted to mechanize them with a transport) but ...

Wow, Unit and I agree on something!

I also loved the Platoon system and want it back.

(Prepare yourselves for the Apocalypse- Unit and I agreeing is surely one of the seven signs that the end is nigh!)

I kind of mentioned this earlier but the FOC in 30k is really good with the concept (though not necessarily the execution) of rites of war.

To have the standard Battalion (the FoC of 7th etc...) but being able to modify what goes into what slots based on "criteria". A a FoC with the Ravenwing Keyword could then have the Ravenwing RoW which allows bikes to be taken as troops as well as FA. But no units with Deathwing can be taken in the detachment.

A nid FoC with the Skyblight Swarm RoW so that Gargs and Shrikes can be taken as troops, but Hive Tyrants bust have wings and Raveners, Mawlocs, and Trygons of both varieties cannot be taken.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually find the NEW FOC more restrictive than the 4th edition one in some cases because the Imperial Guard's faction identity was killed.

Platoons are gone, command squads are optional, so even with 6 elites slots I am totally full and bloated and forced to use one Platoon Commander as a Company Commander.

In 4th edition I actually have ZERO elite slots filled.

Granted in 9th I could put any elites I wanted to take in a Auxiliary Detachment and pay 2cp each (for them and another 2cp if I wanted to mechanize them with a transport) but ...

The Guard Platoon still exist. It's called a Battalion Detachment and cost 3 CP each

 alextroy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually find the NEW FOC more restrictive than the 4th edition one in some cases because the Imperial Guard's faction identity was killed.

Platoons are gone, command squads are optional, so even with 6 elites slots I am totally full and bloated and forced to use one Platoon Commander as a Company Commander.

In 4th edition I actually have ZERO elite slots filled.

Granted in 9th I could put any elites I wanted to take in a Auxiliary Detachment and pay 2cp each (for them and another 2cp if I wanted to mechanize them with a transport) but ...

The Guard Platoon still exist. It's called a Battalion Detachment and cost 3 CP each

Let me know what 2 9th edition IG units exist in the HQ slot that used to be in a platoon...

I'm still surprised they didn't go with the sensible option and give people a choice between tactical and strategic flexibility:

Swap the CP costs on brigades and patrols (and probably increase the CP costs on the other detachments).

You want the tactical flexibility to soup in another sub-faction easily (as in, only costs 1 troop tax unit)? Then it'll cost you strategic strength (CP).

Willing to invest in the troops to have a battalion/brigade? It'll cost you less CP.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually find the NEW FOC more restrictive than the 4th edition one in some cases because the Imperial Guard's faction identity was killed.

Platoons are gone, command squads are optional, so even with 6 elites slots I am totally full and bloated and forced to use one Platoon Commander as a Company Commander.

In 4th edition I actually have ZERO elite slots filled.

Granted in 9th I could put any elites I wanted to take in a Auxiliary Detachment and pay 2cp each (for them and another 2cp if I wanted to mechanize them with a transport) but ...

The Guard Platoon still exist. It's called a Battalion Detachment and cost 3 CP each

Let me know what 2 9th edition IG units exist in the HQ slot that used to be in a platoon...

I guess that joke flew over your head

 Blackie wrote:
It's just that some players run armies that work perfectly with the old FOC limitations and hate when other factions perform better than them by using armies that would break the old FOC.

Well that's certainly loaded. In person, I've encountered only a couple of lists in 9th that wouldn't work under the old FOC with mild tweaks- it's mostly the egregious spam lists that really wouldn't fit.

In theory, the detachment system allows you to have more freedom in building themed lists than the old FOC afforded. In practice, you get screwed both by 9th Ed gutting you on CPs and by rule of 3 preventing you from using a non-Troops unit as the backbone of your army. Want a Tanith army where Veterans are your troops? Too bad, rule of 3 says no. Armored Company? Not if you want the same shot of winning as everyone else, because every army lives and dies on command points.

I liked the FOC system specifically because it had exceptions where appropriate. Guard got platoons, Deathwing got Terminators as troops, etc. It limited the amount of abuse, reinforced faction/subfaction identity, and still allowed GW to curate what exceptions to the normal army composition were acceptable. Like Unit already pointed out, by forcing Guard into the same detachment system as everyone else, it stripped some of their faction identity and made them unreasonably difficult to build lists for. Having two Company Commanders for a couple squads of infantry (not even a full platoon) is kind of silly.

I didn't like many of the 3rd Ed changes, but the FOC was one of the worst things they brought in. Don't tell me what to bring to the game. Good riddance. Now get off my lawn before I throw a Vortex Grenade at you.

[EDIT]: Damn it! Wrong thread.

Okay that is even better than the other warcry box

 catbarf wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
It's just that some players run armies that work perfectly with the old FOC limitations and hate when other factions perform better than them by using armies that would break the old FOC.

Well that's certainly loaded. In person, I've encountered only a couple of lists in 9th that wouldn't work under the old FOC with mild tweaks- it's mostly the egregious spam lists that really wouldn't fit.

In theory, the detachment system allows you to have more freedom in building themed lists than the old FOC afforded. In practice, you get screwed both by 9th Ed gutting you on CPs and by rule of 3 preventing you from using a non-Troops unit as the backbone of your army. Want a Tanith army where Veterans are your troops? Too bad, rule of 3 says no. Armored Company? Not if you want the same shot of winning as everyone else, because every army lives and dies on command points.

I liked the FOC system specifically because it had exceptions where appropriate. Guard got platoons, Deathwing got Terminators as troops, etc. It limited the amount of abuse, reinforced faction/subfaction identity, and still allowed GW to curate what exceptions to the normal army composition were acceptable. Like Unit already pointed out, by forcing Guard into the same detachment system as everyone else, it stripped some of their faction identity and made them unreasonably difficult to build lists for. Having two Company Commanders for a couple squads of infantry (not even a full platoon) is kind of silly.

Yeah, you liked it because the armies you played/liked fit that FOC very well. Orks for example always had too many heavy support choices, even units that should have never been listed under heavy support like dreads or lootas, and the FOC was extremely limiting for them.

Some armies can be ok with 10ish units, others want to bring much more to work properly and that might break the FOC. Last, but not least, in older editions smaller formats were much more common: I've played 1500 points from 3rd to 7th edition, when the standard was raised to the odd 1850, and with that 1500 points format it was definitely easier to fit a classic FOC. At 2000 points with units that cost 45-55 points and burns a whole precious FA/HS/Elite slot it might be really hard to field an optimized list (simply optimized, not even spammy or OP) without breaking the old FOC limitations.

Not everyone is SM my friend .

Oh, and rule of 3 is actually a good thing to limit spam. I don't even remember a non troop/transport that was used in 4+ units in older editions anyway. 15-30 terminators were definitely enough for a proper Deathwing army for example and they didn't break rule of 3. Just Dark Eldar Reavers in 7th come to my mind actually but their FOC allowed 6 FA and spamming min squads was a competitive build, not something necessary.

 Blackie wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
It's just that some players run armies that work perfectly with the old FOC limitations and hate when other factions perform better than them by using armies that would break the old FOC.

Well that's certainly loaded. In person, I've encountered only a couple of lists in 9th that wouldn't work under the old FOC with mild tweaks- it's mostly the egregious spam lists that really wouldn't fit.

In theory, the detachment system allows you to have more freedom in building themed lists than the old FOC afforded. In practice, you get screwed both by 9th Ed gutting you on CPs and by rule of 3 preventing you from using a non-Troops unit as the backbone of your army. Want a Tanith army where Veterans are your troops? Too bad, rule of 3 says no. Armored Company? Not if you want the same shot of winning as everyone else, because every army lives and dies on command points.

I liked the FOC system specifically because it had exceptions where appropriate. Guard got platoons, Deathwing got Terminators as troops, etc. It limited the amount of abuse, reinforced faction/subfaction identity, and still allowed GW to curate what exceptions to the normal army composition were acceptable. Like Unit already pointed out, by forcing Guard into the same detachment system as everyone else, it stripped some of their faction identity and made them unreasonably difficult to build lists for. Having two Company Commanders for a couple squads of infantry (not even a full platoon) is kind of silly.

Yeah, you liked it because the armies you played/liked fit that FOC very well.

No, he said

I liked the FOC system specifically because it had exceptions where appropriate.

Your whole post reads as very condecending by the way. He didn't say that the FOC was perfect, just that its a better system than we have now. I thought the ork codex was good now? Why are you still using that ork player martyr card?

Ignoring the fact as well (I do love when people pick out bad examples) that the Ork codex of 4-5th ed actually did have a FOC exception for Dreads. For each Big Mek you took as a HQ, you could shunt 1 Dread into a troop slot, freeing up more HS slots. Battlewagons, which also took up prime HS real estate could be took as dedicated transports for Nobz (who could also be shunted to troops for each Warboss like the Dreads), so not take up a precious HS slot.

 Sim-Life wrote:


Your whole post reads as very condecending by the way. He didn't say that the FOC was perfect, just that its a better system than we have now. I thought the ork codex was good now? Why are you still using that ork player martyr card?

I'm saying that "...where appropriate" was entirely subjective . Better is also entirely subjective.

The current ork codex is certainly good but I was referring to older editions since we're talking about the FOC. Pretty much every optimized list from the current codex, again not necessarily the OP ones, would have broken the old FOC, that's why I'm extremely relieved that it's gone.

The FOC made sense when armies had 4-5 of each heavy support, fast attack or elite options and smaller formats were common, now they have 20-30 for each section and games have been standardized to 2000 points. Limiting to 0-3 no matter what doesn't make any sense now.

Rule of 3 is very helpful to limit spam instead. That makes a lot of sense and should definitely stay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ignoring the fact as well (I do love when people pick out bad examples) that the Ork codex of 4-5th ed actually did have a FOC exception for Dreads. For each Big Mek you took as a HQ, you could shunt 1 Dread into a troop slot, freeing up more HS slots. Battlewagons, which also took up prime HS real estate could be took as dedicated transports for Nobz (who could also be shunted to troops for each Warboss like the Dreads), so not take up a precious HS slot.

I didn't ignored it, I actually reported those examples . And to be fair none of those exceptions existed in 3rd and pretty much all of them, barring the BW as a dedicated transport for nobz/meganobz/flash gitz, didn't exist in 7th as well .

I feel like people forget the double detachment rule.

In 4th, games of 2500 pts or more allow for a second detachment to be brought.

In 6th and 7th, they lowered it to 2000... But people insisted on 1999+1 for some reason.

 catbarf wrote:


In theory, the detachment system allows you to have more freedom in building themed lists than the old FOC afforded. In practice, you get screwed both by 9th Ed gutting you on CPs and by rule of 3 preventing you from using a non-Troops unit as the backbone of your army. Want a Tanith army where Veterans are your troops? Too bad, rule of 3 says no. Armored Company? Not if you want the same shot of winning as everyone else, because every army lives and dies on command points.

Worth mentioning that Ro3 is a Matched play rule. It doesn't apply to Crusade or open.

Also, for armoured companies- I know far less about this than many Dakkanaughts, so I could be wrong, but many Guard tanks can be taken in squadrons. You can cram 12 Russes in a battalion if you take tanks commanders. True that you still need 3 troops choices, and maybe that's the issue. A Spearhead is 3CP, which isn't bad in Strikeforce and Onslaught games. It does hurt Incursion games, and it isn't possible RAW in Combat Patrol games.

Your point is still a strong one though- I'd like to see certain units confer the CP refund command benefit to non-core detachment types.

Yeah you can field an Armored Company in 9th.

It's just not as interesting as the old 4th edition one with doctrines, etc. where you could really set your tanks apart from the next guy's.

 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, you liked it because the armies you played/liked fit that FOC very well. Orks for example always had too many heavy support choices, even units that should have never been listed under heavy support like dreads or lootas, and the FOC was extremely limiting for them.

Some armies can be ok with 10ish units, others want to bring much more to work properly and that might break the FOC. Last, but not least, in older editions smaller formats were much more common: I've played 1500 points from 3rd to 7th edition, when the standard was raised to the odd 1850, and with that 1500 points format it was definitely easier to fit a classic FOC. At 2000 points with units that cost 45-55 points and burns a whole precious FA/HS/Elite slot it might be really hard to field an optimized list (simply optimized, not even spammy or OP) without breaking the old FOC limitations.

Not everyone is SM my friend .

First off, I've never collected SM.

Second, my armies included:
-Imperial Guard (Your Orks had too many Heavy Support choices to pick from? You had trouble with cheap units eating up slots? Tell me about it)
-Tyranids (who typically fielded large numbers of units that did brush up against FOC limitations- my standard 5th Ed 2K list maxed out the Troops choices)
-Renegades & Heretics (bursting with fun and thematic Elites choices and a ton of trench-themed Heavy Support, but you could only take three of either)

So yeah, I do actually get it. Dictating to me why I liked the FOC is pretty condescending and I'd appreciate if you stopped trying to read minds, because you're not doing a very good job of it.

I never said the old FOC was flawless and worked for every army, but as a mechanism for imposing structure and counteracting skew it did better than the current approach. Not every game system- particularly if you want it to be balanced, especially if you want it to be competitively balanced- needs total freedom in army construction. Restrictions are good for the game.

And if it's the chart you dislike, I'd be completely fine with a return to the 2nd Ed/WHFB approach of dictating percentages instead. The point was that that sort of structure provided less room for abuse than the system we currently have. You always have Narrative/Open as the license to do whatever you want in casual play.

 Blackie wrote:
Oh, and rule of 3 is actually a good thing to limit spam. I don't even remember a non troop/transport that was used in 4+ units in older editions anyway. 15-30 terminators were definitely enough for a proper Deathwing army for example and they didn't break rule of 3. Just Dark Eldar Reavers in 7th come to my mind actually but their FOC allowed 6 FA and spamming min squads was a competitive build, not something necessary.

You probably don't remember a non-troop/transport being used in 4+ units because under the standard FOC you couldn't take that many. You only had three slots each of Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support. Rule of 3 was wholly redundant to the core army-building system.

And 15-30 Terminators may work as 3 slots if you're okay with maxing out unit sizes- can't do 6 units of 5 each. But it doesn't work so well for a Guard Veteran army, where three squads of infantry isn't enough for even 1000pts.

Meanwhile rule of 3 does allow me to take 12 units of Carnifexes, because there are four different Carnifex datasheets. Does that really seem fair?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
Worth mentioning that Ro3 is a Matched play rule. It doesn't apply to Crusade or open.

Also, for armoured companies- I know far less about this than many Dakkanaughts, so I could be wrong, but many Guard tanks can be taken in squadrons. You can cram 12 Russes in a battalion if you take tanks commanders. True that you still need 3 troops choices, and maybe that's the issue. A Spearhead is 3CP, which isn't bad in Strikeforce and Onslaught games. It does hurt Incursion games, and it isn't possible RAW in Combat Patrol games.

Right, so you play Crusade and take an army of Veterans and that's all well and good but now you don't have any command points to work with and you're at a major disadvantage. Same deal with the tank company as you pointed out, except it actually is Rule of 3 compliant.

Which I think highlights how absurd Ro3 is. 12 Leman Russes is A-OK (and you can get more than that with the FW variants), but four units of ten-man T3/5+ Veterans? Can't be having that, that would be a skew list!

A Vanguard (Veterans) or Spearhead costs 3 CP.

If you Play Combat Patrol, you can't do this anyway (at that size, there's an actual rule that you MUST take a Patrol detachment (though it might be Crusade only)). At incursion, you normally get 6 CP + 1/turn, so it's a big hit.

But at Stikeforce, you get 12 + 1/turn. 3CP is NOT a huge deal in this context- especially if you include CP generation in your army.

At onsluaght, you get even more, so the 3 CP choice to use a different detachment is even less significant.

The FOC, by contrast NEEDS the bespoke exceptions you speak of in order to achieve what you want it to achieve. Perhaps it isn't the FOC that you liked, but the bespoke exceptions to it?

And if that's the case, the bespoke exceptions could be added to the detachment system just as easily as the FOC. And keep in mind that the 9th ed guard dex isn't actually out yet- for all we know, it could include specialized detachment rules to harken back to the design flexibility of bespoke FOC exceptions.

Why do people keep trying to tell catbarf that he doesn't like what he said he likes?

Why do you ignore the word "Perhaps" and the question mark at the end of the sentence which would mean that I was asking not telling?

PenitentJake wrote:
But at Stikeforce, you get 12 + 1/turn. 3CP is NOT a huge deal in this context- especially if you include CP generation in your army.

If your army is so skewed into a single slot that you can still fit everything you want into a single detachment, sure.

Which basically means you can build alternative forces so long as they're one-note. So, provided my opponent is okay with me ignoring Rule of 3, I can take a Vanguard detachment so as to take Veterans as troops- and then no more than two each of Fast Attack or Heavy Support. You can have your Spearhead of tanks, but no more than two HQ choices or Fast Attack. Want two units of Sentinels and a Hellhound alongside your tank company? Too bad, can't do it unless you take another detachment. At 1500-2000 points, that means you're down to half the CP of anyone with a Battalion.

The supposed advantage of this system is that it gives you more freedom and less restriction. I see more freedom, but with a laundry list of caveats that disincentivize actually taking advantage of it for fluffy reasons.

In practice, I've seen far more players opt to just take a Battalion or two and fit their theme into the limitations of that structure, with 'tax' Troops as needed. It's not as egregious as in 8th, but the extra CP in return for taking a few Troops you wouldn't otherwise is an enticing carrot. You can still cram a whole ton of Leman Russes into a single Battalion anyways, 3 HS slots and Ro3 be damned.

PenitentJake wrote:
Perhaps it isn't the FOC that you liked, but the bespoke exceptions to it?

And if that's the case, the bespoke exceptions could be added to the detachment system just as easily as the FOC.

That only achieves half of the goal.

Let me try to boil this down to its bare essentials: Restrictions are good for the game. Exceptions are good for player choice.

I liked the FOC because it imposed restrictions on listbuilding that ensured armies fit within a general mold of what a 40K army should look like. There were broken lists in every edition, and there was skew that worked even within the FOC (part of the reason why I do actually like percentage-based systems better), but it generally ensured that you would see an army with some mix of the various unit types. The expected 40K army was an HQ or two, some troops, and then a varying amount of other stuff. The game was designed around that expectation.

I then liked the exceptions to the FOC because they provided characterful and fluffy alternatives where appropriate. Not wild west do-whatever-you-want bring-twenty-seven-Carnifexes, but someone put real thought into how a Guard army should work and how it should be structured. They were curated exceptions to the default army structure, and by that nature tended to work better than a more free-form but one-size-fits-all system that applies the same restrictions equally (with some armies being more equal than others- again, three squads of Veterans max versus twenty-seven Carnifexes).

Maybe the new Guard codex will make Veterans troops again and that particular example will go away. Maybe it'll also bring back the Platoon structure, too. Maybe they'll even get rid of multiple tanks per slot, so I can't take 12 Leman Russes in a single Battalion anymore. Those would all be positive changes (aside from killing the armored company outright). But it'll still be a core system that purports to offer ultimate choice (take whatever you want!) while imposing hard restrictions (but you better not want more than three of the same thing, or the same CP as everyone else!). And then you still get competitive lists that fall through the cracks by skewing without taking too many of any one unit.

Let me be clear about this: I never loved the old FOC as a mechanic. I just think the purported superiority of 9th's system is questionable, and the idea that everyone who doesn't overwhelmingly prefer the new system is a selfish grognard who resents atypical armies beating their FOC-compatible dinosaur is absolute garbage.

Honestly, it just seems like you want to take a Specialist Regiment styled setup without having to specialize?


So far, nothing is pointing towards Platoons returning. That trash is thankfully dead...but going off the way boxes have been done right now? It looks like some stuff is going to get separated out so that Guard have an easier time to fill out FOCs without going super model heavy.

Unless I'm reading too much into the Krieg solo kit and Cadian repack not including a Heavy Weapon Team...

I never played Guard back then but I always loved the platoon structure. I especially loved the version with all the different attachments and so on. Great system, and it made Guard feel really different to other armies by having lots and lots of small, weak squads running all over the place.

I also really liked the idea of command squads for Guard rather than individual heroes, as it made "normal" humans feel different to other factions with their extremely powerful heroes.

I mostly played Orks, and I always liked having a couple of big ole mobs as my core unless I was doing speed freaks, in which case I had to have a bunch of trukks. I liked the shape it gave armies and the way it forced choices in the army building phase.

There are definitely advantages to no FOC, it allows for much easier themed forces and even stuff like no restrictions on mixing armies allows for your personal background to be represented exactly on the table. I'm not denying that at all. But I do have nostalgia for the old FOC for 40K and Fantasy. I especially liked how the Fantasy version scaled at lower and higher points values.

I liked the platoon structure for how it facilitated deployment too.

Back then? Platoons showed up as a single deployment/reserves choice.

Now? If you want reserves? Well, sorry, your platoon's heavy weapon squad got turned around in albequerque, two thirds of the infantry squads arrived on time, the Command Squad doesn't show up till halfway through (should have followed your infantry, Platoon Sergeant!) and the third infantry squad showed up on the other board edge because they couldn't get with in 9" of the enemy.

Oh and the platoon leader Lieutenant was deployed in the board from the beginning because that makes perfect sense.

(This is using the Narrative reserves rule present in the Recon mission fyi, since I only play Crusade. I am aware you have more control in Matched)

Platoons were awesome, that's all I have to add.