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.
Dolnikan wrote: You mean those detachments with only three troops slots? The ones where it's impossible to get even the slightest base of infantry for any sort of light infantry army?
How many platoons do you have in your 2k army?
'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
Kanluwen wrote: Real quicklike, let me add this:
I say "there is no way to increase the usefulness of any of the Guard Commanders" because they are what everyone uses as a benchmark of what they think a buffbot should be.
People continually ignore or gloss over the fact that a Guard Commander(generic) brings basically nothing to the table other than their Orders. Even fully kitted out, a Guard Commander isn't really exciting or crazy. You don't see Punchmanders running around. Even the Scion Officer option isn't really considered for doing such a thing, being deep striked alongside Scions just for throwing Orders.
I don't know how you make Guard Commanders contribute a bit more, but removing some Orders and making them into flat auras would be a potential thing.
T'au have basically the same issue with all of their (non-commander) generic HQ (all 2 of them) - you bring them for their auras and to fill HQ slots in battalions, that's it.
Yeah, with Guard it would kind of suck unless they add a higher tier officer that becomes limit: 1. Or put in more units that can give orders, and ideally more than 1 order.
As Kan said, you really don't see Company Commanders rolling down the fields mulching foes, the very best they can get if you burn a bunch of points on them is baseline competent at ranged and close combat. And bluntly put, they really shouldn't be frontline beatsticks.
I think it's the same for pretty much every army. You have one HQ which does heavy lifting in form of a close combat monster, superior gun platform or uber-psyker depending on army identity and the rest of them are support characters.
Looking at guard, I'm surprised how few generic HQs they actually have - the Company Commander, Lord Commissar, Tank Commander, Primaris Psyker and Tempestor Prime(which seems to be scions only?). Then again, orks have that much more either, and three of those used to be one datasheet.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/24 12:46:15
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
kurhanik wrote: Yeah, with Guard it would kind of suck unless they add a higher tier officer that becomes limit: 1. Or put in more units that can give orders, and ideally more than 1 order.
Yeah, if they want to limit anything, it should be Colonel grade HQ (slightly weaker generic Creed?). Limiting lieutenants and such would be dumb and unfluffy, the whole point of the guard is the fact they are just regular humans needing extensive chain of command to function well in battle.
Dolnikan wrote: You mean those detachments with only three troops slots? The ones where it's impossible to get even the slightest base of infantry for any sort of light infantry army?
How many platoons do you have in your 2k army?
Right now, there are none because platoons got squatted. But I run at least a 120 guardsmen, preferably a few more. Often at least 180 for my infantry.
Jidmah wrote:I think it's the same for pretty much every army. You have one HQ which does heavy lifting in form of a close combat monster, superior gun platform or uber-psyker depending on army identity and the rest of them are support characters.
Looking at guard, I'm surprised how few generic HQs they actually have - the Company Commander, Lord Commissar, Tank Commander, Primaris Psyker and Tempestor Prime(which seems to be scions only?).
Then again, orks have that much more either, and three of those used to be one datasheet.
So, real quicklike:
Company Commanders can only Order <Regiment> infantry.
Tank Commanders can only Order Leman Russes.
Tempestor Primes can only Order Militarum Tempestus units.
This is one of the things that I get really riled up about. There's few generic HQs and of the three that natively can issue Orders(CC, TC, Primes)...but none of them can order the same units.
sanguine40k wrote:
T'au have basically the same issue with all of their (non-commander) generic HQ (all 2 of them) - you bring them for their auras and to fill HQ slots in battalions, that's it.
Oh, I'm aware. And I've addressed this in other threads. Tau really should get a 'Lieutenant' or a Darkstrider-esque generic added.
Dolnikan wrote: Right now, there are none because platoons got squatted. But I run at least a 120 guardsmen, preferably a few more. Often at least 180 for my infantry.
My sympathies.
Oh wait.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/24 13:03:27
'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
Dolnikan wrote: Right now, there are none because platoons got squatted. But I run at least a 120 guardsmen, preferably a few more. Often at least 180 for my infantry.
My sympathies.
Oh wait.
I love that violin! Sorry, I hadn't seen it before but it's just amazingly adorable.
And yes, other armies are in a worse place, that however doesn't put the guard in a good one.
Dolnikan wrote: You mean those detachments with only three troops slots? The ones where it's impossible to get even the slightest base of infantry for any sort of light infantry army?
How many platoons do you have in your 2k army?
Right now, there are none because platoons got squatted. But I run at least a 120 guardsmen, preferably a few more. Often at least 180 for my infantry.
That's crazy, that would be over 1600 points of Fireawrriors, Guardians, Kabalites that's mental, though I'm sure matines can probably still table you.
Karol wrote: So how does that work for chapters, where Grandmaster is not a per chapter number and captin is not per company rank, and who don't have Lts ?
In GK, Grandmaster is equivalent of captain, Captain is sort of Codex lieutenant. I fail to see the problem, GK have 6 generic HQs so it's not like you can run out even if you take a single detachment.
Karol wrote: They have more brotherhoods then they have companies. All the sub sects like the purfires have their masters too, they just don't have a separate rule sets for them right now. Same with paladins, and the specialists that train in the use of nemezis dread knights suits. And that isn't even all, I have pdfs of older codex, and in those a captin is just a leader of a squad of GK termintors.
And then there is also Draigo, the head of the librarius and the head of chaplain, which GK can't take because they can't have a master of sancticity, who have the title of master too.
Uh, what? GK have 10 'companies', like every other chapter - 8 regular ones, 1 of paladins (equivalent of 1st company), 1 of purifiers. And I have no idea why you think Purifier leader doesn't have rules, Crowe exists for 4 editions now. So, nope.
As for the old Demon Hunters book, don't look at it, it was garbage that both broke their fluff and was so weak it nearly killed the army with multiple dumb decisions that never made any sense (and funnily enough was only playable if you never took any actual Grey Knights...).
Sim-Life wrote: Also it makes it easy to FAQ on an individual basis rather than adding a global "rule of 3" sledgehammer to what should really be a scalpel.
It always amuses me how quickly people forgot about seven editions where FOC did exactly that and treat something that was tiny outlier in the whole life of 40K as the norm now
BaconCatBug wrote: I really hate this kind of arbitrary design restriction.
The issue isn't taking multiple captains, the issues are Auras are too good. Remove all auras and replace them with Order/MWBD type effects, imho.
What? Wombo-combo lists took captains don't giving one gak about their auras. You think 3 captains in IG + Knight list affected what with their auras, exactly? And I like how you say "arbitrary", it's not like there is 40 years of fluff stating exactly this or anything
Also, if GW really wants to do that, sure, but only after they nerf the completely broken Tau commanders. Their excuse to not do that was the limitation, but seeing everyone is now limited, GW lost that excuse and needs to finally fix the problem. And it was weak excuse in the first place, multiple SM leaders were limited since the start of 8th yet it didn't stop GW from nerfing them even though they were nowhere near Tau level...
Dolnikan wrote: You mean those detachments with only three troops slots? The ones where it's impossible to get even the slightest base of infantry for any sort of light infantry army?
How many platoons do you have in your 2k army?
6 infantry squads is basically the minimum you'd take as guard unless you're trying something fancy. I usually also run command squads, special and heavy weapon squads, too. And that's maybe half the points in a 2k game, probably less.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/24 13:21:56
Dolnikan wrote: You mean those detachments with only three troops slots? The ones where it's impossible to get even the slightest base of infantry for any sort of light infantry army?
How many platoons do you have in your 2k army?
Right now, there are none because platoons got squatted. But I run at least a 120 guardsmen, preferably a few more. Often at least 180 for my infantry.
That's crazy, that would be over 1600 points of Fireawrriors, Guardians, Kabalites that's mental, though I'm sure matines can probably still table you.
I might be weird in that regard, but I've always kept the idea that Troops should form the core of an army, so at least 25%, probably more than that. So then you very quickly end up with such numbers. And then there are armies that can easily get rid of most of them in a turn (like those oh so nice Aggressors). Currently, Guardians and Kabalites are overcosted and don't really have a purpose. I mean, what is their role in the game. Given the resilience and prevalence of 2W Space Marines, they definitely don't have any way of contributing through firepower. At the same time, these aren't factions that should be swimming in bodies to just throw at enemies by the dozen just to get chewed up. An archon doing that would be murdered before long, or just shredded by rivals who do conserve elfpower. And a Farseer would need some really good predictions for that. I don't really know Tau all that well, so can't speak for Fire Warriors.
The problem now is that even if infantry has twice the killing power of other infantry, it wouldn't make enough of a difference because they still kill a negligible number of marines who in turn will shred them. The thing is, if they are upped in lethality, the balance between them will just be crazy because of how terribly they all murder each other. Upping survivability could be a thing, but would have to be done in a fitting manner. I however fear that none of that will be done.
Ice_can wrote: Being T3 4+ save they generally do die when looked at by anything with the marine keyword.
*laughs in T2 6+ save for 5 points*
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
It hard feths over any faction that relied on said hq choice but wasn't as efficient as a smash captain.
That's what I was thinking. "SorryTsons - We've decided you don't get to participate in 9th ...."
I like the spirit of the rule, but I'm hoping it's not the typical GW over-reaction of "These two units in these two armies are causing problems so nerf EVERYONE".
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
Nazrak wrote: Tbh I wouldn't mind if this applied to every HQ in the game.
I guess Dark Eldar don't get to be an army anymore then?
If they can get 1 type of HQs per detachment they won't have a problem as they're basically going multiple patrols with just a generic HQ per detachment anyway. It's a 1 type of HQ per army limitation that could affect them somehow.
Man, imagine those entitled DE players wanting to be able to use detachments other than Patrols.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Ice_can wrote: Being T3 4+ save they generally do die when looked at by anything with the marine keyword.
I thought guard only had a 5+
Thats a Firewarrior, unfortunately 4+ save doesn't make you meaningfully more resilient vrs marines. Definataly not when that's 9 point models.
I dunno, I'd say a 50–100% better chance of not dying to standard Bolt-weapon fire is pretty meaningful. Don't get me wrong, it think 9pts is probably quite a lot compared to a 5pt Guardsman, but suggesting they're essentially the same thing and stat differences are meaningless seems a bit hyperbolic to me.
Tyel wrote: Theory is fine, execution would require rejigging many HQs in the game, and potentially adding new ones to certain factions.
Arguably making lots of HQs 0-1 options would allow them to have very strong rules/points ratios, without breaking the game (because otherwise you'd promptly throw down 3 of them.) This is potentially desirable/interesting.
But I feel its going to do little to nothing about auras.
This very well may be the reason they teased all those models. They could all be HQs.
Ice_can wrote: Being T3 4+ save they generally do die when looked at by anything with the marine keyword.
*laughs in T2 6+ save for 5 points*
Cmon Jid, Orks placed well in a tournament last week. You know Grots are great
So was the ro3.
And it hits the nail spot on.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
But I welcome pretty much anything that devalues characters and puts the focus back on normal units.
I feel that particular ship sailed when they introduced primarchs into regular 40k.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
But I welcome pretty much anything that devalues characters and puts the focus back on normal units.
I feel that particular ship sailed when they introduced primarchs into regular 40k.
Aye...
Or when they build whole armies and archetypes out of auras charachters.......
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Sim-Life wrote: Also it makes it easy to FAQ on an individual basis rather than adding a global "rule of 3" sledgehammer to what should really be a scalpel.
It always amuses me how quickly people forgot about seven editions where FOC did exactly that and treat something that was tiny outlier in the whole life of 40K as the norm now
The FOC still let you take multiples of the same thing though, which is what the issue is. If a Hive Tyrant was the best HQ people would still fill their FOCHQ slot with them. What we're talking about is Hive Tyrants (and other faction equivelants) being a 0-1 choice. And what I specifically suggested is that all units should have a cap on an individual basis since GW seems to want us to play certain armies specific ways.
It would probably require the adjustment of the Battalion down to a single HQ, rather than two.
Otherwise every guard Batallion would have to feature a Lord Commissar & a Company or Tank commander, and that's a bit much. They should really only have a single company commander, per, you know, company.
Also above poster we _have_ junior officers, they're just in the elites slot, which is odd because they should be part of the platoon and taken as troops, but they do exist. [They make perfect sense as a HQ choice - A patrol should be lead by a junior officer, but I don't think the guard codex commanders understand much about how armies work.]
Other factions also get wonky when trying to make Batallions with two HQ choices anyway. With the disincentive to make as many as you can Detachment choices now they cost CP, cutting Batallions down to 1 HQ choice would fix a lot of problems.
'GW needs to adjust battalions to 1 HQ.'
ever consider running PATROL detachments?
I think the HQ commitment andHQ allowance for Battalion and Brigade is too high too. It makes the game too character/hero heavy. There needs to be fewer characters and leaders and more units. Like, 2 or 3 Company Commanders shouldn't be leading a platoon and a half of troops.
The old force org was 1-2 HQ, 2+ Troops, and 3 ea. of Heavy Support, Fast Attack, and Elites. And I think a battalion should go back to being that way.
Actually, I think bringing down the allowance is more important than bringing down the requirement, because I've yet to see an army this edition that didn't max out their HQ slots, because heroes are just way too good whether you want buffbots like 3x CC's or smashy heroes like a TH/SS Wolf Lords
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/24 14:43:54
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
While I see the point for some armies and for specific HQs, I'd rather be able to actually use my marine HQs. Moving to 1-2HQs for batallions would effectively remove most marine HQs from the game. I'm struggling with the current limit already, and no, I'm not trying to bring 3 smash captains. But bringing 1 Captain and a Lt already locks me out of multiple choices, as I will only be able to bring a chaplain OR a techmarine OR a librarian, and I think that's already very limiting. Having Captains limited to 1 is fine, though.
I don't subscribe to the idea that having heroes on the table is a bad thing, though. I really love building Marine HQs (well firstborn), and I want to use them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/24 14:46:31
gak about their auras. You think 3 captains in 
