Brainstorming - how to encourage Max Units over Min Units?

[Mileposter]

I disagree with the premise that the game actively punishes taking a large unit. Several armies prefer the larger blobs. This is a topic that has centered around Marines...

 

But even then, you aren't punished for taking a 10 man tactical squad. MSU is more efficient from a tournament point of view... But they'd be telling you that you're wrong for not trying to squeeze 0.5% more efficiency from your list anyway so...

 

Depending on what your goal is, or what the mission of your game is, 10 man Tacticals can be more beneficial than 5 mans. A lot of missions have win conditions that aren't centered around "does it kill more wounds than it takes" - and that's even before considering if your local campaign has created unique missions!

 

I also have to ask for those putting the pressure on there being a "Need" to support the 10 man squads... Why? I haven't heard a game-centric reasoning for it yet. Only lore and preference. Why should there be an active desire to take 10 man squads? Why should 10 man be better than 5 man, or even on par?

[MARK0SIAN]

You can’t dismiss people wanting their armies to be lore accurate as an invalid reason for asking something.

 

If Tau rules made them really terrible at shooting but amazing at close combat then that does not reflect their lore accurately at all. If Khorne berzerkers has a BS of 2+ and a WS of 6+ with no CC weapons then that would be a poor reflection of the lore too. Now neither of those builds would necessarily be uncompetitive, they might be really good armies so you couldn’t give a game-centric reason for wanting them changed, but the call for change would be valid nonetheless.

 

Now people may disagree on whether 10 man squads are discouraged or not etc but you can’t dismiss lore as a poor reason for pressing for a rules change.

 

Lore accuracy can indeed be a poor reason for a rule change as if we went with that then Space Marines would just auto win everything and each marine would slaughter droves of aliens and heretics. But it is not always a poor one and the concerns of people who want lore accuracy should be taken seriously.

[Mileposter]

I don't dismiss those that want lore accuracy. Quite the opposite.

 

But lore as a single reason for pushing for a game change isn't feasible. It offers no balance. It offers no drive for the change. From a balancing perspective, and game design on another level, it offers no goal to achieve. Or, perhaps put another way, lore accuracy is not a metric that can be measured.

 

"If we change X, we will observe Y."

 

Obviously, you can turn the lore accuracy into perhaps a marketing thing... "If you make 10 man squads more favorable, you will see an increase in Space Marine sales". Or some such... But if we're really wanting full squads to be a thing, it has to be more than lore to actually achieve it.

 

Because it can come from the other side to: You want your armies to be more lore accurate? Awesome. The lore gets change so that Space Marines march in 5 man squads primarily now. Now the lore matches the rules!

[MARK0SIAN]

I agree, on those terms encouraging ten man squad would have an impact that is hard to measure. Measuring the satisfaction of 40K players is always tricky :)

 

But the things we are asking for are quite small changes to incentivise larger squads. Now my argument would be that these changes are unlikely to affect balance, they’re unlikely to affect any other armies significantly and they wouldn’t take a lot of work to implement. So if a large section of the playerbase wants it and it helps to reflect the lore of the army better then why not grant the request.

 

Look at the effort that went into the Deathguard codex to create a flavourful and lore accurate codex. If the other codexes could have even half as much effort put into their flavour and lore accuracy then we would be happy :)

[Beams]

Honestly, I really think that if you got 10-25% off of the "ablative wounds" that people swear are the max unit sizes you'd only see max unit sizes squads. I personally use full size Dominion squads, full size ret squads, full size seraphim squads to great effect, and only refrain from running fifteen girl BSS sinply because that's about 120 dollars for a squad of 15, so I don't have all that many spare Bolter girls.

[Kinstryfe]

I don't dismiss those that want lore accuracy. Quite the opposite.But lore as a single reason for pushing for a game change isn't feasible. It offers no balance. It offers no drive for the change. From a balancing perspective, and game design on another level, it offers no goal to achieve. Or, perhaps put another way, lore accuracy is not a metric that can be measured."If we change X, we will observe Y."Obviously, you can turn the lore accuracy into perhaps a marketing thing... "If you make 10 man squads more favorable, you will see an increase in Space Marine sales". Or some such... But if we're really wanting full squads to be a thing, it has to be more than lore to actually achieve it.Because it can come from the other side to: You want your armies to be more lore accurate? Awesome. The lore gets change so that Space Marines march in 5 man squads primarily now. Now the lore matches the rules!

That's a pretty big false equivalency. Full disclosure, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I build and paint my tac squads as 10s since I already have way more than will ever see the battlefield. But the lore has had tacs in squads of 10 with a sgt, special, and heavy since at least 2nd edition. If we go with the premise that they could just change that background to justify something new, then there's no reason my Ultramarines can't have Aeldari auxillary troops and pet Genestealers, because those are also just a fluff change away.

 

That said, I think there's already enough precident in the fluff to justify smaller squads. Razorbacks are pretty much proof that Marines will operate in smaller squads. Or they're just understrength after a lengthy campaign. Or they've split into combat squads and the 2 5-man squads are just a 10-man squad with better equipment.

 

So yeah. I think the fluff is solid either way. I'm actually not sure this is really a problem. You can justify any size squad pretty easily.

[Captain Idaho]

Hours Heresy does it well - standard buy-in price of a unit is greater than the individual points upgrade for additional models.

 

So a 5 man Tactical squad in 8th edition can be 65pts but to take any extra models over this is only 10/11pts each.

 

For efficiency folk will purchase larger squads but there is still a reasons for taking small squads since they cram more weapons into the list.

 

This principle would also solve Space Marines Tactical/Intercessor problems.

[Emicus]

 

 

Make big units ppm cheaper than small units. Worked in AoS

 

100 for 5. 175 for 10. Dang hard to pass up.

It *kind of* works for AoS due to combat being more prevalent, shooting being much rarer and shorter ranged, units being much larger, alternating close combat activations, built in army by army battleshock immunity, and a whole host of other factors that have more to do with army design than rules design.

 

The changes suggested here aren't enough. a 25pt discount on a terrible unit doesn't make it good. The bonuses to CP are irrelevant with battalion changes and are too conservative.

 

If you want people to actually take 10 man tac squads and be able to win you have to go for broke. Take the battalion example above, 2CP is irrelevant to double battalion, 6cp is even moreso for brigades. If you wanted that same system to work I would say 10CP and 25CP and add that you can now use the same strategem 2 times per phase. That's how badly you're gimping yourself by bringing 10man tac squads.

 

If you wanted to go with point reductions I would say 65pts for 5 and 85pts for 10.

 

For other armies you might not have to be as extreme but the big problem with larger units is that, unless you have an extremely powerful unit benefiting from extremely powerful buffs(like dark reapers) taking more models in a unit actually makes it worse in most cases. A ten man tactical squad is actually less effective than a 5 man squad at the same job. If it wasn't for how it scales when you apply it to an entire army, I'd almost want 10 man squads to be cheaper than 5mans.

I think OP wanted a way to make large units more attractive/curb MSU spam. Whether a unit is great or not doesn't matter, that's a different topic.

 

Taking bigger units is a risk. You have a greater chance of copping morale losses, it's harder to overkill the unit with shooting, debuffs are more powerful and God forbid you wanted to charge and fail..

 

What's the benefit of taking larger units currently? More mileage for buffs and you save slots.. Which are abundant (unless new rule of 3: but I think most of us would like to take more troops/encourage bigger units)

 

Point discount when taking bigger units is an easy fix. Sure you can get into trouble with transports but that's the price you pay, right? Scalable points or x for base y for extra works, or maybe increase transport capacity by 1? Or a flat rule saying max squad+1 character or 10 slots anything goea

[Kaldoth]

Being the B&C and a long time majority power armor forum, I think its easy to lose sight of why gaining CP for max sized units would be bad.  And as always, Orks would be probably the biggest army to suffer from that kind of bonus.

 

Speed Freaks/Mekanized lists would be insta stomped by CP alone.  An Ork trukk can only carry 12 models (or 6 if they have mega armor).  A Chinork can only carry ten.  

 

So, now I'm forced to either take max sized units of 30 boyz and play an orkfantry spam list.  Playing an orkfantry spam list is a righteous pain in the ass.  One, the sheer model count alone makes every single phase a pain in the ass.  Three units of boyz? Moving 90 models.  3 units of Shoota boyz? 180 shots. 3 Units of choppa/slugga boyz at max strength? 360 attack rolls.

 

Or, I could play a much more reasonable list of Orks in trukks/battlewagons/ chinorks, but by doing so, I lose out on gaining CP that is readily and easily achievable by space marine players who can take their maximum unit size and still utilize transports. 

 

Sorry, but no thanks. While I realize it is "fluffier" to see ten man tac squads, the reality of wargaming is you can't always consolidate fluff with rules.  If that were the case, you could field a ten man tactical squad against an entire Tyranid army and come out okay. 

[Captain Idaho]

Armies like Hordes don't need a leg up for many units but some units need a boost simply because they can be min maxed.

[Sheesh Mode]

Reward players who include large units with additional Command points on the basis of the power level of the units being included. 

Boom. Done. 

[Kite Senet]

I think it might be relevant to bring up here the example of Rubric Marines. In particular, with Rubric Marines, we Thousand Sons players are (1) taxed/rewarded with an Aspiring Sorcerer and his equipment cost once for every unit with take, and (2) are rewarded with a Soulreaper Cannon option for taking 10 Rubricae (two cannons for 20). This induces substantial variation between a 5-man squad and a 10-man squad, and so I frequently see lists containing 5, 10, or 20 man Rubric squads, with a general preference for 10-man squads in order to utilize the Soulreaper Cannon option, interspersed with 20-man squads for maximizing the efficacy of stratagems like Veterans of the Long War and 5-man squads when one is trying for a more psyker-heavy build.

 

All-in-all, I think Rubrics strike a pretty good balance between all of the size options, in a way which ensures all three (obvious) choices serve their own slightly different tactical roles.

[Warhead01]

As far as encouraging max units. I don't know really. I had been thinking I wanted to start a Death Wing army. Now if I were to do that I expect I would have to fill out 3 full units. 
As far as anything else I don't know but I have been thinking some players build lists toward the extremes. Instead they should be looking for a more rounded army using more units from their index or codex. Well, works for me anyway. For my Ork army I tend to do a form of Min/Max. some units are just asking to be big and others for their points vs my bad dice rolls aren't worth more than putting a small unit in my list. It's been working for me for a few years now. Not that that really relates to the topic very well.

[Captain Idaho]

It's likely best for only select units in each Codex. Those that people shamelessly min max.

[Trevak Dal]

Let's all be real here: 30k tactical squads start at 10 guys because gw wanted to push forgeworld resin tactical squads.

 

Let's also be real: most serious 30k lists take as few tac squads as possible to unlock whatever row they are after to get "the good stuff"/pretend they are guard with baneblade big tanks.

[Warhead01]

Let's all be real here: 30k tactical squads start at 10 guys because gw wanted to push forgeworld resin tactical squads.

 

Let's also be real: most serious 30k lists take as few tac squads as possible to unlock whatever row they are after to get "the good stuff"/pretend they are guard with baneblade big tanks.

 

 I'm sure some people do that.  I don't know anyone who does that thought.

[kombatwombat]

Slightly left of field idea: change the morale system slightly to encourage larger units.

 

The current system reduces a unit’s Leadership by 1 for each model you lost that turn. Instead, reduce a unit’s leadership by 2 if they lost 25% or models that turn, 4 if they lost 50% and 6 if they lost 75%. Similar to how in previous editions a unit would have to make a morale check if they took 25% casualties.

 

It’s not perfect but it does mean safety in numbers. For a few problem units like Conscripts you could give them a cowardice special rule where they double casualties to morale.

[Emicus]

Slightly left of field idea: change the morale system slightly to encourage larger units.

 

The current system reduces a unit’s Leadership by 1 for each model you lost that turn. Instead, reduce a unit’s leadership by 2 if they lost 25% or models that turn, 4 if they lost 50% and 6 if they lost 75%. Similar to how in previous editions a unit would have to make a morale check if they took 25% casualties.

 

It’s not perfect but it does mean safety in numbers. For a few problem units like Conscripts you could give them a cowardice special rule where they double casualties to morale.

While the premise is sound I think the implementation is too complicated.

[kombatwombat]

Is it? We’ve had a similar calculation in the past. 25% is still used in 30k just fine, and I think it was 4th Ed that had increasing morale penalties for 25/50/75% casualties.

[Emicus]

It's more about not getting bogged down in minutiae for every phase of the game. The game is simpler now and quicker for it, and imo better.

 

To take it to an extreme a morale test could be % losses based creating a modifier for a chart you roll on that gives a given effect, like covering on the spot, fleeing or even insane bravery. That would be crazy cool stuff, but it'd slow the game down.

 

I like the current battleshock system that's quick and it's on the player to "fill in the blanks" on the fluff that happens.

In pure game pieces terms the model/unit is out of the fight - done and done. Fluffy they could be doing anything!

 

"Sod this war lads, losing Jeffery was too much, let's play cards until the commissarat comes and ends us all"

 

Idea: higher morale for bigger units. Say base tactical is 7. 10 man unit is 9 (including sarge)

[Wargamer]

Perhaps if a unit is purchased at full strength, they get a permanent -1 modifier to morale checks? As noted, being max size does restrict certain options like Razorback usage, so perhaps that would be a fair trade?

[Warhead01]

Perhaps if a unit is purchased at full strength, they get a permanent -1 modifier to morale checks? As noted, being max size does restrict certain options like Razorback usage, so perhaps that would be a fair trade?

Does being a full sized unit prevent adding a razorback to your army list?  I am fairly sure I can buy 1 trukk for ever 30 boys in my list. So I am not seeing where your going with that. Besides couldn't your squad.  I'm putting the squad size issue at the feet of players, most of whom are probably stuck in oldthink. 

What might be helpful is a breakdown of how 40K works now and how to build an army that works within 8th edition. there's more to this edition than gunline and alphastrike/ first turn assault.  I think that might be worth the  time and effort to create a primer or something. Every time I have tried I can't seem to make anything but unorganized gibberish. But I has the brain damage.  

The other issue with the -1 to morale is...other armies have other special rules about how they deal with morale. That idea seems very Marine oriented.  For example a permanent - 1 would put -3 on the number of lost models vs 30 Ork boys who already started at LD 30. Unless I am misunderstanding just how this interacts. But there could be exclusions to the permanent -1 on some units data sheets. Or roll it into ATSKNF and what ever appropriate chaos rule for traitor Marines.

[Mileposter]

Do note that 'purchasing' a 10 man squad for Space Marines doesn't stop MSU. They can still be deployed as two 5 man squads thanks to Combat Squads.

[MARK0SIAN]

The problem with morale is that the leadership doesn’t scale appropriately with the cost or background of the unit.

 

Why is there only 1 point of difference between the leadership of a guard sergeant and a Grey Knight terminator Justicar when there is a 39 point difference in the value of a model lost to morale?

 

And that’s not even factoring in that Grey Knights are meant to literally face the worst horrors the galaxy can throw at them and not break! I mean they faced Down Angron for emperors sake, yet a few casualties and they decide they’ll just give up?

 

Then add in the fact that horde armies generally have excellent and points efficient defence against morale losses but elite ones don’t and the whole system is skewed.

 

Leadership needs to scale much more than it does right now.

[Panzer]

Moral test barely matters anyway.

A Marine units would have to lose 3 models before having to test and then they get their re-rolls so before it's likely that they use any more to moral test most units are basically dead already anyway and it's only to pick up the remaining 2 models or something.

Where it matters is against Hordes (if they hadn't access to complete immunity so often) and Chaos Marines who actually benefit from having bigger units, don't have a re-roll by default and can't combat squad.