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.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

I am not conflating anything.
I never once said the too are the same nor did I ever even imply it.
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.
It’s pretty simple.

Wow. What you just said does not equate to can’t afford hobby X, it is can't afford both hobby X and hobby Y. We are talking about hobbies here, not living below the poverty level.

 alextroy wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

I am not conflating anything.
I never once said the too are the same nor did I ever even imply it.
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.
It’s pretty simple.

Wow. What you just said does not equate to can’t afford hobby X, it is can't afford both hobby X and hobby Y. We are talking about hobbies here, not living below the poverty level.

And to add, for transparency, provincial disability only gives us ~$22,000/yr, for both, myself and my spouse, who are doth disabled and can't work.

There are people on this board who have said point blank that I shouldn't play 40k. I have models, I'd love new ones, and honestly try to save, but, we're all adult enough to do the math.
No matter how much this game can be a blessed escape from the pain. It will never be higher on the list than food.

 alextroy wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

I am not conflating anything.
I never once said the too are the same nor did I ever even imply it.
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.
It’s pretty simple.

Wow. What you just said does not equate to can’t afford hobby X, it is can't afford both hobby X and hobby Y. We are talking about hobbies here, not living below the poverty level.

Can people below the poverty line afford to play 40k?

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

I am not conflating anything.
I never once said the too are the same nor did I ever even imply it.
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.
It’s pretty simple.

Wow. What you just said does not equate to can’t afford hobby X, it is can't afford both hobby X and hobby Y. We are talking about hobbies here, not living below the poverty level.

Can people below the poverty line afford to play 40k?

*Points at her post directly above yours*

YES!
I got most of my army as presents it's wasn't until I was into 40k for years that I even branched to another army. Crazy local deals, hand me downs.
I've been playing with the exact same ~2,600 points for almost 20yrs.
My life has changed substantially over that time.
Anyone might have 40k models and want to expand their army.
That's such an elitist, privileged question.
You have no idea how insulting you are.

I'm terminally ill.
Already outlived my drs and 80+% of people who've had it, so I'm gonna die soon.

I'm stuck in poverty, there's literally no way out until I die.
I'm in constant pain because I can't afford my meds.

My Necrons are one of the only happy things I have left from my past that give me a chance at being part of a community.

You don't get it.
At all.
"Poor people can play 40k?"
You donkey-cave.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

I am not conflating anything.
I never once said the too are the same nor did I ever even imply it.
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.
It’s pretty simple.

Wow. What you just said does not equate to can’t afford hobby X, it is can't afford both hobby X and hobby Y. We are talking about hobbies here, not living below the poverty level.

Can people below the poverty line afford to play 40k?

Certainly.
It's 2022. You don't need to give GW a dime to play this game.

ccs wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

I am not conflating anything.
I never once said the too are the same nor did I ever even imply it.
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.
It’s pretty simple.

Wow. What you just said does not equate to can’t afford hobby X, it is can't afford both hobby X and hobby Y. We are talking about hobbies here, not living below the poverty level.

Can people below the poverty line afford to play 40k?

Certainly.
It's 2022. You don't need to give GW a dime to play this game.

Everyone can play 40k. Buying it directly from GW is a different story, so for the company those players probably aren't the most relevant. Fortunately though, what the company cares about isn't all that important to any of us because we're not the company and probably don't have a large proportion of out investments in GW (or so I hope).

That said, I personally would like platoons to return but perhaps the structure could be a little bit different, basically becoming:
Obligatory:
1 Infantry Squad

Optional:
1 Platoon Commander
1 Command Squad
4 Infantry Squads

Per Infantry Squad:
1 Heavy Weapons Squad
1 Special Weapons Squad

Or something along those lines. That should make everyone happy.

I like that idea.
What about the "can take this unit without a slot" like Kroot?
Maybe you could unlock Heavy or Special weapon squads 1:1 for infantry platoons?

Each command squad lets you take one heavy or special weapon squad that doesn't fill a slot in the detachment?

 Blndmage wrote:
I like that idea.
What about the "can take this unit without a slot" like Kroot?
Maybe you could unlock Heavy or Special weapon squads 1:1 for infantry platoons?

Each command squad lets you take one heavy or special weapon squad that doesn't fill a slot in the detachment?

That would probably be the easiest way to make it work. Although I would prefer unlocking the squads per infantry squad. That would stop spamming (even if it would be bad anyways because special and heavy weapons squads die to a mild breeze) and give the ability to take lots of such squads for more themed armies.

Personally I’d prefer 1 special weapon squad and heavy weapon squad per officer.

Urk. Personally, I prefer the platoon wording over the "doesn't take up a slot" wording. The later is just abstracting things unnecessarily. I'd like to see either the one infantry squad platoon option (as suggested above) or veterans being moved back to troops.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Urk. Personally, I prefer the platoon wording over the "doesn't take up a slot" wording. The later is just abstracting things unnecessarily. I'd like to see either the one infantry squad platoon option (as suggested above) or veterans being moved back to troops.

I have a feeling veterans won't exist as a separate unit in the next codex. They'll be made to work like Kabalite Warrior upgrading into Kabalite Trueborn.

This is the ability:

Kabalite Trueborn +3 points per model:
For each MASTER ARCHON unit in your army, one unit of Kabalite Warriors in the same Detachment can be upgraded to Kabalite Trueborn. Kabalite Trueborn have a maximum unit size of 10, gain the KABALITE TRUEBORN keyword and have the following additional abilities:
- Models in this unit have a Ballistic Skill characteristic of 2+.
- Add 1 to the Leadership characteristic of models in this unit.
- Each time a model in this unit makes a ranged attack, you can ignore any or all hit roll and Ballistic Skill modifiers.

Veterans could be +1 point per model:
For each OFFICER unit in your army, one Infantry Squad unit in the same Detachment can be upgraded to Veterans. They gain the VETERAN keyword and have the following additional abilities:
- Models in this unit have a Ballistic Skill characteristic of 3+.
- Add 1 to the Leadership characteristic of models in this unit.
- Up to three Veterans may replace their lasgun with an item from the Special Weapons list.
- One other Veteran may replace their lasgun with a heavy flamer.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Urk. Personally, I prefer the platoon wording over the "doesn't take up a slot" wording. The later is just abstracting things unnecessarily. I'd like to see either the one infantry squad platoon option (as suggested above) or veterans being moved back to troops.

And I prefer platoons to not be a thing, period, when it comes to army organization and the FOC. I don't even really see a path forward for them as anything outside of a rule mechanism for units you declare at the start of a game or something.

They added nothing to the overall game. They just were there and let you bring more models at a time when there was not any real alternate FOCs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jarms48 wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Urk. Personally, I prefer the platoon wording over the "doesn't take up a slot" wording. The later is just abstracting things unnecessarily. I'd like to see either the one infantry squad platoon option (as suggested above) or veterans being moved back to troops.

I have a feeling veterans won't exist as a separate unit in the next codex. They'll be made to work like Kabalite Warrior upgrading into Kabalite Trueborn.

I have a feeling that Guard won't exist as anything like what we're used to now. It's already been stated by a reliable rumourmonger that Cadian Shock Troops have their own datasheet in the Codex, as does Death Korps of Krieg.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And I prefer platoons to not be a thing, period, when it comes to army organization and the FOC. I don't even really see a path forward for them as anything outside of a rule mechanism for units you declare at the start of a game or something.

They added nothing to the overall game. They just were there and let you bring more models at a time when there was not any real alternate FOCs.

I very much agree with this. I would rather have my squads worth a damn on their own right rather than getting gaslighted into taking 7-trillion of them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Urk. Personally, I prefer the platoon wording over the "doesn't take up a slot" wording. The later is just abstracting things unnecessarily. I'd like to see either the one infantry squad platoon option (as suggested above) or veterans being moved back to troops.

And I prefer platoons to not be a thing, period, when it comes to army organization and the FOC. I don't even really see a path forward for them as anything outside of a rule mechanism for units you declare at the start of a game or something.

They added nothing to the overall game. They just were there and let you bring more models at a time when there was not any real alternate FOCs.

That's precisely why I like the idea of them being optional by making it only require a single squad and no command staff. I know not everyone wants to play their guard the same way (and tbh, I tend to go the tank-heavy route with mine). It's a great thing about guard, there's quite a few different ways to construct your army and, given the whole million worlds thing, there's room in the fluff for any and all of those ways. It doesn't HAVE to be one or the other.

Out of pure curiosity: would there be a specific counterargument to platoons just be an additional Troops option instead of replacing the current?
So just instead of Infantry Squad/Conscripts/Scions it would read Squad/Conscripts/Scions/a platoon (1 Platoon Commander, 1 Command Squad, 2-5 IS, 0-5 HWS, 0-3 SWS)
?

I mean, it would be pretty few additional words, both approaches to the game would stay valid and I personally don't see a way to unfairly exploit a mix of both systems.

It would feel (in my personal opinion) a bit like Leman Russes being 1-3 per unit. It always felt like the same principle: making it possible to cram a huge amount of "armored vehicle" points in quite small detachments to save on number of slots while still leaving it possible for others to just include a single one

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Out of pure curiosity: would there be a specific counterargument to platoons just be an additional Troops option instead of replacing the current?
So just instead of Infantry Squad/Conscripts/Scions it would read Squad/Conscripts/Scions/a platoon (1 Platoon Commander, 1 Command Squad, 2-5 IS, 0-5 HWS, 0-3 SWS)
?

Because why would anyone ever take Infantry Squads over Platoons?

Seriously. When the name of the game that creates problems in the first place is "efficiency", why would you do anything BUT the Troop choice that lets you ignore restrictions on duplicate units without some kind of super convoluted word salad to prevent you from doing so?

Matched Play has you limited at 3 of any duplicate datasheets. You're giving someone 2 more HWS than the cap right off the bat with a single Platoon without that hypothetical limitation.

I mean, it would be pretty few additional words, both approaches to the game would stay valid and I personally don't see a way to unfairly exploit a mix of both systems.

It would necessitate building in a ridiculous number of safeguards for no real benefit.

It would feel (in my personal opinion) a bit like Leman Russes being 1-3 per unit. It always felt like the same principle: making it possible to cram a huge amount of "armored vehicle" points in quite small detachments to save on number of slots while still leaving it possible for others to just include a single one

The difference is that one of those situations does not render an entire slew of units impractical, while platoons do.
Why take a Special Weapons Squad as an Elite choice, when you can throw 3 of them into a Platoon?
Why take a HWS as a Heavy choice, when you can throw 5 of them into a Platoon?

It would also have a wildly different effect if the various Infantry based squads actually had some kind of variation between them. They don't, so there's no point.

There's no Sniper Teams for a FA infiltration choice. There's no Elite Tank Hunter choice, decked out with meltaguns and heavier armor plus Haywire Grenades or anything interesting and unique.

They're just less good versions of Infantry Squad options, because there is not as many ablative bodies.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Out of pure curiosity: would there be a specific counterargument to platoons just be an additional Troops option instead of replacing the current?

My counterargument would be that including Platoons then calling it a day would be the laziest band-aid, and not only would it fail to address the problems with IG infantry but also normalize those problems because "be happy with your band-aid you silly player" and/or "massed infantry is how the Guard is meant to be played anyway" and such. It would be not only meaningless but actively counter-productive.

Ok, now I'm confused. I took from the discussion that some people are against platoons because it would force them to take more infantry than they want to build legal detachments - fair enough. Especially if one wants to build an army more geared towards vehicles or cavalry I see the point.

If platoons became just another option, i don't really see those folks loosing out. I doubt that someone that said before "Damn, I wish I could have more HWS in my army" really had less than 6 Infantry Squads (I might be wrong though, it's just my opinion)

I also (maybe wrongfully) assumed that someone who wanted to have less than 6 Infantry squads before was likely running mainly tanks or cavalry anyway, or not?


Edit: this Post was in response to Kanluwen

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Ok, now I'm confused. I took from the discussion that some people are against platoons because it would force them to take more infantry than they want to build legal detachments - fair enough. Especially if one wants to build an army more geared towards vehicles or cavalry I see the point.

If platoons became just another option, i don't really see those folks loosing out. I doubt that someone that said before "Damn, I wish I could have more HWS in my army" really had less than 6 Infantry Squads (I might be wrong though, it's just my opinion)

You've conflated two different issues:
The poor design you put on the Platoon is just that--poor design. You've just parroted the Cruddace books for their design, which was godawful compared to the far superior doctrine era book. In that doctrine era book?
An Infantry Platoon was just that:
infantry. There was no Conscripts thrown in there. No SWS. No HWS. Just the Command Squad and 2-5 Infantry Squads...which had an option for you to take "Remnant" squads of a Sergeant and 4-8 Guardsmen but no HWT.
In that Doctrine era book? 5 HWS wasn't really a big deal--because there were 3 different HWS types. Mortars, Fire Support(HB+AC), Anti-Tank(ML+LC)...all of which could be part of a HW Platoon(1-3 of any mix of those three Support Squads and a Command Squad with a Jr Officer) as a single HS. None of that is the case any longer though.

The second issue is that some people might just not have any interest in being okay with having to deal with the balance fallout for this trash. Your suggestion puts it so that a Patrol Detachment can be fifteen Infantry Squads (aka: 150 models, and 15 HWTs + 15 Special Weapons of any type) if fully maxed out on just that element. That's not counting the potential 15 Heavy Weapon Squads(that's 45 heavy weapon teams) or 9 Special Weapon Squads(another 27 Special Weapons just from this bit!) You're not creating a unique "Infantry Unit" that is filling the Platoon, you're just making a sidestep around the restrictions you would otherwise have and making it so that some of the gimmick factions ala GSC can have a ridiculous secondary element thrown in.

The smallest, most basic detachment should never be able to put that many models or weapon upgrades on the board, from just their Troop choices. Ever.

I also (maybe wrongfully) assumed that someone who wanted to have less than 6 Infantry squads before was likely running mainly tanks or cavalry anyway, or not?
Edit: this Post was in response to Kanluwen

You did assume wrongfully, because the argument that keeps being the most commonly put forward for Platoons is that it's "the only way" some people can play an all-infantry list, like they did "back in the day"(which is basically code for the Cruddace book, as the preceding Doctrines book didn't allow for HWS, SWS, or Conscripts in the Platoons).

That they need Platoons so they can take more HWS, more SWS, and more Officers for coverage to match all the infantry they opted to take.

It's silliness. I've put forward far, far more elegant solutions over the years and it's the same usual crowd shouting at it as being "unfluffy" because they want their tide of flesh.

15 Infantry squads is also 900 points. And you can currently take that many anyway.
So... Why isn't it an issue now?

@ Kanluwen: ok, I don't mind limiting a platoon to just Command + 2-5 infantry (mind that I'm neither strongly pro nor contra platoon, I just want to understand the argument).

I struggle to see the problem in - in its most extreme form - 150 Infantry dudes (900 points) + 15 HWSs (750 points + 675 for their heavy weapons, right?) in a patrol. I mean... sure it's a lot more CP effective and you can cram a lot more heavy weapons on an extremen squishy BS4+ platform in there. But I fail to see the end of days by allowing that.

*shrugg*
I readily admit to lack practical experience so maybe that's just it.

Why not add platoons as a new troops choice, with some version of the platoon structure that's being bandied about here, but if you take platoons, you cannot take dedicated transports?

That way Platoons become the basis for a largely infantry army, and squads (which can still allow dedicated transports) become the basis for a mechanized infantry army?

Then you have WWI style armies (platoons and arty), Mechanized Infantry armies (squads and transports), Armor (all, or mostly, tanks), and I guess you can have Airborne forces (valkyries as dedicated transports anyone?).

If you want a combined arms force, you'll have to do MechInf and Armor, with arty support. But I would expect doctrines for each army type, and even maybe separate orders for each doctrine type.

 JNAProductions wrote:
15 Infantry squads is also 900 points. And you can currently take that many anyway.
So... Why isn't it an issue now?

Because you can't take 15 Infantry Squads in a single Patrol detachment...?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Out of pure curiosity: would there be a specific counterargument to platoons just be an additional Troops option instead of replacing the current?
So just instead of Infantry Squad/Conscripts/Scions it would read Squad/Conscripts/Scions/a platoon (1 Platoon Commander, 1 Command Squad, 2-5 IS, 0-5 HWS, 0-3 SWS)
?

Because why would anyone ever take Infantry Squads over Platoons?

Seriously. When the name of the game that creates problems in the first place is "efficiency", why would you do anything BUT the Troop choice that lets you ignore restrictions on duplicate units without some kind of super convoluted word salad to prevent you from doing so?

Matched Play has you limited at 3 of any duplicate datasheets. You're giving someone 2 more HWS than the cap right off the bat with a single Platoon without that hypothetical limitation.

I mean, it would be pretty few additional words, both approaches to the game would stay valid and I personally don't see a way to unfairly exploit a mix of both systems.

It would necessitate building in a ridiculous number of safeguards for no real benefit.

It would feel (in my personal opinion) a bit like Leman Russes being 1-3 per unit. It always felt like the same principle: making it possible to cram a huge amount of "armored vehicle" points in quite small detachments to save on number of slots while still leaving it possible for others to just include a single one

The difference is that one of those situations does not render an entire slew of units impractical, while platoons do.
Why take a Special Weapons Squad as an Elite choice, when you can throw 3 of them into a Platoon?
Why take a HWS as a Heavy choice, when you can throw 5 of them into a Platoon?

It would also have a wildly different effect if the various Infantry based squads actually had some kind of variation between them. They don't, so there's no point.

There's no Sniper Teams for a FA infiltration choice. There's no Elite Tank Hunter choice, decked out with meltaguns and heavier armor plus Haywire Grenades or anything interesting and unique.

They're just less good versions of Infantry Squad options, because there is not as many ablative bodies.

this method would allow the faction to be affordable for more people to start and play.
My only issue with platoons resembling the old way is how expensive it is.
You have to remember for brand new players under the old school platoon mechanic, it’s $300+ just for bare minimum models, then rule book, then codex, then glue, then paint and brushes. Paint and brushes aren’t necessary to play, but even without those you’re still looking at $500ish just to get started in the hobby. That’s either a big investment up front to get started right away, or slowly buying over the course of a year or two or three depending on peoples’ financial situations.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
15 Infantry squads is also 900 points. And you can currently take that many anyway.
So... Why isn't it an issue now?

Because you can't take 15 Infantry Squads in a single Patrol detachment...?

You can still take 15 Infantry Squads. You'd need more HQs than with a single Patrol, but considering HQs include Company Commanders (to make your Infantry Squads a lot better) and Tank Commanders (arguably the best unit in the IG 'Dex currently)... Why would you not want to?

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Kanluwen: ok, I don't mind limiting a platoon to just Command + 2-5 infantry (mind that I'm neither strongly pro nor contra platoon, I just want to understand the argument).

I struggle to see the problem in - in its most extreme form - 150 Infantry dudes (900 points) + 15 HWSs (750 points + 675 for their heavy weapons, right?) in a patrol. I mean... sure it's a lot more CP effective and you can cram a lot more heavy weapons on an extremen squishy BS4+ platform in there. But I fail to see the end of days by allowing that.

*shrugg*
I readily admit to lack practical experience so maybe that's just it.

The ‘end days’ is the long game. That 150 infantry men is roughly $300 for new players.
Not a lot of people will want to, or can drop that much money to get started in a hobby.
For example, airsoft is a notoriously expensive hobby, yet I can get an AEG rifle for $90, eye pro $15, and a few thousand BBs for about another $25. So roughly $135 to get involved in a hobby that’s expensive.

If we price people out of the faction, sales will drop. Even those who can still afford to play the faction will not have the same buying power. This will result in lower sales of the faction, lower sales results in less support. Less support means the new sculpts being released soon will still be the current sculpts 40 years from now instead of just 30 years on.

The more players, the more support. The more support, the more new rules, more new sculpts, more new units etc.

Kanluwen wrote:They added nothing to the overall game. They just were there and let you bring more models at a time when there was not any real alternate FOCs

"Platoons added nothing, they just let you cope with the slot limit problem that existed back then and still exists now."

Weird definition of "nothing"...

Because why would anyone ever take Infantry Squads over Platoons?

Because sometimes you want exactly one infantry squad.

You're giving someone 2 more HWS than the cap right off the bat with a single Platoon without that hypothetical limitation.

IOW, HWS might finally appear in a list outside of deliberately toning down your list for a newbie's first teaching game?

Why take a Special Weapons Squad as an Elite choice, when you can throw 3 of them into a Platoon?
Why take a HWS as a Heavy choice, when you can throw 5 of them into a Platoon?

In this change HWS/SWS would go back to being troops like they always should have been.

Because you can't take 15 Infantry Squads in a single Patrol detachment...?

So what? In the only context where being able to take 15 infantry squads in a single patrol detachment would be relevant you can't take 15 infantry squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
The ‘end days’ is the long game. That 150 infantry men is roughly $300 for new players.
Not a lot of people will want to, or can drop that much money to get started in a hobby.

Stop with this dishonest nonsense. We've already explained to you that your supposed "starting cost" is irrelevant because if you aren't buying $300 worth of infantry squads you still have to buy roughly $300 worth of other models to fill out an army. Your argument would only apply if the newbie could play a 100 point game with a single officer and a single 10-man infantry squad and nobody is playing 100 point games.

I get that you want to spend all of your money on guns instead of 40k but stop dishonestly using "think of the poor newbies" as your excuse. It's insulting to the people who actually have financial limits.

Just to get a grip on it:
under current rules if you want to go all infantry:
2 Brigades with a total of
3 Company Commanders (105)
3 Primaris Psykers (150)
12 Infantry Squads with Heavy and Special Weapons (720)
3 Command Squads (75+, depending on loadout)
3 Special Weapons Squads (147 points)
3 HWS (150, do I understand correctly, that the heavy weapons do not cost anything anymore?)

so together ~1350 points, 3 CP and still 3 heavy support and 6 elite slots free.


With the proposed platoon if you could cram almost all of that into a Patrol detachment (Platoon Commanders instead of Company Commanders and you would "only" have 2 HQ slots, so less Psykers or none at all if you want Company Commanders), + more Infantry Squads, SWS and HWS if you like. CP-wise it would cost 0 instead of 3, but you might need another detachment anyway if you want those juice primaris Psykers, which would negate the CP advantage.

As I mentioned: I don't see the big problem with that. Sure, more SWS and HWS, but... are those really a problem? And 3 CP saved doesn't look like that much, honestly. Fair enough, if you want to really fill up 2000 points with just infantry it should cost 6 CP for 3 Battallions currently while with those platoons it should be possible to cram it into one batallion. But... I mean... it's still not really competetive, is it?

When I think of platoon rules this is what I mean. Not sure I would want to go back to it, but I would like to maybe see platoon rules on the field being about squads supporting each other, maybe overwatch on fellow squads, reactions to charges, lieutenants only being able to order their own platoons, captains ordering all squads. Not just have platoons as an army design thing.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:They added nothing to the overall game. They just were there and let you bring more models at a time when there was not any real alternate FOCs

"Platoons added nothing, they just let you cope with the slot limit problem that existed back then and still exists now."

Weird definition of "nothing"...

Because why would anyone ever take Infantry Squads over Platoons?

Because sometimes you want exactly one infantry squad.

You're giving someone 2 more HWS than the cap right off the bat with a single Platoon without that hypothetical limitation.

IOW, HWS might finally appear in a list outside of deliberately toning down your list for a newbie's first teaching game?

Why take a Special Weapons Squad as an Elite choice, when you can throw 3 of them into a Platoon?
Why take a HWS as a Heavy choice, when you can throw 5 of them into a Platoon?

In this change HWS/SWS would go back to being troops like they always should have been.

Because you can't take 15 Infantry Squads in a single Patrol detachment...?

So what? In the only context where being able to take 15 infantry squads in a single patrol detachment would be relevant you can't take 15 infantry squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
The ‘end days’ is the long game. That 150 infantry men is roughly $300 for new players.
Not a lot of people will want to, or can drop that much money to get started in a hobby.

Stop with this dishonest nonsense. We've already explained to you that your supposed "starting cost" is irrelevant because if you aren't buying $300 worth of infantry squads you still have to buy roughly $300 worth of other models to fill out an army. Your argument would only apply if the newbie could play a 100 point game with a single officer and a single 10-man infantry squad and nobody is playing 100 point games.

I get that you want to spend all of your money on guns instead of 40k but stop dishonestly using "think of the poor newbies" as your excuse. It's insulting to the people who actually have financial limits.

what are you talking about?
Today a newbie can have a legal army with 2 infantry squads and a single officer.
Under the old platoon rules you’d have to roughly double that cost.

There’s nothing dishonest about what I’ve said.
You’ve done absolutely to counter my points, why? Because you can’t.
The only counter would simply to buy all used models, however if all people who were new to guard did that it would likely inflate the cost of used models, but even if the used market doesn’t get inflated as a result, GW doesn’t see or track those sales still resulting in a drop in sales for GW, again resulting in less support for the faction.