Is it time to embrace the alternative detachments?

[Cpt_Reaper]

With the rumours of 10th beginning to circulate, I once again come back to wondering why the 3 alternative detachments - Vanguard, Outrider and Spearhead, are still seen as lesser compared to the Battalion.

Currently Troops, with a small number of exceptions, have the mythical Objective Secured ability. This is regardless of the type of Detachment. Additionally only the Battalion rewards a full refund of the Detachment Cost if your Warlord is part of it.

I believe it is time to do away with the vicegrip on Battalions. If the Warlord is part of a Battalion, Vanguard, Outrider or Spearhead then that detachment should refund the full Command Cost. Additionally, the core choice of the relevant Detachment should gain ObSec instead of Troops.

Balance will come from, as in all things, the points. Infantry are cheaper than Vehicles, so a Battalion can bring more Troops than a Spearhead can Heavy Support.

Where does the frater stand on this? 

[Captain Idaho]

I'm someone who would reset the rules to 5th edition with tweaks if I could (or was it 4th that was more balanced? I think it was 5th - bah they're fairly similar) so I would like such variance gotten rid of.

I've always wanted lots of freedom and individualism in my 40K but I think the game is too complex by doing that. There needs to be a solid baseline with flavour sprinkled on top.

So as much as I always wanted Ultramarines Terminator armies I must say I have moved back towards a less complex and easier game in preference. 

[Cpt_Reaper]

I wish I had the same fondness for older editions that many seem to. However I, personally, never want to return to an older edition or one based upon it. It's why I have no interest in the new Heresy. I'd rather iron out the kinks in the current edition, and making other Detachments viable would be but a small step to that goal.

[Lord_Ikka]

I'm fine with the other Detachments not costing any CP- I feel that was a method to try to corral the number of Elite-heavy armies early in the 8th/9th cycles, but now with the reduction of CP it isn't necessary. 

I'm less ok with handing out ObSec to Elites/Fast Attack/Heavy. I think you run the risk of eliminating Troops entirely in that case, and really the only reasons that Troops are still viable is because of their (in general) low points cost and the fact that they are ObSec. 

[Emperor Ming]

Bring back the old force org chart

[Slave to Darkness]

Bring back 1st edition!!!! 

I often use the alternate detachments as some of my armies are elite or heavy support with little or no troops. One of my Guard armies is nothing but elites and tanks, my Slaaneshi army only has one troop squad (Noise Marines) and my Wolves have mostly elites as well (one squad of Grey Hunters and one of Blood Claws). I just prefer using armies that fit a particular theme over the same old choices, build army this way to gain x amount of CPs back, use y troops to get this ability blah blah... Repetitive and boring, and having ObSec on certain units and not others makes no sense.

 

Had none of this back in 1st edition. ;)

[Captain Idaho]

It's not rose tinted glasses, rather recognition for a cleaner baseline, less bloated and a quicker game to play. I used to remember the rules for the missions and now everything changes so much I don't even know which set of rules for the missions are currently in play for Matched play games.

[Slave to Darkness]

24 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

It's not rose tinted glasses, rather recognition for a cleaner baseline, less bloated and a quicker game to play. I used to remember the rules for the missions and now everything changes so much I don't even know which set of rules for the missions are currently in play for Matched play games.

I remember the days when I memorised the codex books and hardly had to refer to them or the core rules, now I need an faq to get past the contents page. I miss the days of getting to the store, realising I have left the chaos dex at home and I could still write an army list from memory without having to use the store copy, hell even now I can remember about 80% of the 2nd ed chaos book, bit rusty on the appendix lists, points costs for wargear and some of the Tzeentch stuff but everything else is still floating about in the old noggin... 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Slave to Darkness
Forgot how to spell.

[Brother Tyler]

Let's get back on topic, folks. The discussion is about the other detachments, not previous editions. Discussion of what we liked (or disliked) in previous editions is valid, but should be taken up in separate discussions so that this one can remain on topic.

[The Yncarne]

All for the detachment the warlord is in is free, but not sure I want to allow heavies, elites, or fast attack to gain objective secured. Take a look at Thousand Sons. Every tournament list features big blocks of terminators because they're the best objective secured unit in the codex. OTOH, that codex is mighty slim on units compared to say loyal marines.

I do believe limiting oneself to one of these other detachments does limit the type of force one can field, but not sure if this is enough to encourage troops.

[Slave to Darkness]

1 hour ago, The Blood Raven said:

All for the detachment the warlord is in is free, but not sure I want to allow heavies, elites, or fast attack to gain objective secured. Take a look at Thousand Sons. Every tournament list features big blocks of terminators because they're the best objective secured unit in the codex. OTOH, that codex is mighty slim on units compared to say loyal marines.

I do believe limiting oneself to one of these other detachments does limit the type of force one can field, but not sure if this is enough to encourage troops.

But non standard units should be able to get ObSec, whilst they are not the most tactically sound forces Leman Russ tank armies exist, how are they supposed to be playable on the tabletop if they cant do anything other than kill people. Sure they do limit you to running one type of force on the field, but so does the bog standard way people do it, take ObSec units and add some other nice things for style. 

[The Yncarne]

All I’m saying is the incentive to take ObSec units other than troops is so much greater than taking troops that giving ObSec to all units in other detachments is likely to lead to most people never taking troops for the objective secured function. 
 

if I could get ObSec on aspect warriors and never have to deal with guardians or rangers, not only would I, but I doubt you’d ever see Aeldari battalions again. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Doesn’t seem fair some factions get obsec for their terminators. I thought after 5th edition GK geedub had said they wanted to steer clear of this sort of thing.

[Slave to Darkness]

36 minutes ago, The Blood Raven said:

All I’m saying is the incentive to take ObSec units other than troops is so much greater than taking troops that giving ObSec to all units in other detachments is likely to lead to most people never taking troops for the objective secured function. 
 

if I could get ObSec on aspect warriors and never have to deal with guardians or rangers, not only would I, but I doubt you’d ever see Aeldari battalions again. 

True true, had a brainfart and forgot the detachments have troops as an option. Maybe they should make a single troop choice mandatory? But thats forcing peoples choices though, somethings gotta change to make the not so popular detachments more appealing. 

[Slave to Darkness]

9 minutes ago, Black Blow Fly said:

Doesn’t seem fair some factions get obsec for their terminators. I thought after 5th edition GK geedub had said they wanted to steer clear of this sort of thing.

They also said they are getting rid of rules bloat... If they told me rain is wet I wouldnt believe them 

[ThePenitentOne]

I've always loved detachments as storytelling tools. I was organizing my armies in detachments since before rules for them existed- I called them battlegroups. This started with the Witch Hunters dex, because I envisioned a Mission of Sisters that was so holy and pure that they could not allow the unholy penitent to occupy their convents or walk amongst them. Thus they were sent to dwell in the company of the priests and Inquisitors.

Detachments really come into their own in map-based campaign play where territories must be occupied to be controlled. Campaign books play into now too; let's say your army represents a Preceptory- they sent a detachment off to Charadon, and that detachment wins some campaign honours. Another detachment is sent of to fight in the Octarius campaign... Where they too achieve renown.

So now, In your next campaign, you've got hell story hooks. Burn those RP to grow your supply limit until you can bring the full detachment... and suddenly your force in the current engagement is reinforced by the Heroes of Charadon, or the Heroes of Octarius. And if you've modeled on thematic battle honours, people will SEE it when the look at the army.

I'm glad that I play Crusade and the new CP system (which is Matched only) doesn't touch me, because it really laid the boots to alternate detachments. Having ANY detachment with WL refund its CP would be a good way to address the issue in matched. Even in Crusade I never liked paying CP for alternates, but because it's unaffected by the CP change, it's tolerable.

[N1SB]

14 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

I believe it is time to do away with the vicegrip on Battalions. If the Warlord is part of a Battalion, Vanguard, Outrider or Spearhead then that detachment should refund the full Command Cost. Additionally, the core choice of the relevant Detachment should gain ObSec instead of Troops.

Balance will come from, as in all things, the points. Infantry are cheaper than Vehicles, so a Battalion can bring more Troops than a Spearhead can Heavy Support.

I'm planning a 40k Deathwing + Leman Russ, so I agree with everything you said, everything you're saying AND everything you'll say in the future.

(And the balance mechanic is the high cost of Deathwing Termies and Leman Russ tanks.  I think I would still struggle against hordes, for example.)

Perhaps instead of making it a Detachment's benefit, make it like a 30k Rite of War.  In fact, that's what the Deathwing and Leman Russ are kinda like.

How we get to that point of Other-Stuff-Can-Obsec, since we can do it with Termies and Lemans, I'm open to all Factions getting something like that.

Edited July 7, 2022 by N1SB

[XeonDragon]

My .02c:

1. Any detachment should cost 0 CP if the Warlord is in it.

2. I'm OK with elites or heavies in non-standard detachments getting obsec if there was a rule limiting the number of non-troops obsec units to the number of obsec troop units included in the detachment.

Want a blob of 10 obsec terminators? Cool, as long as you have at least one unit of tacticals/intercessors, go for it. Want two blobs? Have to take 2 troops.

[Cpt_Reaper]

1 hour ago, XeonDragon said:

My .02c:

1. Any detachment should cost 0 CP if the Warlord is in it.

2. I'm OK with elites or heavies in non-standard detachments getting obsec if there was a rule limiting the number of non-troops obsec units to the number of obsec troop units included in the detachment.

Want a blob of 10 obsec terminators? Cool, as long as you have at least one unit of tacticals/intercessors, go for it. Want two blobs? Have to take 2 troops.

That's what I want to avoid though. I don't want there to be a requirement to take Troops to outside of the Battalion. I want to run a Spearhead, for example, and just run tanks with no infantry. A Spearhead should grant ObSec to Heavy Support choices, with zero requirement to take Troops outside of cheap bodies. Same for Outrider and Vanguard.

[Sugarlessllama]

I don't know...I really miss the old force org chart. I wouldn't mind if they got rid of detachments all together. However, if they are going to keep detachments, then I'm happy with how they are doing them now. I really don't like army lists with multiple detachments. Pocket Patrols and Loyal 32 just really grind my gears. 

[Valkyrion]

What about the opposite of the Double ObSec rule things like Custodes and Kantor provides - e.g Fast Attack Choices in an Outrider detachment have ObSec but count as half their number?

This allows them to claim objectives against things that don't have ObSec, but will likely lose the objective against Troops.

 

 

[Lord_Ikka]

4 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

What about the opposite of the Double ObSec rule things like Custodes and Kantor provides - e.g Fast Attack Choices in an Outrider detachment have ObSec but count as half their number?

This allows them to claim objectives against things that don't have ObSec, but will likely lose the objective against Troops.

 

 

That...is actually very interesting. I would be ok with that and it would allow for some of the more themed or "fluffy" list relevant without invalidating Troops. 

[Cpt_Reaper]

5 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

What about the opposite of the Double ObSec rule things like Custodes and Kantor provides - e.g Fast Attack Choices in an Outrider detachment have ObSec but count as half their number?

This allows them to claim objectives against things that don't have ObSec, but will likely lose the objective against Troops.

 

 

The issue there is it is once again punishing you for taking anything other than a Battalion. Either the core unit of the alternate detachment should have ObSec with no drawback in place of Troops, or Outrider/Vanguard/Spearhead detachments should be deleted come 10th.

If they stay, Troops should get nothing in those detachments. No ObSec, no limiting the units in non-Battalions to less than Troops, no benefit to taking Troops whatsoever. A Leman Russ in a Spearhead should have ObSec and an Infantry Squad do not have it.

[Cleon]

I completely disagree here. If you take a specialist detachment, you can still score objectives, you just have to take them by force and either clear the troops choice on it, or outnumber the non troops. Allowing an all fast army to put obsec on its quick units fundamentally undermines the opponents obsec troops, who aren't fast, or heavy, or elite. 

I wouldn't mind a 3 tier system, where obsec troops 'win' then 'scoring' units (the compulsory choices for a formation that are not HQ or troops and any units who get it as a special rule like some terminators do) and then 'everybody else', but once one side has obsec elites, they have a step up in the arms race over the other guys obsec troops, pushing him to ditch troops too.

[Lord_Ikka]

19 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

The issue there is it is once again punishing you for taking anything other than a Battalion. Either the core unit of the alternate detachment should have ObSec with no drawback in place of Troops, or Outrider/Vanguard/Spearhead detachments should be deleted come 10th.

If they stay, Troops should get nothing in those detachments. No ObSec, no limiting the units in non-Battalions to less than Troops, no benefit to taking Troops whatsoever. A Leman Russ in a Spearhead should have ObSec and an Infantry Squad do not have it.

It's not punishing, its balancing. There is no point in having Troop choice at all unless there is a benefit to taking them- they are never the deadliest, toughest, or fastest units in an army, but they are good at holding ground. Just having them cost less in points is not enough of a benefit; you wouldn't see Eldar Guardians, SM Tacticals/Intercessors, or any of the other various Troops in any army if they didn't have ObSec. 

9th edition places a high priority on two things- securing objectives and scoring secondaries. Troops do the first better than any other slot because of ObSec, but struggle with scoring secondaries outside of a couple of specific ones (getting a bonus for RND) and so your army has to keep that in mind. Have enough ObSec Troops to make a push to get objectives and thus complete the primary, while also having a variety of other units to complete secondaries (deep-strikers to get Behind Enemy Lines, Psykers for the various psychic actions, deadly units for Assassinate/Bring it Down, etc...). 

Other than themed army lists, where is the problem with Patrol/Battalion/Brigade detachments being the primary choice? Is it really that much of a problem to tack on 1-3 Troops and an HQ? With the CP change, I'm fine with the idea of not charging the extra CP for the alternatives, but giving their "main" unit choices ObSec goes a bit too far and would break game balance badly.