Another option would be to change the Combined Squads rule to instead allow an infantry squad to be attached to any other unit from that platoon. No more than two squads may be attached to each other, preventing 3 Infantry Squads from attaching to one another before the last links to a Platoon Command Squad, for example.
While 50 man blobs are funny, they're horribly impractical on the field. Even 30 is a lot, and I only liked them in 5th edition when I faced mechanized assault in EVERY game I played.
Being able to bulk out PCS and Special Weapons teams would allow you to more safely move infantry around the board, as you have the needed cushion to keep those expensive specials alive. Plus better Ld, a Vox. A Vox becomes much more worthwhile when you have more specials to take advantage of a SO's better orders.
Ah now this is a good idea! I'd rewrite the rule so that:
The decision to form a Combined Squad (the CS rule) must be made immediately before determining your Warlord Traits. Any squad with the CS rule may join another squad from the same platoon who also have the CS rule. If you decide to form Combined Squads in this manner, they're treated as a single unit for the whole of the game.
I know you said that huge squads are stupid (and they are), but I'm all about choice. Should there be a limit to it (say, no more than three squads may form a single unit), or should it be a free for all and the player just has to stand by their choice?
Also, I'm worried about opponents being confused about what is being combined with what so...this is probably going to be a really controversial idea but...what if infantry squads had the option to take heavy weapon teams removed from them altogether? So that the opponent can see that if a squad was 20 ordinary guardsmen and 3 heavy weapon teams, the combined squad is clearly 2 infantry squads and a heavy weapon team joined up? Yes...no? Probably no.
I think in real life most armies have their heavy weapons used in dedicated squads to support light infantry (rifle) squads. I think this system reflects that well.
I wouldn't give Combined Squad to either Conscript Squads (they're not proper Guardsmen
). And I had a long hard think about it, and I think it would be a bad idea to give it to the Platoon Command Squad, on account of the medic, banner etc. They complicate things, and people might complain about big units gaining FNP etc. Plus, it feels wrong being able to deny the opponent the +1 VP for killing the command element of the platoon, when a platoon is literally a minor army.
Special Weapon Squads (who could probably get a cooler name) could be reworked so that they consist of a sergeant and 9 guardsmen, with four of them having to take special weapons (including demo charges), with the option for a dedicated transport and a vox caster. No combined squad, but in my opinion that's OK.
So erm, long story short...combined combined squads for infantry squads and heavy weapon squads, no heavy weapon teams for infantry squads, and 10 men with sgt, 4 specials, a possible vox and DTs for Special Weapon Squads. Oh, and +1 W for the platoon commander, platoon standard rewritten as reroll fear, morale and pinning within 12'', and the option of a vox for Conscripts, because come on.
What do you guys think of all this?
There's no way to balance a slow, shooty army against armies that have increased their mobility by at least a factor of 2 in the last two editions of the game. A squad of Guardsmen has dropped roughly 10% of it's base cost, while upgrades have remained more or less constant or increased slightly. Other armies have come down as well, but their mobility has doubled while our firepower has been stagnant. It's not so much that they can be on top of you in two turns, that was always possible. It's instances where you can now move across the board in a single turn, to either coordinate glass cannon firepower, or to simply break off and claim uncontestable objectives.
Without Drop Pods, we have no cheap way to put our low-mobility assets on the other side of a table. Chimera get blown up. Valks are too expensive to transport Vets that crumple to Tactical Marines in CC. If you move closer, you need to be able to counter that simple, "Well, they're within 12". I could shoot them for a few turns, and lose the exchange, or I could charge them with 5 Tactical marines and kick their teeth in for certain. Hmmm..." To that end, we'd need something like Dreads in Pods that can provide firepower, but also a CC deterrent.
The 7th edition game denies "defensive" play. You can't place objectives in your deployment zone [for certain] in most missions, because objectives are deployed before deployment zone "style" is determined, much less sides chosen by players. So with low mobility, you have to try to place them in locations that are within a "couple moves" of each deployment zone. So you MUST move. No castling up on an objective, like any sensible Guardsman would do. Nope, we are going to try to have a static, shooty army that has to move forwards, losing firepower, losing the value in our long ranged weapons, and making it easier for our enemies to get up close and personal with us. We're required to lower our damage output while increasing our vulnerability in order to achieve win conditions, but the prices we pay for units doesn't reflect that.
We need an edition change, with changes that return us to the potential for defensive play. Or make everything sooooo cheap that even when moving, our 30 point Heavy Weapon SQUADS are worthwhile. Snap fire those Autocannons, boys!
It's true, we've gotten slower over the years. No more deep striking all around. No more infiltrating Harker's Devils. But I don't think that we need to change the whole edition just yet. What we need is the ability to cheaply move our units about quickly. I think giving scout to Scions and Vets is a start but we need more. But don't say Drop Pods. They're for the marines, not us. We need our own thing.