Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Yeah, simple-ish question... the the infantry platoon still worth it's salt? To my mind no, reason being for only a few more points you get bs4 which is that difference which makes a shooting phase relativly reliable in comparison to bs3.
The vets and generally better than normal trooper arua also grants access to a new/more authentic portrayal of more elite real army units such as the Paras, Marines and SAS / Airbourne, Marines and SEALs.
As a small side line do you think it's viable to run an 'elite' infantry army with guard based on a self sufficient elite modern day unit like the above mentioned units? (my mind goes back to WW2 SAS desert raids, tallarn style but in mech form? or that new FW buggy thing) I would live with air support, mech and sentinals at a push but no tanks? possible?
Anyway, vets vs normal platoon? discuss
Any comments welcome
Vets are better for many things, but Infantry Platoons still have a couple important functions. With a Commisar and some Orders, they can hold a home objective for far longer than Vets, and put out way more anti-infantry firepower. Vets are superior for destroying any type of hard target, and for mounting up in a chimera to capture distant objectives. You don't have to choose between one or the other. They work best when used together!
side note: autocannon + grenade launcher is by far the most cost effective setup for infantry platoons. I would not run them any other way
I WANNA GET STUCK IN WIT DA BOYZ
Vets are obviously the way to go with full-mech.
But if you don't mind running some foot sloggers they can hold objectives well and provide some useful options such as Special Weapons Squads, Extra Chimeras for Allies, cheap PCS Chimeltas, etc. They also allow you to move some of your anti-tank firepower into a troop slot and free up some Fast Attack or Heavy Support slots for other options.
Veterans are for taking objectives, being the penetrating spearhead of the force. Platoons are the squads you can put on an objective so that your opponent can't get near it for all the dead bodies in the way.
http://www.armyroster.com Check out my ToP WIP in the projects section!
I've sort of looked at it as the difference between having so many shots with 2/3 chance to hit, or a little less than twice as many shots with a 1/2 chance to hit. Statistically, Vets and Platoons give pretty similar odds, but if you have the points and are willing to take the gamble platoons have the potential to do much more damage, especially with heavy weapons teams. It's the difference between reliable (vets) and occassionally spectactular but usually mediocre (platoons). I myself prefer vets, but I find myself taking a small platoon in more games just for more bodies to hold objectives.
Perhaps the easier question is this: Do you want to put a lot of points into the meat and objective-holders of your armies, or do you want to go more tank/vehicle/other heavy? If you prefer the former, platoons have more to offer. If you just want to fill in your minimum 2 troop choices and spare plenty of points for other things, vets are the way to go.
I've really never seen the point to veterans. I'm playing guard for god's sake, if I wanted a small number of elite units I'd be playing some form of marines. With a platoon if I a squad is assaulted I'm sure to have at least one other Infantry squad or Platoon Cmd squad nearby to light up the assaulters after they inevitably win. I'm sure if I had half a dozen more chiemras I'd be slightly more interested in veterans, but as it stands I'd rather have a wall of bodies than a few crack units armed to the teeth.
Do you believe in the day? Do you? Believe in the day!
thanks to all who've replied. much appreciated!!
Just another little question on the side - does the use of platoons push people towards gunline/ static forces?
Reason for question - my dark and miserable past in 40K was GK, i had no transports and so had to leg it across the board all of the time trying to grab objectives. Except for poor list design and noob style playing i quite enjoyed the idea of men storming forward arcoss a table, however - i lost - every time, and hence was decidedly peeved.
Platoons to my mind are going to kick out a magnificant amout of fire power and be able to withstand the return volleys by sheer numbers however are they up to the now pro mech 5th ed game standard? (side note - are the likes of light infantry (e.g. tanith) regiment viable against the mech/combined arms approach?)
sorry to those of you who decide the above is now off topic
all the best
As for foot-slogging guard? The big thing I bear in mind is that infantry can only move 6" a turn (not counting running), and the average game lasts 6 turns. That's a grand total of 36" of movement in an entire game, and that's assuming you don't get pinned or locked in CC; not to mention that moving usually will deny you shooting with said foot-sloggers. It'd be a neat idea to see executed properly, but the biggest problem is that it lacks competitiveness.
I wonder if Ogryn would be worth taking in a foot-slogging list? They could stand up to a good amount of shooting, and have less to fear from the expected nasty charge. And without points invested in tanks, their cost wouldn't be so prohibitive. Might want to look into that...