Is it time to embrace the alternative detachments?

[Valkyrion]

1 hour 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.

 

I think you need punishing though. (not you personally!)

Troop tax is a necessary part of the game, otherwise Guardians, Guardsmen, Intercessors, Boyz and so on become fairly meaningless if you can field 6 squads of ObSec Eradicators or Scorpions or Ork Buggies etc.

I agree that the current punishment is too much, especially with the CP reduction, but I'm not sure having a fully ObSec alternative detachment with its full compliment of CP is the right way to go either.

It seems counter intuitive now that they've slashed CP, but maybe you could get an extra CP at the start of your own turn for each TROOPS unit that is still alive? 
I dunno, but there must be a reason for Troops to be viable in each army, for the sake of balance. 

[Cpt_Reaper]

Perhaps I came at this the wrong angle.

As it is now, it appears to me that there is too much emphasis put onto the inclusion of Troops in the Detachments that aren't built upon them. This in turn results in non-Battalions just being Battalions-but-lesser. You can bring up to 6 Elites/Fast Attack/Heavy Support...but you shouldn't because you need to bring enough Troops. In the armies that don't have cheap Troops for the ObSec tax, this sucks. The Battalion is built around Troops, the others are not and so I feel shouldn't have a requirement to bring them.

I can't argue against any of the counter points that have been raised thus far. However, that says to me that the alternate detachments should just be removed, and the choices should only be Patrol, Battalion or Brigade which I do not want because I will always argue that more options are good and being locked back into the old force org chart is something I'd prefer to not do.

Sorry if I keep moving the goal posts. I just want to other detachments to work and right now I don't see them having any value, or rather one is penalised for taking one over the Battalion.

[The Yncarne]

Perhaps spending valuable CPs (outside of a one turn stratagem) to enable a unit or units to gain ObSec is a compromise.

[Halandaar]

21 hours ago, Slave to Darkness said:

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

They did get rid of bloat, at the start of 8th Edition. And to be fair they never said they wouldn't bring it back again afterwards so they didn't technically lie 

[Schlitzaf]

So folks casual reminders of intent behind the alternative detachments:

Its so you don’t NEED to take Belial, Samnael, Draigo, Logan, Cpt on Biker etc to unlock “As Troop”. Troops tend to suck and lack killy. 
 

So they get ObjSec. Sense your elites/heavy/fast take obj while troops secure. Allowing alt detachments to gain obj sec defeats part of the intent.

[Cpt_Reaper]

On 7/9/2022 at 12:55 AM, Schlitzaf said:

So folks casual reminders of intent behind the alternative detachments:

Its so you don’t NEED to take Belial, Samnael, Draigo, Logan, Cpt on Biker etc to unlock “As Troop”. Troops tend to suck and lack killy. 
 

So they get ObjSec. Sense your elites/heavy/fast take obj while troops secure. Allowing alt detachments to gain obj sec defeats part of the intent.

Considering that hasn't been a thing since 7th, I think its safe to say that is no longer their intent. The alternate detachments are to allow one to take an army not based around Troops as they have been since 3rd Edition.

Thus I continue to argue there needs to be something done to make them worth taking over a Battalion with zero drawbacks. When I suggest giving ObSec to their core units, I mean that is the only way to do it. Deathwing Terminators wouldn't get ObSec because they're Deathwing anymore - they get it for being in a Vanguard Detachment.

Other than granting ObSec, what else can be done to make the alternative detachments as valuable as a Battalion?

[Lord_Ikka]

22 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Other than granting ObSec, what else can be done to make the alternative detachments as valuable as a Battalion?

For Matched Play and tournament play, nothing- there is no point to having those other detachments as Patrols/Battalions give everything a tournament player needs in terms of both objective grabbers/holders and other slots to fulfil secondary objectives. 

Where the alternative detachments come to play in my mind is for Narrative games- there you can have really interesting armies that aren't designed to do everything well, they are there to be fun and fit a specific theme. Just getting rid of the CP cost for those detachments will make them more useful for Narrative/Crusade players who are trying to craft specific stories for their games/armies, not create the best gaming list. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

To me it’s unfair some factions can get obsec non troop units to a large degree such as terminators… and tbh doesn’t seem like they really need it either.

[Maritn]

Don't incentivise people even more for ignoring troops. I always hate to see lists with very few or no troops.

If they change anything, go back to the old force org chart and include additional (thematic) force org charts in the codices.

[Karhedron]

My feeling is that you should not have to incentivise people to take Troops or implement mandatory Troop slots. Units should be given abilities and priced such that Troops are desirable in and of themselves. ObjSec is a step in the right direction but I feel the force org charts are still quite heavy-handed in this regard.

If people regard Troops as a tax to be paid to get at the good stuff (and that is true for many armies) then that is a sign of poor design and game balance.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

With the overcrowded elites section for BA ive been doing the vanguard detachment for a while now.

[TheMawr]

11 hours ago, Karhedron said:

My feeling is that you should not have to incentivise people to take Troops or implement mandatory Troop slots. Units should be given abilities and priced such that Troops are desirable in and of themselves. ObjSec is a step in the right direction but I feel the force org charts are still quite heavy-handed in this regard.

If people regard Troops as a tax to be paid to get at the good stuff (and that is true for many armies) then that is a sign of poor design and game balance.

Definitely agreeing there, any form of unit tax  is just poor design, unless its really specific situations were it makes sense, but even then in most scenarios I think incentive is better than "tax"

At first I thought it was just eldar (the only army were I really go through rules.) but started to notice troop tax being a general thing mostly among the older/bigger armies that have gotten alot of alternative infantry over time (or in case of eldar, always had them.). However, I will continue referencing eldar, as I think it roughly applies overall.

Thinking about this issue, one point I thought about was that the idea of "troops" is that they are the embodiment of your (sub) faction in a way, whereas a dire avenger is trained at a dire avenger temple and will always follow a rough similar capability whether they hail from Ulthwé, Biel tan or Iyanden.. the same isnt true for guardians.. Ulthwé black guardians are their own standing military led by warlocks, Bieltan is more likely to have their guardians be novices from various aspect shrines who are not quite there yet to join the more trained aspect warrior squads and Iyanden should be lower in numbers but heavily inspired while fighting besides ghost warriors.
Basically add a layer to subfaction bonuses, where each subfaction also gives a specific buff/change to its troops. ( Id even go as far as saying put the majority of subfaction bonuses to troops and HQ )

[MegaVolt87]

Ideally, we would just revert to the OG force org. I think we need to get rid of rule of three from comp though if the alt detachments make their majority slots obsec. Not all slots are created equal, so you would need more than three of a specific unit to effectively score. Troops are pretty decent and with the rule of three in place, I don't see why you would ever take anything else over a detachment even if the majority slots in the alt were obsec and the WL refunded the detachment CP's. 

[Cpt_Reaper]

I never want to go back to anything from an old edition. No old force org chart, no "formations", no removal of Lords of War. I want to make what we have now work.

Old editions had good points, but I consider 9th to be the pinnacle of 40k. More choice is the key, not less.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Rule of three is vital to balanced play or else we have Ork buggy spam, eldar flyer spam, etc.

[MasterOfAardvarks]

Maybe giving the Detachments a purpose? Taking an Outrider Detachment gives one unit in that detachment a free scout move kind of deal? Or maybe a rulebook stratagem or two assocciated with each detachment, like for a battalion, 1 CP gives any unit ObSec for a turn, but a Spearhead Detachment gets a 'Fury Of The First' style strat for one unit in it?

Just small buffs to a unit or two to let such specialised formations act as one might expect. It adds rules bloat, but if you are building an army around such forces, you'll probably memorise these things.

 

Edit: I think that, if you are only using a specialist formation, it should require some troops. I would probably mandate at least one troops choice in smaller games, but I would add that any Outrider Detachment should require the troops to have a transport. While a Spearhead might even prohibit a transport, maybe... Any force needs a core flexible troops to work around, to hold ground and flush out forces, or even to hold a perimeter around heavy assets. Troops should have that sliding scale of how many are needed based on level of play, except maybe hyper-elite armies like Deathwing or Grey Knights, and of course Imperial Knights would ignore this.

Edited July 11, 2022 by MasterOfAardvarks
Thought of new bits!

[Cpt_Reaper]

I really hate the term "rules bloat". I learn and memorise the rules I need for the army I run. That's it. No bloat at all. What there is, is a bounty of options for armies that people don't run.

[Valkyrion]

Troops being the only source of ObSec (Knights notwithstanding, obviously) is the right way to go I think, but each faction's troops could probably benefit from a faction ability maybe?

For instance, in HH the tactical and despoiler squads each get a special rule above and beyond their faction abilities so in 40k you could maybe have something like having Intercessors use the Rapid Fire stratagem for 0CP if they are shooting at an enemy unit that is within range of an objective, or Guardsmen get to use the Insane Bravery strat for 0CP if they are on an objective. 

Ideally you'd want such a special rule to apply to all a factions troops choices equally so as to avoid bloat and the forced exclusion of other choices, so I might not have used the best examples, but it might be worth a thought. 

[Cpt_Reaper]

Again, I must push back against discussing Troops being made to be better. That is not the point of this topic. I want to discuss how the alternative detachments, those that aren't the Battalion, can be improved to being equally viable as a battalion that doesn't require taking Troops at all. No tax units. No being incentivised to, nor be punished for not, taking Troops outside of a Battalion.

How can this be done? I can only see giving Obsec to the required unit type and taking away any and all granting of ObSec to non-troops outside of a detachment, i.e. Deathwing only get ObSec for being in a Vanguard Detachment. I definitely want Troops to lose ObSec outside of a Patrol/Battalion/Brigade. In A Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead I want Troops to have no value outside of being cheap bodies. If one takes a detachment other than a Battalion it is to run an army based around something other than Troops.

Please, no more comments about old force org charts or nostalgia for old editions.

[Schlitzaf]

On 7/9/2022 at 8:50 PM, Cpt_Reaper said:

Considering that hasn't been a thing since 7th, I think its safe to say that is no longer their intent. The alternate detachments are to allow one to take an army not based around Troops as they have been since 3rd Edition.

Thus I continue to argue there needs to be something done to make them worth taking over a Battalion with zero drawbacks. When I suggest giving ObSec to their core units, I mean that is the only way to do it. Deathwing Terminators wouldn't get ObSec because they're Deathwing anymore - they get it for being in a Vanguard Detachment.

Other than granting ObSec, what else can be done to make the alternative detachments as valuable as a Battalion?

That a not thing sense 7th because they introduced the alternative detachments in 8th

[Cpt_Reaper]

11 minutes ago, Schlitzaf said:

That a not thing sense 7th because they introduced the alternative detachments in 8th

Yep. And we're deep into 9th, to the point 10th is being rumoured. Taking a particular character to make a particular unit a Troops choice rather than it's usual choice hasn't been a thing for a full edition and, hopefully, won't be a thing ever again.

So how would you improve the alternative detachments?

[MegaVolt87]

12 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Again, I must push back against discussing Troops being made to be better. That is not the point of this topic. I want to discuss how the alternative detachments, those that aren't the Battalion, can be improved to being equally viable as a battalion that doesn't require taking Troops at all. No tax units. No being incentivised to, nor be punished for not, taking Troops outside of a Battalion.

How can this be done? I can only see giving Obsec to the required unit type and taking away any and all granting of ObSec to non-troops outside of a detachment, i.e. Deathwing only get ObSec for being in a Vanguard Detachment. I definitely want Troops to lose ObSec outside of a Patrol/Battalion/Brigade. In A Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead I want Troops to have no value outside of being cheap bodies. If one takes a detachment other than a Battalion it is to run an army based around something other than Troops.

Please, no more comments about old force org charts or nostalgia for old editions.

 

Its not that simple, then there would be no reason for the battalion to exist. With the rule of three, you would still take the three best unit slots that would be good obsec and still take 0-3 obsec troop units per the chart. This creates a disparity, because troop tax holds most armies back from going even more overboard. So, then the rule of three must be abolished to catch up others at the expense of some pulling ahead. Say, Army X has great HS, Army Y has good elites to counter, but not enough. Eliminating rule of three puts X ahead, but gives Y at the same time a better chance to punch up than be handicapped by rule of three. GW have bent over backwards to balance the game by moving to objective based missions, 2k pts army sizes, making troop units varied + viable and offering the illusion of choice with alt detachments. The game doesn't need to degenerate into killhammer. The rule of three has already imposed the old edition FOC onto you basically, you don't see it. Making viable alt detachments is going to only show up the deeper flaws in the 8-9th design. The real fix would be to either abolish the competitive format entirely or abolish the casual aspect of the game, because its currently failing at delivering on both counts overall evenly. 

[Lord_Ikka]

24 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Again, I must push back against discussing Troops being made to be better. That is not the point of this topic. I want to discuss how the alternative detachments, those that aren't the Battalion, can be improved to being equally viable as a battalion that doesn't require taking Troops at all. No tax units. No being incentivised to, nor be punished for not, taking Troops outside of a Battalion.

How can this be done? I can only see giving Obsec to the required unit type and taking away any and all granting of ObSec to non-troops outside of a detachment, i.e. Deathwing only get ObSec for being in a Vanguard Detachment. I definitely want Troops to lose ObSec outside of a Patrol/Battalion/Brigade. In A Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead I want Troops to have no value outside of being cheap bodies. If one takes a detachment other than a Battalion it is to run an army based around something other than Troops.

What you want can't happen simply due to it being imbalanced. Giving ObSec out to whatever slot is the "main" slot of an alternative detachment takes away the only value of Troops in the game entirely- they can't compete in terms of being mobile, deadly, or tough compared to the Elites/FA/Heavy slot units. Being cheap doesn't help enough to justify them- aside from horde armies cheap units are only good as points-filler for most lists. I'm not saying Troops need a buff, but they definitely need to keep ObSec so that they have a use on the battlefield. Right now, all it seems that you want is to have Elites/FA/Heavies get the same ObSec benefit as Troops, without any inherent downsides to getting that benefit. That isn't going to make the alternative detachments more equal, its going to make them extremely overpowered. 

Example-for the longest time in 9th the most valuable dynastic ability you can give Necrons is the ability to have every unit in the army (barring C'tan and Dynastic Agents) become ObSec, or double model-count for ObSec Troops. No other trait in the entire codex was nearly as good because of how good ObSec is in playing 9th ed Matched Play. So no one took any other dynastic trait, because giving your Elites/Fast Attack units ObSec so completely overwhelmed the other benefits that other dynastic traits could give. You are advocating giving that to any unit in a given slot as long as it is in they are in a specific alternative detachment, with no other restrictions or demerits. At least as far as the Necron thing goes you can't pair the ObSec-granting trait with most of the other pretty good traits, you have a much smaller list of traits to pair it with.

By the way- Deathwing terminators only get ObSec for being in a Deathwing Vanguard detachment; all units in the Vanguard detachment have to be Deathwing/Inner circle, which limits it to mostly termies, dreads, hqs, and land raiders. They can't get ObSec outside of a Deathwing Vanguard detachment, and only Termie squads get ObSec at all. Same thing with Ravenwing- they need to be in an Outrider detachment with only Ravenwing units, then bike squads/black knights get ObSec. They don't get ObSec just for what they are, they have ObSec for being in a detachment with restrictions; even then it can be fairly overpowered depending on how you arrange your list (a Deathwing Vanguard/Ravenwing Outrider army can be really nasty to fight with fast and tanky ObSec units). 

[Cpt_Reaper]

Okay, so giving ObSec to non-troops in Van/Out/Spear is not the answer.

What can be done to make them as valuable as the Battalion? If someone takes a single detachment, that is not a Battalion, what can be done so that that player is not punished. At all. In any way shape or form.

Is it possible to take away any and all incentive to take Troops outside of a Battalion?

[Lord_Ikka]

Just now, Cpt_Reaper said:

Okay, so giving ObSec to non-troops in Van/Out/Spear is not the answer.

What can be done to make them as valuable as the Battalion? If someone takes a single detachment, that is not a Battalion, what can be done so that that player is not punished. At all. In any way shape or form.

Is it possible to take away any and all incentive to take Troops outside of a Battalion?

As far as I can see there isn't any way to make them as valuable in a balanced way in Matched Play. Frankly, aside from the Ravenwing/Deathwing-style armies with their restrictions, alternative detachments just don't have any way to compete with Patrol/Battalion lists in Matched Play. They just aren't needed for the most part, as they don't give you anything you couldn't get with a Patrol/Battalion with just the added cost of an HQ and some Troops. Maybe in Narrative they could get some love- removing the CP cost and giving them some Crusade-specific buffs could make them much more useful in that story-driven game style.  I just don't really see a way to buff the alternative detachments without completely overpowering them or invalidating the Troops role. Maybe there is one, but I haven't seen anything that could really be useful right now without a lot of additional game changes.