Yeah, we could name everything properly, was just writing shorthand.

And the final bit will be to work out the mechanics of how that will work along side the proposed changes to mechanized companies. Will companies now all be on foot and a rhino/chimera support card be needed to mechanise each formation? For specials with transport they will have chimeras a base with free change over to rhinos?

OR will the change over to to all rhinos be through a special card that also unlocks the likes of a predator
or vindicator company and support card?

I think the rhino switch was just going to be a rule rather than take up a card slot.

But I think an easier solution to all this is to put all the companies on foot and then you can choose to buy a support card of rhinos or chimeras or whatever to transport them. Would save having to write additional army building special rules. Nothing in the 40k guard list comes mounted these days, all the transports have to be purchased seperately
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. Just have infantry platoons on foot and then 5 support card options for transports, Chimeras, Rhinos, Gorgons, Moles and Valkyries. They could be treated like orks in that the transports just add to the overall BP/VPs for the company.
So the standard Tactical Infantry Platoon becomes something like:

Tactical Infantry Company
2 Tactical CHQ stands
3 Tactical Infantry Platoons (3 Platoons of 10 stands each)
Commissar Stand
Break Point 16+1
Morale 4
Victory Points 6+1
Points 600 (maybe cut to 550 without the 2 command rhinos)

Then the support card choices would be:

Rhino Transport Company
2 Command Rhinos
15 Rhinos
Break Point +9 to company
Morale As Company
Victory Points +3 to company
Points 250

Chimera Transport Company
2 Command Chimera
15 Chimera
Break Point +9 to company
Morale As Company
Victory Points +5 to company
Points 500 (more total points than the mech company due to the larger Tactical Platoon size)

Valkyrie Transport Company
2 Command Valkyrie
15 Valkyrie
Break Point +9 to company
Morale As Company
Victory Points +7 to company
Points 700 (slightly cheaper than separate squadrons?)

Gorgon Transport Company
1 Command Gorgon
6 Gorgons
Break Point +4 to company
Morale As Company
Victory Points +7 to company
Points 700

Mole Transport Company
2 Command Termites
3 Moles
Command Chimera (Spotter)
Break Point +3 to company
Morale As Company
Victory Points +3 to company
Points 300

I am sure my numbers aren't quite correct, and the points are high because we are transporting 10 stand platoons, but you get the idea. Hell you could do exactly the same for Support platoons, one card covering the infantry platoon and another for all the different transport options.
I would like to re-iterate a point I made earlier about re-jigging the platoon sizes and making them all 6 infantry stands in size, it would simplify things massively. Currently we have platoons that have 5 stands, 6 stands and 10 stands, so that means we have to double up on entries. Hell, we have the basic assault platoon on foot with 5 stands, but if we stick them in Chimeras the platoon becomes 6 strong????
If all the infantry platoons are the same size, then all the companies will be the same size and we don't have to make up multiple different sized transport options.

Thoughts?

Matt

For those interested in my proposal on all foot companies and a standardised 6 stand platoon along with the various transport options, here is a quick spreadsheet.



As before, the points might be off, I just had a quick stab at them, I also just used the ones in the army book and didn't take into account any changes that have been proposed so far on this thread.

Matt

Yeah I'd certainly like to see 6 stands as the norm, which makes fielding a company easier and aligns with the standard of 30 men to a platoon nicely.

Hi!

Adding transport to the foot companies appeals to me. It would work like orks here you add the cost and break point and VP.

A very interesting idea to explore further.

I'm not sure about 6 man platoons though. A lot of people (myself included) have them organized in groups of 10 and 5.

Lots to think about on this.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

How difficult is it to move stands about? You must have some 6s already for the mechanised Platoons?

Why should an assault or heavy platoon have 5 stands when on foot, but when you mechanise them and stick them in some chimeras they go up to 6 stands? Stick them in a Gorgon though and they stay at 5 stands (even though the gorgon can carry 6????). Tacticals on foot have 10 stands, stick them in Chimeras and they become 6 strong, (were did the other 4 go?), put them in a gorgon and they go to 5. Stick them in Valkyries and they are 10 strong again. Nothing is consistent!

6 stand platoons just makes sense given that 3 vehicle squadrons are the accepted norm in NetEpic. It just simplifies things. It means people know the size of the Platoon and all the transport options will fit them, plus it makes things flexible for army selection.

If you don't want to do 6s, then do 5s, (or even 10s though it might make things more expensive) we just need to pick one number and have all platoons the same size whether they are on foot, in tanks or in the air.

Matt

The problem for me is that it would be a massive pain in the arse. My IG are set up in units of 5 and 10. Sure, for units that were 10 strong I can field a unit of 6 but then I have 4 wasted stands and don't have a spare couple to make up 2 units of 6. For the ones that were units of 5, I don't have spare stands to make 'em up to 6. That means I'd have to start trawling ebay/buying proxies for an army that I previously regarded as being finished.

Of course, I have no objections to anyone designing army lists for any unit compositions that they wish, it's just that I don't want to see them becoming canon.

Sorry Matt, I appreciate your point of view and understand your frustration with this. As Yorkie pointed out on the other thread it would be nice if we could agree between ourselves and E:A organizers to field forces of the same makeup so armies are interchangable between both systems. It's the practicality (or lack thereof) of implementing changes to armies set up in an existing way that prevents such a thing happening.

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

So I assume you don't use mechanised platoons then?

I think the general problem here is that whilst there's an impetus to change things for the better (your definitions of better may vary), people are tending to shy away from areas that might invalidate their existing armies or tactics (which may have developed over a period of 20 years). It's difficult, and I agree with both sides in a broad sense: Mattman is right that the current IG organisation structure is a bit of a mess when it comes to transports, and also the people saying that they don't want to have to start tracking down & painting extra figs to change their armies. Ultimately though, the problem stems from the fact that a fundemental question hasn't been resolved:

Who is this prospective new edition of the game actually for? What's is supposed to be achieving?

Because ultimately, if everybody's approaching changes with their own answer to those questions then there's never really going to be consensus, and whatever the result is may end up being pretty half-hearted and not really satisfactory to anybody.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, I think I've got this specific IG problem solved. It always bugged me that the Imperial Guard don't have an 'upgrade' Codex army like all the other races do (specific Marine chapters, specific Craftworlds, so on). All these grant access to cool new formations by limiting some of the regular stuff (and obviously disallowing other Codices). By contrast, IG only have a 'downgrade' Codex where they get hordes of militia and the like.

So anyway, I propose the creation of a new Codex army for Imperial Guard. I'm not up on 40K fluff, so I don't know what you'd call it (Guard Campaign Army, Guard Crusade Army, Guard Invasion Force so on). The idea is a more mobile Guard army that loses access to the traditional 10-man formations in favour of transport-friendly 6 stand companies that have access to a variety of transports (aerial & ground). I'd suggest allowing only this Codex llist to use Stormtrooper companies (as it makes sense that they'd only be deployed en masse as a vanguard in such an force).

Anybody then who wanted to use the older 5/10 platoons could choose to do so in a regular Guard army, thus not invalidating their current collections. On the other hand, new IG players could collect a force that made a little more logistical sense.

Sound okay?

Hi!

It's kind of funny no one had thought of this.

I definitely agree that is a very good solution that would span the whole gamut of choices.

Good job!

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Sounds like a good idea. Much like the updated marine list that I have proposed with the newer company formations, could do something similar with guard.
Do we just call them something along the lines of Traditional and Modern. In both cases maybe the lists are trimmed back to the core of what was played back in the day of 2nd Ed (but maybe keeping a few notable extras).
I might make a new topic in the army list section, just to clarify the separate lists and for people to discuss how they see them being structured as I know there have been a few discussions across the different lists on what should split up and the like. This sort of discussion is bigger than just the guard list.

Matt

I agree fully with the suggested solution discussed above!

In light of other discussions about Net Epic / E:A unit compatibility, should we be doing something like this for every army and should these new formations match their E:A counterparts? I suppose it would boil down to whether or not there would be people who would be willing to do this. I for one am not up to the task. I'll be honest and admit it is because I have no intention of reorganizing my armies so I don't really care whether they match to E:A unit sizes or not. I also have the opinion that we were here first so don't see why E:A can't set up force lists to match those of their NetEpic counterparts.

It could be argued that it may be a positive thing for NetEpic though; E:A seems to be the preferred system for the community as a whole, perhaps if players knew that the detachment sizes were the same on both systems, some E:A players may be more tempted to try NetEpic. The question is: do we care?



I've got Gorgons which allows me to take either Assault or Tactical Companies, but because these use the usual platoon sizes it's fine. I've also got Leviathans and a Capitol Imperialis so they provide me with options for transporting troops as well.

Because I don't have Chimeras or Moles I haven't encountered the problem you're referring to. But now you've brought it to my attention? Yes, that would be a massive pain in the arse! Glad I don't have 'em!

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

It might be a long term goal for all the lists assuming the formation structure don't cause rule issues. Once the units are all stated and pointed appropriately I would hope it wouldn't take much to roll out new formation sizes.

As much as a would support a "we were here first" position, I don't think it would cut it

I know of several EA players in my playgroup that want to play NetEpic without messing around with their armies to much, so doing something to allow them to join in the fun would be good.

Matt

If your concern is that this may be an infantile argument, I say: release your inner child!



[Removes tongue from cheek] This is interesting. I always assumed that it would be probably be more a case of NetEpic players wanting to try E:A as it is the more popular system and therefore easier to find new opponents to play against. It's heartening to hear that interest about the opposing system is coming from both sides of the great Epic divide. I wish there was a way we could find out if there were many players on either side would be more willing give the other a go if unit composition was universal. It would better help us assess whether putting time and effort into porting armies would be a worthwhile undertaking to make.

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules