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.

 saithor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

The next IG Codex will go in the direction of the recent SM and Eldar Codices:
1. add Superheavy Baneblade family of vehicles
2. restore Doctrines
3. add Formations with multi-Platoon-based super-formation
4. re-tweak points cost generally downward
5. simplify individual units somewhat

This is assuming that GW does not change design philosophies yet again, as they have done on just about a yearly basis for the last few years. Doctrines I think are also highly suspect, as GW no longer seems interested in such differentiations outside of Space Marines. *IF* GW's design philosophy remains the same, most of the above will probably hold true in some form or fashion, but that's a big *if*.

My point largely was that, with GW's track record, whatever they do may likely be significantly different from what we were otherwise expecting or hoping for. Remember, people expected Necrons to get the treatment that IG, DW, BA, GK, Orks, and DE got, and things went haywire from there.

Here's a question, do you think if they had stuck with the same design principle as IG, DW, BA, GK, Orks, and DE, the game would appear to be a lot more balanced than it is now?

I think so. It would be far from perfect, and the IG codex (among several of those others of the same era) would still have a legion of issues (as Vipoid noted, lots of internal balance problems), but I do think the game as a whole would be notably less imbalanced than it currently is.

Given GW's production pipeline, imbalance is unavoidable until every book gets the corresponding update. The problem is they don't give players any direction on how to manage the transition period. Reference rules and balance philosophy, I have a nice quote. Source: http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/blog/post/games-news-130715/

...if your game is centred around the idea that players are trying to defeat each other, you want your rules to be as tightly balanced and well-defined as possible. Any room for disagreement is room for argument, is room for bad feeling, accusations of cheating, resentment, bitterness, toxic environments and general misery.

If your game is centred around telling stories... these games tend to work best when controlled by a neutral party who's aim is to enrich the experience, or in the hands of close friends who are willing to relax and give each other the benefit of the doubt.

The above is probably one of the rare points of consensus on dakka. The usual response from aggravated players is "I don't have any close friends to play with". And that's a problem. A lot of the issues with units are resolved if you're playing scenarios with friends, which results in cooperative list building. A Punisher is going to mow down Gaunts, Orks and Demons with Invul saves just fine. If you're playing no-holds barred netlists teeming with IKs and WKs, good luck.

GW doesn't need to write perfect rules and perfect balance. But if that's the case, they need to take responsibility for their community and show them how to contextualize their games in such a way that everything works. Like a collaborative RPG, or you know.... a scenario-based wargame. There is a killer BR on Dakka right now about Tau trying to defend an evac point, before a Tyranid Swarm overwhelms them. That's a really cool idea and there's no abuse of netlisted units. Looked like a lot of fun. However, many players are taking their cues from GTs, GW doesn't communicate or guide their playerbase, and the whole thing ends up looking quite dysfunctional.

Either start offering guidance, or change their rules, development, and production model to actually support competition. You really have to commit.

40k isn't selling models, 40k isn't selling rules, at the core it's selling an experience. Everything else is a means to that end. So when you disengage from that, whether it's competitive or narrative, as a business you end up in dangerous territory. Player experience is easy to manage when everything passes through a retail outlet. But with zero web presence in 2015, aside from a webstore? That's trouble because a lot of your customers may now spend the majority of their time there.

Sorry to get a little off topic. I found it interesting to myself at least.

Yoyoyo wrote:

40k isn't selling models, 40k isn't selling rules

Yep - that's why GW's profits are still falling.

 vipoid wrote:
I know you weren't asking me, but if they'd continued that design philosophy, I think the books would be better balanced against one another.

However, I believe the internal balance would have been much, much worse, and that the books would have been really dull.

Another good point. Asking because I'm trying to re-write the Stormtrooper (Not Scions, Stromtroopers!) Codex as something that can be run as a decent standalone army, and I was wondering which books might be better to go after. But yeah, Internal balance does suck for them, but arguable it's just as bad for a lot of the newer ones (Necrons only take Tomb Blades as a tax). What the people who write these things down need to do is ask themselves the following

1. What does this unit provide and what role does it fill?
2. Are there any other units that can fufill this role in the codex?
3. If so, what advantages does this unit have? Is it cheaper? Can it fulfill more roles than just the one the other unit does?
4. Is this unit to OP compared to those similiar units?
5. What reasons does the player have for taking this unit?
6. Is the role this unit fufills to niche for what is paid for it? If it is niche, is it a niche that this codex needs filled?

Rather simplified and probably not a complete checklist, but you get the idea. Here's a quick run-through with one of the units that I posted the links for.

Wraith
1. This unit provides cheap anti-MEQ barrage firepower that also helps with reducing cover save and giving out blind.
2. This cheap-artillery role is fufilled by Wyverns and Griffons, the Anti-MEQ by Stormtroopers and Basilisks.
3. This unit is good compared to Wyvern and Griffons at the artillery role because of the AP 3, Blind and Luminagen. It costs less than the Basilisk, and has a higher strength and better attack then the Stromtroopers.
4. No, because in terms of Artillery the Wyvern and Griffon are much more accurate, have a higher Strength, and the Wyvern is much better at tearing up GEQ and putting down a sheer number of wounds than the Wraith. It is better than the Stormtroopers and Basilisk point for point, but this is more due to them being underpowered than the Wraith being Overpowered.
5. They take it for the AP 3 artillery, access to Blind, and to reduce Cover saves.
6. it is a niche unit because of the other options for artillery in the codex, but makes up for it with Blind and Luminagen, something that Guard lacks.

Again simplified, but shows what process should be gone through for internal balance, some of it at least.

Reading my uplifting primer just now. We should better represent the fluff by making all lasguns D weapons as it's stated that one shot will stop any foe in the universe. Also flak armour confers 2+ invulnerable save as its the best armour the emperor can provide.

 ionusx wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why remove Pask?

too ofset the fact that they can now guide an artillery shell right on top of you EVERY DAMN TIME, as well as use heavy weapons teams to lock your entire army down and keep them moving around at a snails pace if they arent inside the comfort of a nice beefy troop transport. basically what im saying is that imperial guard need to pay some kind of tax to get really good rules especially if they come in the form of formations because their the army that should do the best when marrying formations with conventional lists. and pask has for a long time been a crutch for their army much in the same way other gimmicks were for other forces. dark angels lost their sacred standards of gimmick but they picked up being a very good army with their formations and ravenwing improvements. codex marines had their weak links black templars and ravenguard even further shoved down into the mud but in exchange all their other chapter tactics are doing better than anything in recent memory (especially crimson fists if you ask me) and things will be no different.

the imperial guard will soon find out that power has a price and they will be paying for it .. again, just like last time their c odex was overhauled.

and i laugh at all those fools who keep asking to have people like marbo brought back, your going to be lucky if even one of those cut names gets mentioned at all in the codex, and at best hes going to have a paragraph of info about him. just ask brother bethor who has gone from a named character model, to a generic model, to not even being mentioned at all in the base codex.

So, we dont pay for our power now? Okay:

LRBT - 150 points for a BS3 tank with a Battlecannon and a HB and 14/13/10. Can only move 6" a turn and cant boost

Punisher - even more expensive. Suffers from being useless against most things and questionable against its intended targets.

Eradicator - very good against Scouts and dug in light infantry. Might as well not exist against everything else.

Demolisher - costs 170 points and has to survive two/three turns of travel across the board at 6" per turn to be able to use its cannon. Suffers from having to get close to the enemy, something that no vehicle wants to do. Ever.

Vanquisher - You are having a joke right?

Exterminator - actually not too bad for its points cost, provided you take squadrons of two or more. Low accuracy some what mitigated by being BS 3

Executioner - will on average kill itself over the course of a game with no input on the opponents part. Good against Infantry and MEQ's but very pricey.

Basilisk - So, tell me, would YOU pay that much for this?

Deathstrike - Costs a hell of a lot, launches randomly, is easily destroyed and is one use only.

Manticore - a little lacklustre, lacking the AP to deal with MEQ's and the Ignore Cover rule to deal with dug in infantry. Does partially make up for it by dropping D3 pieplates per turn but has a serious minimal range problem and is only 4 shot (though to be fair by the time you have fired off all 4 the enemy is within you minimal range anyway.

Armoured Sentinels - 35 points for..... What? A 12/10/10 HWT. Suffers from low BS and an acute case of being vulnerable to just about every basic weapon out there.

Scout Sentinel - CAN actually be useful. Suffers from wilting when the enemy so much as glares at it.

Chimera - I do not see other races paying 65 points for a 12/10/10 BS3 transport with questionable offensive and defensive capabilities.

Platoons - Hahahahaha, I thought you where serious there for a mi-wait, you are? With a minimal (1 PCS, 2 Infantry sections, bare bones no upgrades) platoon you are spending 135 points. HWS cost more than they are ever, ever, going to be worth. Specialists can not take transports and are wiped by just about anything. Even a fully tooled up MEQ busting platoon (PCS, 5 Infantry sections, 6 plasma guns in total) costing 375 points will only just manage to kill a single bare bones 10 man tactical squad costing only 140 points, assuming the Marines player chooses not to bother with cover, the 5 Infantry sections are blobbed together and given the FRFSRF order and are within 12" of the Marines. And they will lose two to three members due to overheating.

Tank Commanders - A great concept.... Except they have to be squadroned with at least one other vehicle and of their three orders (which can ONLY be issued to their squadron) one is a one use only order, one is a very questionable speed boost and one is in place to partially mitigate the problems of being in a squadron in the first place.

Pask costs even more (a whopping 70 points in total - remind me how much the far superior SM equivalent costs again?) and gives the tank Preferred enemy. Great, a minor buff. And Tank Hunter - useless on most Leman Russ hulls. He also gives a slight buff to the turret weapons:
The Executioner gets a big blast - not too bad, seeing as it now has a greatly reduced chance of over heating. Still not marvellous and not worth 70 points.
The Punisher gets rending. Possibly the only tank Pask is worth a damn in.
All the others get to re-roll the scatter dice. Woo.

I could go on but life calls.....

Anyway, now please try to justify your statement - how are we not already paying through the nose for what little power we have?

Exalted.

Also, Armoured Sentinels are 40pts per model, not 35.

I think an interesting comparison is a Razorback:

A BS3 12/10/10 2HP Armoured Sentinel with a Lascannon is 50pts.

A BS4 11/11/10 3HP Razorback with either a TL Lascannon or Lascannon and TL Plasmagun is 75pts.

So, for 25pts more you lose a point of front armour, but gain a point of side armour. Then you gain +1BS, +1HP and 6 transport capacity.

 vipoid wrote:
Exalted.

Also, Armoured Sentinels are 40pts per model, not 35.

I think an interesting comparison is a Razorback:

A BS3 12/10/10 2HP Armoured Sentinel with a Lascannon is 50pts.

A BS4 11/11/10 3HP Razorback with either a TL Lascannon or Lascannon and TL Plasmagun is 75pts.

So, for 25pts more you lose a point of front armour, but gain a point of side armour. Then you gain +1BS, +1HP and 6 transport capacity.

"exactly, you get Lascannons for cheaper!" - every SM player I have met thus far

 Selym wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Exalted.

Also, Armoured Sentinels are 40pts per model, not 35.

I think an interesting comparison is a Razorback:

A BS3 12/10/10 2HP Armoured Sentinel with a Lascannon is 50pts.

A BS4 11/11/10 3HP Razorback with either a TL Lascannon or Lascannon and TL Plasmagun is 75pts.

So, for 25pts more you lose a point of front armour, but gain a point of side armour. Then you gain +1BS, +1HP and 6 transport capacity.

"exactly, you get Lascannons for cheaper!" - every SM player I have met thus far

I will gladly trade prices with an SM player provided they make their devastators WS 3 BS 3 S 3 T 3 W 2 I 3 A 1 LD 10 Save 5+ and my Heavy Weapons become BS4

 Selym wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Exalted.

Also, Armoured Sentinels are 40pts per model, not 35.

I think an interesting comparison is a Razorback:

A BS3 12/10/10 2HP Armoured Sentinel with a Lascannon is 50pts.

A BS4 11/11/10 3HP Razorback with either a TL Lascannon or Lascannon and TL Plasmagun is 75pts.

So, for 25pts more you lose a point of front armour, but gain a point of side armour. Then you gain +1BS, +1HP and 6 transport capacity.

"exactly, you get Lascannons for cheaper!" - every SM player I have met thus far

Well, I'm usually a proponent of 'quantity has a quality all of its own', but there are limits.

 master of ordinance wrote:

I will gladly trade prices with an SM player provided they make their devastators WS 3 BS 3 S 3 T 3 W 2 I 3 A 1 LD 10 Save 5+ and my Heavy Weapons become BS4

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

If voxes are unlimited range, then that potential 'issue' (I don't think its one, seeing as PCS can take a gak ton of good weapons that are useful) is going to exist either way. Plus, as discussed, having officers with voxes and within their normal orders radius could provide a re-roll to the order, thus granting some incentive to keep them near a platoon.

A vox network is a vox network. Don't add restrictions where they aren't necessary. The simplest, fluffiest way of doing things is to have voxes create unlimited range between all units with a vox.

It would create an issue, absolutely. Why on earth would players deploy their PCs on the front line with the troops they command (where they should be) rather than hide them away? Much like the difference between a Platoon Standard and Regimental(Company) Standard, there should be a Platoon Vox and a Regimental Vox, the former increasing range while the latter is unlimited.

If they're never confused, then it doesn't matter. And real world experience doesn't matter or apply here, seeing as we're talking about a different military organization 40k years in the future. The simple fact is that absolute realism must be put behind making simple, clean, and fun rules. Having voxes create unlimited range is logical and consistent within the universe, and having anyone able to receive orders is both fluffy and logical within the universe, and is the simplest, least confusing and time consuming way of writing the rule.

You can't have it one way saying that the realism must be put to one side, then claim that a common vox net is both fluffy and logical in universe. It really isn't, a company simply can't operate in the heat of battle with everyone on the same channel.
If you're arguing that a common vox net should be implemented purely for the sake of simplicity then understand that, though I would still disagree.

Which is why its simplest to keep it as it currently stands and allow anyone to order anyone. Currently, a PCS can order a CCS, which still makes sense. If a platoon loses their PCS, they'll likely be very receptive and maybe a little grateful that the nearest junior officer is there to provide leadership and guidance.

No doubt, which is why a limiting on the range of a PC vox is still necessary. If we allow limitless orders at the PC level, theoretically you would only need one surviving PC squirreled away in the corner of the board to provide effective orders to units on the other side of the field. That should be the purview of the CC, the PC should be focused on the more immediate situation.


Essentially, I'm okay with PCs being able to give orders to any unit but making their orders unlimited via vox (rather than substantially increased range) is nonsensical and frankly broken.

In all honesty, I'm all for the unlimited range of Vox's. If we had Epic scale, it would make sense to have limited range, but we've got radio's, 38 odd thousands years into the future and yet soldiers are reduced to orders over shouting distances? Even the basic, short range radios troops had in the 70's were capable of transmitting over a few miles!

Realistically the only person in the IG infantry platoon who will have the same frequency as the CCS is the PCS. I personally think CCS should be able to issue orders to any unit, bar those in a platoon unless it goes through that platoons PCS, the result being an additional test (unless it is the PCS itself). Also Sergeant's should be capable of giving orders to their own squad with an optional point cost, say 5-8 points? Maybe all orders within 4-6 inches automatically pass or increases the chance as well?

Firstly this encourages the PCS being used in it's specific platoon while the CCS is used in it's realistic role of commanding units, then leaving it up to the unit to do it's task their own way. However you can still used the CCS's additional orders on PCS squads but with a disadvantage and giving the impression of a chain of command.

I know it may be incredibly complicated to write into rules but I think it would be fun and useful. Also encourages to use your orders in the correct manner, however more orders should be made available to junior officers.

Also anyone else think Vox's should return to also affecting normal Ld tests in some manner?

I am of a mind that vox should grant +1 Ld and double shots with all weapon if not moving.

Simple and effective.

Give orders a similar thing to psychic mastery levels. Each level comes with a range, number of orders they can issue, and which orders can be issued.

Orders level 1- veteran sergeants have this. Range is the squad, number of orders is one and access to the junior officer orders.

Orders level 2- pcs level, 12" range and one order. Access to junior officer orders.

Orders level 3 - ccs basic level, 18" range and two orders. Uses all officer orders.

Order level 4 - some special characters and an optional upgrade for ccs. 3 orders at 24" and access to all orders. Some characters will have extra bonus orders they can use.

Order level 5 - creed, gets 4 orders at 24" and all officer orders plus any unique ones he might get access to.

This can all be written down on the fancy cards you would get with the tactical objectives along with cards for all the regular orders and an extra card describing how the order system work. I'd allow CCS and PCS officers to upgrade only one level with say 15-25 points.

Decided not to give orders to regular sergeants as they are indoctrinated to follow orders, where as vets are a bit more independent and given extra free reign over they're actions.

We already have the structure for orders. It works in its current form just fine. All it needs is a refinement and to boost a piece of wargear that should be beneficial to orders, but really isn't.

So, you keep the current way orders work, except you test of the issuing officer, and can issue to any unit with a vox regardless of range. No one needs to re-learn the rules for how orders works, its fluffy, logical, and versatile, and doesn't complicate things any more than it needs to be.

I feel that anything simpler loses out on the versatility of having several orders to choose from based on the situation, and anything more complicated adds no real value over the current system with some refinements. For over five years people on both ends of the table understand how orders work, and the idea of voxes being unlimited range has been floated around these forums since I joined.

Keep it simple within the framework we have. Orders as they stand work, they could just some very minor tweaks. No need to turn them into not-psychic powers or automatically give double shots.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I am of a mind that vox should grant +1 Ld and double shots with all weapon if not moving.

Simple and effective.

I'm just imagining a Guardsman being like:

"do we shoot the alien? I'm not sure..."

*carnifex charging*

"Herrmmm...."

*listens to the vox*

"Oh, alright."

*Dakkadakkadakka*

 Selym wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I am of a mind that vox should grant +1 Ld and double shots with all weapon if not moving.

Simple and effective.

I'm just imagining a Guardsman being like:

"do we shoot the alien? I'm not sure..."

*carnifex charging*

"Herrmmm...."

*listens to the vox*

"Oh, alright."

*Dakkadakkadakka*

Yes, as we all know, real world militaries never use orders or radios.

 TheSilo wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I am of a mind that vox should grant +1 Ld and double shots with all weapon if not moving.

Simple and effective.

I'm just imagining a Guardsman being like:

"do we shoot the alien? I'm not sure..."

*carnifex charging*

"Herrmmm...."

*listens to the vox*

"Oh, alright."

*Dakkadakkadakka*

Yes, as we all know, real world militaries never use orders or radios.

And real world militaries tend to shoot things that attempt to kill them...

 HANZERtank wrote:
Reading my uplifting primer just now. We should better represent the fluff by making all lasguns D weapons as it's stated that one shot will stop any foe in the universe. Also flak armour confers 2+ invulnerable save as its the best armour the emperor can provide.

Make IG like I was once told they were in 2ed. Every IG grunt with an underslug launcher with a vortex inside. Make flak +5 with an upgrade to +4, but add the option for priests to make the IG pray, that gives them stuff like inv save or super rending for a turn.

A volley of 120 vortex D shots on turn one followed by a +2inv with a fortification and am sure I would have more fun playing.

Blacksails wrote:We already have the structure for orders. It works in its current form just fine. All it needs is a refinement and to boost a piece of wargear that should be beneficial to orders, but really isn't.

So, you keep the current way orders work, except you test of the issuing officer, and can issue to any unit with a vox regardless of range. No one needs to re-learn the rules for how orders works, its fluffy, logical, and versatile, and doesn't complicate things any more than it needs to be.

I feel that anything simpler loses out on the versatility of having several orders to choose from based on the situation, and anything more complicated adds no real value over the current system with some refinements. For over five years people on both ends of the table understand how orders work, and the idea of voxes being unlimited range has been floated around these forums since I joined.

Keep it simple within the framework we have. Orders as they stand work, they could just some very minor tweaks. No need to turn them into not-psychic powers or automatically give double shots.

Tbh coming from a military background, I've always had a bit of annoyance that there is no reason to use platoons.... as well you know, platoons. I was more addressing that, plus the fact logically a CCS is not going to be telling an infantry squad in a platoon what to do, they would tell the Platoon commander what to do, who would in turn pass the order. It's not really anything addressed in the fluff any more than for SM or Elder (You know, the great leader rallying his troops stuff everyone has).

I do admit it may overcomplicate the rules, as so leave them as they are. But maybe giving sergeants or veteran sergeants a minor order or two, add the overall pool of orders and giving voxes unlimited range (like they used to before they were used for orders) may help improve the guard as a whole.

Also I think the whole platoon structure needs something to encourage platoons to be used as a unit, seeing it's a gripe I've had for a very long time, as there is no reason for me outside of fluffyness to do so. I'm not saying force players to do so, but give some benefit.

Selym wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I am of a mind that vox should grant +1 Ld and double shots with all weapon if not moving.

Simple and effective.

I'm just imagining a Guardsman being like:

"do we shoot the alien? I'm not sure..."

*carnifex charging*

"Herrmmm...."

*listens to the vox*

"Oh, alright."

*Dakkadakkadakka*

I think what we're suggesting is more like

"We're being overrun"

"You hold that damn position"

"But there's too many!"

"If you don't hold I'll kill you myself"

It works great for the narrative (which if I remember correctly is the point of this game....), and it used to be a rule until 5th. The Rules for them in late 3rd, add a bonus to orders and it makes it slightly less slightly for your troops to run when they are shot up.

I agree the whole idea a squad needs to be told to concentrate fire on the horrifying creature right infront of them is a tad silly, but fluff wise aren't guard suppose to find most opponents terrifying, but at the same time unafraid of anything? I think the point of the order is more, you know those terrifying things everywhere, well concentrate on that one terrifying thing... which admittedly doesn't really work in games outside apocalypse.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

I think what we're suggesting is more like

"We're being overrun"

"You hold that damn position"

"But there's too many!"

"If you don't hold I'll kill you myself"

That seems more the remit of Commissars, rather than general orders.

 vipoid wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

I think what we're suggesting is more like

"We're being overrun"

"You hold that damn position"

"But there's too many!"

"If you don't hold I'll kill you myself"

That seems more the remit of Commissars, rather than general orders.

Main difference is Commissars will actually kill you.... with most officers it's just a threat.

It's also more of a real world example of troop dynamics. It doesn't always help, but on occasions units have held due to the higher ups refusing to give them permission to fall back... with mixed results.

 Selym wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I am of a mind that vox should grant +1 Ld and double shots with all weapon if not moving.

Simple and effective.

I'm just imagining a Guardsman being like:

*tervigon appears in range*
*lictors still ripping Bravo team a new one*

"do we shoot the alien? and which alien? or do we redeploy - I'm not sure..."

*carnifex charging*

"Herrmmm...."

*listens to the vox*

"Oh, alright."

*Dakkadakkadakka*

Fluff-wise, there may be very good strategic reasons to shoot at the Tervigon or Lictor intstead of the Carnifex, reasons that may not be obvious to an individual IG squad. Hell, the CCS may be using them as inexpensive "bait" so they can obliterate the 'fex with another unit.

The key point is that double shots for not moving makes the IG really good at the one thing that they are good at - lots and lots of mediocre shooting. This literally doubles down on the "quantity has a quality all its own" concept for IG, and we see this same thing with the Stormlord. HBs fire 3+3, Rapidfire 2+2 and Heavy 1+1 - it's glorious mountains of dice comparable to the sheer number of dice Orks roll in HtH, or when they Alpha Strike with loads of shooting before charging with +1A.

And more importantly, double shots are a very fast and simple rule. It replaces FRFSRF and BID, while removing the question of whether a Hotshot Lasgun is a Lasgun. It removes the Fluff question why nobody else trained on their weapon(s). It simply enhances IG in a clear and obvious way.


The +1 Ld is to replace the Reform and other Ld-related stuff, so they don't break as much in the first place.


The only question is what it should cost.

I think it should be the FREE Formation bonus for taking 3 (or more) Platoons.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:


Tbh coming from a military background

As do I.

I've always had a bit of annoyance that there is no reason to use platoons.... as well you know, platoons. I was more addressing that, plus the fact logically a CCS is not going to be telling an infantry squad in a platoon what to do, they would tell the Platoon commander what to do, who would in turn pass the order. It's not really anything addressed in the fluff any more than for SM or Elder (You know, the great leader rallying his troops stuff everyone has).

Platoons have plenty of uses. They could use a buff, but then again, the whole codex could use a buff if we're using Eldar or Crons or Marines as some sort of benchmark.

And why wouldn't a CCS order an infantry squad around if the PCS is dead, or otherwise busy/in the process of being horribly maimed by a fething carnifex, or just because said infantry squad stumbled drunk in front of the CCS and the company commander decided they needed to run really super fast to that objective over there.

In a perfect world, yes, the chain of command would always exist and work flawlessly top down, but there are way too many scenario in the far future of humanity where using the chain of command strictly doesn't make sense. In such scenarios and for gameplay purposes, its infinitely easier to let anyone who can issue order issue them to anyone who can receive them. Plus, I feel that your idea dances too close to the problem of having a dedicated PCS for a set of infantry squads, which becomes cumbersome remembering who belongs to who. That and you don't want the good platoon stuck with your gakky junior lieutenant Billy Bob Joe Ray.

I do admit it may overcomplicate the rules, as so leave them as they are. But maybe giving sergeants or veteran sergeants a minor order or two, add the overall pool of orders and giving voxes unlimited range (like they used to before they were used for orders) may help improve the guard as a whole.

The idea of vets having an order or two has certainly interested me, but I feel it would be too burdensome. You'd spend so much time planning, rolling for, and following through on literally dozens of orders every single turn. Plus, blob squads would be an issue, unless you limit it in some way, which only complicates things more. Its a nice thought, but I think it adds too many complications for the benefits.

As a compromise, bring back Bastonne (or better yet, create a not-Bastonne character but Mordian...for no reason...no reason at all) who can issue an order to his squad.

Also I think the whole platoon structure needs something to encourage platoons to be used as a unit, seeing it's a gripe I've had for a very long time, as there is no reason for me outside of fluffyness to do so. I'm not saying force players to do so, but give some benefit.

Yes, special and heavy weapon squads need love in some way. Oh, and put scout sentinels in platoons.

And mounted platoons/rough rider platoons.

Wouldn't Armoured Sentinels make more sense in platoons?

Scout Sentinels at least have a reason to occupy a FA slot.

 vipoid wrote:
Wouldn't Armoured Sentinels make more sense in platoons?

Scout Sentinels at least have a reason to occupy a FA slot.

They both have reason, depending on the regiment and desired role.

A couple of ideas I had -

"Infantry Squads and Veteran Squads - When firing Lasguns, if this unit fires more than 10 shots then any To Hit roll of 6 causes an automatic wound. This cannot wound any target that a Lasgun could not normally wound."

This helps with getting Wounds out on targets with the humble Lasgun, since you don't have to roll To Wound every 6th shot. It's still a S3 AP- weapon, so armour saves for everyone and it still can't wound T7+ targets to help keep it in check.

"Conscripts - When removing casualties from a unit of Conscripts, you may freely choose any model in the unit to remove instead of the model the unsaved wound was allocated to. Independent Characters attached to the unit cannot benefit from this rule."

This would effectively allow you to remove casualties from the back of a Conscript blob so your blob doesn't lose ground as it charges across the battlefield.

 GoonBandito wrote:
A couple of ideas I had -

"Infantry Squads and Veteran Squads - When firing Lasguns, if this unit fires more than 10 shots then any To Hit roll of 6 causes an automatic wound. This cannot wound any target that a Lasgun could not normally wound."

This helps with getting Wounds out on targets with the humble Lasgun, since you don't have to roll To Wound every 6th shot. It's still a S3 AP- weapon, so armour saves for everyone and it still can't wound T7+ targets to help keep it in check.

Seems like a good rule for FRFSRF. though i can see it getting wonkey with misfortune.

 GoonBandito wrote:
A couple of ideas I had -

"Infantry Squads and Veteran Squads - When firing Lasguns, if this unit fires more than 10 shots then any To Hit roll of 6 causes an automatic wound. This cannot wound any target that a Lasgun could not normally wound."

This helps with getting Wounds out on targets with the humble Lasgun, since you don't have to roll To Wound every 6th shot. It's still a S3 AP- weapon, so armour saves for everyone and it still can't wound T7+ targets to help keep it in check.

"Conscripts - When removing casualties from a unit of Conscripts, you may freely choose any model in the unit to remove instead of the model the unsaved wound was allocated to. Independent Characters attached to the unit cannot benefit from this rule."

This would effectively allow you to remove casualties from the back of a Conscript blob so your blob doesn't lose ground as it charges across the battlefield.

Not bad, though I am not sure if it would work very well against the meta codex players..... The whining when a humble lasgun had such a rule when the Shuriken Catapult and Bolter do not...

 master of ordinance wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:
A couple of ideas I had -

"Infantry Squads and Veteran Squads - When firing Lasguns, if this unit fires more than 10 shots then any To Hit roll of 6 causes an automatic wound. This cannot wound any target that a Lasgun could not normally wound."

This helps with getting Wounds out on targets with the humble Lasgun, since you don't have to roll To Wound every 6th shot. It's still a S3 AP- weapon, so armour saves for everyone and it still can't wound T7+ targets to help keep it in check.

"Conscripts - When removing casualties from a unit of Conscripts, you may freely choose any model in the unit to remove instead of the model the unsaved wound was allocated to. Independent Characters attached to the unit cannot benefit from this rule."

This would effectively allow you to remove casualties from the back of a Conscript blob so your blob doesn't lose ground as it charges across the battlefield.

Not bad, though I am not sure if it would work very well against the meta codex players..... The whining when a humble lasgun had such a rule when the Shuriken Catapult and Bolter do not...

The IG codex gets more whining from SM players than the Eldar codex oftentimes. It's just our lot in life.

All praise the Leafblower!

 Selym wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:
A couple of ideas I had -

"Infantry Squads and Veteran Squads - When firing Lasguns, if this unit fires more than 10 shots then any To Hit roll of 6 causes an automatic wound. This cannot wound any target that a Lasgun could not normally wound."

This helps with getting Wounds out on targets with the humble Lasgun, since you don't have to roll To Wound every 6th shot. It's still a S3 AP- weapon, so armour saves for everyone and it still can't wound T7+ targets to help keep it in check.

"Conscripts - When removing casualties from a unit of Conscripts, you may freely choose any model in the unit to remove instead of the model the unsaved wound was allocated to. Independent Characters attached to the unit cannot benefit from this rule."

This would effectively allow you to remove casualties from the back of a Conscript blob so your blob doesn't lose ground as it charges across the battlefield.

Not bad, though I am not sure if it would work very well against the meta codex players..... The whining when a humble lasgun had such a rule when the Shuriken Catapult and Bolter do not...

The IG codex gets more whining from SM players than the Eldar codex oftentimes. It's just our lot in life.

All praise the Leafblower!

Ahh yes the Leafblower. Wonderful.... Except it was not pure Guard. Guard at that time where mediocre. It was allying with the Inquisition that made the Leafblower work.

I think that SM players hine because most of them are stuck in that timmy attitude and because GW makes Marines out to be unbeatable. So when you kill them or have something that is better than them.... Whooooo boy dont you know about just how OP FRFSRF is and as for that AV 14/13/10 tank with a Battlecannon.....
Just woe betide you if you should do anything other than scoop your vast piles of dead Infantry and wrecked vehicles off the table with anything other than a smile on your face or even dare to complain about just how broken that unit/formation is though or dare to not have fun removing your dead Imperial Guard. Then you are subject to the lecture of how this is the way that things go and you should expect it or told you are a whiner or a scrub.