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 like the idea of platoons in 9th.

- many times we are taking additional detachments just to get the troops we want. Now we wouldn't have to take the additional detachments
- it gives us the option for Lieutenants to re-rolls 1s to wound (without taking an elite slot)
- we can take HWTs as additional units in the platoon, without taking up valuable heavy support slots

The biggest thing that was stupid was tournaments requiring all troops slots to be maxed out, which meant most of the guard army became nothing but troops.

Platoons were never mandatory. Weren't veterans a troop choice that wasnt in a platoon?

Platoon commander, command squad, Special weapon squad, and Heavy weapon squads should not eat up elite/heavy slots if we form a platoon formation, further they should get obsec and not count towards rule of 3.

Bring back platoons, and make veterans troops.

Platoons were mandatory back in the 3e/3.5e dexes (and the 2e one as well, IIRC) by virtue of being the only Troops choice. Vets were Elites until the 5e dex, when they moved to Troops. While the mandatory purchases could be kind of annoying (I do recall wanting to make Mechanized lists back in 5e and feeling a little miffed I couldn't just take lone Infantry Squads so I could save some points for wargear/more tonks), I'm in favor of their return if only so our Elites slot doesn't stay so fething bloated.

I'm pretty sure they'll at least make the Command Squads not take a slot with a Company Commander/Tempestor Prime. I'd honestly rather see them fused into a single unit again though.

I'd like to see platoons return; never got the chance to use or see them in action as I got into Guard during 8th edition.

Arcanis161 wrote:
I'm pretty sure they'll at least make the Command Squads not take a slot with a Company Commander/Tempestor Prime. I'd honestly rather see them fused into a single unit again though.

I'd like to see platoons return; never got the chance to use or see them in action as I got into Guard during 8th edition.

Yes, I think that the command 'squad' should just be additional models as an option to come with the Company/Platoon commander, and other officers; perhaps even with variable size and potentially include Ogryn bodyguards, so they don't take up additional Elite stlots. Be pretty nice if the Officer of the Fleet could have a fleet enforcers one, probably not going to happen but one can dream.

There's enough infantry squad slots that platoons aren't really necessary, Brigades are fairly easy for Guard to field, and 12 slots is a decent enough amount. I do think heavy weapons squads should be able to come in more than one per slot - or have some other allowance that gives you a way to take more somehow though.

brainpsyk wrote:
I like the idea of platoons in 9th.

- many times we are taking additional detachments just to get the troops we want. Now we wouldn't have to take the additional detachments

That's not why most people are taking "additional detachments" though. It's to dip into different Regimental Traits.

- it gives us the option for Lieutenants to re-rolls 1s to wound (without taking an elite slot)

Which is exactly why it's a bad idea.

- we can take HWTs as additional units in the platoon, without taking up valuable heavy support slots

Heavy Weapons Teams are not Heavy Support Slots. Heavy Weapon Squads are.

There were plenty of "alternate" Guard lists, as well. Steel Legion had to be mounted in Chimeras, and Cadians could take Kasrkins as troops.

Agreed. In the 3.5 Dex there were many alternate troops (Storm Trooper squads, Leman Russ Tanks, Armored Fist squads (though 1 platoon was mandatory to take them), etc.

It just depended what doctrines and lists you chose from.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Platoons would be meaningless in 9th, they served a purpose when the FOC limited your ability to field enough units to properly play the army, but the way detachments work now makes that largely irrelevant outside of whatever limitations rule of 3 might impose.

This is completely false. Adding back platoons saves a ton of CP from requiring multiple detachments, as well as the mandatory HQ and troop tax required to field those detachments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Agreed. In the 3.5 Dex there were many alternate troops (Storm Trooper squads, Leman Russ Tanks, Armored Fist squads (though 1 platoon was mandatory to take them), etc.

It just depended what doctrines and lists you chose from.

Yep. Honestly? My ideal Guard codex would have been 5th edition with 3.5 editions pick 5 system. Want mech-vet spam? Then you need to use 1 doctrine point for the mechanised alternate regiment organisation. 1 doctrine point to unlock veterans. Then that only leaves you with 3 more doctrine points to unlock restricted units, skills, drills, or equipment.

Jarms48 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Platoons would be meaningless in 9th, they served a purpose when the FOC limited your ability to field enough units to properly play the army, but the way detachments work now makes that largely irrelevant outside of whatever limitations rule of 3 might impose.

This is completely false. Adding back platoons saves a ton of CP from requiring multiple detachments, as well as the mandatory HQ and troop tax required to field those detachments.

Is it really false though?

All of the codices coming out lately have had some kind of "X makes Y not take up slots". Who knows what they're going to do with Guard.

I can live without platoons if i can take more than 3 heavy weapon squads and special weapon squads. Would also be real nice if alot of the elite slots didnt count as a slot

Jarms48 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Platoons would be meaningless in 9th, they served a purpose when the FOC limited your ability to field enough units to properly play the army, but the way detachments work now makes that largely irrelevant outside of whatever limitations rule of 3 might impose.

This is completely false. Adding back platoons saves a ton of CP from requiring multiple detachments, as well as the mandatory HQ and troop tax required to field those detachments.

chaos0xomega wrote:

In a 2000pt game, a Brigade detachment is more than ample enough to field the typical multi-platoon guard list of yore:

3 Company Commanders
3 Platoon Commanders
3 Command Squads
2 Special Weapon Squads
12 Guard Squads
3 Heavy Support Squads

 Kanluwen wrote:
This is completely false. Adding back platoons saves a ton of CP from requiring multiple detachments, as well as the mandatory HQ and troop tax required to field those detachments.

Is it really false though?

All of the codices coming out lately have had some kind of "X makes Y not take up slots". Who knows what they're going to do with Guard.

chaos0xomega wrote:

In a 2000pt game, a Brigade detachment is more than ample enough to field the typical multi-platoon guard list of yore:

3 Company Commanders
3 Platoon Commanders
3 Command Squads
2 Special Weapon Squads
12 Guard Squads
3 Heavy Support Squads

comes out to 1145 pts before any upgrades (I.E. everything is naked) and leaves you with 2 HQ, 5 Fast Attack (of which you *must* take 3), 2 Heavy Support and 2 Flyer slots. Fluff out all the squads with special and heavy weapons and it comes in around 1500pts, and you still have 3 obligatory fast attack choices you need to take, and you've yet to touch your CP pool whatsoever.

The only way the absence of platoon rules hurts us is by capping special, heavy, and command squads at 3 units a piece because they can no longer be taken as part of the troops slot - but the reason that cap exists in the first place is *BECAUSE* of Guard, as the faction essentially broke the game by spamming heavy weapon squads in 8th edition (specifically with mortars). The only builds realistically hurt by this are those that want to play infantry pure builds with 200+ guardsmen on the table... Realistically? Those builds wouldn't win anyway, and its not because of the lack of platoon structure. A real competitive list has the potential to remove about 100 Drukhari Wracks in a single turn, against lists like that 200 guardsmen on foot don't stand a chance.

Quick nitpicks:
Ye Olde Guard Platoonnes would be 5 Command Squads, not 3 (they came with Company Commanders as well as Platoon Commanders, and the old FOC was 1-2 HQ slots outside of shenanigans with 2k+ pt games). Also, IIRC Ro3 was implemented to curb Flyrant/T'au Commander spam, not Guard (though I wouldn't be surprised if we were on the list of "things this would solve"). I'd argue that Platoons would mitigate the need for Ro3 when it comes to things like Heavy Weapon Squads, since Platoons only had a few slots for HWS/SWS per Platoon and you'd need to pay the Infantry Squad+Platoon Command tax to unlock more slots for them.

You know, after the "Ash Wastes" announcement at LVO, I'm starting to think those imperial vehicle parts in the Rumor Engine aren't guard, but stuff for Necromunda.

 waefre_1 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

In a 2000pt game, a Brigade detachment is more than ample enough to field the typical multi-platoon guard list of yore:

3 Company Commanders
3 Platoon Commanders
3 Command Squads
2 Special Weapon Squads
12 Guard Squads
3 Heavy Support Squads

comes out to 1145 pts before any upgrades (I.E. everything is naked) and leaves you with 2 HQ, 5 Fast Attack (of which you *must* take 3), 2 Heavy Support and 2 Flyer slots. Fluff out all the squads with special and heavy weapons and it comes in around 1500pts, and you still have 3 obligatory fast attack choices you need to take, and you've yet to touch your CP pool whatsoever.

The only way the absence of platoon rules hurts us is by capping special, heavy, and command squads at 3 units a piece because they can no longer be taken as part of the troops slot - but the reason that cap exists in the first place is *BECAUSE* of Guard, as the faction essentially broke the game by spamming heavy weapon squads in 8th edition (specifically with mortars). The only builds realistically hurt by this are those that want to play infantry pure builds with 200+ guardsmen on the table... Realistically? Those builds wouldn't win anyway, and its not because of the lack of platoon structure. A real competitive list has the potential to remove about 100 Drukhari Wracks in a single turn, against lists like that 200 guardsmen on foot don't stand a chance.

Quick nitpicks:

Ye Olde Guard Platoonnes would be 5 Command Squads, not 3 (they came with Company Commanders as well as Platoon Commanders, and the old FOC was 1-2 HQ slots outside of shenanigans with 2k+ pt games).

Yes, as I noted that the absence of platoon rules only hurts us by limiting special/heavy/command because they are now capped at 3 units due to Ro3 - but that wasn't the case when the current guard codex was written, it was a change instituted after the fact.

Also, IIRC Ro3 was implemented to curb Flyrant/T'au Commander spam, not Guard (though I wouldn't be surprised if we were on the list of "things this would solve"). I'd argue that Platoons would mitigate the need for Ro3 when it comes to things like Heavy Weapon Squads, since Platoons only had a few slots for HWS/SWS per Platoon and you'd need to pay the Infantry Squad+Platoon Command tax to unlock more slots for them.

It was, to my recollection, a backlash against mortar spam. Flyrants and Tau Commanders were curbed by putting detachment limits on how many could be fielded instead. You are correct that a return to platoons would definitely resolve a lot of issues though, where we differ is that I argue that the loss of platoons didn't create any issues (rather I blame Ro3 for that).

 Togusa wrote:
You know, after the "Ash Wastes" announcement at LVO, I'm starting to think those imperial vehicle parts in the Rumor Engine aren't guard, but stuff for Necromunda.

Seems likely.

 waefre_1 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

In a 2000pt game, a Brigade detachment is more than ample enough to field the typical multi-platoon guard list of yore:

3 Company Commanders
3 Platoon Commanders
3 Command Squads
2 Special Weapon Squads
12 Guard Squads
3 Heavy Support Squads

comes out to 1145 pts before any upgrades (I.E. everything is naked) and leaves you with 2 HQ, 5 Fast Attack (of which you *must* take 3), 2 Heavy Support and 2 Flyer slots. Fluff out all the squads with special and heavy weapons and it comes in around 1500pts, and you still have 3 obligatory fast attack choices you need to take, and you've yet to touch your CP pool whatsoever.

The only way the absence of platoon rules hurts us is by capping special, heavy, and command squads at 3 units a piece because they can no longer be taken as part of the troops slot - but the reason that cap exists in the first place is *BECAUSE* of Guard, as the faction essentially broke the game by spamming heavy weapon squads in 8th edition (specifically with mortars). The only builds realistically hurt by this are those that want to play infantry pure builds with 200+ guardsmen on the table... Realistically? Those builds wouldn't win anyway, and its not because of the lack of platoon structure. A real competitive list has the potential to remove about 100 Drukhari Wracks in a single turn, against lists like that 200 guardsmen on foot don't stand a chance.

Quick nitpicks:
Ye Olde Guard Platoonnes would be 5 Command Squads, not 3 (they came with Company Commanders as well as Platoon Commanders, and the old FOC was 1-2 HQ slots outside of shenanigans with 2k+ pt games). Also, IIRC Ro3 was implemented to curb Flyrant/T'au Commander spam, not Guard (though I wouldn't be surprised if we were on the list of "things this would solve"). I'd argue that Platoons would mitigate the need for Ro3 when it comes to things like Heavy Weapon Squads, since Platoons only had a few slots for HWS/SWS per Platoon and you'd need to pay the Infantry Squad+Platoon Command tax to unlock more slots for them.

This is a bit wrong. Platoons only came with Platoon Commanders; minimum size was 2 infantry squads and one Platoon Command Squad. Attachments and increases came from there.

Company commanders were part of a separate HQ choice called an HQ Platoon, which included company-level and attached battalion level assets (could be as little as a single command squad containing the commander, or could include an entire weapons platoon of 4x HWS and an attached sentinel squadron).

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yes, as I noted that the absence of platoon rules only hurts us by limiting special/heavy/command because they are now capped at 3 units due to Ro3 - but that wasn't the case when the current guard codex was written, it was a change instituted after the fact.

<snip>

It was, to my recollection, a backlash against mortar spam. Flyrants and Tau Commanders were curbed by putting detachment limits on how many could be fielded instead. You are correct that a return to platoons would definitely resolve a lot of issues though, where we differ is that I argue that the loss of platoons didn't create any issues (rather I blame Ro3 for that).

Ah, that's fair. I thought you were aiming at pure old-Guard with no concern for Ro3 in that listing. I'd actually agree with you that removing Platoons by itself didn't do much damage - I'd consider the ease with which we burn through Elite/HS slots to be an issue (regardless of whether we're under the 8e paradigm of "moar detachments moar gooder" or the current "as few detachments as possible"), but nothing in losing Platoons necessitated that the Command Squads be separated from their officers and the slot burn could have been ameliorated by giving some of those units a "this unit does not count as taking a slot" special rule. Between that and Ro3, the 8e/9e FOCs would certainly be capable of giving us the room to remake Platoons without issue.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

This is a bit wrong. Platoons only came with Platoon Commanders; minimum size was 2 infantry squads and one Platoon Command Squad. Attachments and increases came from there.

Company commanders were part of a separate HQ choice called an HQ Platoon, which included company-level and attached battalion level assets (could be as little as a single command squad containing the commander, or could include an entire weapons platoon of 4x HWS and an attached sentinel squadron).

That was the case in 3e/3.5e, yes, but 5e allowed us to take solo Company Command squads. When someone says "Platoons of yore", I think anything 5e and older, so I didn't want to presume whether it would be a ~3e Company Command plus assets or a 5e Company Command, non-advisor assets separate.

After seeing what everyone else has posted, I feel my issue with AM Infantry Squads, is the fact that they are limited to 10 man squad size.
Yes, I know that I can run Conscripts at 20 to 30 model count range. But why for the love of God, in 8th edition, we suddenly no longer could run that or more model count, for infantry squad/ platoons?

I would rather run my Infantry units in blocks of 3 or 4 platoons of 30 to 50 models per platoon, than individual squads of 10 models each.

In the Rumors/Leaks? about the new CSM codex, there is a "HQ Chaos Cultist Squad." Maybe GW will return the Company/Platoon commander to a squad instead of split into the Character and the Squad!

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
In the Rumors/Leaks? about the new CSM codex, there is a "HQ Chaos Cultist Squad." Maybe GW will return the Company/Platoon commander to a squad instead of split into the Character and the Squad!

I'm really hoping this is the case. I've been suggesting for ages we get rid of the command squad from elites, and just make them additional models for officers. That way you then have the choice of using them as plasma/melta squads, but at the risk of the officers life as well, or double down as a buffing squad.

For example, a Company Commander could purchase up to 4 additional Veterans at 7 points per model. If you really wanted to you could take just one and give them a regiment standard. Obviously you make any of the additional models count as characters for the purposes of LoS and not actual characters.

Since the 40k system has become so dependent on having melee troops, what do you think are the chances of getting more melee options for imperial guard?

Guard dont need more melee options, they need the ones they have to actually be worthwhile. Crusaders are probably not going to improve substantially/at all based on the Sisters book, and Bullgryns are already pretty good but a small boost wouldn't hurt. Other than that, giving rank and file guardsmen bayonets or something so they have a little more oomph in combat would be nice. A militarum tempestus close combat squad would be cool too.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
In the Rumors/Leaks? about the new CSM codex, there is a "HQ Chaos Cultist Squad." Maybe GW will return the Company/Platoon commander to a squad instead of split into the Character and the Squad!

There is not an "HQ Chaos Cultist Squad".

There is a character with bodyguards...which is a potentially very different beast.

 Kanluwen wrote:
There is a character with bodyguards...which is a potentially very different beast.

Sounds pretty similar to me. It wouldn't be hard to redo old command squads either.



Took me like 5 minutes to do.

Reintroduce the concept of "Retinue" and allow each commander an optional retinue of 4 veterans. They would gain the look out sir rule and must stay within coherency of the commander. I would love to bring medics/standards again but without look out sir they really are a liability.

I'll harp on this until it's reverted, but the Rule of 3 killed my heavy weapon squad collection, and I want to be able to run them all as a platoon again...

Jarms48 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There is a character with bodyguards...which is a potentially very different beast.

Sounds pretty similar to me. It wouldn't be hard to redo old command squads either.

It's not.

Marneus Calgar comes with a bodyguard unit, the Victrix Guard, which are a separate unit.

Tau Commanders get Crisis Bodyguard Units which still remain a separate unit from them, but do not cost an Elite slot when taken in conjunction with a Commander.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Reintroduce the concept of "Retinue" and allow each commander an optional retinue of 4 veterans. They would gain the look out sir rule and must stay within coherency of the commander. I would love to bring medics/standards again but without look out sir they really are a liability.

Meh. There's a lot of other reasons they're a liability.

I'll harp on this until it's reverted, but the Rule of 3 killed my heavy weapon squad collection, and I want to be able to run them all as a platoon again...

Meanwhile, over in Actual Problems Land, my Onager Squadrons ceased to exist so I ended up with triple the number of models than anyone could really need given Ro3.


I've said before and I'll say again:
Simple fix is for "Heavy Weapon Squads" to be redesigned into 3 types. Mortar Squad, Anti-Tank Squad, and Fire Support Squad.

Also some weapons just do not belong as "Heavy". Looking at you Missile Launchers.

Agreed with Kanluwen on the HWS fix (and also RIP to Onager builds, narrowly dodged a bullet there myself), though I would argue mortars should be in the fire support datasheet rather than as a separate standalone datasheet from anti-tank/fire support (mainly because they need to be in competition with something otherwise they become a near auto-include). I've been advocating for basically this approach since Ro3 raised its ugly head. If I'm limited to just 3 units of HWS in an army, then most of the weapon options are really non-options as I'm going to fill all 3 of those slots with the most optimal option 100% of the time. If you split them up a bit though then I have some actual choices to make.

My reason for Mortars being their own datasheet is that I'm of the opinion that it's open for upgrades to the mortar team via shells or stratagems. Smokescreens, incendiaries, whatever.

Big issue, no matter what though, is that there is a "why would I bother?" with all of the HWS options as long as HWTs are in Infantry, Command, or Veteran Squads.

If GW would give the mortars more functionality like that, I would be 100% on board with them being a separate datasheet. If they just stay a simple random number of attack weapon as they are now though, they should be combined with the other "fire support" type weapons.

And I don't think theres an element of "why bother" with HWS vs HWT at all. If I'm looking to bulk out on heavy weapons, points wise its more efficient for me to buy HWS for 3 HWTs vs buying Infantry/Command/Veteran squads for 1. Using lascannons as an example, an HWS w/ 3 Lascannons clocks in at 65 points 21.667 pts/lascannon), vs 70 points for an infantry squad with 1 lascannon or 40 pts for a command squad with 1 lascannon. If I'm looking for lascannons, based on this, the command squad is the worst choice, because I get 1 lascannon for almost twice the cost per gun of the HWS, and I still get the same number of lasgun shots out of the HWS as I would out of the command squad, meaning I don't offset the lascannon cost in the command squad with lasgun shots. In the case of the infantry squad, I'm getting 9 lasguns and 1 lascannon for 5 pts more than for 3 lasguns and 3 lascannons in the HWS squad, theres probably a mathematically/statistically provable scenario where 9 lasguns + 1 lascannon are better than 3 lasguns + 3 lascannons, but if I'm fielding HWSs its because I expect to encounter challenges that lascannons or whatever are better suited against and the corner case where the lasguns are a better choice is secondary to the enhanced utility of a larger number of heavier weapons at a lower cost.

The veteran squad is a bit harder to evaluate because of the improved BS, but still probably isn't as points efficient as the HWS.