Brainstorming - how to encourage Max Units over Min Units?

[MARK0SIAN]

It only barely matters to min sized squads though. A full 10 man squad is much more vulnerable. If they lose 7 then they have a 50% chance of the rest of the squad going. A reroll might help but that’s a huge risk in taking a full sized squad.

[Panzer]

Yeah and that's good. Morale is supposed to matter. It already matters way too little imo.

Morale tests are one of the reasons why MSU is favoured but mitigating morale tests shouldn't be used as an argument to take bigger squads. Taking bigger squads should have other, real benefits than having a mechanic you were basically immune to before hit you slightly less than others.

[MARK0SIAN]

Why should you have a 50% chance of just losing the models in a unit for no reason? It is not good at all that that could happen, it’s massive overkill for no justifiable explanation. There is no plausible reason for that whatsoever. Morale should not matter to units like space marines and others because they are famous for fighting against the odds. They certainly should have far more morale mitigation than guard or other forces but they don’t.

People don’t want to play a Space marine force (or any other force) that just crumbles as soon as the enemy look at you due to morale.

 

In reality there are only three or four forces where morale should have an impact and those generally have ways of ignoring it.

 

Morale casualties share the exact same problem in their principle as mortal wounds. Your opponent did nothing to earn them. They are free casualties for no effort on their part.

 

Morale mitigation should not be an incentive for taking larger squads, I agree there, the squad should just be good. But morale does need removing as a disincentive to stop people taking larger squads.

[Panzer]

Apparently we disagree greatly about the point of morale tests as a mechanic in the game and this isn't the right topic to argue about that so apologies for not really expanding on your post.

[kombatwombat]

Yeah and that's good. Morale is supposed to matter. It already matters way too little imo.

Morale tests are one of the reasons why MSU is favoured but mitigating morale tests shouldn't be used as an argument to take bigger squads. Taking bigger squads should have other, real benefits than having a mechanic you were basically immune to before hit you slightly less than others.

Morale should certainly matter. But it should be more of an issue for smaller squads, not less. Think about it - if you’re part of a 5-man team and 4 of them die, you’re going to be pretty unnerved. But if you’re part of a 300 man horde and 5 guys die it’s no big deal.

 

Larger squads should be a bit of a resistor to morale. Hence my percentage proposal last page.

[Emicus]

Surely if you have a 300 strong horde and 5 people are wounded you'd be more likely to have 5-10 carry the wounded to safety compared to 4 out of 5 wounded and he's 'forced' to complete the vital mission on his lonesome!

 

Removed from play does not equal dead (necessarily). Don't be so murdersome ;)

[Ishagu]

The easiest way is to introduce a slight point reduction on max units.

 

This should only apply to more expensive infantry like Marines as thr loyal cost troops are often taken in max sizes already.

[Guest Triszin]

I would just say a Maxed unit gains a Bonus kit or weapon from a list.

 

if you want to encourage a max units game wide, then you have to benefit everyone, not just elite armies.

 

 

I still think the easiest way is +CP points.

[chapter master 454]

The easiest way is to introduce a slight point reduction on max units.

 

This should only apply to more expensive infantry like Marines as thr loyal cost troops are often taken in max sizes already.

 

I would just say a Maxed unit gains a Bonus kit or weapon from a list.

 

if you want to encourage a max units game wide, then you have to benefit everyone, not just elite armies.

 

 

I still think the easiest way is +CP points.

 

These are some options I think are most viable. As it stands GW tried this with Tacticals back in former editions (I believe in 4th you only got special and heavy if you brought 10 marines) however as it stands the options are underwhelming to max out for. This is most notable in tacticals, why should I bring 10 tactical marines? For a heavy weapon? Why wouldn't I just pay THE SAME COST for 5 devastators and BOOM, now I can have 4 heavy weapons.

Not going to rehash my complaint regarding tacticals, made my stance on that already however on to the topic at hand.

 

The only ones we see taken at full strength are the ones we really care about and even then it can be argued it would be better to bring two half squads than a full squad and that stems from the fact that two half squads have more options than one full squad and yet the same numbers and effectiveness arguable that they bring more than the one full as now your opponent needs to declare their shooting across two units (which while not hugely massive, can mean they have to make a decision about which squad is more of a threat).

 

This comes round to us needing to consider the core problem and this needs to be kept in mind at ALL times.

"Why should a player take a full squad instead of two half squads?"

This is the core question. Right now, there is none bar one which is slot restrictions BUT if you are running out of slots then that is impressive considering that if someone were to run the typical double battalion load out that most run with, they have may as well be infinite troop slots, 12 elite slots, and 6 of both heavy support and fast attack which if we were to talk shop here for vanilla marines regarding the core units in this discussion (Devastators and Assaults along with say vanguard and sternguards) then that would equate to a total of 30 devastators max if we were to max out the slots with min squads but out of them, 24 are carrying heavy weapons some to a similar number of devastators over 3 slots, we now only have 12 carrying weapons despite the points cost of the marines being the same (30 cost 390 points) thus if for some reason you need heavy weapons in that number then you have more than enough there (considering most players are content with only one squad of lascannons, maybe two if they REALLY hate big stuff), another advantage of this half squading compared to full squads is that not only do the full squads have fewer heavy guns, but only 3 will be getting signum buff compared to the half squads having 6. One other minor benefit of building a list with half squads being considered before full squads is it allows you more flexibility in point sinks. Got 26 or there abouts points spare, just throw an extra marine into each of your 2 devastator squads.

This also applies to Assault marines who have a similar thing to tacticals but worse: one squad of ten assault marines have 1 sergeant along with his options, up to 2 flamers or 2 plasma pistols (or mix) along with up to 2 eviserators. Two squads of five have two sergeants along with their options, up to 4 flamers or 4 plasma pistols (or mix) and up to 2 eviserators. Just look at the math here, we are being REWARDED for smaller squads in terms of options not punished. The same applies to tacticals in regards to their special, heavy and sergeant where one ten man has 1 sergeant along with options, 1 special option and 1 heavy option where as two five mans have 2 sergeants and up to ether 2 specials or 2 heavy weapons (or mix but at that point it's moot) but in this regard the former only wins out if one considers the extra five marines just for a single heavy weapon is worth it (and one could argue that tacticals are much better with specials than heavies).

 

The other thing that is being considered is that smaller squads versus larger squads having little issue with morale. This is another point and while not as big as some think it is, it does reward 2 5 mans vs. 1 10 man. So if we consider the same wounds caused against these units, lets say 5 are killed. This annihilated one of our min squads and half healthed our ten man, from here however has something else to worry about compared to the other 5 man: Morale. This is unlikely to cause issues for the now half health 10 man (who are at 5 models) but a roll of 4+ is going to take extra losses leaving them at 4-2 models left where as the two 5 mans have no worry about this as they are separate. Even if we were to UP the wounds cause across the units to 7, only the 10 man suffers as now they are almost sure to all disappear while the second 5 man can't lose anything at all (because they only lose 2 guys after the first squad is wiped).

 

Morale should be in relation to proximity, such as you total all models lost within 6" of the unit. This would solve that issue and because people do want to keep in auras for buffs, it adds a level of risk reward. Could even be a special trait for some leaders to have that units could ignore losses outside of their unit (say like captains in marines or chaplains).

 

Further to this, options should not be the way they are and unfortunately I cannot offer any "easy" fix to this as it would require re-writing all the dataslates and possibly annoying lore purists ("Ugh, but devastators are 4 weapons and 6 supporting battle brothers. Tacticals are a flexible unit and thus it is their identity") so yea, that would require something else.

 

That's my thoughts on this.

[Mileposter]

Worth noting that 10-man squads can also easily negate morale: Combat Squads. >.>;

 

So even 10-man squads do MSU!

 

Suppose it might be that paying for the 10-man is cheaper than getting another squad unupgraded... But Bolters aren't exactly in high demand. Don't have my points sheets available to check that, though.

[Guest Triszin]

what if a Max squad got a discount on a transport/ gets a base transport free?

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I just want to point out that while MSU generates CPs more efficiently, big squads use stratagems more efficiently.

[chapter master 454]

The point about combat squads is good but then if you are going to combat squad why not just go with two small squads, same price and effect but you get another sergeant to bring along for options and leadership (which further negates 5 man morale issues).

 

I suppose however it does come around to Quality of the Unit's base statline and how it is costed. I think MSU is a symptom of how costly marines are. In Eldar I am constantly going for max size because the units are worth bringing in full packs and because I have things that synergise with being larger squads (guide, fortune and the like) but in marines we have little of that benefit, nothing much really beyond say Scions of gulliman and a couple more and even then they aren't worth it since the unit needed in question costs so much.

 

It keeps coming round to two things: Poor options and Points cost of the unit. Tacticals are stuck with their statline sadly so I think there needs to be a review of points cost for marines. If there were syngeries that existed for tacticals, devastators and assaults to take advantage of being full squad size or at the least gave reason to their points then they might of got somewhere (sort of how Eldar have dire avengers costing 12 points yet taking them feels good. Tacticals, not so much).