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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capt K

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

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

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

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

Ivan wrote:

What do I do?

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


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

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

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

To the OP

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

However

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Better luck next time.

@Augustus, How certain are you about the Pirahna?

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

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

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

Reaper6 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are you smoking?



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

BoxANT wrote:

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

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

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

What are you smoking?



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

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

Suppose you were foolish enough to buy 5 priests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaper6 wrote:

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

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Reaper6 wrote:

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

I love Real Life.

Reaper6 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ivan I love you btw.

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

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

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

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

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

I would go a step further.

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

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

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

Honkey Bro wrote:
I would go a step further.

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

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

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

Who invited you into this conversation? Buzz off jerk!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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