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.

 Ignatius wrote:
@Kan, clearly it mandated Infantry Squads because the very thought of being able to shoot 3 Autocannons from a Heavy Weapons Squad and then move them would have been much too powerful.

You realize that you can include heavy weapons squads in there, right?

The *tax* is 5 basic infantry squads per platoon. But you can still include special weapons and heavy weapons teams, and a conscript squad.

 Melissia wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:
@Kan, clearly it mandated Infantry Squads because the very thought of being able to shoot 3 Autocannons from a Heavy Weapons Squad and then move them would have been much too powerful.

You realize that you can include heavy weapons squads in there, right?

The *tax* is 5 basic infantry squads per platoon. But you can still include special weapons and heavy weapons teams, and a conscript squad.

Yes. It was a joke poking fun at the thought of someone being upset about the idea of having a formation of heavy weapons squads that can move and shoot. Maybe I should have specifically said that, though jokes tend to lose focus when they get too wordy.

I'm generally against formations in game, as some of them are more or less gamebreaking (erhm... Free rhinos) but since we have them, I would like to see more small formations, like Armoured Shield is. Formations not requiring metric fethton of models for one or two USRs as a bonus.

I hope GW will get some enlightenment and will not make any more formation giving free stuff... It indirectly contributes towards the power creep and overall imbalance of the game.

Kanluwen wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

Anyways, while we're on this track, and based on some of the comments above re Space Marines, what about a 'baseline' regiment, equating to the Smurfs and then several 'alternative' regiments, focused on a particular aspect. Say one for Mechanized (Tallarn?), one for artillery (Valhallan, old fluff had them very mortar heavy), Light Infantry (Catachan), and so on. The baseline should satisfy those that want a 'stricter' build, while the alternatives would satisfy those that want to play a different style. Hell, even GW should like it as they could sell all the 'alternatives' separately and make more money... Let's see, who is still at the studio that I know that I can pitch this to...

Honestly, I really don't want to see any of that.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I said before that praetorians are now more 40k looking than either the cadians or catachans. They just need a bit of work to bring them up to the modern standards. That game, Order 1886, would be a good of what they could potentially look like.

GW is British and it should embrace that. Bring out the redcoats!

And this is another great example of a major issue with designing the IG as a "single book".
We're talking a galaxy spanning empire. What, for you, is "more 40k" isn't for someone else.

Personally? I don't view the Praetorians/Mordians as appropriate for anything beyond a PDF. Their uniforms seem like the kind of thing that you would see in a governor's retinue, not on the battlefield "proper".

It's actually why in the past I've advocated for "Mini-dexes" for the actual Regiments. Don't put Mordian stuff in my Cadian book, and I won't put Cadian stuff in your Praetorian book.

Hmmm, when I suggested it, it's "Honestly, I really don't want to see any of that.", but then a few posts later it's "in the past I've advocated for "Mini-dexes" for the actual Regiments". I do wish you would make up your mind...

 Melissia wrote:
Not
.. really?

Steel legion and DKoK are the only two that are similar enough.

Mordian and Praetorians. Different head. Literally. That's how praetorians came into being. Mordians with custom heads.

 don_mondo wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

Anyways, while we're on this track, and based on some of the comments above re Space Marines, what about a 'baseline' regiment, equating to the Smurfs and then several 'alternative' regiments, focused on a particular aspect. Say one for Mechanized (Tallarn?), one for artillery (Valhallan, old fluff had them very mortar heavy), Light Infantry (Catachan), and so on. The baseline should satisfy those that want a 'stricter' build, while the alternatives would satisfy those that want to play a different style. Hell, even GW should like it as they could sell all the 'alternatives' separately and make more money... Let's see, who is still at the studio that I know that I can pitch this to...

Honestly, I really don't want to see any of that.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I said before that praetorians are now more 40k looking than either the cadians or catachans. They just need a bit of work to bring them up to the modern standards. That game, Order 1886, would be a good of what they could potentially look like.

GW is British and it should embrace that. Bring out the redcoats!

And this is another great example of a major issue with designing the IG as a "single book".
We're talking a galaxy spanning empire. What, for you, is "more 40k" isn't for someone else.

Personally? I don't view the Praetorians/Mordians as appropriate for anything beyond a PDF. Their uniforms seem like the kind of thing that you would see in a governor's retinue, not on the battlefield "proper".

It's actually why in the past I've advocated for "Mini-dexes" for the actual Regiments. Don't put Mordian stuff in my Cadian book, and I won't put Cadian stuff in your Praetorian book.

Hmmm, when I suggested it, it's "Honestly, I really don't want to see any of that.", but then a few posts later it's "in the past I've advocated for "Mini-dexes" for the actual Regiments". I do wish you would make up your mind...

I apologize if you think I'm being wishywashy. You posted about a "baseline regiment" and then others--you said nothing explicit about individual books; which is why I said what I did. It came fairly close on the heels of someone talking about wanting the "regimental doctrines" back which IMO were okay...but just won't work with the current gaming climate.

In a perfect world, we'd see nothing BUT minidexes for the Imperium and Chaos--in both power armor and flak armor flavors. There's such a wide variety of stuff that can be put out that it's infuriating to me whenever people suggest things like rolling all the different SM and (to a lesser extent now) CSM into one book. There's an argument to be made for the formations associated with them into one book, but not just throwing everything in there at once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hawky wrote:
I'm generally against formations in game, as some of them are more or less gamebreaking (erhm... Free rhinos) but since we have them, I would like to see more small formations, like Armoured Shield is. Formations not requiring metric fethton of models for one or two USRs as a bonus.

"Free Rhinos" isn't a formation bonus.
It's a Detachment(Gladius Strike Force) bonus, requiring someone to take their two Core Formations.

Armoured Shield is a Start Collecting formation. It's not even worth talking about in the context of overall Formations and their contributions to the health of the game, as the SC formations are intended strictly to make the boxes playable without someone needing to buy something more.

I hope GW will get some enlightenment and will not make any more formation giving free stuff... It indirectly contributes towards the power creep and overall imbalance of the game.

I hope players will get some enlightenment before speaking on issues they have no clue of.

There are two "big offenders" in regards to the "free stuff" setups. Gladius with min-maxed BDCs for the free Rhino spam and the War Convocation(which while described as a "formation" actually consists of three separate Detachments). You don't hear people whining about the "free upgrades to vehicles" for the Space Wolves from Warzone Fenris. You hear a bit about the free Drop Pods for one of the Companies, but not the "free vehicle upgrades".

And even then Gladius and War Convocations pale in comparison to, say, Wind Rider Hosts...which while not getting anything "free" are still considered wildly obscene by virtue of being hideously undercosted Scatter Laser platforms and a Core choice to boot.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

Anyways, while we're on this track, and based on some of the comments above re Space Marines, what about a 'baseline' regiment, equating to the Smurfs and then several 'alternative' regiments, focused on a particular aspect. Say one for Mechanized (Tallarn?), one for artillery (Valhallan, old fluff had them very mortar heavy), Light Infantry (Catachan), and so on. The baseline should satisfy those that want a 'stricter' build, while the alternatives would satisfy those that want to play a different style. Hell, even GW should like it as they could sell all the 'alternatives' separately and make more money... Let's see, who is still at the studio that I know that I can pitch this to...

Honestly, I really don't want to see any of that.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I said before that praetorians are now more 40k looking than either the cadians or catachans. They just need a bit of work to bring them up to the modern standards. That game, Order 1886, would be a good of what they could potentially look like.

GW is British and it should embrace that. Bring out the redcoats!

And this is another great example of a major issue with designing the IG as a "single book".
We're talking a galaxy spanning empire. What, for you, is "more 40k" isn't for someone else.

Personally? I don't view the Praetorians/Mordians as appropriate for anything beyond a PDF. Their uniforms seem like the kind of thing that you would see in a governor's retinue, not on the battlefield "proper".

It's actually why in the past I've advocated for "Mini-dexes" for the actual Regiments. Don't put Mordian stuff in my Cadian book, and I won't put Cadian stuff in your Praetorian book.

Hmmm, when I suggested it, it's "Honestly, I really don't want to see any of that.", but then a few posts later it's "in the past I've advocated for "Mini-dexes" for the actual Regiments". I do wish you would make up your mind...

I apologize if you think I'm being wishywashy. You posted about a "baseline regiment" and then others--you said nothing explicit about individual books; which is why I said what I did. It came fairly close on the heels of someone talking about wanting the "regimental doctrines" back which IMO were okay...but just won't work with the current gaming climate.

In a perfect world, we'd see nothing BUT minidexes for the Imperium and Chaos--in both power armor and flak armor flavors. There's such a wide variety of stuff that can be put out that it's infuriating to me whenever people suggest things like rolling all the different SM and (to a lesser extent now) CSM into one book. There's an argument to be made for the formations associated with them into one book, but not just throwing everything in there at once.

Or you just missed/misunderstood part of my post...

"Hell, even GW should like it as they could sell all the 'alternatives' separately and make more money..."

NivlacSupreme wrote:
Eventually with stupid infantry only lists you end up in a position where the enemy just can't mathematically put out enough firepower to kill all of your men in 5-7 turns.

I play infantry only Guard (200+ models in a normal list) and while that was more or less true in 5th and part of 6th, it's just not true anymore against non-crap tier armies.

 don_mondo wrote:

Or you just missed/misunderstood part of my post...

"Hell, even GW should like it as they could sell all the 'alternatives' separately and make more money..."

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that was the case.

In an ideal world, we'd see full mini-codices for each "famous regiment" but I think the "best bet" is going to be for theme books. I wrote up a list awhile ago for Marines, with two Chapters per book and special signature units for each.

It wouldn't be crazy to think of something similar for Guard.

Deathworlds and You: Catachans and Tallarn. Signature units would be Catachan Devils(Hardened Vets with Infiltrate, Scout, Camo Gear+Snare Mines and some special rule or Order allowing them to use their Shotguns in CC) and Desert Raiders(Hardened Vets with a Reserve Manipulation special rule, Infiltrate, Scout, Camo Gear, Sniper Rifles on all, unique Order allowing them to fire and then move). Stealth on all their stuff. Maybe some kind of "Seize the Initiative" bonus for pre-game?

Wardens of the Wall: Cadians and Vostroyans.
Signature units would be Kasrkin(Hardened Vets that are part of the Infantry Platoon with Carapace, Hellguns, no HWTs but an extra SW. Special rule that lets them "taunt" an enemy for lack of a better term; ala the White Scar formation Speartip Strike from Kauyon) and Firstborn(Hardened Vets with Carapace and Lasguns, HWTs still OK. Move Through Cover and Stealth).

Pft, we've got more where that came from...: Death Korps and Valhallans. I don't know what would be good "signature units" for them, so will let someone else handle that.

Shiny uniforms!: Mordians and Praetorians. Again, I'll let someone else come up with the signature units.

Treadheads: Narmenians and Steel Legion. Narmenians are tankers, Steel Legion are mech infantry.

I don't know how to break down the "regimental assets" beyond even giving them their own mini-book...which I'm totally not opposed to, as I would love a way to run an all Ogryn army.

I could work with the dual books. Hell, remember when Dark/Blood Angels shared a codex?

Off the cuff, Valhallans heavy on Artillery. and of course, DKoK gets special Rough Riders.

Mordians/Praetorians, hmmmmm, bit harder. For Praetorians maybe slight buffs to their units and an extra ability to take 'native sepoys' ie expanded conscript rules (think colonial British). Mordians, Stubborn for certain units, beyond that go nothing.

Treadheads, yep, mech rules, Narmenians required Tank Command and focus on tanks, Steel Legion, required transports.

Regimental assets, bare bones in the baseline codex and then expand on them in a Regt assets book, which could of course be used in any IG army.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Hawky wrote:
I'm generally against formations in game, as some of them are more or less gamebreaking (erhm... Free rhinos) but since we have them, I would like to see more small formations, like Armoured Shield is. Formations not requiring metric fethton of models for one or two USRs as a bonus.

"Free Rhinos" isn't a formation bonus.
It's a Detachment(Gladius Strike Force) bonus, requiring someone to take their two Core Formations.

Armoured Shield is a Start Collecting formation. It's not even worth talking about in the context of overall Formations and their contributions to the health of the game, as the SC formations are intended strictly to make the boxes playable without someone needing to buy something more.

I hope GW will get some enlightenment and will not make any more formation giving free stuff... It indirectly contributes towards the power creep and overall imbalance of the game.

I hope players will get some enlightenment before speaking on issues they have no clue of.

There are two "big offenders" in regards to the "free stuff" setups. Gladius with min-maxed BDCs for the free Rhino spam and the War Convocation(which while described as a "formation" actually consists of three separate Detachments). You don't hear people whining about the "free upgrades to vehicles" for the Space Wolves from Warzone Fenris. You hear a bit about the free Drop Pods for one of the Companies, but not the "free vehicle upgrades".

And even then Gladius and War Convocations pale in comparison to, say, Wind Rider Hosts...which while not getting anything "free" are still considered wildly obscene by virtue of being hideously undercosted Scatter Laser platforms and a Core choice to boot.

 Hawky wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

 Hawky wrote:
I'm generally against formations in game, as some of them are more or less gamebreaking (erhm... Free rhinos) but since we have them, I would like to see more small formations, like Armoured Shield is. Formations not requiring metric fethton of models for one or two USRs as a bonus.

"Free Rhinos" isn't a formation bonus.
It's a Detachment(Gladius Strike Force) bonus, requiring someone to take their two Core Formations.

Armoured Shield is a Start Collecting formation. It's not even worth talking about in the context of overall Formations and their contributions to the health of the game, as the SC formations are intended strictly to make the boxes playable without someone needing to buy something more.

I hope GW will get some enlightenment and will not make any more formation giving free stuff... It indirectly contributes towards the power creep and overall imbalance of the game.

I hope players will get some enlightenment before speaking on issues they have no clue of.

There are two "big offenders" in regards to the "free stuff" setups. Gladius with min-maxed BDCs for the free Rhino spam and the War Convocation(which while described as a "formation" actually consists of three separate Detachments). You don't hear people whining about the "free upgrades to vehicles" for the Space Wolves from Warzone Fenris. You hear a bit about the free Drop Pods for one of the Companies, but not the "free vehicle upgrades".

And even then Gladius and War Convocations pale in comparison to, say, Wind Rider Hosts...which while not getting anything "free" are still considered wildly obscene by virtue of being hideously undercosted Scatter Laser platforms and a Core choice to boot.

You obviously didn't get anything from what I wrote.

My opinion is that NOBODY should get FREE stuff, by any means. No free units, no free upgrades, no free Ork bellydances... Nothing. For very obvious reasons.

You posted that it was a "formation bonus". It's not. It doesn't matter what your opinion is; it's based on a flawed logic.

It requires a rather large points investiture and cash outlay to actually take advantage of it. And not everyone will ever run said Detachment. I've got a Raven Guard army and have never ran a Gladius.

And regarding the SC formation, yes, it's meant to make the box playable, but I would like to see more of this little formations. Combine 2 or three units, give some requirements (Like the commissar) and have a small bonus for it (the cover safe), without requiring to field ton of other units in order to get something you like.

There are Formations like that. Look at literally any of the more recent books.They just aren't for the Guard.
Why? Because the Guard book was written before Formations became a thing in codices proper.


Right now, anything and everything that isn't a "small book"(GSC, DW, Harlequins) isn't seeing anything beyond formations. We're in a holding pattern for a new edition. Getting upset about there not being anything and everything you want is pointless because who the hell knows what is coming.

Yes, I'm speaking about the Cadian Battlegroup and Emperor's *something* Company Formations. Cadian Battlegroup formations are generally not bad at all, but requirements are just too high.

Emperor's Shield Infantry Company is a formation that is part of the Cadian Battlegroup detachment.

Realistically though, anyone with two functioning brain cells to rub together can tell that the ESIC is a Detachment in and of itself. It consists of three Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoons(5x Infantry Squads minimum and a Platoon Command Squad with 1-3 Sentinel Squads). Why? Who the hell knows. It has all the hallmarks of Cruddace and his idiocy though.

To give you example what I mean about small formations, the Rempart Detachment is a good example. Even the Steel Host is.
Just small, independent formations, requiring few models and having small bonus. Nothing big. You get the point?

See above. We didn't get diddly really for Guard because the way codices were being done was still in flux.

On the third point you are actually right. That's obvious and serious imbalance. But free stuff formations are not the way how to fix it.

Nobody has argued that. Don't bring a strawman in.

 Kanluwen wrote:

You posted that it was a "formation bonus". It's not. It doesn't matter what your opinion is; it's based on a flawed logic.

It requires a rather large points investiture and cash outlay to actually take advantage of it. And not everyone will ever run said Detachment. I've got a Raven Guard army and have never ran a Gladius.

Ok, It maybe was a bad example, or bad wording, but you have a option to have free stuff thanks to this, so... yeah.

Right now, anything and everything that isn't a "small book"(GSC, DW, Harlequins) isn't seeing anything beyond formations. We're in a holding pattern for a new edition. Getting upset about there not being anything and everything you want is pointless because who the hell knows what is coming.

Yes, I'm speaking about the Cadian Battlegroup and Emperor's *something* Company Formations. Cadian Battlegroup formations are generally not bad at all, but requirements are just too high.

Emperor's Shield Infantry Company is a formation that is part of the Cadian Battlegroup detachment.

Realistically though, anyone with two functioning brain cells to rub together can tell that the ESIC is a Detachment in and of itself. It consists of three Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoons(5x Infantry Squads minimum and a Platoon Command Squad with 1-3 Sentinel Squads). Why? Who the hell knows. It has all the hallmarks of Cruddace and his idiocy though.

It is indeed. Never said otherwise.
That's true. ESIC consists of 165 guardsmen minimum. 5 more guys from CCS you need to take ESIC isn't that much of a difference.

To give you example what I mean about small formations, the Rempart Detachment is a good example. Even the Steel Host is.
Just small, independent formations, requiring few models and having small bonus. Nothing big. You get the point?

See above. We didn't get diddly really for Guard because the way codices were being done was still in flux.

We did not, but GW had several opportunities to make them. And they didn't (Ok, The Red Waagh might be a small exception). Fall of Cadia was maybe the best opportunity to make some cool stuff directly for the Guard, but GW would not be GW if they did so.

On the third point you are actually right. That's obvious and serious imbalance. But free stuff formations are not the way how to fix it.

Nobody has argued that. Don't bring a strawman in.

I think that if this thread has done anything at all, it has shown that there is no consensus on what the guard is, and that there is no clear direction in which it will proceed.

Yeah pretty much

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I think that if this thread has done anything at all, it has shown that there is no consensus on what the guard is, and that there is no clear direction in which it will proceed.

There is actually. The guard is everything.
And as to how to proceed, well I am not retyping my list from page 1 or 2, but aside from that we really need a far more varied and flexible codex.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I think that if this thread has done anything at all, it has shown that there is no consensus on what the guard is, and that there is no clear direction in which it will proceed.

I think the answer about what GW should do is right there in your statement. All these varied ideas show that there is a market to reintroduce a variety of IG regiments that would showcase the variety of the Imperium and different ways that people want to play.

bogalubov wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I think that if this thread has done anything at all, it has shown that there is no consensus on what the guard is, and that there is no clear direction in which it will proceed.

I think the answer about what GW should do is right there in your statement. All these varied ideas show that there is a market to reintroduce a variety of IG regiments that would showcase the variety of the Imperium and different ways that people want to play.

And this is what I want, but seeing all the division in the thread, I'm having trouble seeing that notion as a concensus.

 Ignatius wrote:
Players also get into the mindset that their way of playing is a "more appropriate" way of playing the army.

I am of the unshakable mindset that the core IG items (i.e. Platoons, Chimeras, and Russes) all need to provide OUTFETHINGSTANDING value per point spent, rather than being objectively fething terrible when compared to the overwhelming majority of cores in other Codices.

What that specific mix needs to be, on a force-specific basis, I could hardly care less. Although, I will submit that the idea of having to spend 2,000+ pts on 300+ models to be not uncompetitive is a kinda fething ludicrous starting point when "big" events are topping out at 1850 pts, and most casual players are more comfortable in the 1,000 - 1,500 pt range. I would also submit that merely cutting point costs is not necessarily the panacea if the net result is that IG players bring more stuff simply to see it destroyed as quickly as it appears.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:
Players also get into the mindset that their way of playing is a "more appropriate" way of playing the army.

I am of the unshakable mindset that the core IG items (i.e. Platoons, Chimeras, and Russes) all need to provide OUTFETHINGSTANDING value per point spent, rather than being objectively fething terrible when compared to the overwhelming majority of cores in other Codices.

What that specific mix needs to be, on a force-specific basis, I could hardly care less. Although, I will submit that the idea of having to spend 2,000+ pts on 300+ models to be not uncompetitive is a kinda fething ludicrous starting point when "big" events are topping out at 1850 pts, and most casual players are more comfortable in the 1,000 - 1,500 pt range. I would also submit that merely cutting point costs is not necessarily the panacea if the net result is that IG players bring more stuff simply to see it destroyed as quickly as it appears.

And I am of the mindset that not only agrees with this, but also feels that there should be a good number of syenergy between all of these units, and that Orders need to have a far larger range (unlimited).

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:
Players also get into the mindset that their way of playing is a "more appropriate" way of playing the army.

I am of the unshakable mindset that the core IG items (i.e. Platoons, Chimeras, and Russes) all need to provide OUTFETHINGSTANDING value per point spent, rather than being objectively fething terrible when compared to the overwhelming majority of cores in other Codices.

Which goes back to the issue of overhauling EVERYTHING in the game. Bolters, Lasguns, the "legacy" heavy weapons, etc etc.

What that specific mix needs to be, on a force-specific basis, I could hardly care less. Although, I will submit that the idea of having to spend 2,000+ pts on 300+ models to be not uncompetitive is a kinda fething ludicrous starting point when "big" events are topping out at 1850 pts, and most casual players are more comfortable in the 1,000 - 1,500 pt range. I would also submit that merely cutting point costs is not necessarily the panacea if the net result is that IG players bring more stuff simply to see it destroyed as quickly as it appears.

Oh please. ESIC isn't competitive. Don't pretend it is.

Look at any Guard list in "competitive" events. Vets, vets, more vets. And a sprinkling of allied stuff from the other IoM books.

An ESIC costs about 1000pts before upgrades doesn't it? It's also quite slow, what with no transports and all right?

I wonder...free upgrades? If you're going to have that many models you deserve a decent reward.

Also the special rules it gives are a little lack luster. The sentinels forward recon is nice and fluffy. Marching drill could be beefed up to simply "infantry squads from this formation within 6" of a pcs from this formation always count as stationary when shooting". Cuts down on dice rolling and makes the pcs really useful.

I'm sure punishing fusillade could be tweaked too. But I still consider these to be band aid fixes.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
An ESIC costs about 1000pts before upgrades doesn't it? It's also quite slow, what with no transports and all right?

The problem is that it's basically worthless for the 1,000 points. The special rules are completely out of line with the points sunk, before the additional points to make it halfway usable.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The problem is that it's basically worthless for the 1,000 points. The special rules are completely out of line with the points sunk, before the additional points to make it halfway usable.

Which is why the rules should be beefed up along with free gear.

The Cadian Battlegroup level detachment buffs substantially only buff infantry doing nothing for vehicles, so there is that. I think with the ESIC it is a question of going large or don't bother at all. ESIP has buffs, ESIC has buffs on top of that and Cadian Battlegroup has buffs for infantry on top of that too; there is something culmulative in that. I am not saying it is competitive but if you were a bit mad for infantry it could be fun. Bare bones it might cost 1000 pts but if you are comfortable with infantry being 90% of your list then you could still take a crap load of heavy weapons with it on HWT and sentinels and have a full cadian battlegroup with all the order buffs for under 1850pts. I actually quite like the formation though admittedly their ain't no cheese anywhere in the montka book.

The basic platoon has two major problems: low damage output, and low durability outside of numbers. With the d6 system 40k is built on, it's just too hard to dramatically increase either on the statline, which leaves special rules. IG has relatively few, and platoons have only one (combined squads), which gives us a bit more room to play. Here's my modest proposal:

Make Orders occur automatically, without a leadership test. This allows the IG to rely on them, and eliminates rolling dice.

Buff heavy weapon teams. Make them T5, so they're not as easily ID'd or whittled down by small arms. I've toyed with the idea of teams counting as twinlinked or BS4 to represent the loader, but that might be too much.

Drop the cost of power weapons to 10 pts. Drop the cost of plasma guns to 10 pts. Bump Grenade Launchers up to Assault 2 (an easy fix, right?) Bump Mortars up to heavy 2 at the same time. Make Heavy bolters 5pts, MLs 10pts, and Lascannons 15 points.

Keep ready access to priests, commissars, and divination psykers.

For LR tanks, the problem isn't durability (although it's not really a strength any more either) but awkward weapon combinations and underwhelming damage output. I'd drop the cost (a demolisher can push 200pts...). My idea: give the turret weapon split fire, and allow heavy to override the ordnance causing snap shots. So you can shoot your turret gun at one target, and your sponsons at another. Aside from that, I'd just tweak a few things: Vanquiser gets AP1 so it can actually kill some tanks, executioner loses gets hot, HB sponsons get cheaper.

BS 4 too much? Why would we think that when phil kelly jizzed it all over codex eldar?

Heavy weapon teams could have something similar to the swarm rule, where they have EW, but blasts and templates do twice the amount of wounds.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Heavy weapon teams could have something similar to the swarm rule, where they have EW, but blasts and templates do twice the amount of wounds.

The Artillery rule would be better, as well as counting the Gun and Crew separately.

In my sample lists for a new AoS style 40k system, I was giving all heavy weapon teams except the mortar and missile launcher +1 to their save against shooting attacks if they didn't move, representing the gun shield and sand bags. Fortified position. With an AoS style cover system, they would be getting a 3+ save against enemy firepower when in cover. And this is a system were a lascannon is only -2 rend.

I guess my point is, IG weapon teams need to be tougher but in a sensible manner.