Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm just glad I'm not the only one who has no clue what folk are on about when they start spouting stuff about "the meta-game" :S

Nurgleboy77 wrote:They won't be very useful without Independent Commissars, which I doubt makes it into the book.

Well, if Gaunt makes it into the next codex (most likely), then you'll have at least one tarpit-capable unit.

Four points per conscript seems fine to me. Keep in mind guard armies have always mixed cheap infantry with high cost weapons and armor, so their total deployment size is always deceptive when you look at the points for an individual man.

This still doesn't solve the major problem with Guard in 5th edition - That they lose 1/3 of thier games before the game starts do to kill points. Looks like they're still keeping the lots of fragile squads system.

It would just take a single line of text for them to fix that weakness. I doubt they would let it through.

Oooh goody. Can't wait to base my strategy around taking the same special character in every game. That's fun.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:So a Platoon being a unit of sub-units means it must be a meta-unit.

And that brings to a close yet another edition of "John has to be right about everything, no matter how meaningless it may be to the actual discussion".

BYE

Aren't lots of cool soldiers the reason we all play this game! 4 points each, more soldiers on the table.

More of a wish list thing, but it would be cool if they tied scoring and KPs to the platoon and army command. Like say an IG squad can score only if there's a commander within 12-24" of them or unlimited if they have vox. Then KPs would be purely based on command and not the sqauds -- wipe them, tanks, maybe even atatched support etc and you get KPs, but nada for 10 man fodder (life is cheap...). Thus less KPs garnered from the army, but relatively easy KPs with some effort. Hiding and protecting the HQ would be key, even more so then now, which makes sense for IG. Could add that vets can score on their own also to help bolster the scoring ability.

Seems a bit better then current and with some effort on the devs part could be fairly balanced.

the four point thing if they are to be used as conscripts is good because it says they will have stats of a guardsmen. However not being able to take specials or anything else of the sort in squads will put them at a disadvantage in certain situations where a meltagun or somthing could potentially save the squad from a would be charging walker or somthing.

With this unlike the current theme based on WW2 where squads usually had a heavy/special weapon of sorts they will all be riflemen which will have to rely on some other platoon for fire support. So a flank onto the heavy units will leave the forward units voulnerable and defensless. WOW good job. NERF.

With this unlike the current theme based on WW2 where squads usually had a heavy/special weapon of sorts they will all be riflemen which will have to rely on some other platoon for fire support. So a flank onto the heavy units will leave the forward units voulnerable and defensless. WOW good job. NERF.

Wasn't the special guy in WW2 the guy with the grease gun? I wouldn't exactly call it a standard special weapon layout.

The platoon system used to confuse a lot of new players, but I think it was because it wasn't well written and wasn't used as much as it could have been as opposed to being inherently confusing.

The description was a bit confusing on the last one or two Guard codices, as I remember. Despite the sidebar explaining it, I think the codex used some subtleties of shading and unit headers to explain it.

It also just wasn't used enough. Most players really only worried with it for the Troop slots and skipped the rest. If, for example, there had been a Platoon in very FoC slot, it would have seemed much more like a system as opposed to an oddity. Command Platoon, Infantry Platoon, Rough Rider Platoon, HW Platoon, Stormtrooper Platoon? Maybe even a light vehicle platoon?

winterman wrote:More of a wish list thing, but it would be cool if they tied scoring and KPs to the platoon and army command. Like say an IG squad can score only if there's a commander within 12-24" of them or unlimited if they have vox. Then KPs would be purely based on command and not the sqauds -- wipe them, tanks, maybe even atatched support etc and you get KPs, but nada for 10 man fodder (life is cheap...). Thus less KPs garnered from the army, but relatively easy KPs with some effort. Hiding and protecting the HQ would be key, even more so then now, which makes sense for IG. Could add that vets can score on their own also to help bolster the scoring ability.

Seems a bit better then current and with some effort on the devs part could be fairly balanced.

That is a great idea! It is quite fluffy and would make players actually care about their command squads. Let's hope they do this.

Shep wrote:

skyth wrote:This still doesn't solve the major problem with Guard in 5th edition - That they lose 1/3 of thier games before the game starts do to kill points. Looks like they're still keeping the lots of fragile squads system.

Hopefully they put in a fix so that Guard is playable.

And are all these upgrades troop choices, or is the only troop choice the barenaked guard with the heavy weapon one being heavy, the infiltrating being elite and the dropping being fast attack?

I'm shocked that someone else agrees with me on this. I love my guard, I have tons of painted vostroyans and I can't bear the wait much longer for the new dex.

But what Skyth said is painfully true. The mini-units concept is tired and lame and needs to go away. Deployment, movement phases, shooting phases, multiple units in assault... all of these things become laborious chores when fighting guard.

It pains me to say this, because guard players tend to be great guys generally. But IG armies monopolize the time in tournament settings. In 2 hours games the guard player is active in a much greater majority than their opponent.

Their set-up takes longer, their movement phases take at least as long as others (drop troop reserves being rolled for, places selected, scatters rolled, models placed, repeat), their shooting phase is twice as long, with 20+ separate small units shooting, who has shot and who has not is difficult to track.

And sadly, this abuse doesn't even play into the guard players favor competitively. They get to "play" more 40k than their opponent. But they never finish their games before time is reached, they get rolled over completely in kill point missions, and they take an inordinate number of morale tests.

These rumors are no good. "meta-units" like infantry platoons are well-intentioned but have no place in 5th edition 40k.

INFANTRY PLATOON - 10-30 models (single unit), 1-3 heavy weapons, 1-3 special weapons, lieutenant - 'platoon drill' While the lieutenant is alive, heavy weapons may shoot at a different target than the rest of the unit.

Let the players imagine the complex organization of units internally, using their imagination. Keep the number of units down, speed up play and increase enjoyment for both players... Then move on to the interesting FOC slots in 40k, elites and heavies.

I like where you're going with that idea. Biggest complaint I think people have with guard is how confusing it is to know which squad is which. I don't bother giving each squad seperate markings and it gets confusing in some tighter terrain. I also want some sort of official word on bases, I think it's stupid tactically to put 2 dudes on a huge base for heavy weapons. I also think some weapons seem "heavier" than others, one dude can easily carry and fire a missile launcher where as I can understand a lascannon being a bit of a bitch to move around.

I really hope the valkyrie rumour is true and I hope the new russ is an all in one model, possibly even somewhat modular like crisis suits.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@aka: By definition, a "meta-unit" is a unit composed of units, just like a "meta-game" is the game of the games.

So a Platoon being a unit of sub-units means it must be a meta-unit.

Meta, means self referential in regards to a characteristic above or beyond a given perspective.

In the case of a game it would be gaming a portion of the game that isn't intended to be gamed. An example of that would be a person playing a role playing game, who min-maxes their character; where by they're effectively not playing the game the way its intended because of their choosing to emphasize an aspect of the game beyond what their suppose to play; they are no longer playing a role play but are in fact playing the system. An example of this in 40k, is when you realize you can get a rhino at a 15pt discount by taking a 5 man Assault squad without jump packs and then exploiting that fact.

In the case of a meta-unit, it is a unit beyond a unit. A platoon is a subunit and sub (or within) is the opposite of meta (or beyond). A platoon is a meta-unit to the constituent parts, irregardless of those parts; those parts are sub units to the platoon. A platoon is a sub-unit of the meta unit that is an "army."
---End of semantic argument---

In regards to the platoon I think its silly for anyone to be confused by it. You have a selection of squads and vehicles that can be taken and a smattering of upgrades to the squads. Irregardless of what those units are they form a platoon and occupy a single FOC slot. This concept is about as confusing as bodyguards and retinues with an IC counting as one FOC choice, or a vehicle squad.

I personally like the ideas the Devs have for this codex, it is much like the proposed rule discussion that JohnHwangDD started a while ago. This dev managed to address many of the same issues the discussion identified but goes a step further to create what is mounting to a real combined arms feel. \

The trick to winning with the IG is less guardsmen. Being able to take tanks in the troop section will be a big boon.

If you can team that up with a bunch of special weapons teams in chimeras you'll see a lot more IG armies in the top spots at tournaments.

Its not a matter of more or less guardsmen, its more a matter of what they can take upgrade wise. With the current codex most of the IG upgrades or doctrines are designed to mitigate survivability, but most of those are a waste because rather than playing to the IG strengths they merely try to patch its short comings. This new set up seems to approach the IG from the angle of playing to its strength by allowing more heavy and special weapons and tanks. I like it even more because of the appropriately characterful way in which it is designed.

Crablezworth wrote:I like where you're going with that idea. Biggest complaint I think people have with guard is how confusing it is to know which squad is which. I don't bother giving each squad seperate markings and it gets confusing in some tighter terrain. I also want some sort of official word on bases,

One of the advantages of using the old, metal IG is that you can organize squads by pose. I find that is a good way to distinguish squads of otherwise identical Guardsmen. Otherwise, you can put a colored dot / number on the back of each base...

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@aka: By definition, a "meta-unit" is a unit composed of units, just like a "meta-game" is the game of the games.

So a Platoon being a unit of sub-units means it must be a meta-unit.

In the case of a game it would be gaming a portion of the game that isn't intended to be gamed.

A platoon is a meta-unit to the constituent parts,

I personally like the ideas the Devs have for this codex, it is much like the proposed rule discussion that JohnHwangDD started a while ago. This dev managed to address many of the same issues the discussion identified but goes a step further to create what is mounting to a real combined arms feel. \

Aside from the surprising notion that the metagame isn't intended to be gamed (it's just operating at a higher level), aren't we saying the same thing? A Platoon is a meta-unit - a unit of units.

Personally, I'm happy either way. Whether the Devs go with a "pick a mobility doctrine" (a la C: SM) or convert them into discrete units (a la C: CSM) makes no difference to me. Either way, I'll have Mech, Drop Troops, Infiltrators, and Gunline at my disposal. The important thing is that Devs at last recognize that Guard need mobility, and will presumably give us more viable options for this.

I had a major problem when I first started playing guard keeping track of who was who. Then I started painting the rims of thier bases different colors. It works perfectly and I NEVER get confused. Of coarse the Conscrpts stand out cause of the stripes. The vets are clearly distinguishable cause they are the FW type with backpacks and shotgund and some catachan heads and eye patches, shotgun rounds around thier arm. etc. And the regulars have yellow, blue, red, orange, purple, green, grey, black, silver, gold, white, bases. Never a problem. For me or the opponent. THe problem is with the fragile units. Also the multiple morale test and it is annoying to the opponent having to wait such a long time to get thier turn.

I try to play rather fast and have played guard for a while so I almost always finish my games. Most new to novice even intermediate players will not. They just do too little and need to many morale tests.

I think the kill point should be assigned to the entire FOC. In addition I believe that there should be a rule that thier LD is increased by +1 for each squad that is from thier platoon within 6" which is additive to any officer within 12" to a max of 12 this making them fearless when that condition exists.

Also save some time on all the pointless rolling of 100 dice to kill two marines. Figure out the mathematical equivalent.

Example mathematically one squad of guard can, on average (assuming T4):

Rapid fire range: 3.17 wounds
Non Rapid Fire range: 1.5 wounds

Special Rule
CONCENTRATED FIRE
If 3 or more squads from the same platoon fire at the same unit with lasguns, then every unit from that platoon may add +2 to the strength of thier lasguns but may only fire once and cannot assault. For every two squads thereafter and for every IC thereafter the platoon adds another +1 to the strength characteristic of thier lasguns. The Command squad may apply this bonus to any heavy, or special weapons and may fire the full number of shots on thier weapon profile and may assault if normally would be allowed to do so. These squads must all come from the same platoon.

NOTE: This ability is only good if the first 3 squads are within' 12" of the enemy unit. This ability has no effect on vehicles.

So if it is a full platoon of 5 squads and command squad that is 3 (base), +2 for first 3, then +1 for the next two then +1 for the command squad. For a total of S7.

Note the math
Current way
Not counting the command squad
5 squads rapid firing: 18.85 wounds (after rolling 95 Dice)
Not rapid Firing: 7.5 wounds (after rolling 45 dice)

New way
5 Squads: 20.83 wounds (After rolling 50 dice)

Half the rolling and only 1.98 more wounds. This saves rolling nearly 50 dice and a lot of time.

The numbers have spoken. SOmthing along these lines would be good and works well with the fluff.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:They won't be very useful without Independent Commissars, which I doubt makes it into the book.

I bet it does, in some form. I've seen pictures of a "Commissar Lord" model on the intarwebz. Sounds like an HQ choice to me.

This all sounds good news for playability, and GW profits, a point which no-one has picked up. My +100 Steel Legion models are all now going to need new models to either give them the Special Weapon Teams, or give them other types of Squads. At the moment I have x2, x4 full squad Platoons (So 90 models) each with a special and Heavy, + x5 Full Fire Support Teams, x2 Amoured Fist, and then the Command sections. Now, in order to make my army competitive again, I've got to go and buy new Steel Legion models to make up the new squads / change existing ones. Oh I forgot, Steel Legion is OOP.

I don't use Leman Russ Tanks, prefering Basilisk Artillery and Vulture Gunships. Sounds like I've now got to buy the Leman Russ tanks, to complete my platoon squads. The 4pts a model will make IG armies near on impossible to defeat in tournaments with fixed turns and time limits. Imagine, a 1500pt army, (acounting for Command Upgrades) could still put you +300 IG'men on the board. Most other armies would struggle to remove that many models from the table in 6 turns to win!

Dexy wrote:
In addition, each platoon is able to include 1 supporting unit, and this will NOT count towards the FOC.
The supporting unit varys in accordence to how its platoon is organised.

Sounds a lot like FOW in that regard.

Maybe they'll do something with the GL to make it worth taking.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Aside from the surprising notion that the metagame isn't intended to be gamed (it's just operating at a higher level), aren't we saying the same thing?

A meta-game, literally means above the game. Once you play a game outside the parameters of the game you're no longer playing the game, you are playing the system. You call it "a higher level," I call it a lower level because it removes mutual fun from the game and emphasizes winning and personal fun at the others expense, and groups of players having fun is what its really about. Once you start meta-gaming you attempt to make the actual game less even. An uneven game is not fair. If exploiting features of a game for benefits that were unintended is fun to you and your friends go for it. The fact that its outside the normal game is exactly why it shouldn't be gamed.

I'm personally hoping they redo the advisors, I'd like to see them all be equally good options. I think we're gonna finally move away from the IG purposefully having units being inferior for the sake of it. I kinda get tired of having to pay for trade offs and weaknesses as if they were some how an advantage. I think if we look at the concept on a whole you can see some one is really trying to make the IG codex make more sense. Thats a very good thing.

Fixing Advisors is as simple as allowing them to join any squad, not any squad as long as you start with Command units.

Then they can fix the actual Advisors so that they're A). costed correctly (Commissars), B). don't work in a way opposite to the rest of the army (Priests) and C). don't completely suck (Psykers).

BYE

I don't want guard platoons dumbed down to one unit.
I do want a rule that makes it so that they are not worth 1 KP per squad.
I don't want to have to take special characters to organize my army; its the imperial guard, most diverse fighting force in the galaxy. It does not revolve around some random named character deciding to use grav chutes instead of walking.
I do want advisors to be worth taking.
I really, really do not want to have to take special characters to determine what I can and can't take.
I would like to see the expanded platoon with support units for each platoon, perhaps if the platoon was of a certain number of squads to open up the option of taking different support options.
Oh, and I really, really, really don't want to have to take special characters. Really.

This still doesn't solve the major problem with Guard in 5th edition - That they lose 1/3 of thier games before the game starts do to kill points. Looks like they're still keeping the lots of fragile squads system.

Hopefully they put in a fix so that Guard is playable.

And are all these upgrades troop choices, or is the only troop choice the barenaked guard with the heavy weapon one being heavy, the infiltrating being elite and the dropping being fast attack?

Unless I am mistaken nothing has been said about KPs. It may be that KPs are strictly at the platoon level, not by squad.

If they (the developers) are going to tie special rules and KP's to command and platoon squads only you get a fluffy and annoying thing in games: squads rely on their commanders for coordination and whatnots, but at the same time the enemy will ignore the small fry as much as possible and gun for the more valuable units instead. Added bonus to taking out those units would be the loss of special abilities such as the rumoured platoon drill rule.

As for turning a Guard platoon into a large unit of 25 - 55 models; that would make the Guard even more inflexible than it already is. Why yes it would speed up the movement phase and shooting, but no it would be more of a hampering than a help when looking at holding objectives and whatnots. Instead of leaving a squad at the objective the whole platoon has to stay put, well done! Well done indeed..

It seems like that would be the perfect rule for the rumored "line platoon". Perhaps everybody else would be separate squads, with all the advantages and disadvantages that entails, but the "line platoon" would have an option to form up into a single unit, giving it a purpose.

If formed up in a single unit (a precedent set by the combat squads rule) it would help it do what most people want line squads to do. If it was just a cover save for other platoons, being a large single unit means it rarely has to take morale checks from shooting. If you're using it to take objectives, it is more durable.

Unfortunately, close combat will still eat the whole group alive in one fell swoop. Looks like the effectiveness of this idea relies completely on the Commissar rules.

ph34r wrote:I don't want to have to take special characters to organize my army; its the imperial guard, most diverse fighting force in the galaxy. It does not revolve around some random named character deciding to use grav chutes instead of walking.
I really, really do not want to have to take special characters to determine what I can and can't take.
Oh, and I really, really, really don't want to have to take special characters. Really.

Something tells me you just really don't want to see special characters. To be honest in Codex Space Marines they're really isn't an issue of having to take a particular special character to do a particular build, GW just made it very advantageous, so I think your concerns are unlikely to come to pass.

Now seeing the direction the codex is going I'd guess that special characters might modify what support units that can be taken to allow combination other than the standard. For example, allowing stormtroopers to be taken as a support unit in an Armored divisions. We'll probably see a guy who bolsters defenses and a guy who makes stormtroopers scoring. These are just examples of what I imagine they'll try.

BrookM wrote:If they (the developers) are going to tie special rules and KP's to command and platoon squads only you get a fluffy and annoying thing in games: squads rely on their commanders for coordination and whatnots, but at the same time the enemy will ignore the small fry as much as possible and gun for the more valuable units instead. Added bonus to taking out those units would be the loss of special abilities such as the rumoured platoon drill rule.

This exactly why it should be one unit. Any other kill point solution is flawed. either they bury their head in the sand and say "units are worth a kill point... deal with it." or they try to make some units worth KPs and some not... or worse yet, only a single unit in the platoon worth KPs. How on earth would you protect a 5 man guard unit from dying while keeping any special rules with a radius working on your line units? I like alternate ideas other than the big unit. But 5th ed mission just don't support it. Even more unworkable would be that you must kill every unit in the platoon to get a single KP. Then we have people taking naked squads and spreading them all over the table and playing squad 'shell games' with them. I rally appreciate what Alex has done with his tourney army, if anyone hasn't seen it, he has made it very clear what squad goes with what. However, I think he is the only guy at any tourney I have gone to that has done that with his models.

BrookM wrote:As for turning a Guard platoon into a large unit of 25 - 55 models; that would make the Guard even more inflexible than it already is. Why yes it would speed up the movement phase and shooting, but no it would be more of a hampering than a help when looking at holding objectives and whatnots. Instead of leaving a squad at the objective the whole platoon has to stay put, well done! Well done indeed..

Guard infantry armies are not flexible, that is a delusion. You move 10 T3 5+ save models out of cover to get on an objective, and they get wiped out before you can blink. Please note that in my suggestion it was 10-30. With 1 heavy and 1 special per 10 models. Not 25-55. Does the 10 man unit sound familiar? The only thing I'm really hot to get rid of are 5 man and 6 man guard units. The KP pinatas.

So take some 10 man units, buy them transports and go claim objectives with those, if you want lots of guard, fill the units out more. 30 guardsmen with 3 heavy and 3 special weapons would be something around 180 points, I'm sure you could forgo their heavy weapons fire to move a unit like that, especially if their rapid fire was more threatening. Like the rumored lasgun buff would bring.

Ultimately, the many small units gag is only fun for the guard player, the opponent has more book-keeping to do than usual. And myself and other guard players are over it as well.

As I stated earlier, how about some decent elites choices, and a robust and interesting heavy support slot? Troops are a part of this game, but for the last 6 years troops have really been all guard has had, and I just don't subscribe to troops being a focus for any army.

SecretSquig,

Steel Legion is not OOP. You can still order all of the Steel Legion models from GW.

Brice

I also would be bitterly disappointed if GW did away with the platoon structure. KPs aside, it's what makes IG, IG! I actually preferred the idea that only the Command Squad gave KPs, but was tied to many of the bonuses. That would offer incentives to both sides to work around the command structure, which is very Guard-y anyways! Also very excited about more Tanks.