CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
take more detachments.

Which costs precious CP, and is even more crippling now that you only start at 6 CP in a 2000 point game and have to pay for the formerly-free WLT and relic.

lol yeah, at the moment i don't have much value as a customer, but i still have value as a customer currently, and it's really bad business to price customers out, because once you do that they're unlikely to come back when they're no longer priced out of the hobby...but the whole 'well i can afford it' or 'well i already have the models' mentality is so selfish and gakky. then one day you'll be priced out of the hobby as well, and you'll be crying about it.

Ok? You're the one who tried to make the argument that platoons are bad because they make the game too expensive and GW has a selfish interest in not doing it, it's not my fault that the reality of the current game is outside your budget with or without platoons. Call it selfish if you want but the reality is that you aren't a desirable customer for GW.

CP rules will change again in 3-9 months, that’s not a big deal.
Or maybe then the increase in firepower from increased numbers off sets the lower starting CP handicap, but now we get CP in each player’s command phase, so it’s not really that big of a deal.

And again, I explained why platoons would be bad for this faction, not for the game or the company. I have a space marine army that’s much more affordable to expand. The platoon system coming back as it was, would likely be a death knell for this faction. Obviously things wouldn’t shrivel up and die overnight but in the long term if the model wasn’t changed it would be the death of the faction.

Also I’d love to know who you think the target demo is, if you think people who can’t afford to drop $300+ in a year on plastic army men aren’t ‘valuable’ customers.
Most people my age don’t have $400 in savings and are spending 30-50% of their monthly income on housing costs.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
unless platoons can consist of a single squad, platoons are a terrible choice for the future of this army.

i've said in YT comments on the subject many times now.
platoons create a high financial bar of entry.

assuming we go back to something old school in how platoons work, a basic army required to play using platoons would look like this.

I doubt that. Just making Company and Platoon Commanders back into Command Squads doesn’t come with much in terms of additional costs. As you’re likely buying the 5 man Command Squad boxes anyway.

Infantry Platoons could easily be simplified to what they were previously, such as 1-3 Infantry Squads. So the minimum remains the same, it just opens up more troop slots for additional squads.

Jarms48 wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
unless platoons can consist of a single squad, platoons are a terrible choice for the future of this army.

i've said in YT comments on the subject many times now.
platoons create a high financial bar of entry.

assuming we go back to something old school in how platoons work, a basic army required to play using platoons would look like this.

I doubt that. Just making Company and Platoon Commanders back into Command Squads doesn’t come with much in terms of additional costs. As you’re likely buying the 5 man Command Squad boxes anyway.

Infantry Platoons could easily be simplified to what they were previously, such as 1-3 Infantry Squads. So the minimum remains the same, it just opens up more troop slots for additional squads.

ill check my old codexes but I thought a platoon mandated 2 infantry squads per platoon.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
CP rules will change again in 3-9 months, that’s not a big deal.

{citation needed}

This is purely your speculation that this is the case. And no, the advantage of multiple detachments does not offset starting at 0-1 CP in a game where the events of turn 1-2 are far more important than the events of turn 4-5. Being able to take multiple infantry squads in a single troops slot would be a win, and it would be a massive win if it comes along with putting SWS and HWS back into platoons.

And again, I explained why platoons would be bad for this faction, not for the game or the company. I have a space marine army that’s much more affordable to expand. The platoon system coming back as it was, would likely be a death knell for this faction. Obviously things wouldn’t shrivel up and die overnight but in the long term if the model wasn’t changed it would be the death of the faction.

You explained but your explanation doesn't match reality. GW isn't targeting 8 year olds who only have $50/year in birthday money, they're targeting adults with disposable income. And that target market isn't going to be discouraged by having to buy a full 25-model platoon to build their first army because they're buying a 500 point army to start with and expanding to 2000 points as fast as they can build and paint the models.

Also I’d love to know who you think the target demo is, if you think people who can’t afford to drop $300+ in a year on plastic army men aren’t ‘valuable’ customers.
Most people my age don’t have $400 in savings and are spending 30-50% of their monthly income on housing costs.

The target is adults with established careers, people like my coworkers who spend $300 in one trip to the gun range with their $5,000 AR-15 or $10,000/year just in parking fees for their boat. They'll take your money if they can get it, of course, but they're designing the game for the people who will impulse buy $1000 worth of stuff just because they can.

They did, however, give you Kill Team as a great option for a low-cost game in the 40k universe. Maybe that would be better suited to your needs?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
CP rules will change again in 3-9 months, that’s not a big deal.

{citation needed}

This is purely your speculation that this is the case. And no, the advantage of multiple detachments does not offset starting at 0-1 CP in a game where the events of turn 1-2 are far more important than the events of turn 4-5. Being able to take multiple infantry squads in a single troops slot would be a win, and it would be a massive win if it comes along with putting SWS and HWS back into platoons.

And again, I explained why platoons would be bad for this faction, not for the game or the company. I have a space marine army that’s much more affordable to expand. The platoon system coming back as it was, would likely be a death knell for this faction. Obviously things wouldn’t shrivel up and die overnight but in the long term if the model wasn’t changed it would be the death of the faction.

You explained but your explanation doesn't match reality. GW isn't targeting 8 year olds who only have $50/year in birthday money, they're targeting adults with disposable income. And that target market isn't going to be discouraged by having to buy a full 25-model platoon to build their first army because they're buying a 500 point army to start with and expanding to 2000 points as fast as they can build and paint the models.

Also I’d love to know who you think the target demo is, if you think people who can’t afford to drop $300+ in a year on plastic army men aren’t ‘valuable’ customers.
Most people my age don’t have $400 in savings and are spending 30-50% of their monthly income on housing costs.

The target is adults with established careers, people like my coworkers who spend $300 in one trip to the gun range with their $5,000 AR-15 or $10,000/year just in parking fees for their boat. They'll take your money if they can get it, of course, but they're designing the game for the people who will impulse buy $1000 worth of stuff just because they can.

They did, however, give you Kill Team as a great option for a low-cost game in the 40k universe. Maybe that would be better suited to your needs?

GW is targeting people with disposable income? Who is that exactly? Not minors. Not the majority of millennials, so is GW targeting boomers and the greatest generation?
Bruh, very few people have $5k ARs
So you’re trying to say GW is targeting people making roughly $500k/year? I’d love to see your source for that.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
CP rules will change again in 3-9 months, that’s not a big deal.

{citation needed}

This is purely your speculation that this is the case. And no, the advantage of multiple detachments does not offset starting at 0-1 CP in a game where the events of turn 1-2 are far more important than the events of turn 4-5. Being able to take multiple infantry squads in a single troops slot would be a win, and it would be a massive win if it comes along with putting SWS and HWS back into platoons.

And again, I explained why platoons would be bad for this faction, not for the game or the company. I have a space marine army that’s much more affordable to expand. The platoon system coming back as it was, would likely be a death knell for this faction. Obviously things wouldn’t shrivel up and die overnight but in the long term if the model wasn’t changed it would be the death of the faction.

You explained but your explanation doesn't match reality. GW isn't targeting 8 year olds who only have $50/year in birthday money, they're targeting adults with disposable income. And that target market isn't going to be discouraged by having to buy a full 25-model platoon to build their first army because they're buying a 500 point army to start with and expanding to 2000 points as fast as they can build and paint the models.

Also I’d love to know who you think the target demo is, if you think people who can’t afford to drop $300+ in a year on plastic army men aren’t ‘valuable’ customers.
Most people my age don’t have $400 in savings and are spending 30-50% of their monthly income on housing costs.

The target is adults with established careers, people like my coworkers who spend $300 in one trip to the gun range with their $5,000 AR-15 or $10,000/year just in parking fees for their boat. They'll take your money if they can get it, of course, but they're designing the game for the people who will impulse buy $1000 worth of stuff just because they can.

They did, however, give you Kill Team as a great option for a low-cost game in the 40k universe. Maybe that would be better suited to your needs?

GW is targeting people with disposable income? Who is that exactly? Not minors. Not the majority of millennials, so is GW targeting boomers and the greatest generation?
Bruh, very few people have $5k ARs
So you’re trying to say GW is targeting people making roughly $500k/year? I’d love to see your source for that.

The more people you have playing a game is good in theory, but you also need ways for people who have the money and the willingness to spend as much as their hearts desire to spend as much as they want / can. The 80-20 rule applies here. 80% of the results are caused by 20% of the population, so you're looking to make an eco system that best allows that to flourish. This is where the term whales comes from.

The problem with gw's monetization practices is that they do a bad job of implementing policies that actually facilitate that ecosystem. The buy in needs to be low, and the upper limit on bought value needs to be higher.

In a way you are both correct in my opinion.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
]GW is targeting people with disposable income?

Yep. Look at their actual product releases and current rules for the core game and it's very obvious that they're targeting people who can spend $1000+ on buying an army.

Who is that exactly? Not minors. Not the majority of millennials, so is GW targeting boomers and the greatest generation?
Bruh, very few people have $5k ARs
So you’re trying to say GW is targeting people making roughly $500k/year? I’d love to see your source for that.

In my company my closest peers (IOW, not higher management) are making $75-150k/year. And everyone I know there either has an expensive hobby that makes 40k look dirt cheap or is (like me) dumping a bunch of money into aggressively paying off a mortgage to maximize future finances. And that's mostly a mix of recent college graduates up to about 35 years old, with a couple people in the ~50 year old range.

And sure, it's not the majority of millennials but that doesn't matter. I bought a Reaver because it's cool. That's 20-30 years worth of your spending on 40k in a single purchase. From GW's point of view one of me is worth dozens of you. They don't need to appeal to the majority of millennials, they just need to successfully tap into the disposable income of the ones with money.

ill check my old codexes but I thought a platoon mandated 2 infantry squads per platoon.

I’ll save you the time. It did.

That’s why I said simplify it.

Jarms48 wrote:

ill check my old codexes but I thought a platoon mandated 2 infantry squads per platoon.

I’ll save you the time. It did.

That’s why I said simplify it.

must have misread your post, was babysitting a cat outside while I read it lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
]GW is targeting people with disposable income?

Yep. Look at their actual product releases and current rules for the core game and it's very obvious that they're targeting people who can spend $1000+ on buying an army.

Who is that exactly? Not minors. Not the majority of millennials, so is GW targeting boomers and the greatest generation?
Bruh, very few people have $5k ARs
So you’re trying to say GW is targeting people making roughly $500k/year? I’d love to see your source for that.

In my company my closest peers (IOW, not higher management) are making $75-150k/year. And everyone I know there either has an expensive hobby that makes 40k look dirt cheap or is (like me) dumping a bunch of money into aggressively paying off a mortgage to maximize future finances. And that's mostly a mix of recent college graduates up to about 35 years old, with a couple people in the ~50 year old range.

And sure, it's not the majority of millennials but that doesn't matter. I bought a Reaver because it's cool. That's 20-30 years worth of your spending on 40k in a single purchase. From GW's point of view one of me is worth dozens of you. They don't need to appeal to the majority of millennials, they just need to successfully tap into the disposable income of the ones with money.

if we’re humble bragging, I’m self employed living in a Victorian mansion with a jacuzzi, sauna, home dojo.
If GW is focusing on people you say, then they won’t be around for much longer.

40k isn’t a high end luxury good. The very few people with the income you’re talking about will have any interest in this game.
Also financial tip…’aggressively’ paying off a mortgage is a pointless waste of money. Either find a new place to buy and sell the old house, or pay your minimum and save up to move up…there’s really no point in paying off a house if it’s not your dream home.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
]if we’re humble bragging, I’m self employed living in a Victorian mansion with a jacuzzi, sauna, home dojo.

Except, unlike you, I'm not just making stuff up to win an internet argument.

If GW is focusing on people you say, then they won’t be around for much longer.

Why not? Like I said, my one Reaver was worth 20-30 years of you being a customer. And the numbers back me up, as GW keeps shifting towards an adult target market their financial reports show excellent profit numbers and no sign of slowing down.

40k isn’t a high end luxury good.

And "mid-level process engineer" is not even close to the top of the salary scale. We're talking about people in successful professional careers, not billionaires. 40k doesn't need to be a high end luxury good, it can be a fun hobby that is pretty cheap compared to a lot of other hobbies.

The very few people with the income you’re talking about will have any interest in this game.

Financial tip: $75k/year is entry-level salary for an engineer straight out of college. That's a huge number of people and I've met plenty of them who are interested in 40k.

Also financial tip…’aggressively’ paying off a mortgage is a pointless waste of money. Either find a new place to buy and sell the old house, or pay your minimum and save up to move up…there’s really no point in paying off a house if it’s not your dream home.

Financial tip: having a $0/month mortgage is pretty great for quality of life and "moving up" as fast as possible is a great way to ruin your finances.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
]if we’re humble bragging, I’m self employed living in a Victorian mansion with a jacuzzi, sauna, home dojo.

Except, unlike you, I'm not just making stuff up to win an internet argument.

If GW is focusing on people you say, then they won’t be around for much longer.

Why not? Like I said, my one Reaver was worth 20-30 years of you being a customer. And the numbers back me up, as GW keeps shifting towards an adult target market their financial reports show excellent profit numbers and no sign of slowing down.

40k isn’t a high end luxury good.

And "mid-level process engineer" is not even close to the top of the salary scale. We're talking about people in successful professional careers, not billionaires. 40k doesn't need to be a high end luxury good, it can be a fun hobby that is pretty cheap compared to a lot of other hobbies.

The very few people with the income you’re talking about will have any interest in this game.

Financial tip: $75k/year is entry-level salary for an engineer straight out of college. That's a huge number of people and I've met plenty of them who are interested in 40k.

Also financial tip…’aggressively’ paying off a mortgage is a pointless waste of money. Either find a new place to buy and sell the old house, or pay your minimum and save up to move up…there’s really no point in paying off a house if it’s not your dream home.

Financial tip: having a $0/month mortgage is pretty great for quality of life and "moving up" as fast as possible is a great way to ruin your finances.

not making anything, up I teach karate, and I do so from my own home it’s pretty perfect. Charge parents $50 to use the sauna while their kids are in class. It’s nice living in an old BnB

Yeah and 75k isn’t living the sort of life style you were describing earlier either.
Well enjoy living in your starter house. I’ll enjoy my 5k sq ft.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
not making anything, up I teach karate, and I do so from my own home it’s pretty perfect. Charge parents $50 to use the sauna while their kids are in class. It’s nice living in an old BnB

So let me get this straight: you live in a 5k sq ft. "mansion" but you somehow can't afford $100 to buy a couple of boxes of Cadians to make a complete platoon? Either you're lying about something here or you're spectacularly bad at managing your money.

Yeah and 75k isn’t living the sort of life style you were describing earlier either.

It's literally the salary range of the people buying those things I described earlier.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
not making anything, up I teach karate, and I do so from my own home it’s pretty perfect. Charge parents $50 to use the sauna while their kids are in class. It’s nice living in an old BnB

So let me get this straight: you live in a 5k sq ft. "mansion" but you somehow can't afford $100 to buy a couple of boxes of Cadians to make a complete platoon? Either you're lying about something here or you're spectacularly bad at managing your money.

Yeah and 75k isn’t living the sort of life style you were describing earlier either.

It's literally the salary range of the people buying those things I described earlier.

$138 plus tax. yes, because like your friends, i too enjoy shooting. though not with a $5k AR, with a $1200 AR, a $2k M1A...the rest of my guns don't reach that level of cost, but feeding them is expensive. then there's the fact that i moved into a 140 year old house, did you think that was just some how in pristine shape? fixing and painting the fence has cost me hundreds of dollars, not to mention the several thousand spent on the plumbing so far, not to mention feeding 2 cars, a motorcycle, and renovating a basement no one had been in, in what looks like a decade or two, so i can run my business out of it.

so yes, at the moment and the foreseeable future, i cannot afford $100+ for some little plastic toy soldiers. maybe once my old house is sold i can, but most of that money will be put into investments and savings as a safety net. i got a helluva deal on this house, my 1200sq ft starter home will sell for more than i bought this house for. thank god the therapist who used this for her office neglected the feth out of the place.

And you must live in a tiny ass village if people can afford to spend 10k on marina fees, making only 75k/year.
My large town is pretty cheap, and people around here can’t afford that gak on 75k/year. Even on 100k/year that’s not really feasible. Spending 10% or more of your salary on marina fees is irresponsible. In San Francisco for example the poverty line is roughly $80k/year
Many of the cities where most of our population lives has a poverty line at around 30-40k/year.

https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/poverty-san-francisco

johnpjones1775 wrote:
$138 plus tax. yes, because like your friends, i too enjoy shooting. though not with a $5k AR, with a $1200 AR, a $2k M1A...the rest of my guns don't reach that level of cost, but feeding them is expensive.

Cool, thanks for admitting your dishonesty here. There's a huge difference between "I can't afford $138 to be able to play my army" and "I choose not to buy more guardsmen because I'd rather spend the money on my guns". You could easily afford to buy the models required to take platoons, you simply choose not to do so. Which is fine, that's your choice. But don't expect much sympathy for your self-inflicted financial limits when we're discussing a change that would be a major buff for the rest of us.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
$138 plus tax. yes, because like your friends, i too enjoy shooting. though not with a $5k AR, with a $1200 AR, a $2k M1A...the rest of my guns don't reach that level of cost, but feeding them is expensive.

Cool, thanks for admitting your dishonesty here. There's a huge difference between "I can't afford $138 to be able to play my army" and "I choose not to buy more guardsmen because I'd rather spend the money on my guns". You could easily afford to buy the models required to take platoons, you simply choose not to do so. Which is fine, that's your choice. But don't expect much sympathy for your self-inflicted financial limits when we're discussing a change that would be a major buff for the rest of us.

No dishonesty here.
I have multiple hobbies.
I can’t afford to suddenly expand my army to have a legal force on a moment’s notice unless I give up something else, or spend my safety net money irresponsibly.

If you have to cut back in one or more areas, to have the money to do something, then you can’t actually afford to do that thing.

Your posts however do show just how insulated from what most people in America experience when it comes to life, thinking that spending 10% or more of your annual income on a marina slip is something most middle class people do.
Also luxury items, even the high end luxury items don’t have to be only available to billionaires. Plenty of luxury items are in the hands of non-billionaires.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can build a new SM army from scratch for $145 before taxes.
Why would a new person invest in the guard when it’s half the cost to start other armies?
Players who might like to start guard as a second or third army, will likely choose not to, if it costs $300+ to do so.

That all results in fewer people spending money on the faction, which results in less and less support of the faction.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
No dishonesty here.

It's absolutely dishonesty. You tried to pull the "poor me" act about how you can't afford to use platoons, millennials have no money after paying for rent, etc. And then it turns out the only reason you can't afford to buy those platoons is that you have thousands of dollars worth of guns and would rather spend your money at the range.

If you have to cut back in one or more areas, to have the money to do something, then you can’t actually afford to do that thing.

Not when "cutting back" means "decide to buy 40k instead of going to the range this weekend", not making any actual financial sacrifices. Otherwise you also can't afford your gun hobby, since you can't have the money for your range trip without cutting back on your 40k spending.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I can build a new SM army from scratch for $145 before taxes.

Maybe by the strictest technical definition of "army". You sure as hell won't be buying a complete army suitable for normal games for that price.

Why would a new person invest in the guard when it’s half the cost to start other armies?

Because cost isn't the only thing that matters and people tend to buy the army they think is cool, not the army with a starter set that costs $10 less.

And of course this has nothing to do with platoons. The cost to play IG is higher because the units are cheaper and that isn't going to change, having to take a full platoon to fill a troops slot is irrelevant when you'd still have to spend the same money on units other than infantry squads if you didn't.

So, I just want to say, this discussion between CadianSgtBob and johnpjones1775 is the single most hilarious thing I have read on this entire site so far. I'm fookin' dying from laughter .

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, I just want to say, this discussion between CadianSgtBob and johnpjones1775 is the single most hilarious thing I have read on this entire site so far. I'm fookin' dying from laughter .

yeah I realized it got very 2002 so I just went to bed.

Still depressing how some people want to price other people out of the army for no reason.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Still depressing how some people want to price other people out of the army for no reason.

What part of "platoons are a major buff" do you still not understand? It is not pricing people out for no reason, it's "pricing out" one person who just kind of prefers to buy guns instead of 40k models to give a huge buff to everyone else.

Could someone refresh me what the minimum platoon was again? Would the difference really be that significant when building a minimal sized battalion? Would it be relevant at all when building a 2000 points army?

That's not meant offensive I just struggle to follow the argumentation here

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Could someone refresh me what the minimum platoon was again? Would the difference really be that significant when building a minimal sized battalion? Would it be relevant at all when building a 2000 points army?

That's not meant offensive I just struggle to follow the argumentation here

Mandatory:
Command squad (officer + 4 models)
Infantry squad x2 (10 models each)

Optional:
Infantry squad x3
HWS x5 (3 models each)
SWS x2 (6 models each)
Conscripts x1 (20-50 models each)

So in practice the minimum requirement means nothing since virtually every list is taking 6+ infantry squads (or their equivalent in conscripts) at 2000 points to have enough screening and obsec bodies on the table. It's a straight buff because it allows you to fit a bunch of units into a single troops slot and avoid having to pay CP for more detachments to get enough bodies on the table and makes HWS/SWS obsec troops. Johnpjones1775 just has a very specific list and thinks that "I have a budget of $0 because I want to buy guns instead of 40k models" matters more than anything else.

Also note that in 5th you could take veteran squads as troops, so you weren't even required to fill your mandatory slots with platoons.

There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

If gun ownership sickens and disgusts you that's definitely a personal problem.

Hecaton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

If gun ownership sickens and disgusts you that's definitely a personal problem.

No, it's that the second person doesn't actually understand what it means to not be able to afford 40k, let alone food. They conflate their situation with the first one. That's what sickens me. Hubris. Wealth privilege and wealth inequality.

I want to be able to afford $60 for a recruit starter, it would be amazing, I'd just keep getting them. But we literally can't afford food. I have had to sell all the 40k I'd collected in my youth just to feed us, barring my Necrons, which are all 3rd Ed because, as mentioned, I literally can't afford anything.

The person choosing guns over 40k has tons of money, they're choosing where it goes. The two situations are not equivalent.

I've had people on this very board tell me that 40k isn't for people like me (disabled, poor). Multiple people. THAT'S what I hate about the "I can't spend $100 on 40k so I can spend thousands on X" view.

It's definitely not the same as playing on a table (even if I've only ever played with paper circles and rectangles when I did play on a table), but, personally, I've been having a good time playing on tabletop simulator, especially as I've been getting into 3D modeling as a result. Big bonus, we can save our game and pick it up another day.

If you have a laptop or desktop, TTS isn't horribly expensive (although it's not free) and there's a lot of existing models available and Blender (for 3D modeling) is free (and has an absolutely insanely big community as well) if you want to dip your toes into digital kitbashing or modeling from scratch (or a combination of the two, which is what I've been doing)

We've started playing 8-12/side PL games on 22x30 boards because that's what we can fit on the bed with us when I can't move.

It's not much, but it scratches the itch.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Mandatory:
Command squad (officer + 4 models)
Infantry squad x2 (10 models each)

Optional:
Infantry squad x3
HWS x5 (3 models each)
SWS x2 (6 models each)
Conscripts x1 (20-50 models each)

That's 5th - 7th.

Prior to that it was just this.

Mandatory:
Command squad (officer + 4 models)
Infantry squad x2 (10 models each)

Optional:
Infantry squad x3

Jarms48 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Mandatory:
Command squad (officer + 4 models)
Infantry squad x2 (10 models each)

Optional:
Infantry squad x3
HWS x5 (3 models each)
SWS x2 (6 models each)
Conscripts x1 (20-50 models each)

That's 5th - 7th.

Prior to that it was just this.

Mandatory:
Command squad (officer + 4 models)
Infantry squad x2 (10 models each)

Optional:
Infantry squad x3

Ya, when we started in 4th, we played against a guardsman now and then...damn, looking back, he had a baneblade. Floorhammer was how we rolled, his tanks had range, but Necrons just didn't die.

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

I am not conflating anything.
I never once said the too are the same nor did I ever even imply it.
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.
It’s pretty simple.
Could I make changes? Yes. Would my gf be annoyed or upset at those changes? Most likely.

Take a chill pill and put your insecurities away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Could someone refresh me what the minimum platoon was again? Would the difference really be that significant when building a minimal sized battalion? Would it be relevant at all when building a 2000 points army?

That's not meant offensive I just struggle to follow the argumentation here

For long time players, it’s not much of an issue.
For players who haven’t been playing the faction long, and people looking too start the faction, it creates a barrier of over $300 before you can build the most basic legal army.
For a lot of people that’s a year or more of investment, especially once you include codex, paint supplies, etc thrown in for brand new people.

Now minimum army is 1 officer, and 2 infantry squads.
In the platoon format it requires 3 command squads, and 4 infantry squads.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.

Cutting a single day at the range is not "cutting hobby Y long term". You can not credibly argue that $150 is an impossible burden when you're spending thousands of dollars on your gun hobby.

For players who haven’t been playing the faction long, and people looking too start the faction, it creates a barrier of over $300 before you can build the most basic legal army.

That's incredibly dishonest and you know it. Nobody is playing a bare minimum 100 point army with one officer and one infantry squad even though that's technically the smallest legal patrol detachment. Once you start buying a 500 point army (growing to 2000 points) you're spending about the same amount of money whether or not platoons exist. If you don't have to take that second infantry squad to fill the platoon you still have to buy 60 points worth of models to replace it. And once you start building a normal 2000 point army you're going to have 6+ infantry squads anyway because you need screening and obsec bodies.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

I am not conflating anything.
I never once said the too are the same nor did I ever even imply it.
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.
It’s pretty simple.

Wow. What you just said does not equate to can’t afford hobby X, it is can't afford both hobby X and hobby Y. We are talking about hobbies here, not living below the poverty level.

 alextroy wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

I am not conflating anything.
I never once said the too are the same nor did I ever even imply it.
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.
It’s pretty simple.

Wow. What you just said does not equate to can’t afford hobby X, it is can't afford both hobby X and hobby Y. We are talking about hobbies here, not living below the poverty level.

And to add, for transparency, provincial disability only gives us ~$22,000/yr, for both, myself and my spouse, who are doth disabled and can't work.

There are people on this board who have said point blank that I shouldn't play 40k. I have models, I'd love new ones, and honestly try to save, but, we're all adult enough to do the math.
No matter how much this game can be a blessed escape from the pain. It will never be higher on the list than food.

 alextroy wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

I am not conflating anything.
I never once said the too are the same nor did I ever even imply it.
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.
It’s pretty simple.

Wow. What you just said does not equate to can’t afford hobby X, it is can't afford both hobby X and hobby Y. We are talking about hobbies here, not living below the poverty level.

Can people below the poverty line afford to play 40k?

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

I am not conflating anything.
I never once said the too are the same nor did I ever even imply it.
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.
It’s pretty simple.

Wow. What you just said does not equate to can’t afford hobby X, it is can't afford both hobby X and hobby Y. We are talking about hobbies here, not living below the poverty level.

Can people below the poverty line afford to play 40k?

*Points at her post directly above yours*

YES!
I got most of my army as presents it's wasn't until I was into 40k for years that I even branched to another army. Crazy local deals, hand me downs.
I've been playing with the exact same ~2,600 points for almost 20yrs.
My life has changed substantially over that time.
Anyone might have 40k models and want to expand their army.
That's such an elitist, privileged question.
You have no idea how insulting you are.

I'm terminally ill.
Already outlived my drs and 80+% of people who've had it, so I'm gonna die soon.

I'm stuck in poverty, there's literally no way out until I die.
I'm in constant pain because I can't afford my meds.

My Necrons are one of the only happy things I have left from my past that give me a chance at being part of a community.

You don't get it.
At all.
"Poor people can play 40k?"
You donkey-cave.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

I am not conflating anything.
I never once said the too are the same nor did I ever even imply it.
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.
It’s pretty simple.

Wow. What you just said does not equate to can’t afford hobby X, it is can't afford both hobby X and hobby Y. We are talking about hobbies here, not living below the poverty level.

Can people below the poverty line afford to play 40k?

Certainly.
It's 2022. You don't need to give GW a dime to play this game.

ccs wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

I am not conflating anything.
I never once said the too are the same nor did I ever even imply it.
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.
It’s pretty simple.

Wow. What you just said does not equate to can’t afford hobby X, it is can't afford both hobby X and hobby Y. We are talking about hobbies here, not living below the poverty level.

Can people below the poverty line afford to play 40k?

Certainly.
It's 2022. You don't need to give GW a dime to play this game.

Everyone can play 40k. Buying it directly from GW is a different story, so for the company those players probably aren't the most relevant. Fortunately though, what the company cares about isn't all that important to any of us because we're not the company and probably don't have a large proportion of out investments in GW (or so I hope).

That said, I personally would like platoons to return but perhaps the structure could be a little bit different, basically becoming:
Obligatory:
1 Infantry Squad

Optional:
1 Platoon Commander
1 Command Squad
4 Infantry Squads

Per Infantry Squad:
1 Heavy Weapons Squad
1 Special Weapons Squad

Or something along those lines. That should make everyone happy.

I like that idea.
What about the "can take this unit without a slot" like Kroot?
Maybe you could unlock Heavy or Special weapon squads 1:1 for infantry platoons?

Each command squad lets you take one heavy or special weapon squad that doesn't fill a slot in the detachment?

 Blndmage wrote:
I like that idea.
What about the "can take this unit without a slot" like Kroot?
Maybe you could unlock Heavy or Special weapon squads 1:1 for infantry platoons?

Each command squad lets you take one heavy or special weapon squad that doesn't fill a slot in the detachment?

That would probably be the easiest way to make it work. Although I would prefer unlocking the squads per infantry squad. That would stop spamming (even if it would be bad anyways because special and heavy weapons squads die to a mild breeze) and give the ability to take lots of such squads for more themed armies.

Personally I’d prefer 1 special weapon squad and heavy weapon squad per officer.

Urk. Personally, I prefer the platoon wording over the "doesn't take up a slot" wording. The later is just abstracting things unnecessarily. I'd like to see either the one infantry squad platoon option (as suggested above) or veterans being moved back to troops.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Urk. Personally, I prefer the platoon wording over the "doesn't take up a slot" wording. The later is just abstracting things unnecessarily. I'd like to see either the one infantry squad platoon option (as suggested above) or veterans being moved back to troops.

I have a feeling veterans won't exist as a separate unit in the next codex. They'll be made to work like Kabalite Warrior upgrading into Kabalite Trueborn.

This is the ability:

Kabalite Trueborn +3 points per model:
For each MASTER ARCHON unit in your army, one unit of Kabalite Warriors in the same Detachment can be upgraded to Kabalite Trueborn. Kabalite Trueborn have a maximum unit size of 10, gain the KABALITE TRUEBORN keyword and have the following additional abilities:
- Models in this unit have a Ballistic Skill characteristic of 2+.
- Add 1 to the Leadership characteristic of models in this unit.
- Each time a model in this unit makes a ranged attack, you can ignore any or all hit roll and Ballistic Skill modifiers.

Veterans could be +1 point per model:
For each OFFICER unit in your army, one Infantry Squad unit in the same Detachment can be upgraded to Veterans. They gain the VETERAN keyword and have the following additional abilities:
- Models in this unit have a Ballistic Skill characteristic of 3+.
- Add 1 to the Leadership characteristic of models in this unit.
- Up to three Veterans may replace their lasgun with an item from the Special Weapons list.
- One other Veteran may replace their lasgun with a heavy flamer.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Urk. Personally, I prefer the platoon wording over the "doesn't take up a slot" wording. The later is just abstracting things unnecessarily. I'd like to see either the one infantry squad platoon option (as suggested above) or veterans being moved back to troops.

And I prefer platoons to not be a thing, period, when it comes to army organization and the FOC. I don't even really see a path forward for them as anything outside of a rule mechanism for units you declare at the start of a game or something.

They added nothing to the overall game. They just were there and let you bring more models at a time when there was not any real alternate FOCs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jarms48 wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Urk. Personally, I prefer the platoon wording over the "doesn't take up a slot" wording. The later is just abstracting things unnecessarily. I'd like to see either the one infantry squad platoon option (as suggested above) or veterans being moved back to troops.

I have a feeling veterans won't exist as a separate unit in the next codex. They'll be made to work like Kabalite Warrior upgrading into Kabalite Trueborn.

I have a feeling that Guard won't exist as anything like what we're used to now. It's already been stated by a reliable rumourmonger that Cadian Shock Troops have their own datasheet in the Codex, as does Death Korps of Krieg.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And I prefer platoons to not be a thing, period, when it comes to army organization and the FOC. I don't even really see a path forward for them as anything outside of a rule mechanism for units you declare at the start of a game or something.

They added nothing to the overall game. They just were there and let you bring more models at a time when there was not any real alternate FOCs.

I very much agree with this. I would rather have my squads worth a damn on their own right rather than getting gaslighted into taking 7-trillion of them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Urk. Personally, I prefer the platoon wording over the "doesn't take up a slot" wording. The later is just abstracting things unnecessarily. I'd like to see either the one infantry squad platoon option (as suggested above) or veterans being moved back to troops.

And I prefer platoons to not be a thing, period, when it comes to army organization and the FOC. I don't even really see a path forward for them as anything outside of a rule mechanism for units you declare at the start of a game or something.

They added nothing to the overall game. They just were there and let you bring more models at a time when there was not any real alternate FOCs.

That's precisely why I like the idea of them being optional by making it only require a single squad and no command staff. I know not everyone wants to play their guard the same way (and tbh, I tend to go the tank-heavy route with mine). It's a great thing about guard, there's quite a few different ways to construct your army and, given the whole million worlds thing, there's room in the fluff for any and all of those ways. It doesn't HAVE to be one or the other.

Out of pure curiosity: would there be a specific counterargument to platoons just be an additional Troops option instead of replacing the current?
So just instead of Infantry Squad/Conscripts/Scions it would read Squad/Conscripts/Scions/a platoon (1 Platoon Commander, 1 Command Squad, 2-5 IS, 0-5 HWS, 0-3 SWS)
?

I mean, it would be pretty few additional words, both approaches to the game would stay valid and I personally don't see a way to unfairly exploit a mix of both systems.

It would feel (in my personal opinion) a bit like Leman Russes being 1-3 per unit. It always felt like the same principle: making it possible to cram a huge amount of "armored vehicle" points in quite small detachments to save on number of slots while still leaving it possible for others to just include a single one

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Out of pure curiosity: would there be a specific counterargument to platoons just be an additional Troops option instead of replacing the current?
So just instead of Infantry Squad/Conscripts/Scions it would read Squad/Conscripts/Scions/a platoon (1 Platoon Commander, 1 Command Squad, 2-5 IS, 0-5 HWS, 0-3 SWS)
?

Because why would anyone ever take Infantry Squads over Platoons?

Seriously. When the name of the game that creates problems in the first place is "efficiency", why would you do anything BUT the Troop choice that lets you ignore restrictions on duplicate units without some kind of super convoluted word salad to prevent you from doing so?

Matched Play has you limited at 3 of any duplicate datasheets. You're giving someone 2 more HWS than the cap right off the bat with a single Platoon without that hypothetical limitation.

I mean, it would be pretty few additional words, both approaches to the game would stay valid and I personally don't see a way to unfairly exploit a mix of both systems.

It would necessitate building in a ridiculous number of safeguards for no real benefit.

It would feel (in my personal opinion) a bit like Leman Russes being 1-3 per unit. It always felt like the same principle: making it possible to cram a huge amount of "armored vehicle" points in quite small detachments to save on number of slots while still leaving it possible for others to just include a single one

The difference is that one of those situations does not render an entire slew of units impractical, while platoons do.
Why take a Special Weapons Squad as an Elite choice, when you can throw 3 of them into a Platoon?
Why take a HWS as a Heavy choice, when you can throw 5 of them into a Platoon?

It would also have a wildly different effect if the various Infantry based squads actually had some kind of variation between them. They don't, so there's no point.

There's no Sniper Teams for a FA infiltration choice. There's no Elite Tank Hunter choice, decked out with meltaguns and heavier armor plus Haywire Grenades or anything interesting and unique.

They're just less good versions of Infantry Squad options, because there is not as many ablative bodies.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Out of pure curiosity: would there be a specific counterargument to platoons just be an additional Troops option instead of replacing the current?

My counterargument would be that including Platoons then calling it a day would be the laziest band-aid, and not only would it fail to address the problems with IG infantry but also normalize those problems because "be happy with your band-aid you silly player" and/or "massed infantry is how the Guard is meant to be played anyway" and such. It would be not only meaningless but actively counter-productive.

Ok, now I'm confused. I took from the discussion that some people are against platoons because it would force them to take more infantry than they want to build legal detachments - fair enough. Especially if one wants to build an army more geared towards vehicles or cavalry I see the point.

If platoons became just another option, i don't really see those folks loosing out. I doubt that someone that said before "Damn, I wish I could have more HWS in my army" really had less than 6 Infantry Squads (I might be wrong though, it's just my opinion)

I also (maybe wrongfully) assumed that someone who wanted to have less than 6 Infantry squads before was likely running mainly tanks or cavalry anyway, or not?


Edit: this Post was in response to Kanluwen

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Ok, now I'm confused. I took from the discussion that some people are against platoons because it would force them to take more infantry than they want to build legal detachments - fair enough. Especially if one wants to build an army more geared towards vehicles or cavalry I see the point.

If platoons became just another option, i don't really see those folks loosing out. I doubt that someone that said before "Damn, I wish I could have more HWS in my army" really had less than 6 Infantry Squads (I might be wrong though, it's just my opinion)

You've conflated two different issues:
The poor design you put on the Platoon is just that--poor design. You've just parroted the Cruddace books for their design, which was godawful compared to the far superior doctrine era book. In that doctrine era book?
An Infantry Platoon was just that:
infantry. There was no Conscripts thrown in there. No SWS. No HWS. Just the Command Squad and 2-5 Infantry Squads...which had an option for you to take "Remnant" squads of a Sergeant and 4-8 Guardsmen but no HWT.
In that Doctrine era book? 5 HWS wasn't really a big deal--because there were 3 different HWS types. Mortars, Fire Support(HB+AC), Anti-Tank(ML+LC)...all of which could be part of a HW Platoon(1-3 of any mix of those three Support Squads and a Command Squad with a Jr Officer) as a single HS. None of that is the case any longer though.

The second issue is that some people might just not have any interest in being okay with having to deal with the balance fallout for this trash. Your suggestion puts it so that a Patrol Detachment can be fifteen Infantry Squads (aka: 150 models, and 15 HWTs + 15 Special Weapons of any type) if fully maxed out on just that element. That's not counting the potential 15 Heavy Weapon Squads(that's 45 heavy weapon teams) or 9 Special Weapon Squads(another 27 Special Weapons just from this bit!) You're not creating a unique "Infantry Unit" that is filling the Platoon, you're just making a sidestep around the restrictions you would otherwise have and making it so that some of the gimmick factions ala GSC can have a ridiculous secondary element thrown in.

The smallest, most basic detachment should never be able to put that many models or weapon upgrades on the board, from just their Troop choices. Ever.

I also (maybe wrongfully) assumed that someone who wanted to have less than 6 Infantry squads before was likely running mainly tanks or cavalry anyway, or not?
Edit: this Post was in response to Kanluwen

You did assume wrongfully, because the argument that keeps being the most commonly put forward for Platoons is that it's "the only way" some people can play an all-infantry list, like they did "back in the day"(which is basically code for the Cruddace book, as the preceding Doctrines book didn't allow for HWS, SWS, or Conscripts in the Platoons).

That they need Platoons so they can take more HWS, more SWS, and more Officers for coverage to match all the infantry they opted to take.

It's silliness. I've put forward far, far more elegant solutions over the years and it's the same usual crowd shouting at it as being "unfluffy" because they want their tide of flesh.

15 Infantry squads is also 900 points. And you can currently take that many anyway.
So... Why isn't it an issue now?

@ Kanluwen: ok, I don't mind limiting a platoon to just Command + 2-5 infantry (mind that I'm neither strongly pro nor contra platoon, I just want to understand the argument).

I struggle to see the problem in - in its most extreme form - 150 Infantry dudes (900 points) + 15 HWSs (750 points + 675 for their heavy weapons, right?) in a patrol. I mean... sure it's a lot more CP effective and you can cram a lot more heavy weapons on an extremen squishy BS4+ platform in there. But I fail to see the end of days by allowing that.

*shrugg*
I readily admit to lack practical experience so maybe that's just it.

Why not add platoons as a new troops choice, with some version of the platoon structure that's being bandied about here, but if you take platoons, you cannot take dedicated transports?

That way Platoons become the basis for a largely infantry army, and squads (which can still allow dedicated transports) become the basis for a mechanized infantry army?

Then you have WWI style armies (platoons and arty), Mechanized Infantry armies (squads and transports), Armor (all, or mostly, tanks), and I guess you can have Airborne forces (valkyries as dedicated transports anyone?).

If you want a combined arms force, you'll have to do MechInf and Armor, with arty support. But I would expect doctrines for each army type, and even maybe separate orders for each doctrine type.

 JNAProductions wrote:
15 Infantry squads is also 900 points. And you can currently take that many anyway.
So... Why isn't it an issue now?

Because you can't take 15 Infantry Squads in a single Patrol detachment...?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Out of pure curiosity: would there be a specific counterargument to platoons just be an additional Troops option instead of replacing the current?
So just instead of Infantry Squad/Conscripts/Scions it would read Squad/Conscripts/Scions/a platoon (1 Platoon Commander, 1 Command Squad, 2-5 IS, 0-5 HWS, 0-3 SWS)
?

Because why would anyone ever take Infantry Squads over Platoons?

Seriously. When the name of the game that creates problems in the first place is "efficiency", why would you do anything BUT the Troop choice that lets you ignore restrictions on duplicate units without some kind of super convoluted word salad to prevent you from doing so?

Matched Play has you limited at 3 of any duplicate datasheets. You're giving someone 2 more HWS than the cap right off the bat with a single Platoon without that hypothetical limitation.

I mean, it would be pretty few additional words, both approaches to the game would stay valid and I personally don't see a way to unfairly exploit a mix of both systems.

It would necessitate building in a ridiculous number of safeguards for no real benefit.

It would feel (in my personal opinion) a bit like Leman Russes being 1-3 per unit. It always felt like the same principle: making it possible to cram a huge amount of "armored vehicle" points in quite small detachments to save on number of slots while still leaving it possible for others to just include a single one

The difference is that one of those situations does not render an entire slew of units impractical, while platoons do.
Why take a Special Weapons Squad as an Elite choice, when you can throw 3 of them into a Platoon?
Why take a HWS as a Heavy choice, when you can throw 5 of them into a Platoon?

It would also have a wildly different effect if the various Infantry based squads actually had some kind of variation between them. They don't, so there's no point.

There's no Sniper Teams for a FA infiltration choice. There's no Elite Tank Hunter choice, decked out with meltaguns and heavier armor plus Haywire Grenades or anything interesting and unique.

They're just less good versions of Infantry Squad options, because there is not as many ablative bodies.

this method would allow the faction to be affordable for more people to start and play.
My only issue with platoons resembling the old way is how expensive it is.
You have to remember for brand new players under the old school platoon mechanic, it’s $300+ just for bare minimum models, then rule book, then codex, then glue, then paint and brushes. Paint and brushes aren’t necessary to play, but even without those you’re still looking at $500ish just to get started in the hobby. That’s either a big investment up front to get started right away, or slowly buying over the course of a year or two or three depending on peoples’ financial situations.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
15 Infantry squads is also 900 points. And you can currently take that many anyway.
So... Why isn't it an issue now?

Because you can't take 15 Infantry Squads in a single Patrol detachment...?

You can still take 15 Infantry Squads. You'd need more HQs than with a single Patrol, but considering HQs include Company Commanders (to make your Infantry Squads a lot better) and Tank Commanders (arguably the best unit in the IG 'Dex currently)... Why would you not want to?

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Kanluwen: ok, I don't mind limiting a platoon to just Command + 2-5 infantry (mind that I'm neither strongly pro nor contra platoon, I just want to understand the argument).

I struggle to see the problem in - in its most extreme form - 150 Infantry dudes (900 points) + 15 HWSs (750 points + 675 for their heavy weapons, right?) in a patrol. I mean... sure it's a lot more CP effective and you can cram a lot more heavy weapons on an extremen squishy BS4+ platform in there. But I fail to see the end of days by allowing that.

*shrugg*
I readily admit to lack practical experience so maybe that's just it.

The ‘end days’ is the long game. That 150 infantry men is roughly $300 for new players.
Not a lot of people will want to, or can drop that much money to get started in a hobby.
For example, airsoft is a notoriously expensive hobby, yet I can get an AEG rifle for $90, eye pro $15, and a few thousand BBs for about another $25. So roughly $135 to get involved in a hobby that’s expensive.

If we price people out of the faction, sales will drop. Even those who can still afford to play the faction will not have the same buying power. This will result in lower sales of the faction, lower sales results in less support. Less support means the new sculpts being released soon will still be the current sculpts 40 years from now instead of just 30 years on.

The more players, the more support. The more support, the more new rules, more new sculpts, more new units etc.

Kanluwen wrote:They added nothing to the overall game. They just were there and let you bring more models at a time when there was not any real alternate FOCs

"Platoons added nothing, they just let you cope with the slot limit problem that existed back then and still exists now."

Weird definition of "nothing"...

Because why would anyone ever take Infantry Squads over Platoons?

Because sometimes you want exactly one infantry squad.

You're giving someone 2 more HWS than the cap right off the bat with a single Platoon without that hypothetical limitation.

IOW, HWS might finally appear in a list outside of deliberately toning down your list for a newbie's first teaching game?

Why take a Special Weapons Squad as an Elite choice, when you can throw 3 of them into a Platoon?
Why take a HWS as a Heavy choice, when you can throw 5 of them into a Platoon?

In this change HWS/SWS would go back to being troops like they always should have been.

Because you can't take 15 Infantry Squads in a single Patrol detachment...?

So what? In the only context where being able to take 15 infantry squads in a single patrol detachment would be relevant you can't take 15 infantry squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
The ‘end days’ is the long game. That 150 infantry men is roughly $300 for new players.
Not a lot of people will want to, or can drop that much money to get started in a hobby.

Stop with this dishonest nonsense. We've already explained to you that your supposed "starting cost" is irrelevant because if you aren't buying $300 worth of infantry squads you still have to buy roughly $300 worth of other models to fill out an army. Your argument would only apply if the newbie could play a 100 point game with a single officer and a single 10-man infantry squad and nobody is playing 100 point games.

I get that you want to spend all of your money on guns instead of 40k but stop dishonestly using "think of the poor newbies" as your excuse. It's insulting to the people who actually have financial limits.

Just to get a grip on it:
under current rules if you want to go all infantry:
2 Brigades with a total of
3 Company Commanders (105)
3 Primaris Psykers (150)
12 Infantry Squads with Heavy and Special Weapons (720)
3 Command Squads (75+, depending on loadout)
3 Special Weapons Squads (147 points)
3 HWS (150, do I understand correctly, that the heavy weapons do not cost anything anymore?)

so together ~1350 points, 3 CP and still 3 heavy support and 6 elite slots free.


With the proposed platoon if you could cram almost all of that into a Patrol detachment (Platoon Commanders instead of Company Commanders and you would "only" have 2 HQ slots, so less Psykers or none at all if you want Company Commanders), + more Infantry Squads, SWS and HWS if you like. CP-wise it would cost 0 instead of 3, but you might need another detachment anyway if you want those juice primaris Psykers, which would negate the CP advantage.

As I mentioned: I don't see the big problem with that. Sure, more SWS and HWS, but... are those really a problem? And 3 CP saved doesn't look like that much, honestly. Fair enough, if you want to really fill up 2000 points with just infantry it should cost 6 CP for 3 Battallions currently while with those platoons it should be possible to cram it into one batallion. But... I mean... it's still not really competetive, is it?

When I think of platoon rules this is what I mean. Not sure I would want to go back to it, but I would like to maybe see platoon rules on the field being about squads supporting each other, maybe overwatch on fellow squads, reactions to charges, lieutenants only being able to order their own platoons, captains ordering all squads. Not just have platoons as an army design thing.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:They added nothing to the overall game. They just were there and let you bring more models at a time when there was not any real alternate FOCs

"Platoons added nothing, they just let you cope with the slot limit problem that existed back then and still exists now."

Weird definition of "nothing"...

Because why would anyone ever take Infantry Squads over Platoons?

Because sometimes you want exactly one infantry squad.

You're giving someone 2 more HWS than the cap right off the bat with a single Platoon without that hypothetical limitation.

IOW, HWS might finally appear in a list outside of deliberately toning down your list for a newbie's first teaching game?

Why take a Special Weapons Squad as an Elite choice, when you can throw 3 of them into a Platoon?
Why take a HWS as a Heavy choice, when you can throw 5 of them into a Platoon?

In this change HWS/SWS would go back to being troops like they always should have been.

Because you can't take 15 Infantry Squads in a single Patrol detachment...?

So what? In the only context where being able to take 15 infantry squads in a single patrol detachment would be relevant you can't take 15 infantry squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
The ‘end days’ is the long game. That 150 infantry men is roughly $300 for new players.
Not a lot of people will want to, or can drop that much money to get started in a hobby.

Stop with this dishonest nonsense. We've already explained to you that your supposed "starting cost" is irrelevant because if you aren't buying $300 worth of infantry squads you still have to buy roughly $300 worth of other models to fill out an army. Your argument would only apply if the newbie could play a 100 point game with a single officer and a single 10-man infantry squad and nobody is playing 100 point games.

I get that you want to spend all of your money on guns instead of 40k but stop dishonestly using "think of the poor newbies" as your excuse. It's insulting to the people who actually have financial limits.

what are you talking about?
Today a newbie can have a legal army with 2 infantry squads and a single officer.
Under the old platoon rules you’d have to roughly double that cost.

There’s nothing dishonest about what I’ve said.
You’ve done absolutely to counter my points, why? Because you can’t.
The only counter would simply to buy all used models, however if all people who were new to guard did that it would likely inflate the cost of used models, but even if the used market doesn’t get inflated as a result, GW doesn’t see or track those sales still resulting in a drop in sales for GW, again resulting in less support for the faction.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Today a newbie can have a legal army with 2 infantry squads and a single officer.

Stop being dishonest. Two infantry squads and a single officer is ~200 points. 500 points is the minimum that anyone is playing, and 2000 points is a normal game. Whether you have to buy a full platoon or not as part of your first 500 points is irrelevant, you still have to buy 500 points worth of stuff and the cost isn't going to change much.

There’s nothing dishonest about what I’ve said.

It's absolutely dishonest. You tried to claim a ridiculous poverty argument about how millennials have no money, buying $138 worth of models is an impossible burden for you to overcome, etc. And the reality is that you have a 5000 square foot house and spend thousands of dollars on your gun hobby. The only reason you can't afford to build your army according to the platoon structure is that you've decided you don't want to spend any of your hobby budget on 40k.

As of yesterday, 2 IS and a CC is 155 points - though can stretch to 165 if you feel like blinging out the CC.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:They added nothing to the overall game. They just were there and let you bring more models at a time when there was not any real alternate FOCs

"Platoons added nothing, they just let you cope with the slot limit problem that existed back then and still exists now."

Weird definition of "nothing"...

Try reading what's written.

You do not have the same issues now that existed then. You want more Infantry Squads now? Take a different FOC to start with or add another Detachment.

Because why would anyone ever take Infantry Squads over Platoons?

Because sometimes you want exactly one infantry squad.

Cool, but that's not what would happen except for your "deliberately toning down your list for a newbie's first teaching game" situation. Because read literally any list out there and it comes down to number-crunched garbage, to the point where you can literally just play online via TTS or whatever rather than ever buying models since it's all about the math rather than the play experience.

You're giving someone 2 more HWS than the cap right off the bat with a single Platoon without that hypothetical limitation.

IOW, HWS might finally appear in a list outside of deliberately toning down your list for a newbie's first teaching game?

I mean, you could get the same effect by just removing the ability to take HWTs as part of Infantry or Veteran Squads necessitating the usage of the unit by virtue of there being no other options . Or by bringing back the specialized Fire/Anti-Tank/Mortar Support Squads, and allowing for them to get specialized roles and perks tied to the weapons in play.

Why take a Special Weapons Squad as an Elite choice, when you can throw 3 of them into a Platoon?
Why take a HWS as a Heavy choice, when you can throw 5 of them into a Platoon?

In this change HWS/SWS would go back to being troops like they always should have been.

And why would they be troops?

Seriously. Why would Heavy Weapon Squads or Special Weapon Squads be Troops?

If you want to make an argument, like I have multiple times in the past, that HWTs should be split off from the Infantry Squad they're a part of? Cool. I'll back your play on that.
If you want to make an argument, like I have multiple times in the past, that Special Weapon Squads should be set up differently and given unique roles? Again: I'll back your play on that.

But just throwing them in Troops is patently silly.

Because you can't take 15 Infantry Squads in a single Patrol detachment...?

So what? In the only context where being able to take 15 infantry squads in a single patrol detachment would be relevant you can't take 15 infantry squads.

Patrol Detachments aren't locked to a specific points size. You don't have to play Combat Patrols to use them.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
The ‘end days’ is the long game. That 150 infantry men is roughly $300 for new players.
Not a lot of people will want to, or can drop that much money to get started in a hobby.

Stop with this dishonest nonsense. We've already explained to you that your supposed "starting cost" is irrelevant because if you aren't buying $300 worth of infantry squads you still have to buy roughly $300 worth of other models to fill out an army. Your argument would only apply if the newbie could play a 100 point game with a single officer and a single 10-man infantry squad and nobody is playing 100 point games.

I get that you want to spend all of your money on guns instead of 40k but stop dishonestly using "think of the poor newbies" as your excuse. It's insulting to the people who actually have financial limits.

Insert console games, PCs, movies, camera equipment, etc instead of guns.

A game thrives or dies based upon newbloods. Guard is not an army that is attractive beyond initial purchases in many cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
As of yesterday, 2 IS and a CC is 155 points - though can stretch to 165 if you feel like blinging out the CC.

Just to build off this, unless you're buying a proxy model or multiple boxes?

That Cadian/Catachan CC is locked in a $38 box...along with his Command Squad.

So CC @ 35 pts(+5 for a PP and +5 if you opt for a PFist)

25 pts for the Command Squad, with +5 pts for a GL or Flamer or +10 pts for a Heavy Flamer, Meltagun, or Plasma Gun. You're spending $42 to get any Heavy Weapon options unless you already have bits from elsewhere. Tentatively put this at ~~30-40 pts~~.

60 pts for an Infantry Squad.


130 pts out of 2 boxes.

Guard are frigging criminal with the pts v $ value right now.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You do not have the same issues now that existed then. You want more Infantry Squads now? Take a different FOC to start with or add another Detachment.

You absolutely do have the same problem given the crippling CP penalty for taking additional detachments. The changes to starting CP (which, regardless of the fact that it's technically in the tournament book, will most likely be treated as a de facto standard matched play rule like tournament rules before it) are effectively a ban on multi-detachment armies.

Cool, but that's not what would happen except for your "deliberately toning down your list for a newbie's first teaching game" situation. Because read literally any list out there and it comes down to number-crunched garbage, to the point where you can literally just play online via TTS or whatever rather than ever buying models since it's all about the math rather than the play experience.

I'm glad you have those feelings. None of it has any relevance to this discussion.

Seriously. Why would Heavy Weapon Squads or Special Weapon Squads be Troops?

Because they're basic infantry and adding diversity to the troops slot is a good thing.

Patrol Detachments aren't locked to a specific points size. You don't have to play Combat Patrols to use them.

They are de facto locked to combat patrol games because in any other game you are overwhelmingly incentivized to take larger detachments.

A game thrives or dies based upon newbloods. Guard is not an army that is attractive beyond initial purchases in many cases.

And the presence or absence of the platoon system has nothing to do with this. If you don't have to buy infantry squads to build a platoon you still have to buy something else to use those points, and in anything beyond a 500 point game you want to take that many infantry squads anyway just to have enough cannon fodder.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You do not have the same issues now that existed then. You want more Infantry Squads now? Take a different FOC to start with or add another Detachment.

You absolutely do have the same problem given the crippling CP penalty for taking additional detachments. The changes to starting CP (which, regardless of the fact that it's technically in the tournament book, will most likely be treated as a de facto standard matched play rule like tournament rules before it) are effectively a ban on multi-detachment armies.

Then take a different FOC to start with if you're so desperate to fill out on Troops choices?

Or hey, here's a crazy thought, take some Veterans too?

Cool, but that's not what would happen except for your "deliberately toning down your list for a newbie's first teaching game" situation. Because read literally any list out there and it comes down to number-crunched garbage, to the point where you can literally just play online via TTS or whatever rather than ever buying models since it's all about the math rather than the play experience.

I'm glad you have those feelings. None of it has any relevance to this discussion.

You're the one who put that nonsense in to start with. This isn't the 90s where people actively try out things anymore. People seem to approach miniature gaming with "I want to have my whole army planned out to a tee before I ever set foot in a shop".

Seriously. Why would Heavy Weapon Squads or Special Weapon Squads be Troops?

Because they're basic infantry

They're literally not, but thanks for playing!

Special Weapon Squads are (quoting here):

Many regiments maintain six-man squads of specialists armed and trained in a variety of roles, categorized under the catch-all term of special weapons squads. Some are sniper squads, working in three two-man teams of sniper and spotter with the former armed with Sniper Rifles for taking out enemy commanders. Others are combat engineer teams, meant to clear trenches and destroy enemy fortifications with Demolition Charges, Flamers, Plasma Guns, Meltaguns and Grenade Launchers. These squads will often be attached to other platoons to provide them with their expertise.

and adding diversity to the troops slot is a good thing.

Been there, done that, wrote a treatise on it over the years.

People don't want it. They just want blobs apparently.

Patrol Detachments aren't locked to a specific points size. You don't have to play Combat Patrols to use them.

They are de facto locked to combat patrol games because in any other game you are overwhelmingly incentivized to take larger detachments.

Sure, and Guard are de facto locked to playing specific lists because of the lack of interest from the design team.

A game thrives or dies based upon newbloods. Guard is not an army that is attractive beyond initial purchases in many cases.

And the presence or absence of the platoon system has nothing to do with this. If you don't have to buy infantry squads to build a platoon you still have to buy something else to use those points, and in anything beyond a 500 point game you want to take that many infantry squads anyway just to have enough cannon fodder.

You bring shame to the name "Cadian".

Cannon fodder. Pah.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Today a newbie can have a legal army with 2 infantry squads and a single officer.

Stop being dishonest. Two infantry squads and a single officer is ~200 points. 500 points is the minimum that anyone is playing, and 2000 points is a normal game. Whether you have to buy a full platoon or not as part of your first 500 points is irrelevant, you still have to buy 500 points worth of stuff and the cost isn't going to change much.

There’s nothing dishonest about what I’ve said.

It's absolutely dishonest. You tried to claim a ridiculous poverty argument about how millennials have no money, buying $138 worth of models is an impossible burden for you to overcome, etc. And the reality is that you have a 5000 square foot house and spend thousands of dollars on your gun hobby. The only reason you can't afford to build your army according to the platoon structure is that you've decided you don't want to spend any of your hobby budget on 40k.

I claimed no ridiculous poverty argument.
All hobbies thrive off of new people. In the US, the middle class has been shrinking decade after decade. This means that if GW’s strategy is targeting the upper middle class and higher only, then the company will die…or at least the table top game will die.

Im sorry your head is too far up your ass to understand these basics of economics.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I claimed no ridiculous poverty argument.

And yet here you are, making the poverty argument again:

In the US, the middle class has been shrinking decade after decade. This means that if GW’s strategy is targeting the upper middle class and higher only, then the company will die…or at least the table top game will die.

The reality is that you, like many other people, can afford 40k. You simply choose not to be GW customers because you'd rather engage in your gun hobby.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I claimed no ridiculous poverty argument.

And yet here you are, making the poverty argument again:

In the US, the middle class has been shrinking decade after decade. This means that if GW’s strategy is targeting the upper middle class and higher only, then the company will die…or at least the table top game will die.

The reality is that you, like many other people, can afford 40k. You simply choose not to be GW customers because you'd rather engage in your gun hobby.

yes. Maintaining current quality of life and not having the money means it’s not affordable.
That’s kinda the whole point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let’s redirect the convo a little bit here.

How does everyone feel about the points and rules changes for guard released?

I think they’re generally good, but they kinda double down on some of the issues mentioned here in this thread already (making the army even cheaper despite some people feeling like they’re running out of slots)

I love the buffs to HotE, and the durability buffs to our various types of armor.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
yes. Maintaining current quality of life and not having the money means it’s not affordable.
That’s kinda the whole point.

That's a ridiculous argument. By that standard literally anything is "not affordable" as long as you commit to spending all of your available money on other things, no matter how cheap the thing is or how much money you have. The fact that you consider it a failure to maintain your quality of life if you redirect a small amount of hobby money from one hobby to another doesn't mean it isn't affordable.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

[...]
Today a newbie can have a legal army with 2 infantry squads and a single officer.
Under the old platoon rules you’d have to roughly double that cost.
[...]

Sorry to come back to that, maybe it's again more a question of understanding.
Yes, a single officer + 2 IS is a legal army. I mean... so is a single IS alone in an auxiliary support detachment. Even if platoons would become not just an option, but the only troop, your mentioned "one officer + 2 infantry squads" is still one legal troop slot and therefore a legal Auxiliary support detachment. So... if the argument really is, that newbies want to start with a single officer + two IS (150 points) and play Warhammer 40k with 21 T3, W1 models on the table AND you we would assume, that platoons would replace and not just add to the current options... it would still work, right? So even then, nobody would be "priced out" of the hobby.



Regardless from that I agree with other posters that this argument is a bit weird, as I highly doubt anyone plays with that low point numbers. I mean, against whom? Thats for example (all barebones and with points from the internet, so I might be an odd model of):
1 Tech priest dominus + 8 barebones Skitariis
OR
1 Warboss and 7 Boys
OR
1 Canoness and 9 Battle sisters

That... feels like a weird size for a WH40k game.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Regardless from that I agree with other posters that this argument is a bit weird, as I highly doubt anyone plays with that low point numbers. I mean, against whom? Thats for example (all barebones and with points from the internet, so I might be an odd model of):
1 Tech priest dominus + 8 barebones Skitariis
OR
1 Warboss and 7 Boys
OR
1 Canoness and 9 Battle sisters

That... feels like a weird size for a WH40k game.

*Looks slightly further down at her own thread about playing 8-12PL/side*

*Feels weird, even more so than the "hey a girl 40k player" weirdness that get her downvoted and ignored (as per above)*

@ Blndmage: sorry, my bad. You are completely right that you explained it already and are an example for low point games.

But conceeding the point of WH40k games in the sub 200 points range: did I miss anything in the assumption that even if (which was not stated by the pro platoon folks here), platoons would become the only troop option, the mentioned "one officer + 2 IS" is still as legal as now, just that it is an Auxilliary instead of a Patrol detachment?

Why not go down the route that someone suggested earlier; infantry squads AND platoons.

Infantry squads are for when you want individual squads and can take transports.

Platoons are a commander and command squad, 2-5 infantry squads, 0-1 HWS and 0-1 SWS. No transports allowed.

Veterans can either stay as a separate unit or be an upgrade for infantry squads.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's already been stated by a reliable rumourmonger that Cadian Shock Troops have their own datasheet in the Codex, as does Death Korps of Krieg.

Need a fact check on this.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's already been stated by a reliable rumourmonger that Cadian Shock Troops have their own datasheet in the Codex, as does Death Korps of Krieg.

Need a fact check on this.

From OK_Entrepeneur3004 on reddit. They were point-blank asked about something they had said earlier.

You stating veterans are going back into the troops slot or that cadian shock troops are getting their own datasheet?

To which OK_E replied:

Own

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Let’s redirect the convo a little bit here.

How does everyone feel about the points and rules changes for guard released?

I think they’re generally good, but they kinda double down on some of the issues mentioned here in this thread already (making the army even cheaper despite some people feeling like they’re running out of slots)

I love the buffs to HotE, and the durability buffs to our various types of armor.

Good gods yes, I have honestly had enough with platoons/guns/poverty debate. Though if I worked at GW and read this forum I would try really hard to reference it as an in joke in the codex.

I think the armies core problem - staying power - is a tricky one given many of the objectives. In theory with so many cheap units that can do stuff we should be laughing, but really many of those units die to a stiff breeze. Lots of stuff just isn't viable.

Running units with stuff is a welcome change - Guard aren't penal conscripts, they should have Vox's and other gear.

For me you can have changes that make it work in the current structure before getting all radical or harking back to the past.

Obviously the first change is messed up internal balance. A knowledge of basic maths and likely engagement ranges, opportunities to fire etc should result in is stuff like vanquisher cannons being credible. Some of that is points, some of that is rules.

The army needs to be sped up. Rather than re-rolls or doubled dice auto hitting or dice results of x skipping other rolls is needed. Stuff in the vein of 6's to auto auto wounding, or FRESRF auto hitting rather than doubling the amount of dice needing 4+ to hit. Rather than all the messing around with order ranges just say if an officer is near a vox he can order any other unit with a vox. Why are we worrying about range there? The army needs to be better to play with an against.

It needs to be rejigged to have more resilience in many units without affecting it overall feel. Small or expensive squads need to have more of a staying power. For me this can be done either with either an overly complex GW squad structure entry, or separate entries.

But in essence you end up with an infantry squad that can take an extra heavy weapon team (taking unit size to 12) for x points.
A heavy weapons section that is 3 teams, a sarge and 3 accompanying loaders (meatshields), squad size 10 with now the option of vox, sarge stuff, etc. and able to be ordered more easily.
A special weapons squad that is an infantry squad with the option of 3 special weapons, squad size 10 with now the option of vox, sarge stuff, etc. and able to be ordered more easily.

What applies to squads applies to characters. Personally I see nothing wrong with having the option of adding a command squad to a character and have the squad count as a character.

Then you can start to get more radical. Personally I would like to see a command arms element. I would love a rule where infantry and vehicles within 2-3 inches could mutually support as a facsimile of real world tactics. Here that would be take a ld check, if passed one unit can take the hits assigned to the other unit (so infantry take hits for vehicles, armoured vehicles - not support stuff like arty or sentinels - take hits meant for infantry). Representing the infantry taking on heavy weapon teams and infantry sheltering behind vehicles, would also look cool to see stuff advancing in a mutually supporting way as well.

I threw together a fun 1250 pt list last night that I'm looking forward to fielding:

Spearhead (gunnery experts, spotter details)
2x demolisher TCs
1x command squad (4 sniper rifles)
2x armored sentinels (missile launcher)
3x demolisher LRBT
1x Manticore (full payload)

Patrol (iotan dragons)
Tempestor prime
2x tempestus scions

Will it win? Probably not...will I have fun? You gosh darn better believe it!

I've talked about this before ad nauseum, but once more unto the breach...

The core problem with Guard isn't their staying power. It's their boring design.

There are very few armies where there is such a disconnect between lore and game when it comes to incorporating the aesthetic into the models themselves.
Guard Infantry have that disconnect amplified exponentially given that there's actual delineations between different Regiments that should be affecting how their Infantry Squads are outfitted.

We don't see that. And we don't see any kind of clear delineation between "Conscripts" and "Infantry Squads" outside of squad numbers(which can be blown away by Combined Squads) and the lack of upgrades on the Conscripts--the core body is the same. It's like if Gretchin had the same statline as Boyz.

Breaking Infantry Squads apart into a new setup would do the Guard a world of good. Having "Conscripts" reframed into a Regimentally neutral unit, with certain Regiments being able to add a <Regiment> keyword via Stratagems or army composition would go a long way towards addressing things too.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Let’s redirect the convo a little bit here.

How does everyone feel about the points and rules changes for guard released?

I think they’re generally good, but they kinda double down on some of the issues mentioned here in this thread already (making the army even cheaper despite some people feeling like they’re running out of slots)

I love the buffs to HotE, and the durability buffs to our various types of armor.

Good gods yes, I have honestly had enough with platoons/guns/poverty debate. Though if I worked at GW and read this forum I would try really hard to reference it as an in joke in the codex.

I think the armies core problem - staying power - is a tricky one given many of the objectives. In theory with so many cheap units that can do stuff we should be laughing, but really many of those units die to a stiff breeze. Lots of stuff just isn't viable.

Running units with stuff is a welcome change - Guard aren't penal conscripts, they should have Vox's and other gear.

For me you can have changes that make it work in the current structure before getting all radical or harking back to the past.

Obviously the first change is messed up internal balance. A knowledge of basic maths and likely engagement ranges, opportunities to fire etc should result in is stuff like vanquisher cannons being credible. Some of that is points, some of that is rules.

The army needs to be sped up. Rather than re-rolls or doubled dice auto hitting or dice results of x skipping other rolls is needed. Stuff in the vein of 6's to auto auto wounding, or FRESRF auto hitting rather than doubling the amount of dice needing 4+ to hit. Rather than all the messing around with order ranges just say if an officer is near a vox he can order any other unit with a vox. Why are we worrying about range there? The army needs to be better to play with an against.

It needs to be rejigged to have more resilience in many units without affecting it overall feel. Small or expensive squads need to have more of a staying power. For me this can be done either with either an overly complex GW squad structure entry, or separate entries.

But in essence you end up with an infantry squad that can take an extra heavy weapon team (taking unit size to 12) for x points.
A heavy weapons section that is 3 teams, a sarge and 3 accompanying loaders (meatshields), squad size 10 with now the option of vox, sarge stuff, etc. and able to be ordered more easily.
A special weapons squad that is an infantry squad with the option of 3 special weapons, squad size 10 with now the option of vox, sarge stuff, etc. and able to be ordered more easily.

What applies to squads applies to characters. Personally I see nothing wrong with having the option of adding a command squad to a character and have the squad count as a character.

Then you can start to get more radical. Personally I would like to see a command arms element. I would love a rule where infantry and vehicles within 2-3 inches could mutually support as a facsimile of real world tactics. Here that would be take a ld check, if passed one unit can take the hits assigned to the other unit (so infantry take hits for vehicles, armoured vehicles - not support stuff like arty or sentinels - take hits meant for infantry). Representing the infantry taking on heavy weapon teams and infantry sheltering behind vehicles, would also look cool to see stuff advancing in a mutually supporting way as well.

For slightly more survivable guard I think a ‘dig in’ and ‘pack up’ rule would be good.
Any unit with an HWT in it can choose to dig in or pack up during the command phase. A unit that does either cannot do anything else that turn. A dig in unit either gets +1 to their saves or gets to reroll failed saves. A dug in unit cannot move until they pack up.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I've talked about this before ad nauseum, but once more unto the breach...

The core problem with Guard isn't their staying power. It's their boring design.

There are very few armies where there is such a disconnect between lore and game when it comes to incorporating the aesthetic into the models themselves.
Guard Infantry have that disconnect amplified exponentially given that there's actual delineations between different Regiments that should be affecting how their Infantry Squads are outfitted.

We don't see that. And we don't see any kind of clear delineation between "Conscripts" and "Infantry Squads" outside of squad numbers(which can be blown away by Combined Squads) and the lack of upgrades on the Conscripts--the core body is the same. It's like if Gretchin had the same statline as Boyz.

Breaking Infantry Squads apart into a new setup would do the Guard a world of good. Having "Conscripts" reframed into a Regimentally neutral unit, with certain Regiments being able to add a <Regiment> keyword via Stratagems or army composition would go a long way towards addressing things too.

No difference between conscripts and guardsmen other than...you know...their rules...and their stat line. Not everyone plays Cadians (and some of us don't play any of the named guard regiments). The whole thing with rolling to see if orders work is very fluffly. It represents them being regular citizens freshly conscripted into service and not being properly trained in military tactics. And that's what makes the white shields even cooler, because it represents how everyone on Cadia has (or had...too soon?) military training of some sort (if I'm understanding the lore correctly). So I'm really not sure what you're getting at with this supposed disconnect from lore, unless you're complaining that GW doesn't have enough model variety to represent the variety of uniforms across the guard (in which case, sure...but adding that won't fix guard mechanically).

 Kanluwen wrote:
I've talked about this before ad nauseum, but once more unto the breach...

The core problem with Guard isn't their staying power. It's their boring design.

There are very few armies where there is such a disconnect between lore and game when it comes to incorporating the aesthetic into the models themselves.
Guard Infantry have that disconnect amplified exponentially given that there's actual delineations between different Regiments that should be affecting how their Infantry Squads are outfitted.

We don't see that. And we don't see any kind of clear delineation between "Conscripts" and "Infantry Squads" outside of squad numbers(which can be blown away by Combined Squads) and the lack of upgrades on the Conscripts--the core body is the same. It's like if Gretchin had the same statline as Boyz.

Breaking Infantry Squads apart into a new setup would do the Guard a world of good. Having "Conscripts" reframed into a Regimentally neutral unit, with certain Regiments being able to add a <Regiment> keyword via Stratagems or army composition would go a long way towards addressing things too.

I think that sort of thing would help with some interest, but I don’t think it would do much to increase effectiveness of the army.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

No difference between conscripts and guardsmen other than...you know...their rules...and their stat line.

"Raw Recruits" is just a rebadged version of the previous Orders system.

The statline differences are negligible as long as they retain the <Regiment> keywords.

Not everyone plays Cadians (and some of us don't play any of the named guard regiments). The whole thing with rolling to see if orders work is very fluffly.

Sure, as would simply making them "Auxilia" and not letting them accept Orders in the first place. As would giving them autoguns and simple Flak Vests for a 6+(which really should be a 5+, with Flak Armor going to a 4+ to match Aeldari Guardians who are 4+'s now and Carapace to a 3+) save.

It represents them being regular citizens freshly conscripted into service and not being properly trained in military tactics.

And yet somehow they're outfitted exactly the same as those Guardsmen...

Not toting, say, the auto-weapons that we see the traitor versions of those same Conscripts(aka: Cultists and Neophyte Hybrids) running around with. Crazy how that works, right?

And that's what makes the white shields even cooler, because it represents how everyone on Cadia has (or had...too soon?) military training of some sort (if I'm understanding the lore correctly).

The problem is that "Conscripts" is a broad as hell catch-all unit. It encompasses Penal Legionnaires(aka: Guardsmen), Planetary Defence Forces, and the "untrained peasant rabble".

Whiteshields were unique not just in being part of a military culture, but in that they were supposed to be outfitted the same as the Infantry Squads they would be upped into thanks to the sheer amount of war materiel that got sent to the Cadian warzones.

So I'm really not sure what you're getting at with this supposed disconnect from lore, unless you're complaining that GW doesn't have enough model variety to represent the variety of uniforms across the guard (in which case, sure...but adding that won't fix guard mechanically).

I'm "complaining" that they've been lazy as hell with the Guard. There's literally enough variety to have 3 different at minimum Guard Infantry Squads, each with unique loadouts, as the "basis" of things--and then at least a single signature unit for each of the Big Regiments.


Want stealthy infantry?
Go for Light Infantry squads!

Want to hold the midline, with the ability to dig in and give the opposition whatfor?
Go for Garrison Troopers!

Want to storm the breach, guts and glory encased in ceramite while your hellgun sings out a hymn of vengeance and glory?
Go for Heavy Infantry Squads!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

I think that sort of thing would help with some interest, but I don’t think it would do much to increase effectiveness of the army.

Nothing really is going to increase the effectiveness of the army, as long as we're kept in a perpetuated stagnation.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm "complaining" that they've been lazy as hell with the Guard. There's literally enough variety to have 3 different at minimum Guard Infantry Squads, each with unique loadouts, as the "basis" of things--and then at least a single signature unit for each of the Big Regiments.


Want stealthy infantry?
Go for Light Infantry squads!

Want to hold the midline, with the ability to dig in and give the opposition whatfor?
Go for Garrison Troopers!

Want to storm the breach, guts and glory encased in ceramite while your hellgun sings out a hymn of vengeance and glory?
Go for Heavy Infantry Squads!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

I think that sort of thing would help with some interest, but I don’t think it would do much to increase effectiveness of the army.

Nothing really is going to increase the effectiveness of the army, as long as we're kept in a perpetuated stagnation.

I see what you're saying Kanluwen, but none of those 3 infantry options makes a difference in 9th, as 9th is so lethal, and won't be trimmed down.

Heavy Infantry? Those are called Scions & Kasrkin. Light Infantry vs. Garrison? 6+ save vs. 5+: they die just as fast. Doesn't matter if they have "Bob's light flak armor" vs. "The emperor's thrice-blessed divine protection flak armor", it's all a 5+. Just call it whatever and move on.


The bigger problem with Guard is that it's a static gunline with low firepower in a game of movement and lethality. Guard get none of the benefits of being combined arms, while being penalized for moving, plus none of the decisions we make really impact the game. That's why Guard aren't that popular. It's not fun to stand there and shoot while you give up board control and the game by turn 2, potentially being tabled turn 3. At least when Dark Angels "castle up", they were (probably not in Nephilim) still scoring their objectives. Guard got 1 VP per unit killed, and could only manage 6-8 points for the entire game.

Is "Light Infantry" fluffy? Heck ya. But until that "Light Infantry" can hold an Objective Marker for a turn, it's meaningless. First, let's get a rules that play the game. Then we can geek out while we fluff up a few units.

brainpsyk wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm "complaining" that they've been lazy as hell with the Guard. There's literally enough variety to have 3 different at minimum Guard Infantry Squads, each with unique loadouts, as the "basis" of things--and then at least a single signature unit for each of the Big Regiments.


Want stealthy infantry?
Go for Light Infantry squads!

Want to hold the midline, with the ability to dig in and give the opposition whatfor?
Go for Garrison Troopers!

Want to storm the breach, guts and glory encased in ceramite while your hellgun sings out a hymn of vengeance and glory?
Go for Heavy Infantry Squads!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

I think that sort of thing would help with some interest, but I don’t think it would do much to increase effectiveness of the army.

Nothing really is going to increase the effectiveness of the army, as long as we're kept in a perpetuated stagnation.

I see what you're saying Kanluwen, but none of those 3 infantry options makes a difference in 9th, as 9th is so lethal, and won't be trimmed down.

Heavy Infantry? Those are called Scions & Kasrkin. Light Infantry vs. Garrison? 6+ save vs. 5+: they die just as fast. Doesn't matter if they have "Bob's light flak armor" vs. "The emperor's thrice-blessed divine protection flak armor", it's all a 5+. Just call it whatever and move on.


The bigger problem with Guard is that it's a static gunline with low firepower in a game of movement and lethality. Guard get none of the benefits of being combined arms, while being penalized for moving, plus none of the decisions we make really impact the game. That's why Guard aren't that popular. It's not fun to stand there and shoot while you give up board control and the game by turn 2, potentially being tabled turn 3. At least when Dark Angels "castle up", they were (probably not in Nephilim) still scoring their objectives. Guard got 1 VP per unit killed, and could only manage 6-8 points for the entire game.

Is "Light Infantry" fluffy? Heck ya. But until that "Light Infantry" can hold an Objective Marker for a turn, it's meaningless. First, let's get a rules that play the game. Then we can geek out while we fluff up a few units.

I think my dig in/pack up mechanic might help with holding objectives. either +1 to saves while dug in, or reroll failed saves, or hell both. trade off is digging in is announced in the command phase, and the unit in question can't do anything else for the rest of your turn. I would also only make this mechanic work for units with heavy weapons in them, so conscripts, bare bones infantry squads, etc, can't use it.

it encourages more fluffy army lists, while making units on objectives, or just any where, a little bit more durable.

brainpsyk wrote:


I see what you're saying Kanluwen, but none of those 3 infantry options makes a difference in 9th, as 9th is so lethal, and won't be trimmed down.

You see nothing of the options included. Just that I named some stuff.

Heavy Infantry? Those are called Scions & Kasrkin.

Also Jantine Patricians, Grenadiers, etc etc.

Kasrkin are a specific unit. They have training specific to them and roles specific to them.

Scions aren't "heavy infantry". They're suicide troops, and quite frankly one of the best ways we could bring back Penal Legionnaires as a concept.

Light Infantry vs. Garrison? 6+ save vs. 5+: they die just as fast. Doesn't matter if they have "Bob's light flak armor" vs. "The emperor's thrice-blessed divine protection flak armor", it's all a 5+. Just call it whatever and move on.

Which is the bigger issue...the statline has remained untouched.

Flak Armor is meant to be the IG equivalent to Aeldari mesh armour, which got boosted to 4+. Flak Armor needs to go to 4+ and Carapace needs to be bolstered to 3+.
Flak Vests are meant to be the "light" quality gear. When Jungle Fighters was a doctrine, you gave up a point of armor and instead gained a 4+ cover save which couldn't be combined with cameleoline(+1 to cover saves).

Is "Light Infantry" fluffy? Heck ya. But until that "Light Infantry" can hold an Objective Marker for a turn, it's meaningless.

Then nothing matters period. And maybe you should consider going to play a different army?

I'm dead serious. If the metric you gauge things by is "can it hold an objective marker?", you're playing the wrong army.

First, let's get a rules that play the game. Then we can geek out while we fluff up a few units.

We literally don't have to. The rules are right there for things like Light Infantry on the Gaunt's Ghosts datasheet. Covert Stealth Team(outside of deployment zone, 9" from enemy DZ and models) and Camo-Cloak(not eligible target for ranged attacks if it is more than 18" away from the firing unit. -1 to hit rolls for ranged attacks and a +1 to armour saving throws when receiving the benefits of cover) are two really good starting points for Light Infantry based units.

"Playing the game" means different things to different people. Some people don't restrict themselves to objective play only or use custom scenarios or any number of different iterations of things that make it so the way YOU play will not be the same as the way THEY play.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Flak Armor is meant to be the IG equivalent to Aeldari mesh armour, which got boosted to 4+. Flak Armor needs to go to 4+ and Carapace needs to be bolstered to 3+.

Traditionally no it wasn't...

Flak 6+ (5+ verses explosions)
Mesh 5+
Carapace 4+
Powered 3+
Terminator 2+ (then 3+ on 2D6, a glorious if slow rolling time...)

 Kanluwen wrote:

brainpsyk wrote:


I see what you're saying Kanluwen, but none of those 3 infantry options makes a difference in 9th, as 9th is so lethal, and won't be trimmed down.

You see nothing of the options included. Just that I named some stuff.

Heavy Infantry? Those are called Scions & Kasrkin.

Also Jantine Patricians, Grenadiers, etc etc.

Kasrkin are a specific unit. They have training specific to them and roles specific to them.

Scions aren't "heavy infantry". They're suicide troops, and quite frankly one of the best ways we could bring back Penal Legionnaires as a concept.

Light Infantry vs. Garrison? 6+ save vs. 5+: they die just as fast. Doesn't matter if they have "Bob's light flak armor" vs. "The emperor's thrice-blessed divine protection flak armor", it's all a 5+. Just call it whatever and move on.

Which is the bigger issue...the statline has remained untouched.

Flak Armor is meant to be the IG equivalent to Aeldari mesh armour, which got boosted to 4+. Flak Armor needs to go to 4+ and Carapace needs to be bolstered to 3+.
Flak Vests are meant to be the "light" quality gear. When Jungle Fighters was a doctrine, you gave up a point of armor and instead gained a 4+ cover save which couldn't be combined with cameleoline(+1 to cover saves).

Is "Light Infantry" fluffy? Heck ya. But until that "Light Infantry" can hold an Objective Marker for a turn, it's meaningless.

Then nothing matters period. And maybe you should consider going to play a different army?

I'm dead serious. If the metric you gauge things by is "can it hold an objective marker?", you're playing the wrong army.

First, let's get a rules that play the game. Then we can geek out while we fluff up a few units.

We literally don't have to. The rules are right there for things like Light Infantry on the Gaunt's Ghosts datasheet. Covert Stealth Team(outside of deployment zone, 9" from enemy DZ and models) and Camo-Cloak(not eligible target for ranged attacks if it is more than 18" away from the firing unit. -1 to hit rolls for ranged attacks and a +1 to armour saving throws when receiving the benefits of cover) are two really good starting points for Light Infantry based units.

"Playing the game" means different things to different people. Some people don't restrict themselves to objective play only or use custom scenarios or any number of different iterations of things that make it so the way YOU play will not be the same as the way THEY play.

why exactly should carapace armor be equal to power armor?

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Flak Armor is meant to be the IG equivalent to Aeldari mesh armour, which got boosted to 4+. Flak Armor needs to go to 4+ and Carapace needs to be bolstered to 3+.

Traditionally no it wasn't...

Flak 6+ (5+ verses explosions)
Mesh 5+
Carapace 4+
Powered 3+
Terminator 2+ (then 3+ on 2D6, a glorious if slow rolling time...)

None of those have been true in my entire 20+ years playing 40k. I'm sure it was true at some point, but it hasn't been the case since at least 1997.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
why exactly should carapace armor be equal to power armor?

Put simply:
Why not?

I'm not asking for them to get Armour of Contempt(an innate worsening to armour penetration characteristics) or for them to get additional Wounds or invulnerable saves or Toughness.

Bumping Carapace to a 3+ save and moving Flak Armor to match the Guardians' 4+ save now is an immediately tangible change.

It also opens a space for "Flak Vests" as a 5+ save, again making an immediately tangible change, and design space for a 5+ "scout" styled unit of <Regiment> basis rather than relying upon Ratlings.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Put simply:
Why not?

"Why shouldn't a light chest plate give the same 3+ save as full-body armor that is so heavy it needs power assist to allow the user to move."

Think about it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Flak Armor is meant to be the IG equivalent to Aeldari mesh armour, which got boosted to 4+. Flak Armor needs to go to 4+ and Carapace needs to be bolstered to 3+.

Traditionally no it wasn't...

Flak 6+ (5+ verses explosions)
Mesh 5+
Carapace 4+
Powered 3+
Terminator 2+ (then 3+ on 2D6, a glorious if slow rolling time...)

None of those have been true in my entire 20+ years playing 40k. I'm sure it was true at some point, but it hasn't been the case since at least 1997.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
why exactly should carapace armor be equal to power armor?

Put simply:
Why not?

I'm not asking for them to get Armour of Contempt(an innate worsening to armour penetration characteristics) or for them to get additional Wounds or invulnerable saves or Toughness.

Bumping Carapace to a 3+ save and moving Flak Armor to match the Guardians' 4+ save now is an immediately tangible change.

It also opens a space for "Flak Vests" as a 5+ save, again making an immediately tangible change, and design space for a 5+ "scout" styled unit of <Regiment> basis rather than relying upon Ratlings.

why not? because you'd be taking an army thats intended to be squishy and rely largely on either numbers and vehicles and making them elite infantry. if you want an army of 3+ saves that are normal humans play SoB or votann.

making carapace armor a 3+ save is ridiculous.
if you want different saves for different kinds of infantry, and to have light scouts, then accept a 6+ save for no armor, 5+ for flak/regular armor, and 4+ for heavy/carapace.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Put simply:
Why not?

"Why shouldn't a light chest plate give the same 3+ save as full-body armor that is so heavy it needs power assist to allow the user to move."

Think about it.

I'd suggest you do the same.

Carapace Armour, as we've seen it, has most recently been portrayed as a full suit of armour.

 Kanluwen wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Put simply:
Why not?

"Why shouldn't a light chest plate give the same 3+ save as full-body armor that is so heavy it needs power assist to allow the user to move."

Think about it.

I'd suggest you do the same.

Carapace Armour, as we've seen it, has most recently been portrayed as a full suit of armour.

It's still much lighter than power armor. Look at the current storm trooper kit: it has a breastplate (with a couple of small loose-fitting thigh plates attached), knee pads, shoulder pads, gauntlets, and an optional helmet. There's large sections of exposed flesh and the armor they do have is clearly thinner and lighter than power armor.

And that's the heaviest armor we see. The new kasrkin models look even lighter. DKoK grenadiers lose the gauntlets and back plate. Where exactly have you seen carapace armor that is comparable to power armor?

johnpjones1775 wrote:
why not? because you'd be taking an army thats intended to be squishy and rely largely on either numbers and vehicles and making them elite infantry.

GOOD! Kasrkin, Grenadiers, Scions, etc ARE Elite Infantry. They're the ones wearing bloody Carapace Armour.

if you want an army of 3+ saves that are normal humans play SoB or votann.

Does every single Guardsman have Carapace Armour?

No? Crazy right?

making carapace armor a 3+ save is ridiculous.

Not really. It's not like Carapace Armour is spread all over the Guard roster. It's on Scions and it will be on Kasrkin. That's a mighty two units rocking it.

if you want different saves for different kinds of infantry, and to have light scouts, then accept a 6+ save for no armor, 5+ for flak/regular armor, and 4+ for heavy/carapace.

Or I can accept none of your ideas. A Cadian Guardsman is similarly statted to a GSC Neophyte, who's wearing frigging work clothes and rocking the same save as Flak Armour.

That ain't right.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or I can accept none of your ideas. A Cadian Guardsman is similarly statted to a GSC Neophyte, who's wearing frigging work clothes and rocking the same save as Flak Armour.

So nerf neophyte armor to Sv - like it should be. Unless you're making the claim that their armor is their mutated bodies gaining tough hide or plates under their clothes, in which case a 5+ is fine.

Friendly PSA, Emphasis mine.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

Its very clear that Guard have not been in a good place for a VERY long time (I came in just after the halcyon days of 5th edition when guard had some teeth in them still but still reeling after . At the dawn of 8th there was some hope with conscripts and then again with Greater Good choose your own regiments. However nothing has been able to stick in a competitive scene. Which brings us this very quandary...how do we fix guard? Its a complex army that has some of the largest diversity in its builds and lists, going from all mech, all armor, all artillery, and all foot troops and everything in between. Balancing all of these factors will be quite a chore that will take planning, depth, and a strong dose of rules sensibility, which probably won't be happening ( a girl can dream can't she?). What does the guard need? Rebuilding from the ground up? A whole new kind of organization? Maybe simply point fixes? There are many ways to do it...

This thread wasn't about narrative play, or campaigns, or making the army more match the fluff. This thread was meant to discuss how to fix Guard in a way to give it a better standing in competitive play.

So how do we define the ability of Armor? To defend against attacks? Powered Armor, at least in the fluff has been shown countless times to be unable to defend against Claws, Acid, bullets, bolter rounds, Las Weapons, missiles, ACs, las cannons, titanic feet, and psyker missiles.

Carapace armor has been shown to be JUST AS effective, that is to say, NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE. Make it all 3+, who cares. Everyone is toting Assault d12 AP5 6MWs on a miss, Powered fart bombs these days. Honestly, does the ARmor value ever even come into effect these days?

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
why not? because you'd be taking an army thats intended to be squishy and rely largely on either numbers and vehicles and making them elite infantry.

GOOD! Kasrkin, Grenadiers, Scions, etc ARE Elite Infantry. They're the ones wearing bloody Carapace Armour.

if you want an army of 3+ saves that are normal humans play SoB or votann.

Does every single Guardsman have Carapace Armour?

No? Crazy right?

making carapace armor a 3+ save is ridiculous.

Not really. It's not like Carapace Armour is spread all over the Guard roster. It's on Scions and it will be on Kasrkin. That's a mighty two units rocking it.

if you want different saves for different kinds of infantry, and to have light scouts, then accept a 6+ save for no armor, 5+ for flak/regular armor, and 4+ for heavy/carapace.

Or I can accept none of your ideas. A Cadian Guardsman is similarly statted to a GSC Neophyte, who's wearing frigging work clothes and rocking the same save as Flak Armour.

That ain't right.

Kasrkin and what not are elite for the guard yes. In that sense they’re elite relative to their faction, they’re not elite relative to other factions.They’re maybe as good as a normal sister of battle, but with lighter armor.
Carapace armor being 4+ makes perfect sense. It’s cheaper and easier to manufacture and use than power armor, but doesn’t give the same level of protection.
And the GSC units you mentioned also have the same save as a Catachan.

Do you know what flak armor is? It’s not a ballistic vest or anything of the sort. It’s only purpose is to protect the wearer from fragments of metal…

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So how do we define the ability of Armor? To defend against attacks? Powered Armor, at least in the fluff has been shown countless times to be unable to defend against Claws, Acid, bullets, bolter rounds, Las Weapons, missiles, ACs, las cannons, titanic feet, and psyker missiles.

Carapace armor has been shown to be JUST AS effective, that is to say, NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE. Make it all 3+, who cares. Everyone is toting Assault d12 AP5 6MWs on a miss, Powered fart bombs these days. Honestly, does the ARmor value ever even come into effect these days?

Armor is currently so important that invulnerable saves are becoming quickly irrelevant, at least on everything with AoC, which is a huge number of models.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So how do we define the ability of Armor? To defend against attacks? Powered Armor, at least in the fluff has been shown countless times to be unable to defend against Claws, Acid, bullets, bolter rounds, Las Weapons, missiles, ACs, las cannons, titanic feet, and psyker missiles.

Carapace armor has been shown to be JUST AS effective, that is to say, NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE. Make it all 3+, who cares. Everyone is toting Assault d12 AP5 6MWs on a miss, Powered fart bombs these days. Honestly, does the ARmor value ever even come into effect these days?

In the real world, armor isn't equally effective at all locations against shots from all angles, and from all ranges. Depending on how it's hit, 12" of WWII battleship armor can stop a 16" AP shell. Likewise a 16" AP shell can penetrate that exact same armor. How are both possible? It all depends on the angle of the hit and the kinetic energy of the shell. So just because we see fluff show two sets of armor shrugging off hits from the same weapon doesn't make them the same.

All that said, if all we care about is (balanced) competitiveness, it would be nice to give a slight boost to staying power for the guard. I always liked the idea of being able to buy carapace armor to get better armor way back when. You want to staying power, you'll have to pay for it. Not sure if it'd be worth 1 pt per model or not...if it isn't then maybe it could be something like 5 pts to upgrade the squad's armor. I also think the dig in mechanic mentioned earlier might be cool (although I'm not as enthusiastic about the pack up action).

Ya know what? Let’s just go ahead and make all armies the same stat wise.

Depending on what BL book and author you read there’s fluff to show every faction is equally good and powerful as any other.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Kasrkin and what not are elite for the guard yes. In that sense they’re elite relative to their faction, they’re not elite relative to other factions.They’re maybe as good as a normal sister of battle, but with lighter armor.

They're better than a "normal" Sister of Battle.

You're confusing simply having Power Armor as being good at something. Anyone can wear power armor, theoretically.

Carapace armor being 4+ makes perfect sense.

Not when compared to the other 4+ equivalent troops.

It’s cheaper and easier to manufacture and use than power armor, but doesn’t give the same level of protection.

Cool, so then put non-Astartes PA at 4+.

No Black Carapace, the armor's effectiveness is reduced significantly.

And the GSC units you mentioned also have the same save as a Catachan.

And a Vostroyan(a whole regiment that when introduced was given the CARAPACE ARMOR doctrine as a hallmark), Valhallan, Tanith, etc etc.

What's your point? That the Guard armor hasn't been looked at, in a serious manner, since the 3.5E Doctrines book?

They literally called out in the 3.5E book that going from "Flak Armor" to a "Flak Vest" reduces your armor save. End of story.

Do you know what flak armor is?

Do you?

It’s not a ballistic vest or anything of the sort. It’s only purpose is to protect the wearer from fragments of metal…

Flak armour consists of multiple layers of different ablative and impact absorbent materials designed primarily to deflect or absorb the majority of the force from a shot or blow. It is meant to provide defence against low-velocity, dispersed damage, such as explosions, shrapnel and ricochet material, rather than to protect against a direct impact, in which case the armour's protection is almost negligible. The ablative characteristics of the armour provide further defence against heat and energy based damage.

What you're referring to is the "real world" version of flak jackets, which commonly were issued to vehicle crews.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or I can accept none of your ideas. A Cadian Guardsman is similarly statted to a GSC Neophyte, who's wearing frigging work clothes and rocking the same save as Flak Armour.

So nerf neophyte armor to Sv - like it should be. Unless you're making the claim that their armor is their mutated bodies gaining tough hide or plates under their clothes, in which case a 5+ is fine.

Or I'm "making the claim" that it's stupid to pretend that there aren't a bunch of numbers unused in some armies for saves...and that it shouldn't be rocket science to bump Guard units up a point of armor.

3+ carapace is fine. They've shown they have no issue with layering additional rules or tweaks to represent wargear effects--and PA being bonus Toughness, Wounds, or a negation to armor penetration characteristics is entirely within reason whilst allowing for the 3+ save to be used without just being forbidden from other armies.


And because I'm pretty sure you two will have aneurysms:
Conscripts should be a 5+ save, since they'd be getting "Flak Vests" rather than "Flak Armor".

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Kasrkin and what not are elite for the guard yes. In that sense they’re elite relative to their faction, they’re not elite relative to other factions.They’re maybe as good as a normal sister of battle, but with lighter armor.

They're better than a "normal" Sister of Battle.

You're confusing simply having Power Armor as being good at something. Anyone can wear power armor, theoretically.

Carapace armor being 4+ makes perfect sense.

Not when compared to the other 4+ equivalent troops.

It’s cheaper and easier to manufacture and use than power armor, but doesn’t give the same level of protection.

Cool, so then put non-Astartes PA at 4+.

No Black Carapace, the armor's effectiveness is reduced significantly.

And the GSC units you mentioned also have the same save as a Catachan.

And a Vostroyan(a whole regiment that when introduced was given the CARAPACE ARMOR doctrine as a hallmark), Valhallan, Tanith, etc etc.

What's your point? That the Guard armor hasn't been looked at, in a serious manner, since the 3.5E Doctrines book?

They literally called out in the 3.5E book that going from "Flak Armor" to a "Flak Vest" reduces your armor save. End of story.

Do you know what flak armor is?

Do you?

It’s not a ballistic vest or anything of the sort. It’s only purpose is to protect the wearer from fragments of metal…

Flak armour consists of multiple layers of different ablative and impact absorbent materials designed primarily to deflect or absorb the majority of the force from a shot or blow. It is meant to provide defence against low-velocity, dispersed damage, such as explosions, shrapnel and ricochet material, rather than to protect against a direct impact, in which case the armour's protection is almost negligible. The ablative characteristics of the armour provide further defence against heat and energy based damage.

What you're referring to is the "real world" version of flak jackets, which commonly were issued to vehicle crews.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or I can accept none of your ideas. A Cadian Guardsman is similarly statted to a GSC Neophyte, who's wearing frigging work clothes and rocking the same save as Flak Armour.

So nerf neophyte armor to Sv - like it should be. Unless you're making the claim that their armor is their mutated bodies gaining tough hide or plates under their clothes, in which case a 5+ is fine.

Or I'm "making the claim" that it's stupid to pretend that there aren't a bunch of numbers unused in some armies for saves...and that it shouldn't be rocket science to bump Guard units up a point of armor.

3+ carapace is fine. They've shown they have no issue with layering additional rules or tweaks to represent wargear effects--and PA being bonus Toughness, Wounds, or a negation to armor penetration characteristics is entirely within reason whilst allowing for the 3+ save to be used without just being forbidden from other armies.


And because I'm pretty sure you two will have aneurysms:
Conscripts should be a 5+ save, since they'd be getting "Flak Vests" rather than "Flak Armor".

omg did you even read the paragraph you posted?
Flack vest, flak armor, they’re interchangeable.

C: Imperial Guard 3.5E pg 56 wrote:This specialization will lead a regiment to abandon bulky flak armour for a simple flak vest instead. All units taking this Doctrine reduce their Armour Save from a 5+ to a 6+.

You were saying?

A flak vest is part of the flak armour setup.

Just like Carapace Armour, the whole "system" can be worn piecemeal.

 Kanluwen wrote:

C: Imperial Guard 3.5E pg 56 wrote:This specialization will lead a regiment to abandon bulky flak armour for a simple flak vest instead. All units taking this Doctrine reduce their Armour Save from a 5+ to a 6+.

You were saying?

A flak vest is part of the flak armour setup.

Just like Carapace Armour, the whole "system" can be worn piecemeal.

give up trying to reason with him.
his own copy/paste supports what i said, but he shared it to try to counter me. either his reading comprehension is trash, or he's just so dead set on this his bias is effecting his reading comprehension. either way, this isn't an argument you can win, nor will you change his mind with facts or logic.

Arcanis161 wrote:
Friendly PSA, Emphasis mine.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

Its very clear that Guard have not been in a good place for a VERY long time (I came in just after the halcyon days of 5th edition when guard had some teeth in them still but still reeling after . At the dawn of 8th there was some hope with conscripts and then again with Greater Good choose your own regiments. However nothing has been able to stick in a competitive scene. Which brings us this very quandary...how do we fix guard? Its a complex army that has some of the largest diversity in its builds and lists, going from all mech, all armor, all artillery, and all foot troops and everything in between. Balancing all of these factors will be quite a chore that will take planning, depth, and a strong dose of rules sensibility, which probably won't be happening ( a girl can dream can't she?). What does the guard need? Rebuilding from the ground up? A whole new kind of organization? Maybe simply point fixes? There are many ways to do it...

This thread wasn't about narrative play, or campaigns, or making the army more match the fluff. This thread was meant to discuss how to fix Guard in a way to give it a better standing in competitive play.

If that’s what this thread is about they should have said in the original post (they didn’t), if they had I’d gave happily skipped past it. It just says it’s about fixing guard.

Arcanis161 wrote:
Friendly PSA, Emphasis mine.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

Its very clear that Guard have not been in a good place for a VERY long time (I came in just after the halcyon days of 5th edition when guard had some teeth in them still but still reeling after . At the dawn of 8th there was some hope with conscripts and then again with Greater Good choose your own regiments. However nothing has been able to stick in a competitive scene. Which brings us this very quandary...how do we fix guard? Its a complex army that has some of the largest diversity in its builds and lists, going from all mech, all armor, all artillery, and all foot troops and everything in between. Balancing all of these factors will be quite a chore that will take planning, depth, and a strong dose of rules sensibility, which probably won't be happening ( a girl can dream can't she?). What does the guard need? Rebuilding from the ground up? A whole new kind of organization? Maybe simply point fixes? There are many ways to do it...

This thread wasn't about narrative play, or campaigns, or making the army more match the fluff. This thread was meant to discuss how to fix Guard in a way to give it a better standing in competitive play.

where exactly is that specified in the OP?

The funny thing is, the armor doesn't matter. Having a 5+ save is just fine, it doesn't need to go to a 4+ or even a 3+. Units need to be defined by their purpose and other units that help them perform that role.

Just having a 5+ save means we can't hold an objective, or screen our tanks, as the definition/purpose of that unit is to screen and/or tank firepower, which it can't do. So just giving a unit a 6+ or a 4+ is literally meaningless. Infantry just can't perform that tanking role like it could in 8th.

But, put those 5+ save models in a chimera, now we have 20W on an objective, that is much harder to shift. Guard can't do that right now because a) the chimera is too expensive b) the chimera has no durability (even with AoC), and c) the chimera gives up 2VP to try to hold an objective for 4VP. It's just not viable. So it's not just the 5+ that is the problem, it's that Guard need models with a 5+ to tank 9th edition firepower, and there's nothing you can do to boost infantry to the point where it's viable to perform that role.

Drukhari have the same problem. Most of their Troops aren't that good, even Incubi are only decent in and of themselves. But, put them in a Raider where they can get anywhere on the board and punch above their weight class, and they wreck face. But caught on foot and we can wipe an Incubi squad with a bunch of lasguns.

So, what do we want a T3 unit with a 5+ save to do?

If you want it to hold objectives, then we have to give them staying power, and just an armor save won't do that. That's why I proposed buffing the chimera to have 9W and Ramshackle (and now AoC!). Then Guard can put 19W on an objective that's harder to shift, and enough firepower to defend itself. If the opponent want to clear an objective, then the anti-tank FP goes into the Chimera, leaving the LRBTs to wreck face. Target the LRBT, and the Chimera holds the Objective. Force the opponent into a choice. But right now there is no "choice" to be made, as the anti-infantry stuff clears our infantry, and the anti-tank stuff clears our tanks, and there's enough firepower to do both.

I want Infantry to no longer have to screen tanks, as infantry isn't durable enough to perform that role. However, even with a 5+ save, or even a 6+, infantry can still move block the mid-board. If the 6+ infantry can pre-game move or infiltrate, now we're talking. The unit has a purpose that it can fulfill, with 6+ infantry to screen the sides, and/or RND/EOAF/etc.? Heck ya!

Define the in-game purpose, then define the rules to make the unit fulfill that purpose.

But just "squad A has a 6+, squad B has a 5+ and squad C has a 4+" is just a waste of time.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
give up trying to reason with him.
his own copy/paste supports what i said, but he shared it to try to counter me. either his reading comprehension is trash, or he's just so dead set on this his bias is effecting his reading comprehension. either way, this isn't an argument you can win, nor will you change his mind with facts or logic.

Flak armour consists of multiple layers of different ablative and impact absorbent materials designed primarily to deflect or absorb the majority of the force from a shot or blow. It is meant to provide defence against low-velocity, dispersed damage, such as explosions, shrapnel and ricochet material, rather than to protect against a direct impact, in which case the armour's protection is almost negligible. The ablative characteristics of the armour provide further defence against heat and energy based damage.

Bolded the relevant sections for your reading comprehension.

If you want to whine about "reading comprehension" and try to be snarky, just remember that your statement was:

It’s not a ballistic vest or anything of the sort. It’s only purpose is to protect the wearer from fragments of metal…

But remember anyways:
There's space for a 3+ Carapace Armor save! You just don't want it.

You also don't seem to want anything other than "lolhordesofguardsmendyingpewpew", which is kinda funny.

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
give up trying to reason with him.
his own copy/paste supports what i said, but he shared it to try to counter me. either his reading comprehension is trash, or he's just so dead set on this his bias is effecting his reading comprehension. either way, this isn't an argument you can win, nor will you change his mind with facts or logic.

Flak armour consists of multiple layers of different ablative and impact absorbent materials designed primarily to deflect or absorb the majority of the force from a shot or blow. It is meant to provide defence against low-velocity, dispersed damage, such as explosions, shrapnel and ricochet material, rather than to protect against a direct impact, in which case the armour's protection is almost negligible. The ablative characteristics of the armour provide further defence against heat and energy based damage.

Bolded the relevant sections for your reading comprehension.

If you want to whine about "reading comprehension" and try to be snarky, just remember that your statement was:

It’s not a ballistic vest or anything of the sort. It’s only purpose is to protect the wearer from fragments of metal…

But remember anyways:
There's space for a 3+ Carapace Armor save! You just don't want it.

You also don't seem to want anything other than "lolhordesofguardsmendyingpewpew", which is kinda funny.

…yes…it protects against burns and the concussive force of an explosion. Not lasers.

Ah yes, those famous energy explosions.

And I like how "burns and concussive force of an explosion" is now "fragments of metal".

Necron Warriors have a 4+ (I will never forgive the loss of our 3+ Warriors). So, compare that to a guardsman.

None of this matters. Literally all of this is a fluff debate. There are bugs made of spit and vomit that have claws that can cleave TERMINATOR armor in half, without even trying hard. Meanwhile, a Egyptian mummy made of death and metal, can fire a bolt of pure nothing, that dissolves even the thickest tank armor. But a Guardsman's flak vest/jacket/wife beater/bangle is somehow less capable of stopping those? WHO. CARES? Guard could be 4+ and it wouldn't make a difference lore wise. Stop arguing what armor literally can and can't do in a game where people summon demons made of rape and anger.

For game stats, it's fairly obvious why guard don't get anything below a 5+, and why their "elite" Scions don't get a 3+. Because they are cheap chaff units comparably to the "elite" armies that pay a premium for their stats. Like Custodes.

If we a

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:
Friendly PSA, Emphasis mine.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

Its very clear that Guard have not been in a good place for a VERY long time (I came in just after the halcyon days of 5th edition when guard had some teeth in them still but still reeling after . At the dawn of 8th there was some hope with conscripts and then again with Greater Good choose your own regiments. However nothing has been able to stick in a competitive scene. Which brings us this very quandary...how do we fix guard? Its a complex army that has some of the largest diversity in its builds and lists, going from all mech, all armor, all artillery, and all foot troops and everything in between. Balancing all of these factors will be quite a chore that will take planning, depth, and a strong dose of rules sensibility, which probably won't be happening ( a girl can dream can't she?). What does the guard need? Rebuilding from the ground up? A whole new kind of organization? Maybe simply point fixes? There are many ways to do it...

This thread wasn't about narrative play, or campaigns, or making the army more match the fluff. This thread was meant to discuss how to fix Guard in a way to give it a better standing in competitive play.

where exactly is that specified in the OP?

I did quote the OP? And I did bold, what seems to me to be, a clear indication that this topic was about fixing Guard for competitive play?

brainpsyk wrote:
The funny thing is, the armor doesn't matter. Having a 5+ save is just fine, it doesn't need to go to a 4+ or even a 3+. Units need to be defined by their purpose and other units that help them perform that role.

Just having a 5+ save means we can't hold an objective, or screen our tanks, as the definition/purpose of that unit is to screen and/or tank firepower, which it can't do. So just giving a unit a 6+ or a 4+ is literally meaningless. Infantry just can't perform that tanking role like it could in 8th.

But, put those 5+ save models in a chimera, now we have 20W on an objective, that is much harder to shift. Guard can't do that right now because a) the chimera is too expensive b) the chimera has no durability (even with AoC), and c) the chimera gives up 2VP to try to hold an objective for 4VP. It's just not viable. So it's not just the 5+ that is the problem, it's that Guard need models with a 5+ to tank 9th edition firepower, and there's nothing you can do to boost infantry to the point where it's viable to perform that role.

Look, if I can hold an objective with a 70pt Ork truck with x10 obsec grots in it? You Guard players can manage it with a 75pt chimera + squad.
You're a min total of 25pts more than my truck-of-grots & for that your ride has:+1T, +1sv, +1BS, twice the # of main guns (both of wich are better than my big shoota), and the option for more firepower if you want - SB/HS, HK missile, the lasgun arrays vs my truck.
And when that Guard squad disembarks? They have better saves, better guns, better morale, free Obsec (I can only have 1 obsec grot unit/detachment) and options for additional equipment (now for zero pts!).
Yeah, that's 25 pts well spent.

But if you want to go cheap? (and have a smaller footprint than a Chimera) (& have access to Legends units) Then stuff 5 naked Scions in a FW Centaur Light Carrier. You'll be at 95pts. Not as durable as a Chimera + squad, but the Centaur is still more durable than the people riding in it, has twice the firepower of my truck, a 3+ sv,and oh look - you've spent less than the Obsec Grot player.

 Kanluwen wrote:
There's space for a 3+ Carapace Armor save!

Maybe if you ignore the fact that 40k is a miniatures game and the need for the rules to reflect those miniatures.

 Blndmage wrote:
Necron Warriors have a 4+ (I will never forgive the loss of our 3+ Warriors). So, compare that to a guardsman.

And compare it to a Guardian, which is also a 4+ now.

Your Immortals are 3+ saves though, right?

ccs wrote:

Look, if I can hold an objective with a 70pt Ork truck with x10 obsec grots in it? You Guard players can manage it with a 75pt chimera + squad.
You're a min total of 25pts more than my truck-of-grots & for that your ride has:+1T, +1sv, +1BS, twice the # of main guns (both of wich are better than my big shoota), and the option for more firepower if you want - SB/HS, HK missile, the lasgun arrays vs my truck.
And when that Guard squad disembarks? They have better saves, better guns, better morale, free Obsec (I can only have 1 obsec grot unit/detachment) and options for additional equipment (now for zero pts!).
Yeah, that's 25 pts well spent.

But if you want to go cheap? (and have a smaller footprint than a Chimera) (& have access to Legends units) Then stuff 5 naked Scions in a FW Centaur Light Carrier. You'll be at 95pts. Not as durable as a Chimera + squad, but the Centaur is still more durable than the people riding in it, has twice the firepower of my truck, a 3+ sv,and oh look - you've spent less than the Obsec Grot player.

I don't disagree with any of it, it's dead on, in isolation.

What's different is that Guard give up 2 VPs for that Chimera, as BID is the secondary almost always taken against guard. Orks give up 0. So that 25 points just cost us 2 VPs.

The rest of the Guard army has other difficulties. You're using those grots to take an objective, Guard need those infantry to take the objective AND screen our tanks. So Guard just gave up 2VPs, and gave up screens for our TCs.

Guard TCs have no melee, while most Ork vehicles do. So by not screening, the Orc buggies, boyz, even kill rigs and battlewagons just bad touched a LRBT, now Guard gave up 2 VPs, and gave up the heavy hitters, and are now out of the game. With the changes to Waagh, that's turn 2.

That's why Guard needs more than just a few points tweaks. Guard still lack the firepower to avoid the bad touch, and lack melee to even get out of melee, the ability to run away while giving up 14VPs just for showing up.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Necron Warriors have a 4+ (I will never forgive the loss of our 3+ Warriors). So, compare that to a guardsman.

And compare it to a Guardian, which is also a 4+ now.

Your Immortals are 3+ saves though, right?

Ya, and they gave us their T5 back too.

 Kanluwen wrote:
There's space for a 3+ Carapace Armor save! You just don't want it.

I will say, Sister Crusaders have master-crafted carapace armour and they're 3+ save. Our Crusaders are 3+ only due to the storm shield.

Do I personally think carapace should move to 3+? No.

Our increased durability should come from better medics, with 6+++ auras like other factions. That in itself would be a massive buff. Now we have some form of save all of the time and some defence against mortals.

ccs wrote:
Then stuff 5 naked Scions in a FW Centaur Light Carrier.

I'm still sad they removed the Centaur. All it needed to be good was transport capacity of 6 and open-topped. Instantly better.

 Kanluwen wrote:

From OK_Entrepeneur3004 on reddit. They were point-blank asked about something they had said earlier.

But how do we know he's accurate? What's his sources? Has he been proven accurate before?