So I was caught a bit flat-footed when my opponent wanted a 1500 point game, didnt have anything tuned for it in 5th. But what the hay, it's just a casual game up at the LGS. Much of my army build is sub-optimal and determined by what I happen to have assembled and ready and theme-army oriented.

On a semi-unrelated note, at my LGS all attempts to explain why kill points are bad in 5th have resulted in basically "tough gak IG players, learn how to play lamer, there is no problem, I play SM and know, you suxxor". The intelligence of the explanation has had little to nothing to do with any response to the arguement.

Anyway:

Mine:

412th Dinbao Anti-Tank Regiment (basically, it's a theme army)
24 kill points total

Doctrines:

Veterans
Drop Troops
Iron Discipline
Close Order Drill
Something that fills the 5th slot

HQ1:

Junior Officer: Iron Discipline, Retinue with Missile Launcher.
AT Squad: x3 Lascannons.
AT Squad: x3 Lascannons.

HQ 2:

Junior Officer: Iron Discipline, Retinue with Missile Launcher.
AT Squad: x3 Lascannons.
AT Squad: x3 Lascannons.

T1:

Junior Officer: Iron Discipline, Retinue with Missile Launcher.
Squad: Missile Launcher
Squad: Missile Launcher
Squad: Missile Launcher

T2:

Junior Officer: Iron Discilpline, Retinue with Plasma Gun. Drop Troops.
Squad: Plasma, Drop Troops
Squad: Plasma, Drop Troops
Squad: Plasma, Drop Troops

E1:

Hardened Vets: Sgt, Grunt, x3 Meltas, Drop.

E2:

Hardened Vets: Sgt, Grunt, x3 Meltas, Drop.

E3:

Hardened Vets: Sgt, Grunt, x3 Meltas, Drop.

FA1:

Sentinel: Lascannon. Not outflanking.

FA2:

Sentinel: Lascannon. Not outflanking.

FA3:

Sentinel: Lascannon. Not outflanking.

His: (admittedly a fairly casual army to my estimation)
10 potential kill points

Some HQ character in a crisis suit.

Another squad of 3 suits and 2 shield drones.

5 piranhas in a squadron.

Hammerhead with railgun.

x2 Devilfish with 12 Fire Warriors in each.

x2 squads (assorted sizes) of Fire Warriors.

So yeah. I wasnt feeling particularly thrilled with an annihilation mission but refrained from commenting on it, given the delicious reception my LGS has given to any attempt to claim KP are broken in 5th. I roll to go first, woohoo!

Turn 1, me...

Meh, I'm just going to summarize this.

I blazed away at him the entire game and freely admit that pure crap luck ensured that I failed to kill much early game. He rushed forward with his his drone-carrying Piranhas, troop carrying Devilfish, etc. They gunned down a LOT of grunts with no armor save, despite careful positioning. I tried to drop things in and failed in a spectacular redisplay of bad luck. He went more forward, unloaded assorted dakka dakka which dakka-dakkaed and earned him enough KP to win the game. We didnt realize that at the time. We didnt realize until after my next turn.

My turn, stuff finally dropped in, killed a LOT of his vehicles and squads. End of my turn, I do the math.

Me: "Oh, yeah, you win."

Him: "Uh.. what? No way."

Me: I had to explain the entire concept of "my army is worth 24 kill points, yours is worth 9 kill points". He didnt understand, I had to explain it again. At which point I was subjected to what I've been thinking since 5th edition came out: "WTF, kill points dont make sense!?". Fun times.

We played out the remaining 4 turns (rolling for it all, the game did in fact last another 4 turns). Basically with me trying to table him to win. Oh look. Game ended with me having over 50% of my army on the table. Him having 6 fire warrriors spread across various squads, and an immobile weaponless Devilfish taking up space on the battlefield.

Clearly, 70 men vs 6 men, he wins.





My hope is that when the new Guard codex comes out in May they take the 'Ard Boyz route for kill points. At which point I WILL run cheapo platoons with HQ and 5 max-listed squads. And will especially savor "WTF, I killed 50 men for 0 kill points?!" with my hiding platoon HQs. And if they dare to complain about it, well, that's why I'm going to keep a flick blade folded and on the corner of the board nice and handy. I daresay if they DARE to utter the word "cheese" that'll be more than enough to set it off.

Heh.

Okay, so I'm trying to make a point and overexagerating.

Why not play something other than annihilation? I play IG as well, and have never has a problem with a friendly game where when we rolled for missions we just skip that result.

There...problem solved.

You know, if you'd tabled him, you would have won regardless of erstwhile kill points.

Why not play something other than annihilation?

Because if I were to say something along the lines of "Why not play something other than annihilation?" after having rolled annihilation, I'd have received a particularly hefty chorus of "IG players are whiners, learn to play, it aint that bad - even though I dont play IG, KP are perfectly fair - even though I only play Marines," etc etc.

You know, if you'd tabled him, you would have won regardless of erstwhile kill points.

And yet I took 4 entire turns trying to do exactly that after knowing I would lose otherwise. And all it took for him to pull off a win was to hide a handfull of fire warriors in a place that I was never going to be able to get to in assault. Yay for line of sight. And that's given that I was running 7 fracking squads of drop troops.

Really, it only takes a marginally idiotic player to hide the last 6 or so grunts such where a Guard player cant get to him to preserve over 40% of their kill points.



I swear to God, I'm going to stab the first person to say something along the lines of "Guard players whine too much, I dont see any problem and I play Marines all the time since 5th came out!".

I've won 4/5 Kill Point missions with my IG Mech Drop Guard. 4 of those were tables and phaseouts. gakky luck with killing dice is what really burned you. I mean, Imperial Guard, with new Line of Sight and consolidation rules, will be unstoppable if KPs are awarded on a platoon basis in the new codex.

Well no honking carp.

1 kp per platoon would be ridiculous in the other direction. The idea has been tossed around as a "solution" to the current problem and it used to bother me. That was before I realized just how much "learn to play looser" carp I've tolerated when it was 1kp/squad. Now I just PRAY it turns the other way with the new codex so I can try to provoke the "learn to play looser!" crowd. I fully plan on listening carefully to any counterarguements they have, nodding sagely as if I care about their point, ignoring them, then repeatedly chanting "learn to play looseer!". Then when they make another counter-arguement interrupting them to chant "LEARN TO PLAY LOOOOSER!".

Which is pretty much EXACTLY as things are for me now. >

Just Divide by 2 and call it good.

kill points are completely in SMs favour. Just dont play the mission. My only KP mission I played i got my ass handed to me using my nids, even though i would have won on VPs. Make any sense?

Did I not make myself clear?

Bitching about Kill Points gets you mocked at my LGS. Dramatically. Refusing to play in a tournament where KP are used in almost every scenario gets one drummed out of the local community. Not to mention, laughed at as a "looser that needs to learn to play", a "lamer", "there is no problem with KP - I play Space Marines and I'd know!", etc.

"Just dont play the mission" is GREAT advice if you dont mind having to drive an extra 30 miles to the next-nearest game store on a regular basis.

Really, I've been pushing my luck as best I can trying to explain that KP are silly. Nobody is interested in hearing it. And getting NO understanding. I really cant think how to make it ANY simpler to people. It aint rocket science in the first place. I'm to the point where people really simply arent even remotely interested in seeing sense and/or hearing anything more about it. They play marines, hence they dont care about play balance. Long as it's on their side.

What do I do?

play sm...

Ok have read your post a bit more thoroughly this time (im getting ready for work so im in a bit of a rush). Your lgs doesnt sound like a flgs...at all. And how old are the people who are mocking you? If they play sm build an army that only deals with them. In KP missions that means that you should table them. When I first started I built a tau army specfically designed to annhilate MEQs. By turn 5 all he had was an immobilized landraider, 2 termies and a lone marine. I still had pretty much my whole force. Now thats what i call an annihilation match.

I then play orks and i was tabled on turn 3. But hey, if they only play sm you wont have that problem. Lots of leman russes, chimeras (to protct your near worthless infantry, yet very valuable KPs) and whatever else IG use to down sm.

It is too bad you have a LGS not a FLGS. You should post some of the lists you play against (or approximations if you don't know the exact compositions) in the "Army Lists" forum and solicit advice on how to utterly demolish them.

You can't take two Command Platoons.

BYE

I thought an army was allowed two HQs, is one allowed a platoon and the other is limited to a squad?

See, now, if it's true you can only have one IG HQ... THAT is likely the most interesting thing I'll get from this thread.

So really, why cant one take a second Command Platoon as one's second HQ choice? I just dug through the IG codex and cant see why not. If you ARE only allowed one Command Platoon... well, its the only HQ choice in the IG codex. So what else is an option, without mixing in Daemonhunter/Witchhunter allies?

In my printing of the codex it's pretty clear that you can only have one Command Platoon. It doesn't have anything to do with the FOC. It's just an IG rule. So the only way to get a second HQ choics is to mix some sort of allies into the force.

On the subject of Kill Points, you're right though. They do suck for any army that relies on attrition to win. It happens though. My feeling is that you can either complain about it now or you can wait and see what happens when the new dex comes out. You can't complain about it now though and then act snide about it later when/if we get some uber stupid change to our codex.

I dofully intend to be snide about it if they overkill correct (ala 'ard Boyz) in our new codex. Course I've been traumatized by how nasty the local players have been, what with the whole "I play <someotherdamnedfaction> and it's not a problem, learn to play correctly!".

Anyway, nevermind all that carp.

What printing of the book do you have and what makes you think you can only have one Command Platoon?

I have a very hard time believing I've been playing Guard all this time and havent even begun to realize such. Certainly nobody has "called me on it", including the several times I've played against other IG players. It doesnt even make sense, since there are multiple places in the codex talking about the usual force organization (with 2 HQ, 3 FA, 3 HS, 3 Elite, and all). That doesnt even BEGIN to make sense, given there is only one type of HQ listed in the codex. Admittedly it's a massively flexible HQ type, but still.

Dammit, I'm confused now.

Illeix wrote:I thought an army was allowed two HQs, is one allowed a platoon and the other is limited to a squad?

Armies are allowed to fill two HQ slots, but IG armies are only allowed one command platoon, so the other HQ slot has to be filled with something else (DH, WH, Last Chancer HQ, etc).

I agree with the thread starter that IG do have some issues with the new ruleset...I don't play mine currently in any competitive environment. If you do, though, you have to have a plan to aggressively push in kill point missions. My DE have issues in KP missions, too, but have the ability to move and table opponents. You need to have a method of getting into the enemy's deployment area to finish off all those mostly dead squads. You've already come across one solution...wait for the new codex that is designed for 5th edition.

Otherwise, you need to play according to the KP ruleset and plan you list accordingly. Notice your opponent took all his piranhas in one squad (1 KP) while you spread all your sentinals across 3 squads...you're self inflicting some of the difference yourself.

You've also hamstrung yourself a bit with your army list theme, assuming it drives many of your choices. Do you face a crapload of armor or something? I believe you must only fight Meqs, seeing that you have NO flamers or heavy bolters, but unless you're facing armor hordes all the time, the insane number of lascannons and meltas are probably overkill, and you pay a premium for them, especially the lascannons.

Ivan wrote:
What printing of the book do you have and what makes you think you can only have one Command Platoon?

I have a very hard time believing I've been playing Guard all this time and havent even begun to realize such. Certainly nobody has "called me on it", including the several times I've played against other IG players. It doesnt even make sense, since there are multiple places in the codex talking about the usual force organization (with 2 HQ, 3 FA, 3 HS, 3 Elite, and all). That doesnt even BEGIN to make sense, given there is only one type of HQ listed in the codex. Admittedly it's a massively flexible HQ type, but still.

Look on page 38 under "HQ". You'll see it says "1 Command Platoon", meaning only one can be taken. Look at other unit choices, and you'll usually see 0-1, 2-5, etc.

Interesting, I'll have to keep that in mind.

At any rate, my LGS really is a pretty friendly place. Dont want to give the impression it's a bad store or bad people. I've just been really suprised by the reaction I've got, about kill points. I just get frustrated and worked up on the issue.

Learn to use cover and buy new dice. Everybody has days where you'd swear that the dice gods are conspiring against you. You just cant let it get to you.

The Tau player had Eleven Kill points in a fairly optimized list. Your list is the farthest thing from optimization and appears to have several unneccesary KPs in it not allowed by your codex. This is not a fair comparison. If you wanted his list could hold as many six more killpoints just by breaking units up to fill as many FOC slots as possible. And even more if he budgeted his army to do so.
Which is what it looks like you did with this theme army. You could run 1,500pts with 12-15 KPs.

Off-Topic)Now having said that, yes, KPs are a problem. They're going to remain a problem until everyone with a codex thats 2 years old or older gets a new codex optimized for the current ruleset. So yes I agree with you. I also agree that SOME IG players whine to much and should play SMs. Your second in line for a Codex optimized to the new ruleset. If you want to be first in line Codex wise play SMs. Some of us are going to wait 2-3 years and then only get 2 years of playtime before it all goes down the drain with a new ruleset.HHMMMM 4 1/2 years to 2 years Nahhh theres no Imperium bias.

If I look for things to gripe about I'll find them. So, instead I look for a good game with good friends.


Edited to finish (lost connection) and to help keep thread on track

Personaly, I hope they do not weight 1 platoon =1KP. However, if they did, this might happen...
Gaurdsmen: "Great Idea, Captain, hideing where they can't see us"
(Twig snaps)
Gaurdsman: "What was that?"
(Turns around. Lictor steps out of the woods and kills him)
My Lictors would have their job back.

I think the most reasonable change would be to see an Officers' staff not count for a KP. I don't know if it is "likely" but it certainly be the most reasonable.

Either platoon squad = 1/2 KP or enemy must wipe the entire Platoon to get the points.
I personally favor the last idea better because it promotes the use of full sized platoons instead of the underpowered and undersized mini 2 squad platoons.

Couldn't you, just a thought, build an army with more Armor, Hellhounds, Sentinals, Leman Russes? And for the remainding infantry have them sitting super far back. Essentially have everything as far as possible, use basilisks annoying everyone. Rough Riders to take away attention from the Troops? Use Chimera's to protect them from Armor and wait it out? When opponnents start to get close, just dump them shoot. Add Elites closer to take away attention. I'm not an IG player at all, so just thinking of different things.

At the risk of steering this topic towards 'Proposed Rules' I just can't help but chime in with my 2 cents as well. I think it would be a hard thing to do to fix the KP's for guard. If they make it 1 platoon = 1 KP it would almost swing the pendulum too far the other way (as already suggested in this thread). It may mean larger platoon sizes but at the very least it would mean that platoon squads would be spread out all over the battle field. You would never put units from the same platoon near each other for fear of losing that precious Kill Point to Lictors (good example Crazy_Carnifex) or anything else that can target specific locations well, but cannot span the entire length of the table. I don't like this because it only promotes a more unrealistic way of playing the guard. They could balance it with a minimum platoon distance or something, like all squads must be within 12" of the JO or suffer some kind of penalty. That might even make Vox Castors something to consider.

Meh, I don't know.

Off-topic) What I meant by kill the whole platoon to get to the KPs I meant they're the same KPs as at present but to get to them you have to kill all the squads.
I proposed this in another forum with a mandatory platoon squads deploy within 6"-12" of one another. Platoons do not get to intermingle and should be clearly defined/modeled to represent which platoon they are from.

On-topic) The discussion on KPs should go elsewhere and instead we should be asking if opponent was polite and commenting on how the report was written.

Maybe ask what he's looking to do different in the next game?

What are you going to do about the 2nd HQ?

Later

on this note, the rumors indicate that platoons will have to be near each other to benefit from the ability to shoot through their own units without giving the opponent a cover save.

But I agree, kill points are asinine, they should have just kept victory points. What mathematical genius decided it would be a good system wherein you had to score points to win, but one army can potentially give up 3 times the points of another army. It's idiotic. Victory points worked fine, there was no need to change it and it was a fair system.

As for not taking the small units of guard that deepstrike with special weapons, or heavy weapon squads, you really gut yourself. Tanks are sweet, but the real power of a guard army are those small units that pack a big punch.

If the people you game with tell you to play better, then they are a bunch of big douches for one, and for two, should play you using your army with you using theirs. That should shut them up after they experience how frustrating it is first hand. It is not impossible to win just very, very, very difficult against a good player with a good army.

Well, as I said before, that 1500 list was only a theme army. 2000 points is a lot more popular a format here so I've got some better tuned lists for that.

Usually in those lists I'm running 3 Russes and 3 Hellhounds. But anyway, yeah, time to draw up something better at 1500.

In defense of 5 man Drop Vets with Meltas, it's about the only reliable way I've found in 5th to take out enemy heavy armor. With the new vehicle damage charts it's become extremely frustrating to try to take down enemy tanks, even with massed lascannon fire. Which isnt exactly cheap points-wise. 75 point drop vet meltas (225 for 3) are much more effective in my experience, even if they are almost certain to get killed the turn after they drop.

I really cant think of an elegant way for them to fix KP either. 1 Platoon = 1 KP is just ridiculous, if you've got 54 dead men from a large platoon and 1 guy is hiding and still alive, oh look, 0 kill points. But the current situation is stupid too, same situation only you get at least 6 kp. I think GW has really painted themselves into a corner on this and I hope they dont fix things by simply ignoring it and pretending there isnt a problem.

Kill Points games are heavily stacked against IG with our current codex. My 1850 list (mixed list) has 21 kill points which is usually double what other armies have. Hopefully GW is looking at this seriously.

As people have said, Command Platoons are a "1" choice, you have to have one and only one. 2nd HQ choice is either allies or a SC.

OK, we all agree that KP can shaft the typical IG army. But what about the other side: does having such a large force help you win games where you have to hold objectives? Maybe that was in GW's minds when they wrote the KP rules.

I play Necron so my complaint is in the opposite direction, ie, lack of scoring units. I love my Warriors but it would be nice to be able to hold an objective with soemthing else once in a while.

Personally, I think in the new guard codex Platoons should be worth 3 kill points. You get credit for kill points as you do now, but after you have lost 3 squads (or 1 and the command squad) you won't lose any additional kill points for the remaining squads. Just my two cents.

I am also a necron player and I fully agree on needing more scoring units. It also seems to make monoliths and veil of darkness almost mandatory if you actually want to be able to reach your opponents objectives. I am hoping if they do not drastically change our list that immortals and flayed ones count as scoring units in our next codex.

My fifth edition lists so far have been VERY warrior heavy. I haven't even used a destroyer (aside from the occasional destroyer lord for armor bussting) in my last 10 games or so. Then again I've been playing against mainly tau lately and so 9 wraiths is just so much more fun!

I feel your pain. I have since retired my IG army from standard games until they get a new codex. My 5th edition journey is chronicled here:

http://orlando40k.3.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=1857

Capt K

I play guard as well as mechanized Dark Eldar. With the first I have yet to win a KP mission (some of which is due to me having a solid 4th ed build with lots of small weapons teams) and I have had some frustrating KP losses with my DE as well (at 1 point reducing a 2500pt ork army down to a wounded warboss, wounded biker nob, and half a squad of lootas vs my 6 mostly intact units and 2 mobile vehicles and I still lost). I firmly believe a ration system of sorts is needed to fix kp (i.e. i have 20KP to give up and you have 10, I killed 6 units you killed 10, I win as 6/10=60% vs 10/20=50%). Thats the best fix I can see....

Just use Stelek's system. Each player has 5 KP that he allocates to his opponent's units. You get 1 KP every time you kill one of the nominated units. Suddenly protecting your dudes become as important as killing his.

sourclams wrote:Just use Stelek's system. Each player has 5 KP that he allocates to his opponent's units. You get 1 KP every time you kill one of the nominated units. Suddenly protecting your dudes become as important as killing his.

Then it would be just the opposite. "Oh damn I have a low number of units, I can't safely fight with them. It sure is going to be awesome fighting against the half of your army that doesn't help me win the game while you hide your 5 units." Instead of "Wow I have a ton of units, if anything dies it's worth as much as my opponent's giant squad of doom"

Ivan wrote:

What do I do?

You treat them like you would paper training a puppy. SOmetimes folks only learn if you push thei nose in their own feces.


Put aside guard for a time and play a power army that takes FULL advantage of the KP situation.....say, nob biker army. Low kill points and tough.

And bring a sharpie marker to write: LOSER on their forehead when they lose and complain.

Either that or find a better class of people at a better store.

To the OP

I agree that Guard are at a disadvantage in KP missions at the moment, and can't wait to see how the new codex addresses this. At the moment, they have a massive advantage in C&C and a massive disadvantage in KP, which means you get almost an instant win/lose based on the first die roll of the game...

However

You didn't exactly pick a force with KP in mind, did you? Bear in mind that many other build of army have now become liabilities in 5ed as well, and when people now think of taking mechanised or drop pod armies, they have to factor in the disadvantage they will face in KP games.

But three sentinels, all taken as separate units? Two command HQs are unneccesary, as are three melta veteran squads. Isn't this the sort of 4ed min/maxing that KP were invented to address?

I appreciate that your army is not optimised for 5ed, and agree that Guard are disadvantaged until the new codex comes out, but i think you could have taken KP into account a bit better when building your army...!

Grimaldi wrote:Look on page 38 under "HQ". You'll see it says "1 Command Platoon", meaning only one can be taken. Look at other unit choices, and you'll usually see 0-1, 2-5, etc.

Whilst this is, sadly, true ( I've just looked ) there IS a way around this and the answer lies in the codex itself !

Split your force to represent two different companies within the same regiment. Each COMPANY has its own command platoon, as shown in the double page photo on pages 10 & 11.

I know this doesn't ease your pain, but it's a way of making your list more legal as there is nothing to say you cannot field elements from mixed companies. I myself have used this to field 2nd and 3rd coy Ultras ( though in my case it was because I was too lazy to repaint at the time )

WTF is "splitting your force to represent two different companies"?

Ivan wrote:WTF is "splitting your force to represent two different companies"?

A quick example for you ( though not too detailed I admit )

Your Force you have named the 412th Dinbao Anti-Tank Regiment, right ?
Well, if you follow the picture in the codex I referred to, and the normal military structure it seems to be based on, (Regiment > Battalion > Company > Platoon > Squad > Trooper ) you get this :

Command Platoon 1 : 1st Company,1st Battalion,412th Dinbao Anti-Tank Regiment

T1: 1st Squad, 1st Company,1st Battalion, 412th Dinbao Anti-Tank Regiment

T2: 2nd Squad, 1st Company,1st Battalion, 412th Dinbao Anti-Tank Regiment

E1: 1st Veteran Squad, 1st Company,1st Battalion, 412th Dinbao Anti-Tank Regiment

E2: 2nd Veteran Squad, 1st Company,1st Battalion, 412th Dinbao Anti-Tank Regiment

E3: 3rd Veteran Squad, 1st Company,1st Battalion, 412th Dinbao Anti-Tank Regiment

FA1: 1st Attack Squad, 1st Company, 1st Battalion,412th Dinbao Anti-Tank Regiment

FA2: 2nd Attack Squad, 1st Company,1st Battalion, 412th Dinbao Anti-Tank Regiment

FA3: 3rd Attack Squad, 1st Company,1st Battalion, 412th Dinbao Anti-Tank Regiment

Command Platoon 2 : 2nd Company, 1st Battalion,412th Dinbao Anti-Tank Regiment

To make this fully legal within the points you are using you would have to swap out 2 units from your Elites or Fast Attack to put 2 Troops choices under the command of the 2nd Company Command Platoon, but this would give you a total of 4 Troops units for holding objectives AND justify taking 2 comand units in a way that should shut most people up. As long as your force is from the same REGIMENT ( in your case, 412th Dinbao Anti-Tank Regiment ) and the Force Organisation Chart is satisfied at the COMPANY level, you're good to go.
On the models, something simple ( like a coloured helmet stripe ) can be used to show which COMPANY the squad is from ( Red for 1st company, blue for 2nd for example )

True, this doesn't help the IG when it comes to giving up KP, but on other missions it can come in useful.

I really like Stelek's KPs, but I'd have then assigned to the top 5 most expensive units.

However if we assume that will never happen, I think they should attack the Kill points to the command squads and remove it form the infantry squads, as that's supposed to be something that the Guard have no problem supplying, but Officers have Value (that also get's around the "you have to kill every Guardsmen in the Platoon to get the KP"). This might leave the guard vulnerable to sniper or assassination type attacks, but that sounds reasonable to me.

To the OP. Agreed, Im an old hat IG player, KP....

But, it also wroks against the Tau in an od way, did you know every pair of vehicle drones forms it's own unit, andthose units are worth a KP each?

Every mini squadron of drones is a KP, its pretty easy to get them from Tau. The real absurdity is the 5 pirahna unit. Dead, that unit is worth 6 KP by itself. Every devilfish unit is also 3 KP, one for the fish, one the troops and a 3rd for the drones.

Better luck next time.

@Augustus, How certain are you about the Pirahna?

When one disembarks they all do and form a single squad. As per the Tau codex. Just wondering, seems like Pirahnas should be the only ones where the Tau are getting their moneys worth.

Your dead bang on the devilfish, though. Just don't know about the Pirahnas. Any clarification would help.

Pirahnas with drones would be worth 2 KPs. 1 for the squadron and 1 for the drones (that break off into 1 separate unit). Focusedfire you are right.

Reaper6 wrote:

Grimaldi wrote:Look on page 38 under "HQ". You'll see it says "1 Command Platoon", meaning only one can be taken. Look at other unit choices, and you'll usually see 0-1, 2-5, etc.

Whilst this is, sadly, true ( I've just looked ) there IS a way around this and the answer lies in the codex itself !

Split your force to represent two different companies within the same regiment. Each COMPANY has its own command platoon, as shown in the double page photo on pages 10 & 11.

I know this doesn't ease your pain, but it's a way of making your list more legal as there is nothing to say you cannot field elements from mixed companies. I myself have used this to field 2nd and 3rd coy Ultras ( though in my case it was because I was too lazy to repaint at the time )

It's still illegal. In fluff terms it works, but in game terms, the only way you could take two Command Platoons is to field two FOCs (is this called different 'detachments' or did this get scrapped when Apocalypse came out?). Of course, if you field two FOCs then your opponent presumably can as well. You're actually playing with two armies each. Thus, 4 Troops minimum etc etc...

The 1 Unit, 0-1 Unit, 1+ Unit prefixes apply to your own FOC. In a standard battle (using one FOC each) you can only ever take one Command Platoon. There's no way around it.

ArbitorIan : Can you explain, then, why the boxout in the corner of p40 states :

For each type of advisor, one must be allocated to the Command HQ. Any others of that type are then allocated to Platoon HQ Squads. If all Command andPlatoon HQ's have an advisor of a given type then the remainder are individually assigned to infantry squads.

This passage concurs with the arrangement of Tiered Command Structure I outlined previously and, being directly from the Codex, ratifies that structure.

Reaper6 wrote:ArbitorIan : Can you explain, then, why the boxout in the corner of p40 states :

For each type of advisor, one must be allocated to the Command HQ. Any others of that type are then allocated to Platoon HQ Squads. If all Command andPlatoon HQ's have an advisor of a given type then the remainder are individually assigned to infantry squads.

This passage concurs with the arrangement of Tiered Command Structure I outlined previously and, being directly from the Codex, ratifies that structure.

What are you smoking?



Honestly, you are trying to use an advisor rule to justify taking 2 FOC?

BoxANT wrote:

Reaper6 wrote:ArbitorIan : Can you explain, then, why the boxout in the corner of p40 states :

For each type of advisor, one must be allocated to the Command HQ. Any others of that type are then allocated to Platoon HQ Squads. If all Command andPlatoon HQ's have an advisor of a given type then the remainder are individually assigned to infantry squads.

This passage concurs with the arrangement of Tiered Command Structure I outlined previously and, being directly from the Codex, ratifies that structure.

What are you smoking?



Honestly, you are trying to use an advisor rule to justify taking 2 FOC?

Perhaps you can explain your interpretation of the boxout's contents for me then.

Suppose you were foolish enough to buy 5 priests.

The first one is attached to your HQ. The second one to your Troop 1 platoon HQ (the junior officer and his retinue). The third one to your Troop 2 platoon HQ. If you have a Troop 3 platoon HQ, the 4th one goes there. If not, the 4th (and 5th) attach to an Infantry squad, Armored Fist squad, or Storm Trooper squad. Theyre never independant characters (they dont even have that special rule).

I fail to see how any of that allows a seperate FOC. I've never heard of or seen anyone run two FOC charts in the same army and if I ran into it in a game I'd want them to show me exactly in the book where it says they can do it.

Reaper6: I think maybe the confusion is in the term "Platoon HQ." Playing guard is confusing for most because our forces are built so much differently then other armies.

Think of it this way:
A single valid armylist for IG will NEVER be larger than an infantry company. Your company commander is referred to as the 'Command HQ' That single HQ slot can then be populated by several support squads. On the next tier down are the individual platoons. Each platoon has it's own Junior Officer leading it refered to as the 'Platoon HQ.'

So the 'Platoon HQ' isn't the command of all the platoons. It's just the command of a single platoon and each platoon has one.

Glaive Company CO wrote:Reaper6: I think maybe the confusion is in the term "Platoon HQ." Playing guard is confusing for most because our forces are built so much differently then other armies.

Whilst that is, indeed, true within the game, the regimental structure DIRECTLY mirrors existing military forces. This, said a GW rep years ago when they redifined the Imperial Army (RT) as the Imperial Guard, was the intent.

Glaive Company CO wrote:A single valid armylist for IG will NEVER be larger than an infantry company.

I'm not suggesting that it should, merely that elements from two Companies within the SAME regiment can ( and IRL frequently do ) fight alongside each other, each with their own Company Command answering to the Battallion HQ.

Glaive Company CO wrote:So the 'Platoon HQ' isn't the command of all the platoons. It's just the command of a single platoon and each platoon has one.

No offence, but I'm a year short of 40, with PERSONAL experience of the regimental structure GW chose to imitate, so before you talk to me like a six-year old take a look at the DoB in my profile, eh ?

On a side note : Is there any way for a MOD to chop this discussion off of the Batrep and drop it into the You Make The Call forum, where it would be more suited ? It's hardly fair to the OP that his battle report be usurped by a debate, and it is a debate I'd like to continue since it is an interesting one IMO.

Any MOD that figures a way to achieve this, thanks.

There's no reason to for a MOD to have to cut this thrad up. Ivan, if you're pissed that we're puking all over you're thread you can always tell us to buzz off.

Reaper6, if you want to discuss this further in YMDC then by all means, feel free to start a thread there and state your case. I'll throw my hat into the ring. Before you do that though I just want to be sure of one thing:

Are you arguing 'real world' or 'in game' force organizations? If you're argument is that real life Imperial Guardsmen would operate at a battalion level in a sector then that's fine. In fact, I would assume that the Imperial Guard wouldn't even begin a campaign in a country without a few divisions of troops and armor.

...of course, one could counter that with the fact that there is no such thing as 'real life Imperial Guardsmen' and when we post battle reports on this forum they're actually just games that we've played using miniatures and dice. I'm assuming that is the case here, but Ivan can correct me if I'm wrong.

If you're argument is that in a game of WH40K using the Imperial Guard you can field multiple HQ's without using allies then please start the thread on YMDC and ignore my previous statements.

Why would I be pissed about the thread going off on a tangent when I'm participating in the conversation?

I think what got people confused was the following statement from several posts back:

AND justify taking 2 comand units in a way that should shut most people up.

I understand that real life organization varies dramatically. And in fluff, so does Imperial Guard organization. But insofar as actual rules go, there is no legal way I know of in standard 40k to run a second command platoon. Which was news to me when this thread started, but upon examination of the codex, is absolutely true.

Anyway, yeah, I think everyone thought you meant legal in-game ways to run 2 command platoons when you were talking about fluff. Which is probably why things got confused and snarky.

Reaper6 wrote:

Whilst that is, indeed, true within the game, the regimental structure DIRECTLY mirrors existing military forces. This, said a GW rep years ago when they redifined the Imperial Army (RT) as the Imperial Guard, was the intent.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Reaper6 wrote:

I'm not suggesting that it should, merely that elements from two Companies within the SAME regiment can ( and IRL frequently do ) fight alongside each other, each with their own Company Command answering to the Battallion HQ.

I love Real Life.

Reaper6 wrote:

No offence, but I'm a year short of 40, with PERSONAL experience of the regimental structure GW chose to imitate, so before you talk to me like a six-year old take a look at the DoB in my profile, eh ?

goo gah goo goo marine go boom. I haz the xp in the miliataraial strukture

Reaper6 wrote:
On a side note : Is there any way for a MOD to chop this discussion off of the Batrep and drop it into the You Make The Call forum, where it would be more suited ? It's hardly fair to the OP that his battle report be usurped by a debate, and it is a debate I'd like to continue since it is an interesting one IMO.

This doesn't sound like a rules debate. More like you are arguing and forgot what you are arguing about.

Reaper6 wrote:Any MOD that figures a way to achieve this, thanks.

I don't think the mods need to "figure" anything out more than you need to "figure" out what it is you are arguing for.

Ivan wrote:
Anyway, yeah, I think everyone thought you meant legal in-game ways to run 2 command platoons when you were talking about fluff. Which is probably why things got confused and snarky.

It scares me that the other guy thought we were talking about LEGAL military structure in real life. . . . I'm pretty damn sure the military can structure themselves however they want without needing to bring the law into it.

Ivan I love you btw.

Glaive Company CO wrote:There's no reason to for a MOD to have to cut this thrad up. Ivan, if you're pissed that we're puking all over you're thread you can always tell us to buzz off.

Reaper6, if you want to discuss this further in YMDC then by all means, feel free to start a thread there and state your case. I'll throw my hat into the ring. Before you do that though I just want to be sure of one thing:

Are you arguing 'real world' or 'in game' force organizations? If you're argument is that real life Imperial Guardsmen would operate at a battalion level in a sector then that's fine. In fact, I would assume that the Imperial Guard wouldn't even begin a campaign in a country without a few divisions of troops and armor.

...of course, one could counter that with the fact that there is no such thing as 'real life Imperial Guardsmen' and when we post battle reports on this forum they're actually just games that we've played using miniatures and dice. I'm assuming that is the case here, but Ivan can correct me if I'm wrong.

If you're argument is that in a game of WH40K using the Imperial Guard you can field multiple HQ's without using allies then please start the thread on YMDC and ignore my previous statements.

I would go a step further.

We are playing the game, and we are real, so therefore the game is real. How does one define reality? According to some dictionary I found on the Internet.

re.al.i.ty \re--'al-*t-e-\ n 1: the quality or state of being real 2a1: a
real event, entity, or state of affairs 2a2: the totality of real things
and events 2b: something that is neither derivative nor dependent but
exists necessari ly

Not sure what that does do with this thread, but from what I read, this thread has turned into a "argue whatever you want that has nothing to do with the original post" so hey, I want in on this party.

Honkey Bro wrote:
I would go a step further.

We are playing the game, and we are real, so therefore the game is real. How does one define reality? According to some dictionary I found on the Internet.

re.al.i.ty \re--'al-*t-e-\ n 1: the quality or state of being real 2a1: a
real event, entity, or state of affairs 2a2: the totality of real things
and events 2b: something that is neither derivative nor dependent but
exists necessari ly

Not sure what that does do with this thread, but from what I read, this thread has turned into a "argue whatever you want that has nothing to do with the original post" so hey, I want in on this party.

Who invited you into this conversation? Buzz off jerk!

Ivan:As long as you're happy for this debate being in your thread. You get fed up of it, then by all means as Glaive Company HQ said, tell us to buzz off. Your thread, your call.

Glaive Company CO wrote:Are you arguing 'real world' or 'in game' force organizations?

My argument is based on something almost as simple as Honkey Bro's sense of humour.

The 'in game' FOC was inspired by, and drawn from, a small section of a 'real world' regimental structure

The FOC for the Imperial Guard mirrors the regimental structure of several existing armed forces, but only covers a small portion of the regimental structure it mirrors. From this it is reasonable to assume that the larger Regimental Structure Chart would apply if the FOC for the Imperial Guard were expanded to the regimental level

Glaive Company CO wrote:If you're argument is that real life Imperial Guardsmen would operate at a battalion level in a sector then that's fine. In fact, I would assume that the Imperial Guard wouldn't even begin a campaign in a country without a few divisions of troops and armor.

Unless I'm misreading what you've written here, you seem to acknowledge the theoretical existence of a structure and chain of command expanding upward from the published IG FOC, which is the very core of my position !

Trust me, HonkeyBro's sense of humor is anything BUT simple. I must apologize now for mentioning this thread to him since now that he knows about it I'm sure it will soon perish. Until then...

I still ned some clarification on what your stance is. Earlier in this thread you post an armylist which is completely illegal to use on the table in a game of WH40K. This coupled with the fact that you have refered to the codex a few times makes it seem like you're trying to say that the IG can field multiple HQ's.

If this entire time you are just talking about the imagined larger sector that encompases the table top battlefield and the other forces that may or may not be engaged there then you've got a great point even though it doesn't help Ivan in his army creation.

...So, what ARE you talking about - real, or game?

Reaper6 wrote:My argument is based on something almost as simple as Honkey Bro's sense of humour.

Don't even try to associate with me, I'm on another plane of existence.

Reaper6 wrote:The 'in game' FOC was inspired by, and drawn from, a small section of a 'real world' regimental structure

The FOC for the Imperial Guard mirrors the regimental structure of several existing armed forces, but only covers a small portion of the regimental structure it mirrors. From this it is reasonable to assume that the larger Regimental Structure Chart would apply if the FOC for the Imperial Guard were expanded to the regimental level

What is the point? What are you trying to say? Simple question. There are 3 things you can be talking about: Fluff, Table Top Game, Real Life. Stop trying to blend them. Stop using long paragraphs no one reads, just tell us flat out what category are you speaking about?

Reaper6 wrote:Unless I'm misreading what you've written here, you seem to acknowledge the theoretical existence of a structure and chain of command expanding upward from the published IG FOC, which is the very core of my position !

What?

My position is based on GW's application of real regimental structure on the game's FOC, so my contention is about the game whilst the material sourced by GW in creating it's IG FOC is from the real world.

If the writers of the codex had meant for players to be entirely restriced to the FOC, without looking at the larger formation's structure and inherent command unit dispostitions why would they include a photo of a regiment and include, in that very photo, boxouts explaining the regimental command structure ?

The implication, and yes, I agree this is an assumption, is that this information was included to allow players to field forces from within this regimental structure that are of larger size than the standard FOC is designed to accomodate, yet not sufficient to enter into an Apoc sized force. By including this image and explaining it's elements, the writers show players that there is more to the regiment than the relatively small unit represented by the FOC, inviting players to explore and utilise this expanded version of the FOC.

It could be said that this photo was simply GW showing off it's mini collection yet again, and to a point I'd happily agree. Unfortunately, a similar image in the Space Marine Codex (5th Edition, pages 124 & 125) shows a force at the Company level, arranged in a 'Parade Ground' formation, without the boxouts to explain any differences between what you can see and the SM FOC, making this image nothing more than GW showing off it's minis, unlike the 'Parade Ground' style image in the IG Codex.

So again I ask, if the writers of the codex had meant for players to be entirely restriced to the FOC, without looking at the larger formation's structure and inherent command unit dispostitions why would they include a photo of a regiment and include, in that very photo, boxouts explaining the regimental command structure ?

Honkey Bro wrote:Don't even try to associate with me, I'm on another plane of existence.

Clearly ! So light another and enjoy it, or do something constructive like seeing how far you can push a pencil up your nose before it pokes you in the eye.

I get it, really I do, but if your job is really that dull find another, don't come on here and try to disrupt a debate you don't like. There are plenty of other threads, find one you like, get comfy and vegetate in peace.

Reaper6 wrote:

Honkey Bro wrote:Don't even try to associate with me, I'm on another plane of existence.

Clearly ! So light another and enjoy it, or do something constructive like seeing how far you can push a pencil up your nose before it pokes you in the eye.

I get it, really I do, but if your job is really that dull find another, don't come on here and try to disrupt a debate you don't like. There are plenty of other threads, find one you like, get comfy and vegetate in peace.

It isn't the debate I don't like. It's the fact that the original poster was getting feedback about his list and how he can make it legal, then you come in with your moronic imagination and confuse the matter. Future IG players will read your posts and get confused on how the Codex structure works. Rather than just let off and admit that nothing you posted here has anything to do with legal army lists, you continue to post dribble.

Reaper6 wrote:So again I ask, if the writers of the codex had meant for players to be entirely restriced to the FOC, without looking at the larger formation's structure and inherent command unit dispostitions why would they include a photo of a regiment and include, in that very photo, boxouts explaining the regimental command structure ?

OK, now we can begin. Each codex that is released has what is usually refered to as 'fluff' sections in it as well as rules sections. The 'fluff' sections have no bearing on the rules. They are there to spark our imaginations, not help us on the table top. While I agree that the lines are sometimes blurred between the two in this matter it seems pretty straightforward.

Example: (Page 15 Imperial Guard Codex) There is a picture of a Cadian Shock Trooper armed with a Lasgun, an Autopistol, and a Combat Knife. On page 34 the book states that "Imperial Guard characters may have two weapons, of which only one may be two-handed." None of the squad sections mention being able to give a guardsman extra weapons like those pictured on page 15. There is also no allowance for it on page 58 under the Cadian Shock Troops section.

Example: (Page 17 Imperial Guard Codex) This section describes what it takes to create a basic PLAYABLE force of IG. There are a few pictures keying in on the fact that the IG choices don't deal in units, rather in Platoons of units, but the end result is that the standard FOC is sited there and there isn't anything to lead us to believe that we can go against it.

The crux of this debate lies not on pages 10-11 either. It is actually on pages 37-38. On the bottom left of page 37 there is a little box. It is the same little box in all of the codex's of this era and it is describing the FOC for Standard Missions. Toward the end of the paragraph it states "...Up to 1 additional HQ unit..." This could lead players to think that they are able to take two Command Platoons. At the top of page 38 it tells us that we can only ever choose 1 Command Platoon though. So, although we can field 2 HQ units in an IG force only one of them can (and must) be a Command Platoon.

The main point is that while a collector may purchase and build an army like the one pictured on pages 10-11, to field a PLAYABLE army he must follow the rules of the FOC.

Reaper6 wrote:

If the writers of the codex had meant for players to be entirely restriced to the FOC, without looking at the larger formation's structure and inherent command unit dispostitions why would they include a photo of a regiment and include, in that very photo, boxouts explaining the regimental command structure ?

OMG. You have got to be the most dense person I ever met (besides Popeye, as he was called, I have a picture, but Yak says I can't post it anymore).

The Codex books have lots of sections that are just fluff. Background stories are there to grasp your imagination and make you feel good. It has been proven many many times that fluff isn't a rule. You are actually claiming that because there is a picture showing something outside the FOC, it was the intention of GW to have IG players ignore the FOC even though the FOC is in that very codex o.O

A very neat, and accurate, dissection of a codex there, Glaive Company CO ( may I refer to you as 'Glaive' to save typing the full handle all the time ?) and one with which I have no dispute since it could easily be applied to pretty much every codex, ( here it comes... ... wait for it... )

However ( see, there it is ) that still doesn't recognise the existance of the rest of this fictional regiment and the way in which it can influence the composition of any force larger than a detachment yet still within the range of WH40K before you upscale to Apoc sized forces. If, as the FOC outlines, each detachment would have it's own comand platoon, and you had sufficient points remaining (without the upscale to Apoc) to field a second detachment from the same regiment, how would you justify it on the limited scale of the FOC as published ?

Edited for removal of un-neccessary quote.

So now we are talking about rules to build an army between Apoc and WH40K? Isn't there a house rules section? Do not post in a army list thread about some house fluff rules you think exist for armies outside the scope of 40k or Apoc.

This thread needs to be locked.

Reaper6 wrote:If, as the FOC outlines, each detachment would have it's own comand platoon, and you had sufficient points remaining (without the upscale to Apoc) to field a second detachment from the same regiment, how would you justify it on the limited scale of the FOC as published ?

You would not justify it. That is the issue. There simply is no allowance in the rules for fielding multiple detachments within the same FOC. Fielding two FOC's is fine, but your opponent would then have the same open slots as well. Besides, I don't know why a guard player wouldn't put his points toward 3 more tanks before a second Command Platoon. The point levels we would be talking about would begin to apporach the minimum size Apocalypse game anyway. My core force of 3 platoons that I run is over 800 points. GW has given us ways to field multiple detachments from the same regiment with Apocalypse but within the standard FOC it just isn't possible within the rules.

Which only leads us back to the largest ambiguity of the IG FOC.

As I read it, the FOC in conjunction with the Army List allows for UP TO 2 HQ choices.

Choice 1, Comand Platoon which comprises of :
Command Squad plus any combination of the following within stated limits on types and numbers:
0-2 Fire Support Squads.
0-2 Anti Tank Support Squads.
0-2 Mortar Support Squads.

The boxout immediately following states that no more than two support squads of each type ( or one in the case of Sentinel Squadrons) may be used.

All well and good until you then come to choose your second HQ choice ( assuming you've already selected your Troops Choices )

Without the addition of a second Detachment, what do you take ?

( I know I've left the question hanging, but there is a reason )

Nothing. Do you even play IG?

HonkeyBro has basically summed it up. Some armies just don't get the mileage out of the FOC as much as others do.

For example: The Necrons can only take two units of Warriors (they're only Troops choice) unless a Monolith is also taken.

Does a Necron army without a Monolith have 6 Troop choices available? Yes.

Can it use more than 2? No.

It's the same as the IG. We have an imposed rule that actually keeps us from using the second HQ slot.

...UNLESS allies are taken as is often the case. An IG army that has allied with the Witch Hunters may take an Inquisitor Lord as the second HQ choice. So in this way the IG can fill the FOC, but not by breaking the rule of only being allowed one Command Platoon.

Honkey Bro wrote:Nothing. Do you even play IG?

Nope, and never said I did. When my original suggestion was queried I entered into this discussion to learn how other players approach this flawed FOC and justified it to themselves.

Oh, one more thing, Honkey Bro...

... well done !

After bringing nothing of use to this discussion you FINALLY asked a question that made sense

Glaive Company CO wrote:...UNLESS allies are taken as is often the case. An IG army that has allied with the Witch Hunters may take an Inquisitor Lord as the second HQ choice. So in this way the IG can fill the FOC, but not by breaking the rule of only being allowed one Command Platoon.

It's been a while since I used Allies, and I'm about 11 miles from my books, give me a reminder of the current rule ( if you can cite a source and page too so I can read it later I'd appreciate it )

Reaper6 wrote:

Honkey Bro wrote:Nothing. Do you even play IG?

Nope, and never said I did. When my original suggestion was queried I entered into this discussion to learn how other players approach this flawed FOC and justified it to themselves.

Oh, one more thing, Honkey Bro...

... well done !

After bringing nothing of use to this discussion you FINALLY asked a question that made sense

What?

Reaper6 wrote:It's been a while since I used Allies, and I'm about 11 miles from my books, give me a reminder of the current rule ( if you can cite a source and page too so I can read it later I'd appreciate it )

Unfortunately there's nothing in the IG codex that will help. It doesn't mention them. But the Witch Hunter and Demon Hunter books both have specific rules for allying with Space Marine and Imperial Guard armies.

Basically, you are allowed 1 HQ and 1 Elite max along with some other choices. These choices are key though because if you want an Assassin in your force it must be accompanied by an Inquisitor. Since the Elite choice Inquisitor would take up the single Elite slot needed for the Assassin itself the HQ choice - Inquisitor Lord must be taken and he fits in nicely since we always have an HQ slot open.

Even without considering allies though having only one Command Platoon in an army is a fair trade off since it could possibly include 6 different contesting units including a squadron of walkers. This was more relevant in 4th edition when all of these units could also claim objectives but it's still a good point to keep in mind when wondering why the army only gets a single HQ slot.

I thought you were going to quote rules Glaive, you liar! Looks like he has you over a barrel if you can't even come up with anything to counter his position.

Reaper6, you have won me over btw. I gave your posts another read through and I think I'm getting to understand what you are trying to say.

Glaive Company CO : Thanks, I'll check it out later & get back to you, I've got both of those kicking around somewhere.

Honkey Bro : I'm stunned ! A comment directed at me without an obvious dig ! Seriously though, thanks for taking the time to look back through and giving it some thought.

I have, and I agree with you, that the list you posted earlier is valid.

I do have one question. Earlier Glaive mentions that the HQ unit can have up to 5 units on top of the HQ choice itself. Would the 2nd one also be able to do this? That would be pretty hot and it sounds like it would fit the rules.

Since the 2nd unit would be the command unit of a different detachment I would assume so, but I hadn't thought that far into the concept so I'm not sure exactly how it would play out. My idea was just about adding a second command squad in a legit way.

That's just given me an idea. If the IG can ally with other imperial units ( I'll look into that ), theoretically the main IG force could ally with the Command Squad of a different Regiment !

Example : If you build a force of Cadians, it might be possible to take a Catachan Comand Squad as an ally, since it would be from a different Regiment AND fill the spare HQ slot.

Brilliant!

Not legal, sadly.

Shame. Oh well, it was a nice idea. Care to explain where it crosses the rules Ivan ? As you may have noticed, I'm a little rusty on the Allies rules.

Yeah in the IG Codex there is no Catachan HQ squad, Cadian HQ squad, etc. There is just an HQ squad and the models/color scheme determine the regiment.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

The Army list entry presumably doesn't define squads by regiment so players are not obliged to field squads from regiments that they don't collect, just like the SM codex states Captain, not 'Blood Ravens Captain'. The distinction is left to the player to decide depending on the force they collect.

That doesn't answer the question regarding IG of one regiment taking allies from another regiment being against the rules though.

Sorry Ozy, I'm looking for a little information here.

There are no rules for regiments, that's the point I was making.

Since there are no rules for regiments, you can't get around the restriction.

To put it another way, if the SM codex said you could take one Captain (and only one) you couldn't say, "Well this is an Ultramarines Captain and this other one is a Blood Ravens Captain, therefore I'm OK." The rules you are describing don't exist.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I was about to start IG, but after reading this thread I will never touch IG unless it is to throw it. Ask Glaive, I am an extremely bad impulse buyer. My wife will thank you reaper6 for convincing me never to play IG.

Don't be so hasty Coach. New IG codex in May. Imho, I'd wait until then to make up my mind.

Ozymandias wrote:There are no rules for regiments, that's the point I was making.

Well, there are in a way, but that's Apoc which is outside the scope of this discussion.

Ozymandias wrote:To put it another way, if the SM codex said you could take one Captain (and only one) you couldn't say, "Well this is an Ultramarines Captain and this other one is a Blood Ravens Captain, therefore I'm OK." The rules you are describing don't exist.

Actually, they do for SM. It's called Crusade and, to date, has not been superceded, overwritten or debunked by any official GAMING publication or FAQ from GW so still counts as a viable ruling.

Anyway, we're discussing IG here, not SM, and I wasn't asking for Regimental rules. I'm asking about ALLIES rules and how they apply to the IG.

focusedfire wrote:Don't be so hasty Coach. New IG codex in May. Imho, I'd wait until then to make up my mind.

QFT. Sound buying advice.

Honkey Bro wrote:I do have one question. Earlier Glaive mentions that the HQ unit can have up to 5 units on top of the HQ choice itself. Would the 2nd one also be able to do this? That would be pretty hot and it sounds like it would fit the rules.

That's it! I've had enough! You guys are way off! HonkeyBro and Ivan are in danger of derailing this thread and it looks like it's up to me and Reaper6 to get things back on track! I just hope the OP hasn't lost faith in the system yet. Now, I don't own any rulebooks but I do have a bunch of White Dwarfs in my closet. Even though I let my subscription run out a while ago I think I'm still good. So apparently, there's this new tank comming out called the "Whirlwind" and it looks pretty cool unless you roll a 'Misfire.' Either way, there isn't anything in the rules for it NOT being able to be allied with the IG and since they've got an extra HQ slot open it should fit in perfectly. Anyways, if these new 'Warp Spiders' are as awesome as they look we'll need all the help we can get.

Oh, and Nitro do NOT start the IG. Even after we get a new dex, don't start. Just stay alive. No matter what occurs I will find you. Just stay alive!

That doesn't make sense on any level.

Nitro, I made a very large bid on your behalf for this 3k point IG army. You owe me quite a bit of moola.

To those posting earlier, the point Reaper and I are trying to make you seem to miss.

We are not talking about having two styles of IG in the same army (IE Cadian and Catachan). We are talking about the same army, but being able to use the 2nd HQ slot as intended.

But the intended use of the second HQ slot was not as a useable IG HQ choice, rather for a HQ choice of a different sort then that of the IG. So, to put it more plainly:

The open HQ slot has nothing in it, which is to say that it is empty for the purposes of containing any units chosen from the codex. Once filled, the second HQ slot now has not only the potential, but the purpose of containing units that fulfil the role of being a HQ choice.

Finally Glaive gets it!

Don't tell me when I get it! I'll tell YOU when I get it!

NO need to get hostile jerk!

Oh, you haven't seen hostile yet! I'll show you hostile! You just get ready because the hosile is coming! When it gets here you're not going to like it either. You're going to be all like "Oh man, what the heck happened!?" and I'll be like "I just got hostile man, thats what happened."

Yeah, that would be cool.

psst you are bluffing

Ha! Bluffing? Reaper6, tell HonkeyBro wether or not I'm bluffing!

It's Honkey Bro not HonkeyBro you moron!

Honkey Bro wrote:We are not talking about having two styles of IG in the same army (IE Cadian and Catachan). We are talking about the same army, but being able to use the 2nd HQ slot as intended.

That sums it up pretty well there, Honkey Bro, very nicely put.

Glaive Company CO wrote:But the intended use of the second HQ slot was not as a useable IG HQ choice, rather for a HQ choice of a different sort then that of the IG.

Ah, I see. I'm afraid I can poke TWO pretty big holes in that.

1) If, as you say, the extra HQ slot is INTENDED for non IG units, why doesn't the IG's own codex mention Allies for the benefit of those who don't have the other codecise ?

2) Every other codex has the ability to completely fill it's FOC from it's own army list, where's it printed that the IG can't use all their slots ? (other than the 0-1 Command Squad entry in the list )

On another note ( or rather series of notes ):

Glaive Company CO wrote:Now, I don't own any rulebooks but I do have a bunch of White Dwarfs in my closet

I think it's time for you to invest in a 5th ed rulebook, because...

Glaive Company CO wrote:Even though I let my subscription run out a while ago I think I'm still good. So apparently, there's this new tank comming out called the "Whirlwind"

It's been out for AGES ! Google the sucker and see for yourself. Looks like some of your info needs a little updating, and as for allying it with the IG, well it's a SM Heavy Support Choice, so it's possible ( Suggest adding Codex Space Marines to you shopping list )

Glaive Company CO wrote:Ha! Bluffing? Reaper6, tell HonkeyBro wether or not I'm bluffing!

How the heck would I know I'm in the UK ! Still, if you two want to duke it out, just tell me where & when. I'll sell the tickets and cut you both in for 1/3 of the take

Boooya! Reaper6 got my back biatch

Well, as Ivan and I have stated from the begining the FOC in it's current form does not apply to the IG. So, the OP may need to reapply the rules of the new codex to the armylist to achieve maximum compatability with the new rules.

As far as you other jokers you have mada a classic blunder! Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! The battle of wits has begun!

How can you possibly know anything about the new rules if you don't even have Version 5 man!

Aren't Schaeffer and his Last Chancers a legal (and murderous) codex choise to fill out the 2nd HQ slot? IIRC he can be attached to the Foc as an HQ...

Pssh! "Version 5, Version 5!" That's all I ever hear from you man! It's time to put your mouth where your money is! If you're so in love with Version 5 why don't you marry it?

hehe, did you guys see what I did there? I was all like "Hey man if you love Version 5 so much why don't you marry it?" Oh man! FACE!

Seriously though, I play the IG in DOW a lot so I'm good on the rules.

Glaive, you know its not fair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Reaper6 and Honkey Bro: You guys are too easy...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Glaive Company CO wrote:Seriously though, I play the IG in DOW a lot so I'm good on the rules.

Damn, that's funny sigged

that's like saying you play GTA IV, so your allowed to kill, maim, steal cars and batter hookers ! And to think, I actually thought you knew what you were talking about. I gotta admit, you had me fooled for a while because your position ALMOST countered mine.

Go buy a rulebook and a couple of codecise, then debate me. I'll be happy if you prove me wrong, seriously, I will, because it'll be something I can learn from but not until you can back your statements up with the rules of WH40K, not a damn PC game.

Reaper6.... you do know Glaive is being sarcastic right? Right........

Don't you dare listen to foil. He's been against me since the start of this thread!

Reaper6 wrote:that's like saying you play GTA IV, so your allowed to kill, maim, steal cars and batter hookers ! And to think, I actually thought you knew what you were talking about. I gotta admit, you had me fooled for a while because your position ALMOST countered mine.

Close, but as usual, you're way off! It's more like saying that I play GTA III so that proves that a human can carry a minigun, a sex toy, a can of spray paint, a pistol, a submachine gun, and a shotgun. Actually, this is entirely possible but how can that give you ZERO sex appeal to that one chick on top of the gun store? Now THAT'S unpossible!

Reaper6 wrote:Go buy a rulebook and a couple of codecise, then debate me. I'll be happy if you prove me wrong, seriously, I will, because it'll be something I can learn from but not until you can back your statements up with the rules of WH40K, not a damn PC game.

I don't require books or codecise to debate you sir. I am what is known as a "master debater." You could use all of the rulebooks to back up your preposterous theories that you can possibly buy but it still won't help you. I've got something much MUCH more valuable. Life experience. As a 14 year old living in the USA I think I've seen enough of this big bad world to know a thing or two so tread lightly before talking to me about these so called "books."

Foil : Sarcastic or not, that was still a sig-worthy comment.

Glaive : Until your last couple of posts this was actually an enjoyable debate, then you went and sabotaged your own credibility more effectively than a US president with brunette hairs stuck in his belt buckle.

If you want to carry on the debate in the original spirit that's fine with me. If, however, you want to continue to torpedo yourself, then enjoy, but I guess this ends the debate with you having no valid counterpoint to my contention.

Wait! Don't go yet, this is too good! What was your contention again? I'm sure I can come up with a counterpoint that can be considered valid to some degree.

I too got lost on the "debate". I remember you (Reaper6) asking a question, us answering, "There are no rules for that" and you refusing to believe that was the case.

So what was the question again?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

See 14 posts up, I'm sure you'll remember soon.

so what you're saying is IG suck at KP with version 5?
I'm confused so IG can have two HQs right? I just bid on a 5k point IG on ebay so I need the answer fast.

stoping whining and start playing SPACE MARINES the only reason GW made iG is to make space marines cooler

konst80hummel wrote:Aren't Schaeffer and his Last Chancers a legal (and murderous) codex choise to fill out the 2nd HQ slot? IIRC he can be attached to the Foc as an HQ...

I think this is true, if you field Schaeffer and a certain number of last chances, they count as a HQ and two troops. I don't remember if in the Codex it states they count as your HQ choice (I.E. count as the ONE you are allowed) or if they can be taken in conjunction with a Command Platoon. If so, then IG can also fill both HQ slots from 1 codex.

Ladies & Gentlemen, WE HAVE A WINNER !

konst80hummel wrote: Aren't Schaeffer and his Last Chancers a legal (and murderous) codex choise to fill out the 2nd HQ slot? IIRC he can be attached to the Foc as an HQ...

You're quite right. Quote from IG codex, p54:

The Last Chancers count as a HQ selection on the Force Organisation Chart. If more than 8 models are taken ( including Schaeffer and Kage ) they count as a Troops selection as well. If more than 16 models are taken they count as two Troops selections as well.

The entry DOES NOT say they REPLACE the existing Command Platoon, so they may be taken AS WELL AS the 0-1 Command Platoon entry in the army list.

Sorry for missing your post in all the fuss, konst80hummel , and a hat-tip to Dexy for drawing it back to my attention .

But ( and I'm not going to try to invalidate the Last Chancers point ), what if you don't want the Last Chancers, or they don't fit in with the theme of your army ? My original suggestion would still seem to be the way to go in that case.

CoachNitro : A 5K army is big enough for Apocalypse games, so you're covered either way. Enjoy your purchase and keep watching, we'll get to the bottom of this sooner or later.

Reaper6 wrote:...But ( and I'm not going to try to invalidate the Last Chancers point ), what if you don't want the Last Chancers, or they don't fit in with the theme of your army ? My original suggestion would still seem to be the way to go in that case.

Don't try to use facts now. We've been gettig along all this time without them so far that there's no reason to confuse the subject now with reason. We want to fill that second HQ slot with a second illegal Command Platoon not a valid Special Character option and darnit we're going to do it! Unfortunately my expertise lies more with the Ultramarines. I know their army creation inside and out. I probably know more about the Ultramarines than just about anyone on these boards. So, if we were trying to squeeze a third HQ into THAT army then I've got a completely valid way to do that but with the guard it is much MUCH more difficult because of their complex organization that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Sternguard_rock wrote:stoping whining and start playing SPACE MARINES the only reason GW made iG is to make space marines cooler

One of the best posts I've seen here yet. Reaper6, I think you've got some competition! It is a great point though. Perhaps we've been going about this whole second HQ thing the wrong way. I think what the codex is REALLY trying to say is that it's fine to put more than one Command Platoon down because it's never going to help you in a game of WH40K. In fact it will probably hurt you as was proven at the begining of this thread. It's like cheating in the 40 yard dash by taking qualudes beforehand. Sure, you'll fail the drug test but who's going to bother giving you a drug test when it takes you 12 minutes to finish the race? I think I see where you're going now Reaper6.

Ozymandias wrote:Glaive, you know its not fair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Wits, I'm surprised you know the word my dear sir!

Reaper6 wrote:
Glaive : Until your last couple of posts this was actually an enjoyable debate, then you went and sabotaged your own credibility more effectively than a US president with brunette hairs stuck in his belt buckle.

Listen Redcoat, if you weren't too busy drinking tea and eating meat pies (not the good kind) you would have totally saw that she was somewhat hot when you have had enough to drink. Isn't there a soccer game you need to go be violent at?

Ozymandias wrote:I too got lost on the "debate". I remember you (Reaper6) asking a question, us answering, "There are no rules for that" and you refusing to believe that was the case.

I got a question. Who are you?

Reaper6 wrote:Ladies & Gentlemen, WE HAVE A WINNER !

konst80hummel wrote: Aren't Schaeffer and his Last Chancers a legal (and murderous) codex choise to fill out the 2nd HQ slot? IIRC he can be attached to the Foc as an HQ...

You're quite right. Quote from IG codex, p54:

The Last Chancers count as a HQ selection on the Force Organisation Chart. If more than 8 models are taken ( including Schaeffer and Kage ) they count as a Troops selection as well. If more than 16 models are taken they count as two Troops selections as well.

The entry DOES NOT say they REPLACE the existing Command Platoon, so they may be taken AS WELL AS the 0-1 Command Platoon entry in the army list.

Sorry for missing your post in all the fuss, konst80hummel , and a hat-tip to Dexy for drawing it back to my attention .

But ( and I'm not going to try to invalidate the Last Chancers point ), what if you don't want the Last Chancers, or they don't fit in with the theme of your army ? My original suggestion would still seem to be the way to go in that case.

CoachNitro : A 5K army is big enough for Apocalypse games, so you're covered either way. Enjoy your purchase and keep watching, we'll get to the bottom of this sooner or later.

Umm that doesn't help us get a 2nd Command Platoon into a game dude.

Honkey Bro wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Glaive, you know its not fair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Wits, I'm surprised you know the word my dear sir!

Reaper6 wrote:
Glaive : Until your last couple of posts this was actually an enjoyable debate, then you went and sabotaged your own credibility more effectively than a US president with brunette hairs stuck in his belt buckle.

Listen Redcoat, if you weren't too busy drinking tea and eating meat pies (not the good kind) you would have totally saw that she was somewhat hot when you have had enough to drink. Isn't there a soccer game you need to go be violent at?

Ozymandias wrote:I too got lost on the "debate". I remember you (Reaper6) asking a question, us answering, "There are no rules for that" and you refusing to believe that was the case.

I got a question. Who are you?

Reaper6 wrote:Ladies & Gentlemen, WE HAVE A WINNER !

konst80hummel wrote: Aren't Schaeffer and his Last Chancers a legal (and murderous) codex choise to fill out the 2nd HQ slot? IIRC he can be attached to the Foc as an HQ...

You're quite right. Quote from IG codex, p54:

The Last Chancers count as a HQ selection on the Force Organisation Chart. If more than 8 models are taken ( including Schaeffer and Kage ) they count as a Troops selection as well. If more than 16 models are taken they count as two Troops selections as well.

The entry DOES NOT say they REPLACE the existing Command Platoon, so they may be taken AS WELL AS the 0-1 Command Platoon entry in the army list.

Sorry for missing your post in all the fuss, konst80hummel , and a hat-tip to Dexy for drawing it back to my attention .

But ( and I'm not going to try to invalidate the Last Chancers point ), what if you don't want the Last Chancers, or they don't fit in with the theme of your army ? My original suggestion would still seem to be the way to go in that case.

CoachNitro : A 5K army is big enough for Apocalypse games, so you're covered either way. Enjoy your purchase and keep watching, we'll get to the bottom of this sooner or later.

Umm that doesn't help us get a 2nd Command Platoon into a game dude.

None of that makes sense you R-Tard!

Honkey Bro wrote:

Honkey Bro wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Glaive, you know its not fair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Wits, I'm surprised you know the word my dear sir!

Reaper6 wrote:
Glaive : Until your last couple of posts this was actually an enjoyable debate, then you went and sabotaged your own credibility more effectively than a US president with brunette hairs stuck in his belt buckle.

Listen Redcoat, if you weren't too busy drinking tea and eating meat pies (not the good kind) you would have totally saw that she was somewhat hot when you have had enough to drink. Isn't there a soccer game you need to go be violent at?

Ozymandias wrote:I too got lost on the "debate". I remember you (Reaper6) asking a question, us answering, "There are no rules for that" and you refusing to believe that was the case.

I got a question. Who are you?

Reaper6 wrote:Ladies & Gentlemen, WE HAVE A WINNER !

konst80hummel wrote: Aren't Schaeffer and his Last Chancers a legal (and murderous) codex choise to fill out the 2nd HQ slot? IIRC he can be attached to the Foc as an HQ...

You're quite right. Quote from IG codex, p54:

The Last Chancers count as a HQ selection on the Force Organisation Chart. If more than 8 models are taken ( including Schaeffer and Kage ) they count as a Troops selection as well. If more than 16 models are taken they count as two Troops selections as well.

The entry DOES NOT say they REPLACE the existing Command Platoon, so they may be taken AS WELL AS the 0-1 Command Platoon entry in the army list.

Sorry for missing your post in all the fuss, konst80hummel , and a hat-tip to Dexy for drawing it back to my attention .

But ( and I'm not going to try to invalidate the Last Chancers point ), what if you don't want the Last Chancers, or they don't fit in with the theme of your army ? My original suggestion would still seem to be the way to go in that case.

CoachNitro : A 5K army is big enough for Apocalypse games, so you're covered either way. Enjoy your purchase and keep watching, we'll get to the bottom of this sooner or later.

Umm that doesn't help us get a 2nd Command Platoon into a game dude.

None of that makes sense you R-Tard!

In before Glaive finishes his post, he writes so slow

Honkey Bro wrote:

Honkey Bro wrote:

Honkey Bro wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Glaive, you know its not fair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Wits, I'm surprised you know the word my dear sir!

Reaper6 wrote:
Glaive : Until your last couple of posts this was actually an enjoyable debate, then you went and sabotaged your own credibility more effectively than a US president with brunette hairs stuck in his belt buckle.

Listen Redcoat, if you weren't too busy drinking tea and eating meat pies (not the good kind) you would have totally saw that she was somewhat hot when you have had enough to drink. Isn't there a soccer game you need to go be violent at?

Ozymandias wrote:I too got lost on the "debate". I remember you (Reaper6) asking a question, us answering, "There are no rules for that" and you refusing to believe that was the case.

I got a question. Who are you?

Reaper6 wrote:Ladies & Gentlemen, WE HAVE A WINNER !

konst80hummel wrote: Aren't Schaeffer and his Last Chancers a legal (and murderous) codex choise to fill out the 2nd HQ slot? IIRC he can be attached to the Foc as an HQ...

You're quite right. Quote from IG codex, p54:

The Last Chancers count as a HQ selection on the Force Organisation Chart. If more than 8 models are taken ( including Schaeffer and Kage ) they count as a Troops selection as well. If more than 16 models are taken they count as two Troops selections as well.

The entry DOES NOT say they REPLACE the existing Command Platoon, so they may be taken AS WELL AS the 0-1 Command Platoon entry in the army list.

Sorry for missing your post in all the fuss, konst80hummel , and a hat-tip to Dexy for drawing it back to my attention .

But ( and I'm not going to try to invalidate the Last Chancers point ), what if you don't want the Last Chancers, or they don't fit in with the theme of your army ? My original suggestion would still seem to be the way to go in that case.

CoachNitro : A 5K army is big enough for Apocalypse games, so you're covered either way. Enjoy your purchase and keep watching, we'll get to the bottom of this sooner or later.

Umm that doesn't help us get a 2nd Command Platoon into a game dude.

None of that makes sense you R-Tard!

In before Glaive finishes his post, he writes so slow

And I mean sloooooooooooow

Honkey Bro wrote:

Reaper6 wrote:
Glaive : Until your last couple of posts this was actually an enjoyable debate, then you went and sabotaged your own credibility more effectively than a US president with brunette hairs stuck in his belt buckle.

UH OH! Now you've done it Reaper6! Insulting our fearless leader around Honkey Bro is like making fun of a bulldog for being able to kill you. He's got every single movie the Duke ever made. Yeah, he's even got True Grit. Maybe if you'd watched more of these movies yourself you'd know more about how the IG work as a force.

[edit] In after Honkey Bro! He types soooo FAST! [edit]

And how America works sucker! Ask your grandpa he knows.

How the hell is this thread not locked yet?

chaplaingrabthar wrote:How the hell is this thread not locked yet?

Why you wanna lock it?

chaplaingrabthar wrote:How the hell is this thread not locked yet?

Because this is an incredibly relevant debate and since we're all being so civil it's...

OMG!11!!!!one1! It's a Tau! You're the reason we had to start this whole thread! You Tau and your exploitation of the Kill Points against us poor IG! How do you sleep at night? It's because of you guys that we have to do things like create 2 Command Platoons and ally with Whirlwinds and play GTA IV!

Check Mate!