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.

 bullyboy wrote:
Yet soup is a godsend to narrative/casual play.
Soup does not need to be addressed by GW, it needs to be addressed by TOs.

No, it really isn't a benefit to narrative/casual play because 99% of the time it produces armies that are fluff abominations. In the extremely rare situation where there's a "soup" army that actually fits the fluff it should be easy to convince your opponent to allow it, you don't need a special rule that says "you can break the rules".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
That's like saying that 7-th eldar were balanced because they had banshees. Practice shows that "strong elements" + "weak elements" approach just doesn't come into play all that often in competitive listbuilding. In practice it's usually "as many strong elements as you can get".

No, 7th edition Eldar aren't a counter to the idea at all. The problem with that codex was not that it was designed around strengths and weaknesses, it was that it had so many strong units that you could make an army of nothing but strong units and those strong units were massively above the power curve. Guardsmen aren't anywhere near the level of scatter laser jetbikes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I completely disagree. I don't think you can balance out undercosted units like that. Players can spam the undercosted units and avoid the others.

Players can only do that because the FOC no longer exists. Impose the 5th edition army construction rules and the ability to spam stuff diminishes significantly. Spam is now limited to three copies of a unit at absolute most (six if it's troops, but troops are the easiest units to keep balanced), you can't take an army of nothing but your best unit.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Mesokhornee wrote:
Soup is the worst thing about 40k matched play

Yet soup is a godsend to narrative/casual play.
Soup does not need to be addressed by GW, it needs to be addressed by TOs.

Not that I disagree, but would no soup have stopped the Eldar at LVO?

Possibly, depending on if the LVO organizers believe soup to be possible with monocodex lists or if they go with "It can't be soup if it's all from one book--even if you have different factions present".

What does that even mean? The current Eldar powerplay revolves around combining their strongest unit (Dark Reapers) with their best Craftworld trait (Alaitoc) and protecting them from alpha-strikes with their best transport (Waveserpent). The Ynnari detachment is a popular variation, but it is not at all crucial to the list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


Players can only do that because the FOC no longer exists. Impose the 5th edition army construction rules and the ability to spam stuff diminishes significantly. Spam is now limited to three copies of a unit at absolute most (six if it's troops, but troops are the easiest units to keep balanced), you can't take an army of nothing but your best unit.

The FOC still exists. It is called a batallion.

And six troop slots would still allow you to bring 180 boyz/Termagants, 60 terminators, 120 rubrics, 240 cultists/horrors. But Infantry guard would be impossible.

"Players can only do that because the FOC no longer exists. Impose the 5th edition army construction rules and the ability to spam stuff diminishes significantly. Spam is now limited to three copies of a unit at absolute most (six if it's troops, but troops are the easiest units to keep balanced), you can't take an army of nothing but your best unit."

Undercosted units broke the game even with the old FOC. I know. I was there.

Its not the same though. In the original FoC you just need 1 HQ and 2 Troops.
For a batallion you need 2 HQ and 3 Troops.

pismakron wrote:
The FOC still exists. It is called a batallion.

Except now there's no rule limiting you to that single FOC. You can take all the variant "spam whatever unit type you want" detachments, take multiple detachments, mix factions in those detachments, etc. The game needs to go back to a single 5th edition FOC per player (possibly with the addition of a single LoW slot with a 30k style point cap), from a single faction.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its not the same though. In the original FoC you just need 1 HQ and 2 Troops.
For a batallion you need 2 HQ and 3 Troops.

and for some armies they can do that sooooo many times for very little cost, spamming CP, so limit to 1 FOC means that ... well they cant.

 Kanluwen wrote:
But yeah. You totally don't get anything special for that 1ppm.

IKR, it's ridiculous how they have to pay an extra point to be notably worse.

pismakron wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Mesokhornee wrote:
Soup is the worst thing about 40k matched play

Yet soup is a godsend to narrative/casual play.
Soup does not need to be addressed by GW, it needs to be addressed by TOs.

Not that I disagree, but would no soup have stopped the Eldar at LVO?

Possibly, depending on if the LVO organizers believe soup to be possible with monocodex lists or if they go with "It can't be soup if it's all from one book--even if you have different factions present".

What does that even mean? The current Eldar powerplay revolves around combining their strongest unit (Dark Reapers) with their best Craftworld trait (Alaitoc) and protecting them from alpha-strikes with their best transport (Waveserpent). The Ynnari detachment is a popular variation, but it is not at all crucial to the list.

What do you think it means?

Things like <Regiment>, <Craftworld>, <Forge World>, etc are all considered to be Faction Keywords.
To use a relevant example for myself:

I field Cadian Imperial Guard. That means I have:
Imperium, <Regiment--Cadian>, and Astra Militarum Faction Keywords.

I then field Vostroyans.
Imperium, <Regiment--Vostroyans>, and Astra Militarum Faction Keywords.

It's still the same army, basically the same faction...but not the same subfaction.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its not the same though. In the original FoC you just need 1 HQ and 2 Troops.
For a batallion you need 2 HQ and 3 Troops.

It is for all intents and purposes the same thing. And making a single detachment/FOC restriction would solve nothing: Dark Reaper spam would still be alive and well, but many balanced casual lists would be illegal.

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
The FOC still exists. It is called a batallion.

Except now there's no rule limiting you to that single FOC. You can take all the variant "spam whatever unit type you want" detachments, take multiple detachments, mix factions in those detachments, etc. The game needs to go back to a single 5th edition FOC per player (possibly with the addition of a single LoW slot with a 30k style point cap), from a single faction.

I think a two detachment limit for narrative (depending on points, if you're playing apocalypse throw this out the window) and none for open. In narrative, you might be (if actually playing narratively) taking a main ground force with a traditional company structure, and then elites in reserves to provide rapid reaction, so it makes sense to allow an additional vanguard detachment, for example. In matched play I'd agree, one battalion would actually make the game much more 'matched'.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
But yeah. You totally don't get anything special for that 1ppm.

IKR, it's ridiculous how they have to pay an extra point to be notably worse.

LD7 base on a unit that's expected to soak up casualties, can start off the board, and is in an army with characters that have an aura allowing you to autopass Morale Tests is worth 1ppm extra.
Bonus points that your characters preventing extra Morale casualties don't potentially make you lose more models than you would have started losing!

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
The FOC still exists. It is called a batallion.

Except now there's no rule limiting you to that single FOC. You can take all the variant "spam whatever unit type you want" detachments, take multiple detachments, mix factions in those detachments, etc. The game needs to go back to a single 5th edition FOC per player (possibly with the addition of a single LoW slot with a 30k style point cap), from a single faction.

You can take as many detachments as the TO agrees to, or that you can agree with your opponent to bring. If you want to play a single FOC/detachment game, that already exist in the rules. But such a restriction would not eliminate spam. But it would eliminate many fluffy and varied lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

pismakron wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Mesokhornee wrote:
Soup is the worst thing about 40k matched play

Yet soup is a godsend to narrative/casual play.
Soup does not need to be addressed by GW, it needs to be addressed by TOs.

Not that I disagree, but would no soup have stopped the Eldar at LVO?

Possibly, depending on if the LVO organizers believe soup to be possible with monocodex lists or if they go with "It can't be soup if it's all from one book--even if you have different factions present".

What does that even mean? The current Eldar powerplay revolves around combining their strongest unit (Dark Reapers) with their best Craftworld trait (Alaitoc) and protecting them from alpha-strikes with their best transport (Waveserpent). The Ynnari detachment is a popular variation, but it is not at all crucial to the list.

What do you think it means?

Things like <Regiment>, <Craftworld>, <Forge World>, etc are all considered to be Faction Keywords.
To use a relevant example for myself:

I field Cadian Imperial Guard. That means I have:
Imperium, <Regiment--Cadian>, and Astra Militarum Faction Keywords.

I then field Vostroyans.
Imperium, <Regiment--Vostroyans>, and Astra Militarum Faction Keywords.

It's still the same army, basically the same faction...but not the same subfaction.

And how does this even relate to Dark Reaper spam?

ITT: "Instead of using a chisel to fix balance on a unit by unit basis, let's take a hammer to the core mechanics of the edition!"

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I think a two detachment limit for narrative (depending on points, if you're playing apocalypse throw this out the window) and none for open. In narrative, you might be (if actually playing narratively) taking a main ground force with a traditional company structure, and then elites in reserves to provide rapid reaction, so it makes sense to allow an additional vanguard detachment, for example. In matched play I'd agree, one battalion would actually make the game much more 'matched'.

In that case you have a single FOC that has three elite slots and three fast attack slots, along with plenty of troops and heavy support slots to represent the static ground force. How many slots do you need for a 1-2000 point game?

And in a narrative game where you find the rare, one in a million, fluff concept that can't be represented by a single FOC you always have the option to ask for special scenario rules that allow you to take the fluffy army. If it's a narrative game and your fluff army is truly an awesome and appropriate fluff concept, not simply an attempt to spam more copies of the most efficient units, then your narrative opponent should be eager to allow it. But you don't need to put the rules for handling such a rare edge-case scenario into the core rules for standard games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 andysonic1 wrote:
ITT: "Instead of using a chisel to fix balance on a unit by unit basis, let's take a hammer to the core mechanics of the edition!"

The core mechanics already need to die for a variety of reasons. Particular balance concerns are just additional reasons that might conveniently get fixed at the same time.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
But yeah. You totally don't get anything special for that 1ppm.

IKR, it's ridiculous how they have to pay an extra point to be notably worse.

LD7 base on a unit that's expected to soak up casualties, can start off the board, and is in an army with characters that have an aura allowing you to autopass Morale Tests is worth 1ppm extra.
Bonus points that your characters preventing extra Morale casualties don't potentially make you lose more models than you would have started losing!

Realistically moral is an issue for no one, they should just remove it from the game, but that's besides the point.
You come across as wilfully blind to the huge advantage that being a codex unit gives over the lack of chapter tactics and stratagems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
In that case you have a single FOC that has three elite slots and three fast attack slots, along with plenty of troops and heavy support slots to represent the static ground force. How many slots do you need for a 1-2000 point game?

And in a narrative game where you find the rare, one in a million, fluff concept that can't be represented by a single FOC you always have the option to ask for special scenario rules that allow you to take the fluffy army. If it's a narrative game and your fluff army is truly an awesome and appropriate fluff concept, not simply an attempt to spam more copies of the most efficient units, then your narrative opponent should be eager to allow it. But you don't need to put the rules for handling such a rare edge-case scenario into the core rules for standard games.

Fair enough, I hadn't really thought it through.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Marines are dead. Don't cry for them. The basic marine statline is unbalanceable.
LONG LIVE OUR NEW PRIMARIS OVERLORDS. They are actually balanceable.

Theres no point in bringing basic marines in balance conversations just like theres no point in talking about grey knights. They are a disaster from a design standpoint. They need a rewrite from the ground up. And they have received one: Primaris.

As bait-tastic as this post seems, it's basially not wrong. Primaris DO fix basically everything about Marines. Mainly by giving the units focus. Focusing on shooting OR assault goes a looooong way towards making Marines more playable, especially in the current edition. They need more melee units though.

I find this "generalists can't exist from a design perspective" really weird.

It's not an opinion I just thought up overnight, but rather one that's formed largely out of how 8th edition works. Vanilla Tacticals are basically broken right now, and not in a good way. They pay to be a melee unit but lack the quantity or quality of attacks to be effective at it, while also paying to be a shooting unit that can be easily outgunned by equivalent points from other armies. And then there is how fragile Marines as a whole are in an edition where being outnumbered often means a quick trip to tabled town.

I'm not saying that they're useless, but when the core of an army is being pushed off for cheaper units (bolter scouts) or units that do the job better (Primaris) then there is something horribly wrong with that unit that needs to be addressed.

 Peregrine wrote:


In that case you have a single FOC that has three elite slots and three fast attack slots, along with plenty of troops and heavy support slots to represent the static ground force. How many slots do you need for a 1-2000 point game?

What exactly do you think it would solve, limiting Guard to a maximum of six Infantry squads?

pismakron wrote:

And how does this even relate to Dark Reaper spam?

That's not what you asked. You asked "what does this even mean?" with relation to a comment on whether or not soup could even be considered to be soup if it's mono-codex.

I explained myself. You're just shifting goalposts at this juncture.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
But yeah. You totally don't get anything special for that 1ppm.

IKR, it's ridiculous how they have to pay an extra point to be notably worse.

LD7 base on a unit that's expected to soak up casualties, can start off the board, and is in an army with characters that have an aura allowing you to autopass Morale Tests is worth 1ppm extra.
Bonus points that your characters preventing extra Morale casualties don't potentially make you lose more models than you would have started losing!

Realistically moral is an issue for no one, they should just remove it from the game, but that's besides the point.

On the contrary, morale is an issue for anyone playing pure Guard now thanks to the fact that Commissars were gutted and effectively removed. It's down to Stratagems or Psykers...or soup.

You come across as wilfully blind to the huge advantage that being a codex unit gives over the lack of chapter tactics and stratagems.

And you're ignoring the fact that you do actually have some fairly strong Stratagems that were added to your Index via Chapter Approved. Couple that with a fairly nice list to start with and the ability to take Brood Brothers and GSC aren't going to be shaking the foundations of the meta, but they are by no means unplayable at this juncture.

 Peregrine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The undercosted unit shouldn't be undercosted to begin with. That removes the motivation to soup it in.

That's not how balance works. Undercosted units are fine when they are balanced out by weaknesses elsewhere in the list. For example, IG can have undercosted horde infantry to encourage you to play a mass human wave army of expendable cannon fodder. But maybe the drawback is that you don't have good elite infantry, leaving a major weakness against threats that can clear out hordes of weak infantry. Your overall list strength is average, even though some of its individual elements are above or below the average.

The problem comes in when you remove the restrictions on mixing factions. Instead of having an army with strong units and weak units you can suddenly build an army of nothing but strong units, assuming you're lucky enough to play the faction that gets vastly more choices than anyone else. You take the best IG horde infantry, the best space marine primarch, the best elite infantry from a different space marine chapter, the best tanks, etc. Whatever the best units in the game are you take them. Nerfing one unit without nerfing soup in general just makes that particular unit unplayable. It hurts pure-faction armies that depend on the unit, while soup lists just move on to the next overpowered option.

In short: ban soup, fix the game. Put the game back to single codex, single FOC like it was in 5th edition.

Thats fine in practice but at the end of the day what people did was to spam the "undercosted" unit of the faction and to not use the "weaker elements". The only way to make that work was to force people to take an equal amount of both kinds of units, something that nearly nobody wants.

pismakron wrote:
What exactly do you think it would solve, limiting Guard to a maximum of six Infantry squads?

For one thing it accomplishes giving conscripts a reason to exist. Do you want to burn a FOC slot to get a 10-man squad of standard guardsmen, or 30 conscripts? 60 bodies, or 180? Similarly, veterans as elites now have more of a reason to exist, as they let you take additional bodies in those three slots. And I think it's safe to say that between 90 and 210 infantry is probably sufficient. The fact that you can't put 500 bodies on the table with a one-dimensional spam army is a feature, not a bug.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
On the contrary, morale is an issue for anyone playing pure Guard now thanks to the fact that Commissars were gutted and effectively removed. It's down to Stratagems or Psykers...or soup.

Morale is a non-issue now that conscripts have been removed from the game. By the time you're taking enough morale losses on a 10-man squad to care about it the unit has already been reduced to the point that it isn't effective anymore. Whether that last guardsman dies to morale or dies to a stray bolter shot next turn is rarely making a huge difference, and in the few cases (such as clearing objectives) where the morale roll is going to matter it's fairly easy to just finish off the unit before morale happens and guarantee a kill. And if you're taking MSU storm troopers you can just ignore it entirely.

And the "single 5th edition FOC" is a myth. Theres always have been ways to jump around that, like the typical biker HQ allowing bikers to be troops, or Deathwing terminators being troops, etc... and you know why? Because people like to have a variety of armies. 8th has just make that way of playing streamlined and open for everybody. Now they just need to properly balance units.

One of the first things asked for 8th edition was to add exceptions to the open system of FOC we have now! For allowing X units to be made troops! People want that freedom to make the armies they really want.

 Galas wrote:
And the "single 5th edition FOC" is a myth. Theres always have been ways to jump around that, like the typical biker HQ allowing bikers to be troops, or Deathwing terminators being troops, etc... and you know why? Because people like to have a variety of armies. 8th has just make that way of playing streamlined and open for everybody. Now they just need to properly balance units.

No, 8th edition did not do the same thing at all. Taking a biker HQ to unlock bikes as troops allows you a limited FOC expansion, with a single specific unit (and a good game designer is not going to let that be any unit that can break the game when taken as troops), and you have to buy a specific HQ to even unlock the option. 8th edition went far beyond offering specific alternate options with built-in balancing factors and says "just take whatever you want, rules are for WAAC TFGs".

People want that freedom to make the armies they really want.

And part of being a good game designer is knowing when to tell people that they can't have the thing they want because it would be bad for the game as a whole.

 Kanluwen wrote:
On the contrary, morale is an issue for anyone playing pure Guard now thanks to the fact that Commissars were gutted and effectively removed. It's down to Stratagems or Psykers...or soup.

Or 2CP, or ignoring it entirely, because it almost never takes any meaningful effect when it comes to casualties in a 10 man unit. It usually gets wiped or not enough damage is done to actually make morale a problem, but the unit is already, as peregrine said, made useless, because what're five guardsmen going to actually do? Or you could say hey, it's only a 5 point model, it's there to die.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And you're ignoring the fact that you do actually have some fairly strong Stratagems that were added to your Index via Chapter Approved. Couple that with a fairly nice list to start with and the ability to take Brood Brothers and GSC aren't going to be shaking the foundations of the meta, but they are by no means unplayable at this juncture.

You're making some prey big assumptions there, I don't play cult. I'm not saying they're unplayable, I'm saying they cost more but don't have nearly the same kind of buffs that come with being a codex. Or orders. I forgot to mention orders.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
On the contrary, morale is an issue for anyone playing pure Guard now thanks to the fact that Commissars were gutted and effectively removed. It's down to Stratagems or Psykers...or soup.

Morale is a non-issue now that conscripts have been removed from the game. By the time you're taking enough morale losses on a 10-man squad to care about it the unit has already been reduced to the point that it isn't effective anymore. Whether that last guardsman dies to morale or dies to a stray bolter shot next turn is rarely making a huge difference, and in the few cases (such as clearing objectives) where the morale roll is going to matter it's fairly easy to just finish off the unit before morale happens and guarantee a kill. And if you're taking MSU storm troopers you can just ignore it entirely.

One might argue that an entire unit effectively being "removed from the game" suggests that it is a fairly large issue.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
And the "single 5th edition FOC" is a myth. Theres always have been ways to jump around that, like the typical biker HQ allowing bikers to be troops, or Deathwing terminators being troops, etc... and you know why? Because people like to have a variety of armies. 8th has just make that way of playing streamlined and open for everybody. Now they just need to properly balance units.

No, 8th edition did not do the same thing at all. Taking a biker HQ to unlock bikes as troops allows you a limited FOC expansion, with a single specific unit (and a good game designer is not going to let that be any unit that can break the game when taken as troops), and you have to buy a specific HQ to even unlock the option. 8th edition went far beyond offering specific alternate options with built-in balancing factors and says "just take whatever you want, rules are for WAAC TFGs".

People want that freedom to make the armies they really want.

And part of being a good game designer is knowing when to tell people that they can't have the thing they want because it would be bad for the game as a whole.

A more balanced army gives you more CP. A normal army of a batallion+other detachment will have 4 CP, where an "spammy" army of for example two vanguard detachment will have 2 CP (both of them will have the 3 base for being battleforged).
That was the balance factor. If ,in the scenario of having the units balanced, thats still a problem, the amount of CP given by any kind of detachment can be changed. Batallions can give more, or vanguard, etc... can give less.

But lets be honest here. All those alternative detachment options have NOT be a balance problem in all of 8th edition!You can not like them and thats totally fine and reasonable, but lets not talk about them as a problem for balance because they are not. All the "OP soup omg spam list" are normal batallions! Like the old FOC. The only time one of those detachments was a problem was the Flyer one in the first two months of 8th edition before the nerf, with the Stormraven+Guilliman spam list.

 Kanluwen wrote:
One might argue that an entire unit effectively being "removed from the game" suggests that it is a fairly large issue.

I don't see why. Conscripts ceased to exist because of their point cost, not because of any vulnerability to morale.

 Commissar Benny wrote:
Source who has been correct about every IG nerf this edition prior to release says guardsmen will be 5ppm. Lets talk.

First off, IG players will be fine. We are a resourceful bunch. That is not what this is about.

This is about Games Workshop being completely oblivious & rather than resolving the root cause of balance issues they opt to apply bandages to a mortal wound. What am I going on about?
.

Yeah, no. That guardsmen fall off the bottom of the points structure is the actual problem. The points per model needs a floor, and 4 is far too low- anything priced that low is offensively and defensively too much of a bargain, and it warps the entire game. Units priced too high affect only themselves (people don't take them). Low rips up the meta, as they become an obvious choice to anyone who can do math.

 Kanluwen wrote:

One might argue that an entire unit effectively being "removed from the game" suggests that it is a fairly large issue.

I think you missed the point.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
On the contrary, morale is an issue for anyone playing pure Guard now thanks to the fact that Commissars were gutted and effectively removed. It's down to Stratagems or Psykers...or soup.

Or 2CP, or ignoring it entirely, because it almost never takes any meaningful effect when it comes to casualties in a 10 man unit. It usually gets wiped or not enough damage is done to actually make morale a problem. Or you could say hey, it's only a 5 point model, it's there to die.

Played against anyone with LD modifiers?

 Kanluwen wrote:

And you're ignoring the fact that you do actually have some fairly strong Stratagems that were added to your Index via Chapter Approved. Couple that with a fairly nice list to start with and the ability to take Brood Brothers and GSC aren't going to be shaking the foundations of the meta, but they are by no means unplayable at this juncture.

You're making some prey big assumptions there, I don't play cult.

Okay, fine. You don't play them. It doesn't change the point being made that they got a pair of fairly strong Stratagems with CA.

I'm not saying they're unplayable, I'm saying they cost more but don't have nearly the same kind of buffs that come with being a codex.

Sure, they don't have a Codex yet. They've only got access to our Codex as allies and Tyranids as allies as well.

A Neophyte Hybrid is literally the same statline as a Guardsman, just with the addition of a point of Leadership on every model and their Sergeant equivalent--along with being able to be fielded in units of up to 20 models and having access to double the Special Weapons of a Guard Squad. They can only have a single HWT--but they also have access to things that are pseudo-Heavy Weapons that can be fielded in doubles.

Or orders. I forgot to mention orders.

Okay, and?

You have four Genestealer Cult characters that effectively grant what other armies get as <Insert Faction Title Here> benefits, in 6" auras that can overlap.
Orders have a 6" range, are limited to 1 or 2 per character, can only target the same <Regiment> and require rolls of 4+ with Relics or Regimental Warlord Traits to get multiple uses of the same Order(Cadians can apply a single Order to two units at the same time on a 4+ with their Warlord trait) or to apply a second Order to the same unit(Laurels of Command allow for this).
In order to boost the range of Orders, you pay for a Vox-Caster and have to have the Officer within 3" of a Vox-Caster and the receiving unit to have a Vox-Caster.

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
What exactly do you think it would solve, limiting Guard to a maximum of six Infantry squads?

For one thing it accomplishes giving conscripts a reason to exist. Do you want to burn a FOC slot to get a 10-man squad of standard guardsmen, or 30 conscripts? 60 bodies, or 180? Similarly, veterans as elites now have more of a reason to exist, as they let you take additional bodies in those three slots. And I think it's safe to say that between 90 and 210 infantry is probably sufficient. The fact that you can't put 500 bodies on the table with a one-dimensional spam army is a feature, not a bug.

So you can legally take 180 conscripts or 240 cultists, but if you bring 70 Guardsmen with your 10 tanks, then you are illegally spamming infantry squads?

That is not a feature. It is just an arbitrary restriction.