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.
Tyel wrote: I continue to be kind of... hostile on this - even if I can't see it really mattering for most armies. It just feels like a fluff at all costs, which will restrict without adding anything.
Lets say Orks can only bring one Warboss. I'm not sure you'd want to bring three as it stands - but if you did, should you be restrained? What about Weird Boys and Big Meks? Should there only be one?
Currently orks tend to bring only one warboss because it's useless without the killa klaw relic anyways. No one cares about his auras anymore. There also is a "chapter master" level above warboss which can either be Ghazghkull Thrakka or a using the biggest boss strategem. Mek bosses are also limited to one already (Buzzgob or stratagem).
Limiting big meks and weird boyz wouldn't make sense, fluff often talks about "the big meks of a clan/waaagh/mob" and in writing weird boyz appear in herds or conclaves more often than as singles.
Dark Eldar's issues have been highlighted - but for boring Eldar, would bringing three Farseer's really break the game? I guess triple Skorpekh Lord is a build waiting to happen, but would a limit on Overlords matter, if for some reason you wanted to bring along three?
It's less about breaking the game than about having more varied HQs in games without the star HQ into uselessness.
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.
A bit tricky to quote that, so I'm gonna use some snippets:
***
There are 21 Captains and 91 Lieutenants.
***
And approx. 4200 soldiers, yes. So one force on the table being 1 Captain, 3 Lts, and a hundred soldiers is fine for a force section.
This is akin to a marine Chapter having 10 Captains and 20 Lts. Take a slice of the overall force and that's a field army.
***
Not really. Supreme Command is a Big Deal, and nothing the Guard can currently put out there would qualify anywhere near a Primarch. Not unless, as mentioned, Orders are turned into a wildly different beast.
***
I think that the Supreme slot is going to be used more often and for things smaller than a Primarch, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to introduce it. Mostly it'll be named characters... Ghaz, sure, but I'd lay good odds that Yarrick will be there. Will there be a generic nameless slot? Maybe.. This would be "Space Marine Chapter Master" level, IE, top man of the entire faction. for Guard, probably a General type, someone from high Command in there to run the show in person.
***
The correct answer for HQs for Guard is for them to actually be Guard HQs.
Tempestor Primes are HQs--there needs to be a 'standard' Tempestor as well, if we're just cramming Junior Officers into HQs and Primes need to be buffed to match Seniors.
Tank Commanders are HQs, and appropriately so.
Master of Ordnance needs to be made into an HQ choice.
A Sentinel Commander needs to be made into an HQ choice.
***
I didn't have Tank Commanders up above? Ack! They should have been in there! They'd be on par with a Jr Officer, I think, rather than at the level of Sr Command, but it could go either way. Heck, you *could* have both, but that'd be tricky.
The assorted Masters might be a good look tho. I mean, they certainly *belong* on that level, I just don't know if they fit better as Elite than HQ. (Mind you, I'd scoot Librarians to Elite for marines, rather than HQ. You can't move one unles sthe other is as well, tho.)
But good points! Thank you for adding to the discussion!
I hope that some of the other factions will pop in like the DE and Guard have, bringing up good points, laying out how the fluff is and where missing units are.
This is really good stuff, and I thank everyone who's joining in on this one.
A Tank Commander is actually a Company Commander, so he'd be a Senior Officer.
A Tank Company [shown in the IG Codex] is formed of 3+ Platoons of 3 tanks each, lead by a Command Tank. [Coincidentally, this is congruent with the TO&E of a Soviet Tank Company, when the IG otherwise uses the British Regimental System]
Each Tank Platoon is actually an equivalent organizational level to an Infantry Platoon, so the "tank squadron leader" [not denoted by any special rules on the tabletop] would be equivalent to a Platoon Commander and the Tank Commander is the Tank Company Commander.
A Tempestor Prime is actually a Scions Platoon Leader, or so he was when he was introduced, so he'd be a Junior Officer.
There shouldn't be a Sentinel commander, because the recce troop is a regimental asset, so there wouldn't be a sentinel officer in between the Regimental Commander and the squadron/troop/platoon leader.
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!
Dukeofstuff wrote: Tempest primes, if they do this, would need to be able to issue their orders as an aura. "All troop choices in 6 inches get FRFSRF" instead of "this ONE unit."
Why?
Tempestor Primes are the only model that can issue Orders to Militarum Tempestus units. Tempestor Primes can only issue one Order a turn. Tempestor Primes have to exchange their Hotshot Laspistol for a Rod of Command to get a second Order a turn.
You literally claimed that "this stuff is not hard to write", but don't get how Tempestus stuff works?
Anyways: Platoon Commanders should not be an HQ choice. They were literally placed in the Elite slot to prevent you just filling the HQ slots with a cheap 1 Order Officer.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/27 16:51:00
Anyways:
Platoon Commanders should not be an HQ choice. They were literally placed in the Elite slot to prevent you just filling the HQ slots with a cheap 1 Order Officer.
That was when you wanted cheap HQs to fill battalions for cheap CPs. Now detachments costcpHQs are at a premium rather than a ‘tax’ it’s not a problem (though you’d probably have to make JOs 2 to a slot to make them worth taking).
I mean a patrol detachment is basically a platoon, why does it need to be led by a company commander rather than a platoon commander?
This, and many other aspects of 9th, are bringing the list building aspect of 40k (at least what is now considered a 'good' list) more in line with how armies actually work in the fluff- note I say 'more' and not fully in line, because the best builds will never be perfectly reflective of the fluff.
The limit of a single captain per marine detachment is a good change. It promotes diversity, and if brought to other factions (along with new HQs) would make the game far more interesting as it is steered away from spamming heros towards a more fluff equivalent version of the game.
And also- characters this edition work oh so much better than they did in 7th. Along with the new LoS, I think they work much better than they ever have previously (albeit still not well)
Anyways:
Platoon Commanders should not be an HQ choice. They were literally placed in the Elite slot to prevent you just filling the HQ slots with a cheap 1 Order Officer.
That was when you wanted cheap HQs to fill battalions for cheap CPs. Now detachments costcpHQs are at a premium rather than a ‘tax’ it’s not a problem (though you’d probably have to make JOs 2 to a slot to make them worth taking).
Yeah...no.
I mean a patrol detachment is basically a platoon, why does it need to be led by a company commander rather than a platoon commander?
Why do marine forces get led by Captains?
"Company Commander" is, as mentioned, a Cruddace monstrosity. It combines Majors(2iC of a Regiment), Colonels(Regimental Commander), and Captains(Company Commanders and the most numerous of senior officers) into one bloated entry.
Serious question:
If Platoon Commanders went to "Junior Officers" and became a HQ, would people actually support Sergeants getting stripped out of Squads and used as Elite choices instead for Guard?
It would be a potential (finally!) solve to the whole "the squad doesn't get all the same base weapon" nonsense.
Anyways:
Platoon Commanders should not be an HQ choice. They were literally placed in the Elite slot to prevent you just filling the HQ slots with a cheap 1 Order Officer.
That was when you wanted cheap HQs to fill battalions for cheap CPs. Now detachments costcpHQs are at a premium rather than a ‘tax’ it’s not a problem (though you’d probably have to make JOs 2 to a slot to make them worth taking).
Yeah...no.
I mean a patrol detachment is basically a platoon, why does it need to be led by a company commander rather than a platoon commander?
Why do marine forces get led by Captains?
"Company Commander" is, as mentioned, a Cruddace monstrosity. It combines Majors(2iC of a Regiment), Colonels(Regimental Commander), and Captains(Company Commanders and the most numerous of senior officers) into one bloated entry.
Serious question:
If Platoon Commanders went to "Junior Officers" and became a HQ, would people actually support Sergeants getting stripped out of Squads and used as Elite choices instead for Guard?
It would be a potential (finally!) solve to the whole "the squad doesn't get all the same base weapon" nonsense.
What? Hell no. That makes no sense [with the sergeant thing].
Also, I see no problem with "Company Command Squad" and "Platoon Command Squad". That's what it is.
Also, in the british army regimental system [which the IG uses], a Major leads a Company. So it's not a monstrosity.
Company Commanders are by and large the highest officer to be conventially leading from the front, so it makes sense that Colonels and higher who are appearing on the field because they're unusually heroic are a CCS unit with extra orders capability.
For the most part, and IG army won't exceed 1 company of infantry. 1 Brigade has 6-12 infantry slots, and a Company usually has 3 platoons of 3, so there isn't really a detachment for which more than one Company Command Squad makes sense to be included. If you have 2 Companies and thus need 2 CCS's, you also need 2 detachments, so you wouldn't have a problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/27 20:14:31
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!
Anyways:
Platoon Commanders should not be an HQ choice. They were literally placed in the Elite slot to prevent you just filling the HQ slots with a cheap 1 Order Officer.
That was when you wanted cheap HQs to fill battalions for cheap CPs. Now detachments costcpHQs are at a premium rather than a ‘tax’ it’s not a problem (though you’d probably have to make JOs 2 to a slot to make them worth taking).
Yeah...no.
I mean a patrol detachment is basically a platoon, why does it need to be led by a company commander rather than a platoon commander?
Why do marine forces get led by Captains?
"Company Commander" is, as mentioned, a Cruddace monstrosity. It combines Majors(2iC of a Regiment), Colonels(Regimental Commander), and Captains(Company Commanders and the most numerous of senior officers) into one bloated entry.
Serious question:
If Platoon Commanders went to "Junior Officers" and became a HQ, would people actually support Sergeants getting stripped out of Squads and used as Elite choices instead for Guard?
It would be a potential (finally!) solve to the whole "the squad doesn't get all the same base weapon" nonsense.
A marine Captain commands 100 pers, a Guard Platoon Commander commands up to 105 or 155 including conscripts (going by 5th Ed) or 55 (going by 3rd Ed - similar to a Marine Lt). Absolutely no reason a JO/Platoon Commander couldn’t lead a patrol (in 3.5 Ed one could lead a whole army with 6 other platoons!).
NB, this still assumes that Company Commander/Senior Officer remains an HQ choice but is just 1/detachment (same as Marine Captain is supposedly going), since Company Commander is the guard equivalent.
Regimental Commanders are more like CMs where they should be in the stratagem territory since they generally shouldn’t be on the battlefield in the first place (e.g. in the Cain books I don’t think Col Kasteen or Maj Broklaw ever intentionally went out to fight, they were usually in the command bunker unless ambushed or caught on the drop from orbit).
Also, frankly I don’t see any difference between the 5th/8th Company/Platoon Commanders and the 3.5 Ed Senior/Junior Officers - they both describe the same posts adequately and for much the same reason (different regiments will use different terminology rather than Capt/Lt). Indeed the new terminology is probably more accurate since Capts are in the real world considered JOs (and, in the UK at least, Maj is the first merit-based promotion).
NB in the 3.0 Codex they had Platoon Command Sections (led by Lts) and Command HQs (let by a Capt or Col) which were explicitly described in the description next to them as leading Companies. Frankly the only difference between that and the 5th Ed model is they’ve bumped everyone’s stats up a rank and Cols are no longer a separate choice you can take (which is the same as 3.5 which explicitly says ‘SO’ covered everything from Capt to Col).
Conscripts fall outside of a regiment/company's organizational structure, from the last bits I've seen. Which is a big part of why I've continually suggested removing them from the <Regiment> list.
Additionally if you cannot see the problem with making Company Commanders 'one per', while also refusing to acknowledge that they literally put in two grades of Senior Officers to give people more wiggle room back in the 3.5 book?
That's on you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/27 22:02:28
Kanluwen wrote: Conscripts fall outside of a regiment/company's organizational structure, from the last bits I've seen. Which is a big part of why I've continually suggested removing them from the <Regiment> list.
Additionally if you cannot see the problem with making Company Commanders 'one per', while also refusing to acknowledge that they literally put in two grades of Senior Officers to give people more wiggle room back in the 3.5 book?
That's on you.
Agree on the conscripts, that’s why I listed them separately.
Back in 3.5 Ed (and 3.0) you had exactly one Command Platoon ((Company) Command Squad plus support squads) per detachment (and that was when you could have 6 Infantry Platoons per detachment if you wanted). So there is absolutely no contradiction between supporting the 3.5 model and saying Company Commanders should be 1/ detachment now, when a battalion has only 1-3 platoons worth of infantry squads (you could literally have 5 times as many infantry squads in a 3rd Ed detachment as in a current battalion!). The frequently occurring detachment of two company commanders leading one mid-strength infantry platoon in 8th was a fluff abomination.
Yes there were different statlines for ‘Senior Officer’ and ‘Heroic Senior Officer’ but the entry explicitly said that ‘Senior Officer’ covered both Capt and Col and HSO represented heroism not rank (indeed you could give one Sgt per army the HSO statline).
NB 5th Ed bumped statlines and just used the HSO statline for all Company Commanders and gave Platoon Commanders a statline closer to the 3rd Ed Senior Officer one than the Junior Officer one.
According to 3.0 a Regiment consists of 5 Coys of 2-5 Platoons of 2-5 Infantry squads (plus support squads and each with their own command squad). Even a brigade only has a Company worth of Infantry squads in it (4 mid strength or 2 max strength and 1 min strength), so why on earth would it need more than one Company Commander?!
If Platoon Commanders were 1-2 per HQ you could actually make a nice fluffy Company out of a brigade detachment with a Company Commander and 3 Platoon Commanders taking up the mandatory HQs, then 3 platoons worth as Infantry as your troops.
alextroy wrote: Now GW needs to do this for more factions HQ models. Then we wouldn't have fixed options for SM Captains spread out over no longer in production models.
I think there should be a Primaris Captain kit that mirrors the previous First Born Captain kit. Yes, by today's standards that kit is pretty primitive and if remade today would take up a 1/3rd the space or have 3x the options, but it just allowed so much choice. Now we have Primaris Captains that only have access to power fists because GW released a Ltd. Ed. model and had to include the option for legacy reasons.
A full Primaris Captain kit (and a Libby one that at least allows for Sword/Axe/Staff), with various options from Relic Shields to Lightning Claws to Bolt Rifles to giant novelty foam hands - everything - would be a big boon to that range.
I can't believe how inefficient the Primaris Captain sprues are compared the Canoness sprue. They put one head swap option in the two sprues for the Captain while jamming in all those options in for the Canoness. I can just imagine what they can do if they produce new sprues today. Same thing for the Librarian and Lieutenant (so they can stop releasing more Primaris Lt models ).
yukishiro1 wrote: The CSM Terminator Lord/Sorceror is also a very good kit with a massive amount of options for both arms.
It's a good kit in terms of options, but how old is that kit? 20 Years? More?
You'd best stop complaining that it's old. It's BECAUSE it's old that you get all those options. When you get your wish & a new one arrives? Then you'll be lamenting that you have a kit with only 1 option.
Not complaining. As you said, it's age is why it has options. Still, they have shown they have the technology and skill to produce a beautiful new kit with options, if they only put their mind to it.
On the issue of Guard Officers, I do think it could survive an overhaul from the current structure. A one per detachment Company Commander and 1-2 Platoon Commander in the HQ slot could work out fine. And the Primaris Psycher should be pushed down into Elites. The AM would never have a Psycher leading anyone, and there should always be an officer (or Lord Commissar) leading any pack of AM bigger than a kill team.
Finally, the current AM Codex has a sample infantry regiment with the Regimental Commander as a Colonel, doesn't mention the Company Commander rank (Captain?), and list the Platoon Commanders are Lieutenants and 2nd Lieutenants. And it notes that Tank Commanders are Tank Company Commanders, so Captains?
I think the reason why they don't give specific ranks to "Company Commanders" and whatnot is for the Your Dudes™ aspect of it.
You can give whatever rank you want to your army's leader rather than being dictated to as far as what rank the IG commander should have.
For instance, my Guard army, the 444th Cadian Mechanised, has Major Lucius Sharpe as its commander. Wouldn't be much fun from a narrative perspective if GW turned around and say that all IG armies are lead by "Lord Colonels" or something like that.
Yes, the above is immaterial from an actual gameplay perspective, but I think that's why they kept things generic (unlike, say, Marine Companies, which always have a Captain).
Kanluwen wrote: Commissars aren't leaders and should never have been treated as such.
While they wouldn’t technically be ‘in command’ I think a senior commissar still makes sense as an HQ choice in game terms - e.g. Cain often takes to the field either leading the equivalent of a patrol detachment (with one or two squads led by a Sgt) or accompanying a platoon as effectively the 2nd HQ in a battalion detachment (and in the latter case it would make more sense for him to have the ‘warlord trait’ rather than the Lt who is actually in charge)
And that’s before you get into special cases like Gaunt (who runs a regiment) and Yarrick (who’s run whole warzones).
Commissars should not be Commanders, but they’re definitely Leaders. That said, regular commissars definitely sit much better as Elites than HQ (though I somewhat miss the old ‘Advisors’ system tbh), but there is still a place IMO for the occasional one in HQ.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/27 23:35:56
harlokin wrote: This is going to sound gakky, but IMO not only do they not differ significantly, in so far as they do they choke off design space from the Drukhari; quick, hit-and-run glass cannons with a piratey vibe.
This is going to sound gakky, but you've got your thought process bass ackwards - if anything Dark Eldar took elements away from the Harlequins, and the Harlies are now merely redressing that imbalance.
If that doesn't leave Drew Carey with anywhere to go, well...
Lord Zarkov wrote: Regimental Commanders are more like CMs where they should be in the stratagem territory since they generally shouldn’t be on the battlefield in the first place (e.g. in the Cain books I don’t think Col Kasteen or Maj Broklaw ever intentionally went out to fight, they were usually in the command bunker unless ambushed or caught on the drop from orbit).
In the very first Cain book Broklaw leads the expedition to the Heights to deal with local dissent (while Cain skulks off to encounter =][= Vail for the first time).
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Dukeofstuff wrote: Tempest primes, if they do this, would need to be able to issue their orders as an aura. "All troop choices in 6 inches get FRFSRF" instead of "this ONE unit."
Why?
Tempestor Primes are the only model that can issue Orders to Militarum Tempestus units.
Tempestor Primes can only issue one Order a turn.
Tempestor Primes have to exchange their Hotshot Laspistol for a Rod of Command to get a second Order a turn.
You literally claimed that "this stuff is not hard to write", but don't get how Tempestus stuff works?
Anyways:
Platoon Commanders should not be an HQ choice. They were literally placed in the Elite slot to prevent you just filling the HQ slots with a cheap 1 Order Officer.
I'm well aware of how this stuff works. I have an entire army of Scion drop troops. There's some pictures floating around somewhere.
You've not clarified why this would _need_ to be changed.
Yes, Tempestus troops would get less [Maximum of 2] orders.
That's okay.
I'm well aware that people have a fixation with fielding a number of officers so every single unit can be affected by an order, which is why we have an insane offers to troop ratio, however the system doesn't need to work that way. They're still perfectly valid [if correspondingly less effective] without an officer. A points reduction could be potentially considered, but there's no _need_ to give them an aura.
Thanks for the insulting post, by the way. Good job.
GSC cults have only one of the same character per detachments. I have not done the math, but GSC has rougly 10 million trillion character options. While the restriction is very very hampering, I really like that restriction.
I for one would not mind seeing that restriction in other armies. It makes the army building more challenging and makes for a more diverse suite of characters on the board, something I welcome.
It woud affect diffent armies differntly. Tyranids for instance would need to dip into another detachment to get that second Flying Hive Tyrant or Neuronthrope.
As far as I know, there is one army that would suffer very hard from this. Dark Eldars. Mostly because they have a very in build restrictions by having three factions in same army book. The DE would have needed a work around, either ignoring the rule in favour for their own restictions (a bad option IMHO) or they could introduce the old 'mini' version of the standar characters, like the Dracon.
Are there any other factions that would be very affected by this?
6 pages based on SM change that probably will not effect most of the armies ?
Tao commander are super good and that is the reason they were limited to 1 to detachment.
GW continua to buff SM captains with relics, stratagems and warlord traits and they refused to nerf them to reasonable level. Instead they try to limit their use and limit the builds SM can abuse, instead of thinking that its not normal one non-named character to be able to solo knight or primarch.
).
