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've given a lot of thought to the current meta, every game we are seeing a double battalion, this is a problem with the value of that detachment relative to the other possible detachments you could bring. I see 2 possible solutions: lower the cp of a battalion to 4 instead of 5, or improve the bonus you gain from running another detachment. For example, make the vanguard, spearhead, and outrider detachments give a small bonus to the units in that detachment.

Spearhead: +1 to the armor pen value of ranged weapons
Vanguard: +1 to leadership
Outrider: +1 to movement

The idea is not awful.

The implementation is.

+1 Leadership is basically useless in more than 90% of games.
+1 Movement is more useful... But not very useful on already fast models. Going from, say, a 12" move to a 13" move means you can try for a long-shot first-turn charge, but given the odds of failure... Not worth it. For faster models, it's even less needed-adding an inch to a 30" move Heldrake means nothing.

+1 Pen on ranged weapons, though (which notably, not all Heavy Support uses-Maulerfiends are a melee Heavy Support unit) is ABSOLUTELY INSANE, when given for basically free. It doesn't matter much on already high-AP shots, like Lascannons or Meltas, but toss that on a Spearhead of Tank Commanders with Punisher Cannons and Leman Russes with Punisher Cannons... That's 160+ S5 AP-1 D1 shots. It doubles their damage against PMEQs in cover.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The idea is not awful.

The implementation is.

+1 Leadership is basically useless in more than 90% of games.
+1 Movement is more useful... But not very useful on already fast models. Going from, say, a 12" move to a 13" move means you can try for a long-shot first-turn charge, but given the odds of failure... Not worth it. For faster models, it's even less needed-adding an inch to a 30" move Heldrake means nothing.

+1 Pen on ranged weapons, though (which notably, not all Heavy Support uses-Maulerfiends are a melee Heavy Support unit) is ABSOLUTELY INSANE, when given for basically free. It doesn't matter much on already high-AP shots, like Lascannons or Meltas, but toss that on a Spearhead of Tank Commanders with Punisher Cannons and Leman Russes with Punisher Cannons... That's 160+ S5 AP-1 D1 shots. It doubles their damage against PMEQs in cover.

OK fair enough how about

Vanguard: +1 to advance and charge
Spearhead: may fall back and still shoot at -1
Outrider: +3" movement

Vanguard is useless for non-assault or Assault-weapon having units. Chosen with all Combibolters, for instance.

Spearhead is useless for melee support-like Maulerfiends.

Outrider is better, but a lot of units in FA have enough move to start. Going from 14" to 17" isn't really a significant buff.

I like this idea a lot. There needs to be more benefits to taking the other detachment types. CP are far too valuable to give up at present.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Vanguard is useless for non-assault or Assault-weapon having units. Chosen with all Combibolters, for instance.

Spearhead is useless for melee support-like Maulerfiends.

Outrider is better, but a lot of units in FA have enough move to start. Going from 14" to 17" isn't really a significant buff.

Chosen still have +1 attack base so they can still use that.
Outrider could still use the addition 3" for better positions and charging
Spearhead is where I would say you're right.. Maybe just +1 armor save against melee attacks

 brazenjaw wrote:
I've given a lot of thought to the current meta, every game we are seeing a double battalion, this is a problem with the value of that detachment relative to the other possible detachments you could bring.

I question this premise. There's nothing innately virtuous about fielding one combination of detachments over another. I feel you may be misdiagnosing the issue. Many people fielding a pair of batallions shouldn't be a problem. The difference in various factions' ability to cost-effectively take double batallions (assuming taking double batallions is advantageous) is. So unless your goal is to give an extra 4 CP worth of cost-effectiveness to spearheads compared to batallions, you'd probably be better off tackling the issue from another direction. Discussions regarding how to do that abound.

...make the vanguard, spearhead, and outrider detachments give a small bonus to the units in that detachment.

Spearhead: +1 to the armor pen value of ranged weapons
Vanguard: +1 to leadership
Outrider: +1 to movement

It's very difficult to make one-size-fits-all benefits like this. A vanguard can be composed of anything from guard vets to terminators to pathfinders to riptides to death jesters. Something like +1 Ld is generally going to be too weak to matter. Something like +1 armor pen on a spearhead is going to vary in power dramatically based on what weapons its impacting. A ravager already has good enough AP to make an extra point of AP all that useful. Doubling the AP on an assault cannon or giving extra AP to an anti-horde weapon, however, could be quite powerful; possibly too powerful.

If you wanted to do detachments with additional benefits, you'd probably be better off making unique ones on a codex-by-codex basis so that you have a better idea of what units would benefit from whatever rule you tie to that detachment. But then we're dangerously close to formations and all their drawbacks, plus you're sort of slapping a chapter tactic on top of a chapter tactic at that point.

Originally the battalion was 3 cp I think they over buffed it to 5 when they should have taken it to a moderate 4. 4 cp for a battalion seems like the most minimalist solution that basically works.

Or make the Battalion require more units for the 5 CP:

2-3 HQ
3-6 Troops
1-6 Elites
1-3 Fast Attack
1-3 Heavy Support
0-2 Flyer
Dedicated Transports: May include one for each other choice

 alextroy wrote:
Or make the Battalion require more units for the 5 CP:

2-3 HQ
3-6 Troops
1-6 Elites
1-3 Fast Attack
1-3 Heavy Support
0-2 Flyer
Dedicated Transports: May include one for each other choice

Or you can make the requirement 2-3 HQ and 5-10 Troops.

 alextroy wrote:
Or make the Battalion require more units for the 5 CP:

2-3 HQ
3-6 Troops
1-6 Elites
1-3 Fast Attack
1-3 Heavy Support
0-2 Flyer
Dedicated Transports: May include one for each other choice

Part of the problem is that there's armies that just don't have.... stuff. For example, there's no real functional Fast Attack slot in Deathwatch, because the whole gimmick is that every slot gets lumped into Troops instead. That's an extreme example, but far from uncommon.

 LunarSol wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Or make the Battalion require more units for the 5 CP:

2-3 HQ
3-6 Troops
1-6 Elites
1-3 Fast Attack
1-3 Heavy Support
0-2 Flyer
Dedicated Transports: May include one for each other choice

Part of the problem is that there's armies that just don't have.... stuff. For example, there's no real functional Fast Attack slot in Deathwatch, because the whole gimmick is that every slot gets lumped into Troops instead. That's an extreme example, but far from uncommon.

That'd be...

180-HQs
360-Troops
80-Elite
240-FA
205-HS

Equals...

1,065 points for Custodes. Without gear, since I'm AFB and just have my MFM, so I don't know what gear they need.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I like this idea a lot. There needs to be more benefits to taking the other detachment types. CP are far too valuable to give up at present.

Part of the issue is simply that when the other detachments were closer in value, people were complaining that other people were using them to cherry pick the best stuff without having to pay the troop tax. GW has largely abandoned the original vision for detachments in favor of Battalions, and at this point them being the only type seems to be working as intended.

Ultimately, the problem is simply that any one size fits all framework isn't going to fit everyone and the current one fits most well enough for most. I'd personally like to see the other detachment types go up to +3 CP with the assumption of a 3 detachment limit, but I also think things are good enough to not be worth messing with unless GW wants to do something massive like use them for Apocalypse style alternating activations.

Here's a different idea:

Battalion, 5CP:
1-2 HQ's
2-6 Troops
0-1 Heavy
0-1 Fast
0-1 Eilte
0-1 Flyer

Spearhead/Vanguard/Outrider, 1CP:
1-1 HQ's
0-3 Heavy/Fast/Elite\

While the 5CP is way more worthwhile than the 1CP, it's also only a thing because the Battalion has all the slots you could ever want baked in.

The way I see it is if you have the base value of the brigade which requires you to bring everything, meaning you will have to thin out your list to fit everything into it then you get 12 cp.

As of right now you can bring 2 battalions + 1 other detachment and you are now at 11 cp. You basically avoided paying the full premium for the high amount of cp by simply getting 2 battalions instead of the full brigade.

I think I would be ok if they decided to scrap the brigade all together and just gave the other detachments 2 cp. But if they are basing cp values off of a brigade as the top value and which is troop based in nature then a battalion needs to be 4 cp to make sense.

Considering that GW's stated reason for increasing the CP generation of Battalions and Brigades was to reward elite armies for taking the harder formations and it had the exact opposite of that effect...

Ditch the existing formations altogether:

- Go back to percentage compositions; at least 30% Troops, at least 25% either infantry or biker keywords over and above the troop requirement, at least one character but no more than 15% characters. That sort of thing.

- Some fixed amount of CP based on game size with a CP penalty for each formation after the first, the intention being to allowing soup but giving it a downside.

The Newman wrote:

- Go back to percentage compositions; at least 30% Troops, at least 25% either infantry or biker keywords over and above the troop requirement, at least one character but no more than 15% characters. That sort of thing.

There are problems with that approach though. For one thing, you'd be making some canonical flavors of army illegal to play. For instance, you'd no longer be able to play a Saim-Hann windrider force where everything is either a jetbike or a skimmer. Death Wing armies would be forced to bring Green Wing along. Canoptek necron armies would have to go. 'Nidzilla lists wouldn't be allowed. You get the idea.

Plus, this would favor armies that happen to have a well-rounded spread of units. If 30% of your army has to be troops, but the troops in your army just aren't all that cost-effective, then you're just SOL.

- Some fixed amount of CP based on game size with a CP penalty for each formation after the first, the intention being to allowing soup but giving it a downside.

Totally agree with you here. Everyone should start with X CP, and you would functionally "spend" CP to unlock new units and stratagems by taking a second detachment. Detachments themselves would basically be a collection of units with a given keyword; they wouldn't have a set number of force org slots for various unit types.

Wyldhunt wrote:

The Newman wrote:

- Go back to percentage compositions; at least 30% Troops, at least 25% either infantry or biker keywords over and above the troop requirement, at least one character but no more than 15% characters. That sort of thing.

There are problems with that approach though. For one thing, you'd be making some canonical flavors of army illegal to play. For instance, you'd no longer be able to play a Saim-Hann windrider force where everything is either a jetbike or a skimmer. Death Wing armies would be forced to bring Green Wing along. Canoptek necron armies would have to go. 'Nidzilla lists wouldn't be allowed. You get the idea.

Plus, this would favor armies that happen to have a well-rounded spread of units. If 30% of your army has to be troops, but the troops in your army just aren't all that cost-effective, then you're just SOL.

- Some fixed amount of CP based on game size with a CP penalty for each formation after the first, the intention being to allowing soup but giving it a downside.

Totally agree with you here. Everyone should start with X CP, and you would functionally "spend" CP to unlock new units and stratagems by taking a second detachment. Detachments themselves would basically be a collection of units with a given keyword; they wouldn't have a set number of force org slots for various unit types.

Your second reaction addresses your first. Armies that need it/have fluff that justifies it get a strat or strats that let them alter the composition rules. Saim-Hann, White Scars, Speed Freaks, etc. could pay a CP to take Bikes in the troop slot for example.

It's an idea anyway, the current system is kind of terrible.

The Newman wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

The Newman wrote:

- Go back to percentage compositions; at least 30% Troops, at least 25% either infantry or biker keywords over and above the troop requirement, at least one character but no more than 15% characters. That sort of thing.

There are problems with that approach though. For one thing, you'd be making some canonical flavors of army illegal to play. For instance, you'd no longer be able to play a Saim-Hann windrider force where everything is either a jetbike or a skimmer. Death Wing armies would be forced to bring Green Wing along. Canoptek necron armies would have to go. 'Nidzilla lists wouldn't be allowed. You get the idea.

Plus, this would favor armies that happen to have a well-rounded spread of units. If 30% of your army has to be troops, but the troops in your army just aren't all that cost-effective, then you're just SOL.

- Some fixed amount of CP based on game size with a CP penalty for each formation after the first, the intention being to allowing soup but giving it a downside.

Totally agree with you here. Everyone should start with X CP, and you would functionally "spend" CP to unlock new units and stratagems by taking a second detachment. Detachments themselves would basically be a collection of units with a given keyword; they wouldn't have a set number of force org slots for various unit types.

Your second reaction addresses your first. Armies that need it/have fluff that justifies it get a strat or strats that let them alter the composition rules. Saim-Hann, White Scars, Speed Freaks, etc. could pay a CP to take Bikes in the troop slot for example.

It's an idea anyway, the current system is kind of terrible.

The way I see it, what is and isn't a troop is kind of arbitrary/mostly based on tradition. Jetbikes were troops for like... 4 editions. This edition, they're not. Last edition, bike marines could be troops by simply taking a certain HQ in your army. Some chaos marine units are troops if you take the right subfaction. Terminators are elites, but Grey Knight terminators (who have better gear and stats) are troops. Iybraesil fluff says my howling banshees should probably be troops, and they probably wouldn't break the game if they were, but I don't have that option in the current rules.

I don't see any particular reason my Iybraesil banshees should have to pay CP to be troops while grey knight terminators get to be troops for free. Conversely, the main explanations for why some units get to be troops at no cost while others don't seem to be:

A.) Unit X has always been a troop. Then shouldn't eldar jetbikes be troops? And what does it really mean to "be a troop"?
B.) This faction has fluff that says this elite unit should be a troop choice. Then my Iybraesil howling banshees should probably be troops, right?
C.) We intentionally designed unit X to be less cost-effective than a non-troop. It's only desirable because it indirectly lets you pay a tax to have more CP. Then design the unit to actually be desirable on its own merits. Give them stratagems that only they can use. Give them abilities that should make me want to put them at the center of a conventional army.