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.

Praetorians are just an example, though if they were made, I'd buy and paint a platoon just for the nostalgia, I went to the Gamesday with the Massacre at Big Toof River when I was 11ish, and me and my old man fell in love with them, so they have some serious nostalgia for me.

However, if I could only pick four regiments to be made, it would be better looking Cadians (amazing that the pic I posted is raven guard auxiliarys, but that is how they should look anyway), DKoK, Tallarn and Mordians. I like the catachans but prefer the other regiments more.

I wouldn't mind losing the 19th century designs like Mordians, Vostroyans and Praetorians. A lot of them are just too similar to actual historical minis and were only there in the first place so GW could reuse existing products. That doesn't fit the current GW business model so it's probably unrealistic for it to stick around.

In return it would be nice to get 3-4 major designs as new sculpts. Cadian style near future military, Steel Legion greatcoats, Catachans and a Starstriders style retrofuturistic design all seem interesting.

novembermike wrote:
I wouldn't mind losing the 19th century designs like Mordians, Vostroyans and Praetorians. A lot of them are just too similar to actual historical minis and were only there in the first place so GW could reuse existing products. That doesn't fit the current GW business model so it's probably unrealistic for it to stick around.

In return it would be nice to get 3-4 major designs as new sculpts. Cadian style near future military, Steel Legion greatcoats, Catachans and a Starstriders style retrofuturistic design all seem interesting.

I think to top it off some of those minis have some.....problematic cultural issues *eyes Praetorians* that is probably left unmade for the next generation of models. Theres a lot of great design elements out there for some retro future stuff they can steal from over half the other product lines for inspiration and the whole line just needs a fresh look to it

We lose everything if you wont even stand for our Praetorians.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

I have to say that I found the Platoon as a Troops Choice a negative design feature from 3rd until the 8th Ed reboot. At low points levels you ended up with three Command Squads and four Infantry Squads. Kinda defeated the purpose. The 2nd Edition method worked just fine.

Heck, a Patrol Detachment is a Platoon if you call the Captain a Lieutenant. The Battalion Detachment works just fine as a "Company." I'd like to see Heavy Weapons Squads either freed from the rule of 3 or linked to Infantry Squads in number.

I wouldn't mind platoons if they were reasonably open. 1-3 Infantry Squads, 0-1 heavy weapons teams and a 0-1 LT character that doesn't give away VP as a character seems pretty reasonable. I wouldn't give veteran squads or anything too interesting but it makes sense as a way to fill out slots reasonably.

novembermike wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

I have to say that I found the Platoon as a Troops Choice a negative design feature from 3rd until the 8th Ed reboot. At low points levels you ended up with three Command Squads and four Infantry Squads. Kinda defeated the purpose. The 2nd Edition method worked just fine.

Heck, a Patrol Detachment is a Platoon if you call the Captain a Lieutenant. The Battalion Detachment works just fine as a "Company." I'd like to see Heavy Weapons Squads either freed from the rule of 3 or linked to Infantry Squads in number.

I wouldn't mind platoons if they were reasonably open. 1-3 Infantry Squads, 0-1 heavy weapons teams and a 0-1 LT character that doesn't give away VP as a character seems pretty reasonable. I wouldn't give veteran squads or anything too interesting but it makes sense as a way to fill out slots reasonably.

I think it would definitely have to be minimum 2 for the infantry squads and min 1 for the LT, that way the other free slots are justifiable in balance. There should also be some sort of bonus for doing things within the platoon, like extended range on orders for the LT for her own troops. We would also need to have another troop choice to fill in the blanks or better utilize conscripts as a garbage filler unit. I'd like to see veterans return to the troop slot so that they are an alternative albeit a more expensive one with less flair and no free slots. Another interesting idea would be to make the command squad upgrades into characters that only affect its own platoon, ie Medics, Vox operators, and standard bearers. That would add some utility and also make those weak as hell units worth something.

You could just let people take infantry squads on their own as a troop choice in addition to taking it as part of a platoon. And yeah, I'd just make those guys minor characters like a plasmacyte and make them only work on their platoon. I'd probably avoid making them actual characters but just give them a rule where they can't be targeted if they're close to their platoon but they also can't take objectives or perform actions.

novembermike wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

I have to say that I found the Platoon as a Troops Choice a negative design feature from 3rd until the 8th Ed reboot. At low points levels you ended up with three Command Squads and four Infantry Squads. Kinda defeated the purpose. The 2nd Edition method worked just fine.

Heck, a Patrol Detachment is a Platoon if you call the Captain a Lieutenant. The Battalion Detachment works just fine as a "Company." I'd like to see Heavy Weapons Squads either freed from the rule of 3 or linked to Infantry Squads in number.

I wouldn't mind platoons if they were reasonably open. 1-3 Infantry Squads, 0-1 heavy weapons teams and a 0-1 LT character that doesn't give away VP as a character seems pretty reasonable. I wouldn't give veteran squads or anything too interesting but it makes sense as a way to fill out slots reasonably.

This is one of the things I want. I've designed a campaign where there are 9 settlements. There is a small garrison in each settlement, each of which has a functional detachment. And therein lies the problem. Because I'm talking small detachments- the idea being that all 9 of those detachments could probably squeeze into two brigades for a large battle. But that means 9, count'em 9! Company commanders. Which is craptastic- because a company level commander is a big deal.

But someone at GW decided Platoon commanders HAD to be elites... So 9 company commanders it is, no matter how unrealistic that as given the number of assets under command. We need a lesser HQ choice. All factions do- you can't tell an accurate story about military forces without a hierarchical command structure. As a narrative guy, stories are all I care about. Giving up points for a Platoon Commander HQ? Don't care- he NEEDS to be there because the troops stationed there NEED a commander, but two squads of 10, a Russ and 3 pack of Sentinels do not justify the presence of a Company Commander.

If him being there makes the guard lose, then the guard loses.

But the story wins. And for me, personally, that's all that has ever mattered.

PenitentJake wrote:

novembermike wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

I have to say that I found the Platoon as a Troops Choice a negative design feature from 3rd until the 8th Ed reboot. At low points levels you ended up with three Command Squads and four Infantry Squads. Kinda defeated the purpose. The 2nd Edition method worked just fine.

Heck, a Patrol Detachment is a Platoon if you call the Captain a Lieutenant. The Battalion Detachment works just fine as a "Company." I'd like to see Heavy Weapons Squads either freed from the rule of 3 or linked to Infantry Squads in number.

I wouldn't mind platoons if they were reasonably open. 1-3 Infantry Squads, 0-1 heavy weapons teams and a 0-1 LT character that doesn't give away VP as a character seems pretty reasonable. I wouldn't give veteran squads or anything too interesting but it makes sense as a way to fill out slots reasonably.

This is one of the things I want. I've designed a campaign where there are 9 settlements. There is a small garrison in each settlement, each of which has a functional detachment. And therein lies the problem. Because I'm talking small detachments- the idea being that all 9 of those detachments could probably squeeze into two brigades for a large battle. But that means 9, count'em 9! Company commanders. Which is craptastic- because a company level commander is a big deal.

But someone at GW decided Platoon commanders HAD to be elites... So 9 company commanders it is, no matter how unrealistic that as given the number of assets under command. We need a lesser HQ choice. All factions do- you can't tell an accurate story about military forces without a hierarchical command structure. As a narrative guy, stories are all I care about. Giving up points for a Platoon Commander HQ? Don't care- he NEEDS to be there because the troops stationed there NEED a commander, but two squads of 10, a Russ and 3 pack of Sentinels do not justify the presence of a Company Commander.

If him being there makes the guard lose, then the guard loses.

But the story wins. And for me, personally, that's all that has ever mattered.

A cool concept. My suggestion is to stay in Narrative mode and have Platoon Commanders as HQ choices for your campaign? You're in command!

That's the plan if GW doesn't come through with a lesser HQ.

As an infantry guard player, I really, really want platoons back. Right now, there are lots of tax units that have to be taken to even bring a dozen squads and because of the current detachment structure, that means taking a ton of units and HQs that I don't want. Of course, there should also be an option to be less infantry intensive, but that could come in the shape of veteran or armoured fist squads.

Oh, and something should be done to make command squads more than just one-use special weapons teams. Perhaps it could be a squad combined with the lieutenant that together has the character rule. Or truly make a mess and make all individual members characters and make Assassinate even better against Guard.

If platoons were 2-6 and required a platoon commander, and each platoon allows an unlock of an armoured fist, conscript squad or veteran squad to count as a troop choice for detachment purposes, what are we looking at point wise...

At current points, bare bones.

*25pts Platoon commander (no command squad)
*55pts infantry squad
*55pts infantry squad

135pts per platoon.

Then cheapest is a veteran squad.

*65pts Vet squad

Additional platoon to reach battalion troops detachment requirement.

*135pts

**335pts in total.

It's really not that bad pts wise in 2000pts, 17%ish, and you could have specialist platoons for certain army styles (armoured fist platoons if you want, veteran platoons, engineering platoons, assault platoons, combinations of all of them etc etc).

You also now have access to heavy weapon squads, special weapon squads etc that do not take up valuable slots elsewhere. Heck, give them objective secured for being part of the platoon, make platoons amazing with their rules, make guardsmen worth 5.5pts per model... I'd even be open to 1x auxiliaries being attached without detachment cost from a certain list, like specialist officers, maybe ogryns. Maybe the second platoon could be a more specialist platoon like a full heavy weapon or special weapon platoon, scion platoon, it's just accessed via taking a standard platoon. The scope just needs to be expanded in terms of how to build the army.

I have seen the suggestion of 1-3 squads minimum per platoon, and it could work but I also don't think it is enough squads personally.

You could then reduce guard pts wise again, as lets face it, at the current level of game lethality, they are not worth 55pts for a squad, at all, as well as soup being less and less of a viable army build.

I think there are legs for it, it just may need a fair amount of tweaking.

 Dolnikan wrote:
As an infantry guard player, I really, really want platoons back. Right now, there are lots of tax units that have to be taken to even bring a dozen squads and because of the current detachment structure, that means taking a ton of units and HQs that I don't want. Of course, there should also be an option to be less infantry intensive, but that could come in the shape of veteran or armoured fist squads.

Oh, and something should be done to make command squads more than just one-use special weapons teams. Perhaps it could be a squad combined with the lieutenant that together has the character rule. Or truly make a mess and make all individual members characters and make Assassinate even better against Guard.

I think I mentioned on this or another thread, the Command Squads thing would be a good idea - either the squad gets the Character rule, or Officers and Command Squads are brought back as one unit again. The one thing is they would need to limit weapon options - like 1 special weapon and/or 1 heavy - that way you can't just have 4 meltas or 4 plasmas with character protection. But on the flip side, this done, suddenly the upgrades like banner, a vox box, and medic kit look a little bit better at least - bolster those rules into something more interesting / effective and you have the makings of an actual support squad for the infantry instead of a suicide special weapons team.

 kurhanik wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:
As an infantry guard player, I really, really want platoons back. Right now, there are lots of tax units that have to be taken to even bring a dozen squads and because of the current detachment structure, that means taking a ton of units and HQs that I don't want. Of course, there should also be an option to be less infantry intensive, but that could come in the shape of veteran or armoured fist squads.

Oh, and something should be done to make command squads more than just one-use special weapons teams. Perhaps it could be a squad combined with the lieutenant that together has the character rule. Or truly make a mess and make all individual members characters and make Assassinate even better against Guard.

I think I mentioned on this or another thread, the Command Squads thing would be a good idea - either the squad gets the Character rule, or Officers and Command Squads are brought back as one unit again. The one thing is they would need to limit weapon options - like 1 special weapon and/or 1 heavy - that way you can't just have 4 meltas or 4 plasmas with character protection. But on the flip side, this done, suddenly the upgrades like banner, a vox box, and medic kit look a little bit better at least - bolster those rules into something more interesting / effective and you have the makings of an actual support squad for the infantry instead of a suicide special weapons team.

You could have the old really old 3rd edition inquisition retinue rules, where you buy in specialists and they up the wound count of the unit and give it a special rule.

So rather than having a unit of 4 1W models plus your lieutenant with 3W. You start with the lieutenant and buy extra wounds, attacks etc with special rules attached. Command squads then don't need to be 5 total, they can be up to 5 and class as one unit with 7W's if you take the full extra 4W's. I loved them rules, they were so cool.

I would like each of the regiments get more attention, the vehicle kits become more flexible (e.g. being able to build Armeggedon versions of Chimera platforms, different Chimera platforms etc.) and the infantry be designed in a way that booster sprues deliver different looking regiments..

An example is this early draft for the Armageddon steel legion.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/784756.page#10696525

It got refined and simplied a lot before use, but really made them play a lot differently to Cadian gun lines.

And yes includes a light tank which is based on the Chimera conversion with the turret built at the back.

Finally got around to reading Dead Men Walking over the last week (I haven't read many guard specific novels at all) and I think I get it now in terms of how some of you want the guard to operate on the tabletop, namely being competent. The difference between the DKoK standard troops and the PDF is a mile long in terms of efficacy and ability, then even more so with the grenadiers, but it also is not unreasonable.

Problem is and always will the granularity provided by the D6 system. Guard should be better at shooting than Orks, and better than 1BS level, but then they would be on par with marines and sisters, which they are not, and PDF/conscripts should be better than Orks, but not as good as standard guard.

As long as the standard guard are based on mass infantry, not small special forces MSU squads, then I'm cool with them getting a boost. Orders and stratagems can bridge the needed gap, such the ability to boost a lasguns power output but not be able to shoot the following turn, things like that.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Finally got around to reading Dead Men Walking over the last week (I haven't read many guard specific novels at all) and I think I get it now in terms of how some of you want the guard to operate on the tabletop, namely being competent. The difference between the DKoK standard troops and the PDF is a mile long in terms of efficacy and ability, then even more so with the grenadiers, but it also is not unreasonable.

Problem is and always will the granularity provided by the D6 system. Guard should be better at shooting than Orks, and better than 1BS level, but then they would be on par with marines and sisters, which they are not, and PDF/conscripts should be better than Orks, but not as good as standard guard.

As long as the standard guard are based on mass infantry, not small special forces MSU squads, then I'm cool with them getting a boost. Orders and stratagems can bridge the needed gap, such the ability to boost a lasguns power output but not be able to shoot the following turn, things like that.

Yeah, d6 is pretty limited in what it can do in base stats. If things say swapped to d12, you could have Marines hitting on a 4+, Guard on a 7 or 8+, and Orks on a 10+, and have saves range up to 12+ pretty easily. It also makes jumps up or down a point less huge, so it is harder to complain about Stormtroopers or Sisters having better BS than the average Guardsman since it won't immediately put them on par with a Space Marine. The problem is of course GW would look at this, and then decide that all "good" units need to be able to hit on a 2+ on a d12 and have 2+ rerollable saves and so on and so forth...

"Reinforcement tokens".
Every gaurd infantry unit comes with a reinforcement token. On the destruction of the gaurd infantry unit, it is removed from the board and placed in strategic reserves. This does not count as its destruction for purposes of any victory points accrual, as its still there. Any missing models (up to all) are returned at this time as the reinforcement token is spent.

Strictly speaking, it doesn't make gaurd infantry any more useful or powerful. You start with 10 of them, and 10 of them is what you have on the board, and when they die, they just reappear elsewhere -- once -- reloaded. So it shouldn't really increase the price of gaurd infantry much, maybe 10 or 15 percent. After all, you are paying to put an out of position infantryman back in the game on turn 4 or 5.

I think it would give the gaurd a real faceless horde feel, though. The sole caveat is, the points price of the gaurd units for special weapons, heavy weapons, and melee weapons and pistols would double, as those items are both onboard in the advance half of the troop -- and offboard in the other group.

This would keep "I spam scions that come back from the dead" from happening too much -- although they could still do it, a simple 4 man squad of scions with EIGHT plasma guns is suddenly going to cost
40x1(buy unit) + 40x.15(reinforcement token)+40x2(equipment) or enough that gaurd wouldn't be crazy overpowered because of this. However, you won't just get tabled.

Reinforcement tokens ... I don't care what they look like, it could be done like a haywire mine (perhaps a magnetized helmet on the base of one of the 10 guys) or it could be done like color coordinating. Some people might be very picky about who dies last, though, so a little magnetized helmet on someone's feet (that you can swap to another base) or similar token that matches your scheme would work.

Pass.

Pass for more tokens, pass for the problems and very bizarre gameplay it creates. The guard player wants to get squads killed so they can retake backfield objectives, and the opponent doesn't actually want to finish off guard squads so they aren't getting weapons back.

When you start throwing PDF into the mix, you might as well make Guard Veterans/Scions into Marines with a worse save, normal Guardsmen into Fire Warriors, and PDF/Conscripts into Cultists.

Understand this though:
Planetary Defense Forces are just as widely varied and experienced as Guard forces. There's a reason why I've suggested that PDF should outright be ignored as a unit choice and instead be utilized as a way to bring in a new style of Regimental Advisor.

I think you could do some cool things with orders etc before twiddling the data sheet base stats though.

'Elite' regiments still rely on their officers, this could be reflected in orders, and they could have double layered orders, rather than apply orders to just a unit, it could also be applied to a target also, so bring it down for example would provide an additional buff of +1 to hit for that unit against a specific target for selected units in 'elite' regiments. Obviously there would be some form of tax on having an elite regiment etc, but that leads into what I think we all agree on, varied regiments and options.

There's ways round it to make them operate more effectively, utilising their 'unique' playstyle of issuing orders rather than just make them E-Grade marines and wipe your hands of it.

Ideally, it would be done without excessive re-rolls as well.

I'm not going to get into what needs to happen for Guard at this point in detail.

The TLDR is burn the whole system down and start it up fresh, and stop pretending that Guard are PDF.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:Problem is and always will the granularity provided by the D6 system. Guard should be better at shooting than Orks, and better than 1BS level, but then they would be on par with marines and sisters, which they are not, and PDF/conscripts should be better than Orks, but not as good as standard guard.

kurhanik wrote:Yeah, d6 is pretty limited in what it can do in base stats. If things say swapped to d12, you could have Marines hitting on a 4+, Guard on a 7 or 8+, and Orks on a 10+, and have saves range up to 12+ pretty easily. It also makes jumps up or down a point less huge, so it is harder to complain about Stormtroopers or Sisters having better BS than the average Guardsman since it won't immediately put them on par with a Space Marine. The problem is of course GW would look at this, and then decide that all "good" units need to be able to hit on a 2+ on a d12 and have 2+ rerollable saves and so on and so forth...

Having Conscripts shoot exactly 3.42% more accurately than Orks will never be the magic solution to differentiating between troop quality. For all practical purposes the current 17% increments are about the smallest increment that has real, noticeable effect, and the current spread of Vets hitting on 3s, Guardsmen on 4s, and Conscripts on 5s is fine for representing base quality. Veterans having the same BS as Marines and Conscripts having the same BS as Orks is only a problem if you expect the stats to perfectly represent the fluff; in practice it's the weapons and special rules that differentiate the armies, not their raw BS. Ballistic Skill really only comes into play as a differentiating factor for distinguishing units within the same army.

The problem with the current Guard implementation is that Veterans are basically just Guardsmen that hit 33% more and get more special weapons (but lose obsec and don't fill troops slots), and Conscripts aren't worth taking, so in practice all you really see on the table is basic Guardsmen. Make Veterans Troops and give them back the ability to buy specializations (in 4th they could take carapace armor, demo charges, or camo-cloaks), and make Conscripts cheaper, and you'd see some variety again.

There's also a secondary issue in that, because the baseline for the game is Marines, and Marines so dramatically outperform any flavor of Guardsman 1-on-1, there's only so much you can do with Guard when any Guardsman regardless of skill or equipment is a chaff horde model in the game's meta. But nothing you do to Guardsmen can address that.

There's a lot you can do to Guardsmen when you remember that they're effectively a 3E army still.

We have Skitarii Rangers/Vanguard and Neophyte Hybrids that are effectively "Guardsmen +1", with a few mechanical tweaks there.

Veterans are, IMO, a garbage concept that should get tossed out as a standalone unit.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

novembermike wrote:
I wouldn't mind losing the 19th century designs like Mordians, Vostroyans and Praetorians. A lot of them are just too similar to actual historical minis and were only there in the first place so GW could reuse existing products. That doesn't fit the current GW business model so it's probably unrealistic for it to stick around.

In return it would be nice to get 3-4 major designs as new sculpts. Cadian style near future military, Steel Legion greatcoats, Catachans and a Starstriders style retrofuturistic design all seem interesting.

I think to top it off some of those minis have some.....problematic cultural issues *eyes Praetorians* that is probably left unmade for the next generation of models. Theres a lot of great design elements out there for some retro future stuff they can steal from over half the other product lines for inspiration and the whole line just needs a fresh look to it

To be fair, the Pratorians are just an offshoot of the Mordians thanks to a single event. They were made as custom display models at a GW event and only considered for full production after an outpouring of interest at and following said event. If you look at all their models, they're literally just Modrians with a Pith helm instead of a dress cap, so while it is a small loss of variety, I'm perfectly fine with not seeing them return. At the same time, the DKoK are modeled after WW1 German Empire uniforms and at least in lore use poison gas (I don't know their rules but I think they can actually use it in-game too), so while they don't have quite the same connotations as Victorian England style uniforms they are still of questionable design.

The Steel Legion are based more on WW2 Nazi Germany uniforms, which makes them, at least in my opinion, the ones most controversial and thus least deserving of a return. That's not to say I don't love their models and rules and wouldn't be happy to see them as a modular plastic kit, because I certainly do and would.

The Tallarn are more or less just middle eastern fighters from sometime in the WW1 through WW2 period, potentially a bit later as well, so they have minor but I believe inconsequential connotations. I would celebrate their return as modular plastic kits.

Valhallans are just WW1-2 Russians. Even in lore and tactics they are fully devoted to that theme, though I don't recall anything specifically insulting about them, so they could also see a welcome return.

The Atillan Rough Rider are a sticky subject. The models are interesting and I don't believe hold any relevant negative connotations themselves as long as no one gets upset about ancient history of Genghis Khan conquering most of Asia, however as I recall there is some less than flattering lore behind them that could be quite offensive to decedents of the historical people they copy aesthetically. Thus, while I would certainly try to get some should they return, I don't see it happening.

Steel Legion were patterned off the early war German paratrooper kit with a hint of "cavalry trooper" in there for the boots. The smocks/coats and helmets are a dead giveaway in that regard and there's a reason they have not really ever raised any hackles and it's because simply most people wouldn't associate them without knowing that context.

Death Korps are, as has been noted time and time again, utilizing a weird amalgation of French and German elements in their designs.

While that may be true, just because people don't immediately recognize it as such does not make it simply stop being relevant to the point. I stand by my statement in that regard. Still, I want to stress that I personally like all the models as models. I'm simply recognizing the history and origins behind them as potential factors of whether or not they will or even should make a return. I would love to see the Steel Legion again, as they are or under a different costume. I don't personally believe any of the models should be discarded simply for drawing on a potentially controversial aesthetic. I mean, you don't see people bashing or throwing out Star Wars Empire uniforms for being purposefully based off Nazi uniforms. Why should we treat models about a fictional universe differently? Unfortunately, reality often fails to match up with ideals or even common sense. Obviously, I am only talking about the models themselves. Any potentially offensive content in their lore should be looked over with a critical eye, such as what I mentioned with the Attilans. It's one thing to make models with an obvious style taken from a real people, even naming them in an obvious reference to said people, and call them fierce and brave warriors. This could even be a welcome inclusion of an often overlooked people. It is entirely another thing to go on to describe the people those model represent as uncivilized savages with a blatant disregard for personal hygiene.

catbarf wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:Problem is and always will the granularity provided by the D6 system. Guard should be better at shooting than Orks, and better than 1BS level, but then they would be on par with marines and sisters, which they are not, and PDF/conscripts should be better than Orks, but not as good as standard guard.

kurhanik wrote:Yeah, d6 is pretty limited in what it can do in base stats. If things say swapped to d12, you could have Marines hitting on a 4+, Guard on a 7 or 8+, and Orks on a 10+, and have saves range up to 12+ pretty easily. It also makes jumps up or down a point less huge, so it is harder to complain about Stormtroopers or Sisters having better BS than the average Guardsman since it won't immediately put them on par with a Space Marine. The problem is of course GW would look at this, and then decide that all "good" units need to be able to hit on a 2+ on a d12 and have 2+ rerollable saves and so on and so forth...

Having Conscripts shoot exactly 3.42% more accurately than Orks will never be the magic solution to differentiating between troop quality. For all practical purposes the current 17% increments are about the smallest increment that has real, noticeable effect, and the current spread of Vets hitting on 3s, Guardsmen on 4s, and Conscripts on 5s is fine for representing base quality. Veterans having the same BS as Marines and Conscripts having the same BS as Orks is only a problem if you expect the stats to perfectly represent the fluff; in practice it's the weapons and special rules that differentiate the armies, not their raw BS. Ballistic Skill really only comes into play as a differentiating factor for distinguishing units within the same army.

The problem with the current Guard implementation is that Veterans are basically just Guardsmen that hit 33% more and get more special weapons (but lose obsec and don't fill troops slots), and Conscripts aren't worth taking, so in practice all you really see on the table is basic Guardsmen. Make Veterans Troops and give them back the ability to buy specializations (in 4th they could take carapace armor, demo charges, or camo-cloaks), and make Conscripts cheaper, and you'd see some variety again.

There's also a secondary issue in that, because the baseline for the game is Marines, and Marines so dramatically outperform any flavor of Guardsman 1-on-1, there's only so much you can do with Guard when any Guardsman regardless of skill or equipment is a chaff horde model in the game's meta. But nothing you do to Guardsmen can address that.

Veterans have been in a weird place for awhile. I remember in 7th the best way to run them was in Chimera since the vehicles still had fire points that they could fire out of, and the doctrines, while nice, were mostly to make the unit a bit more survivable if they had to bail on the transport. I'm not familiar with their 5th edition rendition, but in 3/4 weren't they also a 0-1 choice in elites, or am I thinking of some other unit?

I think if fire points out of a Chimera / Taurox came back, Veterans would see an uptick since they could actually take advantage of their better BS without having to risk themselves as much. Unfortunately that basically still relegates them to Guardsman +1 - even if they got their specializations back.

I don't want to go into too much depth on d12 vs d6 since it isn't really the topic of the thread, but I just want to note that it gives a bigger field to play with in terms of all abilities to avoid some things looking samey. It allows for bigger variety of stat spread within and between codices. The difference between a Guard Conscript, Infantry, and Veteran could easily be more than 1 point of BS - say a 5+, 7+, and 9+ for just numbers out of a hat. Saving throws too could vary a bit more to differentiate between kit on certain units, or the quality of certain armors - say Guard Carapace vs Tau Carapace, or Marine Power Armor vs Crisis Suits, etc.

SergentSilver wrote:While that may be true, just because people don't immediately recognize it as such does not make it simply stop being relevant to the point. I stand by my statement in that regard. Still, I want to stress that I personally like all the models as models. I'm simply recognizing the history and origins behind them as potential factors of whether or not they will or even should make a return. I would love to see the Steel Legion again, as they are or under a different costume. I don't personally believe any of the models should be discarded simply for drawing on a potentially controversial aesthetic. I mean, you don't see people bashing or throwing out Star Wars Empire uniforms for being purposefully based off Nazi uniforms. Why should we treat models about a fictional universe differently? Unfortunately, reality often fails to match up with ideals or even common sense. Obviously, I am only talking about the models themselves. Any potentially offensive content in their lore should be looked over with a critical eye, such as what I mentioned with the Attilans. It's one thing to make models with an obvious style taken from a real people, even naming them in an obvious reference to said people, and call them fierce and brave warriors. This could even be a welcome inclusion of an often overlooked people. It is entirely another thing to go on to describe the people those model represent as uncivilized savages with a blatant disregard for personal hygiene.

Honestly with Steel Legion the main change to remove some bad connotations from them would be to just get rid of the arm band - without that to the casual observer they are just gas mask guys in an overcoat.

 kurhanik wrote:

...Honestly with Steel Legion the main change to remove some bad connotations from them would be to just get rid of the arm band - without that to the casual observer they are just gas mask guys in an overcoat.

I could see removal/reduction of the flaring at the bottom of the helmet being useful here as well. It's not particularly stahlhelm-y as it is, but changing the shape some might help give neo-Steel Legion a style of their own.

I am very humanistic and a forward thinking person, but I really don't see the point of starting to or trying to censor certain aesthetics due to historical connotations, if you look hard enough you can find a bad connotation in almost every unit GW puts out, be it aesthetic or fluff.

Lets sack off the Space Wolves as they are effectively space vikings and the people of nordic should feel ashamed of their past...

I get why some people may want this to happen, but you are immediately placed on a slippery slope. In addition, I don't think there is a single national military on the planet that hasn't committed what we would now consider a severe and grotesque war crime at some point within their history.

History has happened, we shouldn't forget it, and that includes influences from history in as niche a domain as the miniature wargaming hobby. Lastly, and most importantly, the Imperium are NOT the good guys in the setting, we aren't praising and celebrating the history of certain military units, they are just as evil in this setting as they were in real life.