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:
Today a newbie can have a legal army with 2 infantry squads and a single officer.

Stop being dishonest. Two infantry squads and a single officer is ~200 points. 500 points is the minimum that anyone is playing, and 2000 points is a normal game. Whether you have to buy a full platoon or not as part of your first 500 points is irrelevant, you still have to buy 500 points worth of stuff and the cost isn't going to change much.

There’s nothing dishonest about what I’ve said.

It's absolutely dishonest. You tried to claim a ridiculous poverty argument about how millennials have no money, buying $138 worth of models is an impossible burden for you to overcome, etc. And the reality is that you have a 5000 square foot house and spend thousands of dollars on your gun hobby. The only reason you can't afford to build your army according to the platoon structure is that you've decided you don't want to spend any of your hobby budget on 40k.

As of yesterday, 2 IS and a CC is 155 points - though can stretch to 165 if you feel like blinging out the CC.

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"...

Try reading what's written.

You do not have the same issues now that existed then. You want more Infantry Squads now? Take a different FOC to start with or add another Detachment.

Because why would anyone ever take Infantry Squads over Platoons?

Because sometimes you want exactly one infantry squad.

Cool, but that's not what would happen except for your "deliberately toning down your list for a newbie's first teaching game" situation. Because read literally any list out there and it comes down to number-crunched garbage, to the point where you can literally just play online via TTS or whatever rather than ever buying models since it's all about the math rather than the play experience.

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?

I mean, you could get the same effect by just removing the ability to take HWTs as part of Infantry or Veteran Squads necessitating the usage of the unit by virtue of there being no other options . Or by bringing back the specialized Fire/Anti-Tank/Mortar Support Squads, and allowing for them to get specialized roles and perks tied to the weapons in play.

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.

And why would they be troops?

Seriously. Why would Heavy Weapon Squads or Special Weapon Squads be Troops?

If you want to make an argument, like I have multiple times in the past, that HWTs should be split off from the Infantry Squad they're a part of? Cool. I'll back your play on that.
If you want to make an argument, like I have multiple times in the past, that Special Weapon Squads should be set up differently and given unique roles? Again: I'll back your play on that.

But just throwing them in Troops is patently silly.

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.

Patrol Detachments aren't locked to a specific points size. You don't have to play Combat Patrols to use them.

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.

Insert console games, PCs, movies, camera equipment, etc instead of guns.

A game thrives or dies based upon newbloods. Guard is not an army that is attractive beyond initial purchases in many cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
As of yesterday, 2 IS and a CC is 155 points - though can stretch to 165 if you feel like blinging out the CC.

Just to build off this, unless you're buying a proxy model or multiple boxes?

That Cadian/Catachan CC is locked in a $38 box...along with his Command Squad.

So CC @ 35 pts(+5 for a PP and +5 if you opt for a PFist)

25 pts for the Command Squad, with +5 pts for a GL or Flamer or +10 pts for a Heavy Flamer, Meltagun, or Plasma Gun. You're spending $42 to get any Heavy Weapon options unless you already have bits from elsewhere. Tentatively put this at ~~30-40 pts~~.

60 pts for an Infantry Squad.


130 pts out of 2 boxes.

Guard are frigging criminal with the pts v $ value right now.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You do not have the same issues now that existed then. You want more Infantry Squads now? Take a different FOC to start with or add another Detachment.

You absolutely do have the same problem given the crippling CP penalty for taking additional detachments. The changes to starting CP (which, regardless of the fact that it's technically in the tournament book, will most likely be treated as a de facto standard matched play rule like tournament rules before it) are effectively a ban on multi-detachment armies.

Cool, but that's not what would happen except for your "deliberately toning down your list for a newbie's first teaching game" situation. Because read literally any list out there and it comes down to number-crunched garbage, to the point where you can literally just play online via TTS or whatever rather than ever buying models since it's all about the math rather than the play experience.

I'm glad you have those feelings. None of it has any relevance to this discussion.

Seriously. Why would Heavy Weapon Squads or Special Weapon Squads be Troops?

Because they're basic infantry and adding diversity to the troops slot is a good thing.

Patrol Detachments aren't locked to a specific points size. You don't have to play Combat Patrols to use them.

They are de facto locked to combat patrol games because in any other game you are overwhelmingly incentivized to take larger detachments.

A game thrives or dies based upon newbloods. Guard is not an army that is attractive beyond initial purchases in many cases.

And the presence or absence of the platoon system has nothing to do with this. If you don't have to buy infantry squads to build a platoon you still have to buy something else to use those points, and in anything beyond a 500 point game you want to take that many infantry squads anyway just to have enough cannon fodder.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You do not have the same issues now that existed then. You want more Infantry Squads now? Take a different FOC to start with or add another Detachment.

You absolutely do have the same problem given the crippling CP penalty for taking additional detachments. The changes to starting CP (which, regardless of the fact that it's technically in the tournament book, will most likely be treated as a de facto standard matched play rule like tournament rules before it) are effectively a ban on multi-detachment armies.

Then take a different FOC to start with if you're so desperate to fill out on Troops choices?

Or hey, here's a crazy thought, take some Veterans too?

Cool, but that's not what would happen except for your "deliberately toning down your list for a newbie's first teaching game" situation. Because read literally any list out there and it comes down to number-crunched garbage, to the point where you can literally just play online via TTS or whatever rather than ever buying models since it's all about the math rather than the play experience.

I'm glad you have those feelings. None of it has any relevance to this discussion.

You're the one who put that nonsense in to start with. This isn't the 90s where people actively try out things anymore. People seem to approach miniature gaming with "I want to have my whole army planned out to a tee before I ever set foot in a shop".

Seriously. Why would Heavy Weapon Squads or Special Weapon Squads be Troops?

Because they're basic infantry

They're literally not, but thanks for playing!

Special Weapon Squads are (quoting here):

Many regiments maintain six-man squads of specialists armed and trained in a variety of roles, categorized under the catch-all term of special weapons squads. Some are sniper squads, working in three two-man teams of sniper and spotter with the former armed with Sniper Rifles for taking out enemy commanders. Others are combat engineer teams, meant to clear trenches and destroy enemy fortifications with Demolition Charges, Flamers, Plasma Guns, Meltaguns and Grenade Launchers. These squads will often be attached to other platoons to provide them with their expertise.

and adding diversity to the troops slot is a good thing.

Been there, done that, wrote a treatise on it over the years.

People don't want it. They just want blobs apparently.

Patrol Detachments aren't locked to a specific points size. You don't have to play Combat Patrols to use them.

They are de facto locked to combat patrol games because in any other game you are overwhelmingly incentivized to take larger detachments.

Sure, and Guard are de facto locked to playing specific lists because of the lack of interest from the design team.

A game thrives or dies based upon newbloods. Guard is not an army that is attractive beyond initial purchases in many cases.

And the presence or absence of the platoon system has nothing to do with this. If you don't have to buy infantry squads to build a platoon you still have to buy something else to use those points, and in anything beyond a 500 point game you want to take that many infantry squads anyway just to have enough cannon fodder.

You bring shame to the name "Cadian".

Cannon fodder. Pah.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Today a newbie can have a legal army with 2 infantry squads and a single officer.

Stop being dishonest. Two infantry squads and a single officer is ~200 points. 500 points is the minimum that anyone is playing, and 2000 points is a normal game. Whether you have to buy a full platoon or not as part of your first 500 points is irrelevant, you still have to buy 500 points worth of stuff and the cost isn't going to change much.

There’s nothing dishonest about what I’ve said.

It's absolutely dishonest. You tried to claim a ridiculous poverty argument about how millennials have no money, buying $138 worth of models is an impossible burden for you to overcome, etc. And the reality is that you have a 5000 square foot house and spend thousands of dollars on your gun hobby. The only reason you can't afford to build your army according to the platoon structure is that you've decided you don't want to spend any of your hobby budget on 40k.

I claimed no ridiculous poverty argument.
All hobbies thrive off of new people. In the US, the middle class has been shrinking decade after decade. This means that if GW’s strategy is targeting the upper middle class and higher only, then the company will die…or at least the table top game will die.

Im sorry your head is too far up your ass to understand these basics of economics.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I claimed no ridiculous poverty argument.

And yet here you are, making the poverty argument again:

In the US, the middle class has been shrinking decade after decade. This means that if GW’s strategy is targeting the upper middle class and higher only, then the company will die…or at least the table top game will die.

The reality is that you, like many other people, can afford 40k. You simply choose not to be GW customers because you'd rather engage in your gun hobby.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I claimed no ridiculous poverty argument.

And yet here you are, making the poverty argument again:

In the US, the middle class has been shrinking decade after decade. This means that if GW’s strategy is targeting the upper middle class and higher only, then the company will die…or at least the table top game will die.

The reality is that you, like many other people, can afford 40k. You simply choose not to be GW customers because you'd rather engage in your gun hobby.

yes. Maintaining current quality of life and not having the money means it’s not affordable.
That’s kinda the whole point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let’s redirect the convo a little bit here.

How does everyone feel about the points and rules changes for guard released?

I think they’re generally good, but they kinda double down on some of the issues mentioned here in this thread already (making the army even cheaper despite some people feeling like they’re running out of slots)

I love the buffs to HotE, and the durability buffs to our various types of armor.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
yes. Maintaining current quality of life and not having the money means it’s not affordable.
That’s kinda the whole point.

That's a ridiculous argument. By that standard literally anything is "not affordable" as long as you commit to spending all of your available money on other things, no matter how cheap the thing is or how much money you have. The fact that you consider it a failure to maintain your quality of life if you redirect a small amount of hobby money from one hobby to another doesn't mean it isn't affordable.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

[...]
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.
[...]

Sorry to come back to that, maybe it's again more a question of understanding.
Yes, a single officer + 2 IS is a legal army. I mean... so is a single IS alone in an auxiliary support detachment. Even if platoons would become not just an option, but the only troop, your mentioned "one officer + 2 infantry squads" is still one legal troop slot and therefore a legal Auxiliary support detachment. So... if the argument really is, that newbies want to start with a single officer + two IS (150 points) and play Warhammer 40k with 21 T3, W1 models on the table AND you we would assume, that platoons would replace and not just add to the current options... it would still work, right? So even then, nobody would be "priced out" of the hobby.



Regardless from that I agree with other posters that this argument is a bit weird, as I highly doubt anyone plays with that low point numbers. I mean, against whom? Thats for example (all barebones and with points from the internet, so I might be an odd model of):
1 Tech priest dominus + 8 barebones Skitariis
OR
1 Warboss and 7 Boys
OR
1 Canoness and 9 Battle sisters

That... feels like a weird size for a WH40k game.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Regardless from that I agree with other posters that this argument is a bit weird, as I highly doubt anyone plays with that low point numbers. I mean, against whom? Thats for example (all barebones and with points from the internet, so I might be an odd model of):
1 Tech priest dominus + 8 barebones Skitariis
OR
1 Warboss and 7 Boys
OR
1 Canoness and 9 Battle sisters

That... feels like a weird size for a WH40k game.

*Looks slightly further down at her own thread about playing 8-12PL/side*

*Feels weird, even more so than the "hey a girl 40k player" weirdness that get her downvoted and ignored (as per above)*

@ Blndmage: sorry, my bad. You are completely right that you explained it already and are an example for low point games.

But conceeding the point of WH40k games in the sub 200 points range: did I miss anything in the assumption that even if (which was not stated by the pro platoon folks here), platoons would become the only troop option, the mentioned "one officer + 2 IS" is still as legal as now, just that it is an Auxilliary instead of a Patrol detachment?

Why not go down the route that someone suggested earlier; infantry squads AND platoons.

Infantry squads are for when you want individual squads and can take transports.

Platoons are a commander and command squad, 2-5 infantry squads, 0-1 HWS and 0-1 SWS. No transports allowed.

Veterans can either stay as a separate unit or be an upgrade for infantry squads.

 Kanluwen wrote:
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.

Need a fact check on this.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
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.

Need a fact check on this.

From OK_Entrepeneur3004 on reddit. They were point-blank asked about something they had said earlier.

You stating veterans are going back into the troops slot or that cadian shock troops are getting their own datasheet?

To which OK_E replied:

Own

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Let’s redirect the convo a little bit here.

How does everyone feel about the points and rules changes for guard released?

I think they’re generally good, but they kinda double down on some of the issues mentioned here in this thread already (making the army even cheaper despite some people feeling like they’re running out of slots)

I love the buffs to HotE, and the durability buffs to our various types of armor.

Good gods yes, I have honestly had enough with platoons/guns/poverty debate. Though if I worked at GW and read this forum I would try really hard to reference it as an in joke in the codex.

I think the armies core problem - staying power - is a tricky one given many of the objectives. In theory with so many cheap units that can do stuff we should be laughing, but really many of those units die to a stiff breeze. Lots of stuff just isn't viable.

Running units with stuff is a welcome change - Guard aren't penal conscripts, they should have Vox's and other gear.

For me you can have changes that make it work in the current structure before getting all radical or harking back to the past.

Obviously the first change is messed up internal balance. A knowledge of basic maths and likely engagement ranges, opportunities to fire etc should result in is stuff like vanquisher cannons being credible. Some of that is points, some of that is rules.

The army needs to be sped up. Rather than re-rolls or doubled dice auto hitting or dice results of x skipping other rolls is needed. Stuff in the vein of 6's to auto auto wounding, or FRESRF auto hitting rather than doubling the amount of dice needing 4+ to hit. Rather than all the messing around with order ranges just say if an officer is near a vox he can order any other unit with a vox. Why are we worrying about range there? The army needs to be better to play with an against.

It needs to be rejigged to have more resilience in many units without affecting it overall feel. Small or expensive squads need to have more of a staying power. For me this can be done either with either an overly complex GW squad structure entry, or separate entries.

But in essence you end up with an infantry squad that can take an extra heavy weapon team (taking unit size to 12) for x points.
A heavy weapons section that is 3 teams, a sarge and 3 accompanying loaders (meatshields), squad size 10 with now the option of vox, sarge stuff, etc. and able to be ordered more easily.
A special weapons squad that is an infantry squad with the option of 3 special weapons, squad size 10 with now the option of vox, sarge stuff, etc. and able to be ordered more easily.

What applies to squads applies to characters. Personally I see nothing wrong with having the option of adding a command squad to a character and have the squad count as a character.

Then you can start to get more radical. Personally I would like to see a command arms element. I would love a rule where infantry and vehicles within 2-3 inches could mutually support as a facsimile of real world tactics. Here that would be take a ld check, if passed one unit can take the hits assigned to the other unit (so infantry take hits for vehicles, armoured vehicles - not support stuff like arty or sentinels - take hits meant for infantry). Representing the infantry taking on heavy weapon teams and infantry sheltering behind vehicles, would also look cool to see stuff advancing in a mutually supporting way as well.

I threw together a fun 1250 pt list last night that I'm looking forward to fielding:

Spearhead (gunnery experts, spotter details)
2x demolisher TCs
1x command squad (4 sniper rifles)
2x armored sentinels (missile launcher)
3x demolisher LRBT
1x Manticore (full payload)

Patrol (iotan dragons)
Tempestor prime
2x tempestus scions

Will it win? Probably not...will I have fun? You gosh darn better believe it!

I've talked about this before ad nauseum, but once more unto the breach...

The core problem with Guard isn't their staying power. It's their boring design.

There are very few armies where there is such a disconnect between lore and game when it comes to incorporating the aesthetic into the models themselves.
Guard Infantry have that disconnect amplified exponentially given that there's actual delineations between different Regiments that should be affecting how their Infantry Squads are outfitted.

We don't see that. And we don't see any kind of clear delineation between "Conscripts" and "Infantry Squads" outside of squad numbers(which can be blown away by Combined Squads) and the lack of upgrades on the Conscripts--the core body is the same. It's like if Gretchin had the same statline as Boyz.

Breaking Infantry Squads apart into a new setup would do the Guard a world of good. Having "Conscripts" reframed into a Regimentally neutral unit, with certain Regiments being able to add a <Regiment> keyword via Stratagems or army composition would go a long way towards addressing things too.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Let’s redirect the convo a little bit here.

How does everyone feel about the points and rules changes for guard released?

I think they’re generally good, but they kinda double down on some of the issues mentioned here in this thread already (making the army even cheaper despite some people feeling like they’re running out of slots)

I love the buffs to HotE, and the durability buffs to our various types of armor.

Good gods yes, I have honestly had enough with platoons/guns/poverty debate. Though if I worked at GW and read this forum I would try really hard to reference it as an in joke in the codex.

I think the armies core problem - staying power - is a tricky one given many of the objectives. In theory with so many cheap units that can do stuff we should be laughing, but really many of those units die to a stiff breeze. Lots of stuff just isn't viable.

Running units with stuff is a welcome change - Guard aren't penal conscripts, they should have Vox's and other gear.

For me you can have changes that make it work in the current structure before getting all radical or harking back to the past.

Obviously the first change is messed up internal balance. A knowledge of basic maths and likely engagement ranges, opportunities to fire etc should result in is stuff like vanquisher cannons being credible. Some of that is points, some of that is rules.

The army needs to be sped up. Rather than re-rolls or doubled dice auto hitting or dice results of x skipping other rolls is needed. Stuff in the vein of 6's to auto auto wounding, or FRESRF auto hitting rather than doubling the amount of dice needing 4+ to hit. Rather than all the messing around with order ranges just say if an officer is near a vox he can order any other unit with a vox. Why are we worrying about range there? The army needs to be better to play with an against.

It needs to be rejigged to have more resilience in many units without affecting it overall feel. Small or expensive squads need to have more of a staying power. For me this can be done either with either an overly complex GW squad structure entry, or separate entries.

But in essence you end up with an infantry squad that can take an extra heavy weapon team (taking unit size to 12) for x points.
A heavy weapons section that is 3 teams, a sarge and 3 accompanying loaders (meatshields), squad size 10 with now the option of vox, sarge stuff, etc. and able to be ordered more easily.
A special weapons squad that is an infantry squad with the option of 3 special weapons, squad size 10 with now the option of vox, sarge stuff, etc. and able to be ordered more easily.

What applies to squads applies to characters. Personally I see nothing wrong with having the option of adding a command squad to a character and have the squad count as a character.

Then you can start to get more radical. Personally I would like to see a command arms element. I would love a rule where infantry and vehicles within 2-3 inches could mutually support as a facsimile of real world tactics. Here that would be take a ld check, if passed one unit can take the hits assigned to the other unit (so infantry take hits for vehicles, armoured vehicles - not support stuff like arty or sentinels - take hits meant for infantry). Representing the infantry taking on heavy weapon teams and infantry sheltering behind vehicles, would also look cool to see stuff advancing in a mutually supporting way as well.

For slightly more survivable guard I think a ‘dig in’ and ‘pack up’ rule would be good.
Any unit with an HWT in it can choose to dig in or pack up during the command phase. A unit that does either cannot do anything else that turn. A dig in unit either gets +1 to their saves or gets to reroll failed saves. A dug in unit cannot move until they pack up.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I've talked about this before ad nauseum, but once more unto the breach...

The core problem with Guard isn't their staying power. It's their boring design.

There are very few armies where there is such a disconnect between lore and game when it comes to incorporating the aesthetic into the models themselves.
Guard Infantry have that disconnect amplified exponentially given that there's actual delineations between different Regiments that should be affecting how their Infantry Squads are outfitted.

We don't see that. And we don't see any kind of clear delineation between "Conscripts" and "Infantry Squads" outside of squad numbers(which can be blown away by Combined Squads) and the lack of upgrades on the Conscripts--the core body is the same. It's like if Gretchin had the same statline as Boyz.

Breaking Infantry Squads apart into a new setup would do the Guard a world of good. Having "Conscripts" reframed into a Regimentally neutral unit, with certain Regiments being able to add a <Regiment> keyword via Stratagems or army composition would go a long way towards addressing things too.

No difference between conscripts and guardsmen other than...you know...their rules...and their stat line. Not everyone plays Cadians (and some of us don't play any of the named guard regiments). The whole thing with rolling to see if orders work is very fluffly. It represents them being regular citizens freshly conscripted into service and not being properly trained in military tactics. And that's what makes the white shields even cooler, because it represents how everyone on Cadia has (or had...too soon?) military training of some sort (if I'm understanding the lore correctly). So I'm really not sure what you're getting at with this supposed disconnect from lore, unless you're complaining that GW doesn't have enough model variety to represent the variety of uniforms across the guard (in which case, sure...but adding that won't fix guard mechanically).

 Kanluwen wrote:
I've talked about this before ad nauseum, but once more unto the breach...

The core problem with Guard isn't their staying power. It's their boring design.

There are very few armies where there is such a disconnect between lore and game when it comes to incorporating the aesthetic into the models themselves.
Guard Infantry have that disconnect amplified exponentially given that there's actual delineations between different Regiments that should be affecting how their Infantry Squads are outfitted.

We don't see that. And we don't see any kind of clear delineation between "Conscripts" and "Infantry Squads" outside of squad numbers(which can be blown away by Combined Squads) and the lack of upgrades on the Conscripts--the core body is the same. It's like if Gretchin had the same statline as Boyz.

Breaking Infantry Squads apart into a new setup would do the Guard a world of good. Having "Conscripts" reframed into a Regimentally neutral unit, with certain Regiments being able to add a <Regiment> keyword via Stratagems or army composition would go a long way towards addressing things too.

I think that sort of thing would help with some interest, but I don’t think it would do much to increase effectiveness of the army.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

No difference between conscripts and guardsmen other than...you know...their rules...and their stat line.

"Raw Recruits" is just a rebadged version of the previous Orders system.

The statline differences are negligible as long as they retain the <Regiment> keywords.

Not everyone plays Cadians (and some of us don't play any of the named guard regiments). The whole thing with rolling to see if orders work is very fluffly.

Sure, as would simply making them "Auxilia" and not letting them accept Orders in the first place. As would giving them autoguns and simple Flak Vests for a 6+(which really should be a 5+, with Flak Armor going to a 4+ to match Aeldari Guardians who are 4+'s now and Carapace to a 3+) save.

It represents them being regular citizens freshly conscripted into service and not being properly trained in military tactics.

And yet somehow they're outfitted exactly the same as those Guardsmen...

Not toting, say, the auto-weapons that we see the traitor versions of those same Conscripts(aka: Cultists and Neophyte Hybrids) running around with. Crazy how that works, right?

And that's what makes the white shields even cooler, because it represents how everyone on Cadia has (or had...too soon?) military training of some sort (if I'm understanding the lore correctly).

The problem is that "Conscripts" is a broad as hell catch-all unit. It encompasses Penal Legionnaires(aka: Guardsmen), Planetary Defence Forces, and the "untrained peasant rabble".

Whiteshields were unique not just in being part of a military culture, but in that they were supposed to be outfitted the same as the Infantry Squads they would be upped into thanks to the sheer amount of war materiel that got sent to the Cadian warzones.

So I'm really not sure what you're getting at with this supposed disconnect from lore, unless you're complaining that GW doesn't have enough model variety to represent the variety of uniforms across the guard (in which case, sure...but adding that won't fix guard mechanically).

I'm "complaining" that they've been lazy as hell with the Guard. There's literally enough variety to have 3 different at minimum Guard Infantry Squads, each with unique loadouts, as the "basis" of things--and then at least a single signature unit for each of the Big Regiments.


Want stealthy infantry?
Go for Light Infantry squads!

Want to hold the midline, with the ability to dig in and give the opposition whatfor?
Go for Garrison Troopers!

Want to storm the breach, guts and glory encased in ceramite while your hellgun sings out a hymn of vengeance and glory?
Go for Heavy Infantry Squads!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

I think that sort of thing would help with some interest, but I don’t think it would do much to increase effectiveness of the army.

Nothing really is going to increase the effectiveness of the army, as long as we're kept in a perpetuated stagnation.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm "complaining" that they've been lazy as hell with the Guard. There's literally enough variety to have 3 different at minimum Guard Infantry Squads, each with unique loadouts, as the "basis" of things--and then at least a single signature unit for each of the Big Regiments.


Want stealthy infantry?
Go for Light Infantry squads!

Want to hold the midline, with the ability to dig in and give the opposition whatfor?
Go for Garrison Troopers!

Want to storm the breach, guts and glory encased in ceramite while your hellgun sings out a hymn of vengeance and glory?
Go for Heavy Infantry Squads!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

I think that sort of thing would help with some interest, but I don’t think it would do much to increase effectiveness of the army.

Nothing really is going to increase the effectiveness of the army, as long as we're kept in a perpetuated stagnation.

I see what you're saying Kanluwen, but none of those 3 infantry options makes a difference in 9th, as 9th is so lethal, and won't be trimmed down.

Heavy Infantry? Those are called Scions & Kasrkin. Light Infantry vs. Garrison? 6+ save vs. 5+: they die just as fast. Doesn't matter if they have "Bob's light flak armor" vs. "The emperor's thrice-blessed divine protection flak armor", it's all a 5+. Just call it whatever and move on.


The bigger problem with Guard is that it's a static gunline with low firepower in a game of movement and lethality. Guard get none of the benefits of being combined arms, while being penalized for moving, plus none of the decisions we make really impact the game. That's why Guard aren't that popular. It's not fun to stand there and shoot while you give up board control and the game by turn 2, potentially being tabled turn 3. At least when Dark Angels "castle up", they were (probably not in Nephilim) still scoring their objectives. Guard got 1 VP per unit killed, and could only manage 6-8 points for the entire game.

Is "Light Infantry" fluffy? Heck ya. But until that "Light Infantry" can hold an Objective Marker for a turn, it's meaningless. First, let's get a rules that play the game. Then we can geek out while we fluff up a few units.

brainpsyk wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm "complaining" that they've been lazy as hell with the Guard. There's literally enough variety to have 3 different at minimum Guard Infantry Squads, each with unique loadouts, as the "basis" of things--and then at least a single signature unit for each of the Big Regiments.


Want stealthy infantry?
Go for Light Infantry squads!

Want to hold the midline, with the ability to dig in and give the opposition whatfor?
Go for Garrison Troopers!

Want to storm the breach, guts and glory encased in ceramite while your hellgun sings out a hymn of vengeance and glory?
Go for Heavy Infantry Squads!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

I think that sort of thing would help with some interest, but I don’t think it would do much to increase effectiveness of the army.

Nothing really is going to increase the effectiveness of the army, as long as we're kept in a perpetuated stagnation.

I see what you're saying Kanluwen, but none of those 3 infantry options makes a difference in 9th, as 9th is so lethal, and won't be trimmed down.

Heavy Infantry? Those are called Scions & Kasrkin. Light Infantry vs. Garrison? 6+ save vs. 5+: they die just as fast. Doesn't matter if they have "Bob's light flak armor" vs. "The emperor's thrice-blessed divine protection flak armor", it's all a 5+. Just call it whatever and move on.


The bigger problem with Guard is that it's a static gunline with low firepower in a game of movement and lethality. Guard get none of the benefits of being combined arms, while being penalized for moving, plus none of the decisions we make really impact the game. That's why Guard aren't that popular. It's not fun to stand there and shoot while you give up board control and the game by turn 2, potentially being tabled turn 3. At least when Dark Angels "castle up", they were (probably not in Nephilim) still scoring their objectives. Guard got 1 VP per unit killed, and could only manage 6-8 points for the entire game.

Is "Light Infantry" fluffy? Heck ya. But until that "Light Infantry" can hold an Objective Marker for a turn, it's meaningless. First, let's get a rules that play the game. Then we can geek out while we fluff up a few units.

I think my dig in/pack up mechanic might help with holding objectives. either +1 to saves while dug in, or reroll failed saves, or hell both. trade off is digging in is announced in the command phase, and the unit in question can't do anything else for the rest of your turn. I would also only make this mechanic work for units with heavy weapons in them, so conscripts, bare bones infantry squads, etc, can't use it.

it encourages more fluffy army lists, while making units on objectives, or just any where, a little bit more durable.

brainpsyk wrote:


I see what you're saying Kanluwen, but none of those 3 infantry options makes a difference in 9th, as 9th is so lethal, and won't be trimmed down.

You see nothing of the options included. Just that I named some stuff.

Heavy Infantry? Those are called Scions & Kasrkin.

Also Jantine Patricians, Grenadiers, etc etc.

Kasrkin are a specific unit. They have training specific to them and roles specific to them.

Scions aren't "heavy infantry". They're suicide troops, and quite frankly one of the best ways we could bring back Penal Legionnaires as a concept.

Light Infantry vs. Garrison? 6+ save vs. 5+: they die just as fast. Doesn't matter if they have "Bob's light flak armor" vs. "The emperor's thrice-blessed divine protection flak armor", it's all a 5+. Just call it whatever and move on.

Which is the bigger issue...the statline has remained untouched.

Flak Armor is meant to be the IG equivalent to Aeldari mesh armour, which got boosted to 4+. Flak Armor needs to go to 4+ and Carapace needs to be bolstered to 3+.
Flak Vests are meant to be the "light" quality gear. When Jungle Fighters was a doctrine, you gave up a point of armor and instead gained a 4+ cover save which couldn't be combined with cameleoline(+1 to cover saves).

Is "Light Infantry" fluffy? Heck ya. But until that "Light Infantry" can hold an Objective Marker for a turn, it's meaningless.

Then nothing matters period. And maybe you should consider going to play a different army?

I'm dead serious. If the metric you gauge things by is "can it hold an objective marker?", you're playing the wrong army.

First, let's get a rules that play the game. Then we can geek out while we fluff up a few units.

We literally don't have to. The rules are right there for things like Light Infantry on the Gaunt's Ghosts datasheet. Covert Stealth Team(outside of deployment zone, 9" from enemy DZ and models) and Camo-Cloak(not eligible target for ranged attacks if it is more than 18" away from the firing unit. -1 to hit rolls for ranged attacks and a +1 to armour saving throws when receiving the benefits of cover) are two really good starting points for Light Infantry based units.

"Playing the game" means different things to different people. Some people don't restrict themselves to objective play only or use custom scenarios or any number of different iterations of things that make it so the way YOU play will not be the same as the way THEY play.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Flak Armor is meant to be the IG equivalent to Aeldari mesh armour, which got boosted to 4+. Flak Armor needs to go to 4+ and Carapace needs to be bolstered to 3+.

Traditionally no it wasn't...

Flak 6+ (5+ verses explosions)
Mesh 5+
Carapace 4+
Powered 3+
Terminator 2+ (then 3+ on 2D6, a glorious if slow rolling time...)

 Kanluwen wrote:

brainpsyk wrote:


I see what you're saying Kanluwen, but none of those 3 infantry options makes a difference in 9th, as 9th is so lethal, and won't be trimmed down.

You see nothing of the options included. Just that I named some stuff.

Heavy Infantry? Those are called Scions & Kasrkin.

Also Jantine Patricians, Grenadiers, etc etc.

Kasrkin are a specific unit. They have training specific to them and roles specific to them.

Scions aren't "heavy infantry". They're suicide troops, and quite frankly one of the best ways we could bring back Penal Legionnaires as a concept.

Light Infantry vs. Garrison? 6+ save vs. 5+: they die just as fast. Doesn't matter if they have "Bob's light flak armor" vs. "The emperor's thrice-blessed divine protection flak armor", it's all a 5+. Just call it whatever and move on.

Which is the bigger issue...the statline has remained untouched.

Flak Armor is meant to be the IG equivalent to Aeldari mesh armour, which got boosted to 4+. Flak Armor needs to go to 4+ and Carapace needs to be bolstered to 3+.
Flak Vests are meant to be the "light" quality gear. When Jungle Fighters was a doctrine, you gave up a point of armor and instead gained a 4+ cover save which couldn't be combined with cameleoline(+1 to cover saves).

Is "Light Infantry" fluffy? Heck ya. But until that "Light Infantry" can hold an Objective Marker for a turn, it's meaningless.

Then nothing matters period. And maybe you should consider going to play a different army?

I'm dead serious. If the metric you gauge things by is "can it hold an objective marker?", you're playing the wrong army.

First, let's get a rules that play the game. Then we can geek out while we fluff up a few units.

We literally don't have to. The rules are right there for things like Light Infantry on the Gaunt's Ghosts datasheet. Covert Stealth Team(outside of deployment zone, 9" from enemy DZ and models) and Camo-Cloak(not eligible target for ranged attacks if it is more than 18" away from the firing unit. -1 to hit rolls for ranged attacks and a +1 to armour saving throws when receiving the benefits of cover) are two really good starting points for Light Infantry based units.

"Playing the game" means different things to different people. Some people don't restrict themselves to objective play only or use custom scenarios or any number of different iterations of things that make it so the way YOU play will not be the same as the way THEY play.

why exactly should carapace armor be equal to power armor?

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Flak Armor is meant to be the IG equivalent to Aeldari mesh armour, which got boosted to 4+. Flak Armor needs to go to 4+ and Carapace needs to be bolstered to 3+.

Traditionally no it wasn't...

Flak 6+ (5+ verses explosions)
Mesh 5+
Carapace 4+
Powered 3+
Terminator 2+ (then 3+ on 2D6, a glorious if slow rolling time...)

None of those have been true in my entire 20+ years playing 40k. I'm sure it was true at some point, but it hasn't been the case since at least 1997.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
why exactly should carapace armor be equal to power armor?

Put simply:
Why not?

I'm not asking for them to get Armour of Contempt(an innate worsening to armour penetration characteristics) or for them to get additional Wounds or invulnerable saves or Toughness.

Bumping Carapace to a 3+ save and moving Flak Armor to match the Guardians' 4+ save now is an immediately tangible change.

It also opens a space for "Flak Vests" as a 5+ save, again making an immediately tangible change, and design space for a 5+ "scout" styled unit of <Regiment> basis rather than relying upon Ratlings.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Put simply:
Why not?

"Why shouldn't a light chest plate give the same 3+ save as full-body armor that is so heavy it needs power assist to allow the user to move."

Think about it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Flak Armor is meant to be the IG equivalent to Aeldari mesh armour, which got boosted to 4+. Flak Armor needs to go to 4+ and Carapace needs to be bolstered to 3+.

Traditionally no it wasn't...

Flak 6+ (5+ verses explosions)
Mesh 5+
Carapace 4+
Powered 3+
Terminator 2+ (then 3+ on 2D6, a glorious if slow rolling time...)

None of those have been true in my entire 20+ years playing 40k. I'm sure it was true at some point, but it hasn't been the case since at least 1997.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
why exactly should carapace armor be equal to power armor?

Put simply:
Why not?

I'm not asking for them to get Armour of Contempt(an innate worsening to armour penetration characteristics) or for them to get additional Wounds or invulnerable saves or Toughness.

Bumping Carapace to a 3+ save and moving Flak Armor to match the Guardians' 4+ save now is an immediately tangible change.

It also opens a space for "Flak Vests" as a 5+ save, again making an immediately tangible change, and design space for a 5+ "scout" styled unit of <Regiment> basis rather than relying upon Ratlings.

why not? because you'd be taking an army thats intended to be squishy and rely largely on either numbers and vehicles and making them elite infantry. if you want an army of 3+ saves that are normal humans play SoB or votann.

making carapace armor a 3+ save is ridiculous.
if you want different saves for different kinds of infantry, and to have light scouts, then accept a 6+ save for no armor, 5+ for flak/regular armor, and 4+ for heavy/carapace.