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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The fact that there are armies which are just all superheavies... has nothing to do with list building shennanigans, and that sort of thing very much does defeat the purpose of the basic lasgun.

If you show up with 5x Wraithknights or IKs to a friendly game, against Bolter/Lasgun units with a few scattered special/heavy weapons, it's understood the strategy was using list construction to invalidate mandatory CAD choices. Technically legal but it's forcing 40k into rock-paper-scissors territory where the game revolves around the metagame of list construction, not play on the table. Whether you consider that "shenanigans" or legit is a matter of opinion.

 Selym wrote:
Translation: The lasgun was fine in 5th edition, but we've now had two editions of massive power creep.

Exactly, but even more than that -- you've seen the CAD become sub-optimal, rather than the foundation of how 40k was balanced.

The fix is likely going to come from some kind of special rule, rather than the core Lasgun profile. For example, for every 10 shots fired, an unsaveable wound may be allocated within the targeted unit. I'd really doubt any change to the old S3 AP-.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The Imperial Knights codex is the top tournament codex by winrate, higher even than Eldar (they have 80% or something of the like) and what good is a lasgun there?

Of course, what good is a bolter there, too?

S6/S7 is always going to be useful because it can actually harm an IK.

What you can't kill with lasgun shots won't really die to 1/3rd as many boltgun shots, either.

While you have a point with bolters regarding Knights, and really most "basic" infantry in general can be lumped in there, I would also argue that, at least with most IG lists, there's probably not 3x as many Lasguns as there are bolters.

In fact my 2k CSM list has more bolters than most of the 2K IG lists that I run have Lasguns

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The fact that there are armies which are just all superheavies... has nothing to do with list building shennanigans, and that sort of thing very much does defeat the purpose of the basic lasgun.

If you show up with 5x Wraithknights or IKs to a friendly game, against Bolter/Lasgun units with a few scattered special/heavy weapons, it's understood the strategy was using list construction to invalidate mandatory CAD choices. Technically legal but it's forcing 40k into rock-paper-scissors territory where the game revolves around the metagame of list construction, not play on the table. Whether you consider that "shenanigans" or legit is a matter of opinion.

I guess if put that way sure, but if someone's bringing a Knight army, just composed of Knights, I'm not sure I'd really consider it list building shenanigans despite what other names I might call it. From my point of view, list building shennanigans is taking advantage of the detachment and allies rules to benefit from synergies, abilities, and plugs in ability gaps that the armies were never really designed to have.

I mean, it can contribute to defeating the lasgun having a purpose, getting FNP from BA allies onto TWC bikers certainly helps with that goal, but more fundamentally being T5 with multiple wounds in the first place did most of the trick.

I'm not in favour of changing the lasgun's iconic profile. I think the weapon is fine as it is.

Personally I'd rather see an increase in the number of customisable options for the guardsmen themselves.

I would like to see more special models purchased as part of platoons - priests, commisars, enginseers, psykers, medics, comms, etc.
These could provide special rules which further enhance the squad, and make up for the poor lasgun profile.
They would need to be more readily available and cheaper than some of their current incarnations.
Buffs like preferred enemy and shred would help their damage output.

More special weapons per squad would also be nice, up to 3 per squad. Some might say this invalidates veterans, but remember that an infantry platoon costs more to buy - especially if you are buying multiple of them.

Special doctrines in a similar vein to space marine chapter tactics would also be nice.

 Selym wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
The Lasgun is fine, players are intentionally abusing the greater freedom of list-building in 7th to obsolete conventional troops choices and their baseline weapons.

That's why you're having these issues.

Translation: The lasgun was fine in 5th edition, but we've now had two editions of massive power creep.

Exactly this. Power creep is 100% to blame and GW seems to embrace it to push sales.

To the original problem. The only way I can see helping the standard guardsmen infantry squad is to give them 2 free grenade launchers (clearly that means increasing the number of specialist weapons to 2 per infantry squad) and can exchange them for other weapons at 5 points less the listed cost. Better orders would help them but many armies don't have trouble picking off the command units. Maybe allow vox casters to increase the range for issuing orders and allowing officers inside chimeras to issue orders. Heavy weapon teams should have an option to dig in which increases their cover save or toughness from shooting while also preventing movement.

 Kanluwen wrote:

In no way, shape, or form should Guard be paying Space Marine prices for equipment with the statlines that Guard have.

I think this goes double for melee weapons.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh yeah, and while we're at it?
It's ridiculous that a Special Weapons Squad or Heavy Weapons Squad can take less of each option than the Marine equivalent and be less survivable.
Special Weapons Squads should be 6 models with Special Weapons and Heavy Weapons Squads should be 6 teams.

Personally, it's not the special/heavy weapons limit on the aforementioned squads that bothers me. It's the lack of transport options on the former, and the fact that the latter are overcosted and far too fragile.

That being said, I do find myself wondering if a discount is in order for BS3 models. Seems a bit silly that they pay the same as BS4 models for the same guns.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh, and as an additional point?
It's silly how expensive Guard transports are compared to Marine transports.

I think Chimeras would be okay if they still had 5 fire points.

The lasguns profile is indicative of what it is designed to take out- in both the fluff and on the table top. It is capable- not great at- but capable of handling light infantry. Specifically Ork boyz, Tyranid gaunts, other Guardsmen, Eldar Guadians, etc.

In the fluff, the Guardsmen are mostly screwed in situations until the guy with the Special Weapon shows up. Pretty much the same thing on the table too.

So I don't think the solution lies with the profile of the lasgun itself. It needs to be something that makes them better in large quantities. Like has been discussed at length in this thread, I agree with the idea of something akin to 1 auto-wound per 10 lasgun hits. Or every hit past 10 (or 20) in a shooting phase counts as rending. So a squad worth of shooting isn't going to do much, but 5 squads will.

Also, I agree with everything vipoid just said.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

In no way, shape, or form should Guard be paying Space Marine prices for equipment with the statlines that Guard have.

I think this goes double for melee weapons.

Well, obviously. That's why I said equipment!

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh yeah, and while we're at it?
It's ridiculous that a Special Weapons Squad or Heavy Weapons Squad can take less of each option than the Marine equivalent and be less survivable.
Special Weapons Squads should be 6 models with Special Weapons and Heavy Weapons Squads should be 6 teams.

Personally, it's not the special/heavy weapons limit on the aforementioned squads that bothers me. It's the lack of transport options on the former, and the fact that the latter are overcosted and far too fragile.

That being said, I do find myself wondering if a discount is in order for BS3 models. Seems a bit silly that they pay the same as BS4 models for the same guns.

I'd rather they make them worth their points rather than just discounting them.
Heavy Weapons Squads should get a ROF boost if they remain stationary, Special Weapon Squads should get some kind of boost as well. Maybe Tank Hunter/Monster Hunter?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh, and as an additional point?
It's silly how expensive Guard transports are compared to Marine transports.

I think Chimeras would be okay if they still had 5 fire points.

I disagree with this. The Chimera never should have had more than one fire point. The Lasgun Arrays are built into the frame of the Chimera, they can't be removed and another weapon pushed through.

Maybe they should get a rule where they can fire more than the usual numbers out of the firing point but no. Just the hatch on top.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ignatius wrote:
The lasguns profile is indicative of what it is designed to take out- in both the fluff and on the table top. It is capable- not great at- but capable of handling light infantry. Specifically Ork boyz, Tyranid gaunts, other Guardsmen, Eldar Guadians, etc.

In the fluff, the Guardsmen are mostly screwed in situations until the guy with the Special Weapon shows up. Pretty much the same thing on the table too.

In the fluff, the Guardsmen don't fire stupid amounts of shots down range unless it's as suppressive fire or there are just that many enemies. They fire measured shots, aiming for kills whenever possible.

So I don't think the solution lies with the profile of the lasgun itself. It needs to be something that makes them better in large quantities. Like has been discussed at length in this thread, I agree with the idea of something akin to 1 auto-wound per 10 lasgun hits. Or every hit past 10 (or 20) in a shooting phase counts as rending. So a squad worth of shooting isn't going to do much, but 5 squads will.

That adds WAY too much book keeping, to be honest.

Realistically, the best solution is to remove "Rapid Fire" from them and instead give them profiles based upon the range bracket they are firing in.

Rapid Fire has not aged well as a rule, so special rules replacing it kind of seem to be necessary now.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I disagree with this. The Chimera never should have had more than one fire point. The Lasgun Arrays are built into the frame of the Chimera, they can't be removed and another weapon pushed through.

I thought the point was that the central hatch was large enough for several guardsmen to fire out of.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I disagree with this. The Chimera never should have had more than one fire point. The Lasgun Arrays are built into the frame of the Chimera, they can't be removed and another weapon pushed through.

I thought the point was that the central hatch was large enough for several guardsmen to fire out of.

The Inquisition Codex Chimera allows for 5 weapons to shoot out the center hatch (but it doesn't have the lasguns sticking out the sides).

 Vankraken wrote:
To the original problem. The only way I can see helping the standard guardsmen infantry squad is to give them 2 free grenade launchers (clearly that means increasing the number of specialist weapons to 2 per infantry squad) and can exchange them for other weapons at 5 points less the listed cost. Better orders would help them but many armies don't have trouble picking off the command units. Maybe allow vox casters to increase the range for issuing orders and allowing officers inside chimeras to issue orders. Heavy weapon teams should have an option to dig in which increases their cover save or toughness from shooting while also preventing movement.

Chimeras are command vehicles... thus officers can still issue orders from them....

I personally was thinking of expanding many forge world units to the codex such as the Centaur and make them command vehicles.... we tested it, it was not really OP and gave the units a decent amount of survivability.... maybe return the salamander tanks troop carrying capacity?

Make guardswomen models and bam! crisis averted

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:
The lasguns profile is indicative of what it is designed to take out- in both the fluff and on the table top. It is capable- not great at- but capable of handling light infantry. Specifically Ork boyz, Tyranid gaunts, other Guardsmen, Eldar Guadians, etc.

In the fluff, the Guardsmen are mostly screwed in situations until the guy with the Special Weapon shows up. Pretty much the same thing on the table too.

In the fluff, the Guardsmen don't fire stupid amounts of shots down range unless it's as suppressive fire or there are just that many enemies. They fire measured shots, aiming for kills whenever possible.

Hmm. I suppose that is fair. Though in real life thousands of rounds are fired for every enemy combatant eliminated, and that's against standard humans without space magic armor.

So I don't think the solution lies with the profile of the lasgun itself. It needs to be something that makes them better in large quantities. Like has been discussed at length in this thread, I agree with the idea of something akin to 1 auto-wound per 10 lasgun hits. Or every hit past 10 (or 20) in a shooting phase counts as rending. So a squad worth of shooting isn't going to do much, but 5 squads will.

That adds WAY too much book keeping, to be honest.

Realistically, the best solution is to remove "Rapid Fire" from them and instead give them profiles based upon the range bracket they are firing in.

Rapid Fire has not aged well as a rule, so special rules replacing it kind of seem to be necessary now.

I was just trying to help with the brainstorming, not really making anything concrete. Though having to determine each individual guardsmans distance from the target to determine their weapon profile seems like a bit of book keeping too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Make guardswomen models and bam! crisis averted

Why do you assume that all the models from the current Cadian sprues are men?

 Ignatius wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:
The lasguns profile is indicative of what it is designed to take out- in both the fluff and on the table top. It is capable- not great at- but capable of handling light infantry. Specifically Ork boyz, Tyranid gaunts, other Guardsmen, Eldar Guadians, etc.

In the fluff, the Guardsmen are mostly screwed in situations until the guy with the Special Weapon shows up. Pretty much the same thing on the table too.

In the fluff, the Guardsmen don't fire stupid amounts of shots down range unless it's as suppressive fire or there are just that many enemies. They fire measured shots, aiming for kills whenever possible.

Hmm. I suppose that is fair. Though in real life thousands of rounds are fired for every enemy combatant eliminated, and that's against standard humans without space magic armor.

That's also because in real life, combat doctrine right now is primarily for rapid advancement and a "Take, take, take!" mentality. Holding down a fortified position becomes a very different style of warfare and a very different combat doctrine.

So I don't think the solution lies with the profile of the lasgun itself. It needs to be something that makes them better in large quantities. Like has been discussed at length in this thread, I agree with the idea of something akin to 1 auto-wound per 10 lasgun hits. Or every hit past 10 (or 20) in a shooting phase counts as rending. So a squad worth of shooting isn't going to do much, but 5 squads will.

That adds WAY too much book keeping, to be honest.

Realistically, the best solution is to remove "Rapid Fire" from them and instead give them profiles based upon the range bracket they are firing in.

Rapid Fire has not aged well as a rule, so special rules replacing it kind of seem to be necessary now.

I was just trying to help with the brainstorming, not really making anything concrete. Though having to determine each individual guardsmans distance from the target to determine their weapon profile seems like a bit of book keeping too.

You have a certain distance that models within a unit have to remain and you measure from the bases of models.
This isn't AoS where you can have models within a unit that are posed leaning back and being unable to fire versus models within the unit that are leaned forward and able to fire(something I've had happen in AoS with my Waywatchers--which is both hilarious and soul crushing when firing at a daggone Bloodthirster running at you!).

Keeping track of the distance that Guardsmen(which are going to be squadded and you'll have a certain amount of leeway thanks to unit coherency rules) are at is going to be vastly easier than keeping track of the hits from multiple squads in an army which could have 6+ squads in a reasonably small/normal games.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Make guardswomen models and bam! crisis averted

Why do you assume that all the models from the current Cadian sprues are men?

No boobs. And Im sure I know what a female face is and they dont look like the ones on the cadian sprues

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Make guardswomen models and bam! crisis averted

Why do you assume that all the models from the current Cadian sprues are men?

No boobs. And Im sure I know what a female face is and they dont look like the ones on the cadian sprues

Hey look, no boobies:



The armour squishes it in, and the clothes can obscure the body form. Faces can be bad casts. Though, tbf, the models are clearly intended to represent men.

 Selym wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Make guardswomen models and bam! crisis averted

Why do you assume that all the models from the current Cadian sprues are men?

No boobs. And Im sure I know what a female face is and they dont look like the ones on the cadian sprues

Hey look, no boobies:

Spoiler:

The armour squishes it in, and the clothes can obscure the body form. Faces can be bad casts. Though, tbf, the models are clearly intended to represent men.

Courtesy of Fantasy Flight Games
Not only Boob armour, but theres a black Cadian

Step 1: make tanks not suck

Then check to see if any other step are necessary.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Make guardswomen models and bam! crisis averted

Why do you assume that all the models from the current Cadian sprues are men?

No boobs. And Im sure I know what a female face is and they dont look like the ones on the cadian sprues

Hey look, no boobies:

Spoiler:

The armour squishes it in, and the clothes can obscure the body form. Faces can be bad casts. Though, tbf, the models are clearly intended to represent men.

Courtesy of Fantasy Flight Games
Not only Boob armour, but theres a black Cadian

Which doesn't even make sense because Cadia is a relatively closed breeding pool, with nothing but pale skin and violet eyes.

What DOES make sense however is that particular Guardsman is in this magical thing called "shadow". Unless you want to argue that half of his equipment has magically turned black as well?

Spoiler:

You understand the difference between combat armor and a dress uniform, right?

Spoiler:

So? They've also had art that depicted a Tyranid Gaunt as being a short-tailed thing the size of a poodle or a pug.

Spoiler:

Once again:
Combat armor != dress uniform. Commissars are wearing dress uniforms.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Make guardswomen models and bam! crisis averted

Why do you assume that all the models from the current Cadian sprues are men?

No boobs. And Im sure I know what a female face is and they dont look like the ones on the cadian sprues

Hey look, no boobies:

Spoiler:

The armour squishes it in, and the clothes can obscure the body form. Faces can be bad casts. Though, tbf, the models are clearly intended to represent men.

Courtesy of Fantasy Flight Games
Not only Boob armour, but theres a black Cadian

Which doesn't even make sense because Cadia is a relatively closed breeding pool, with nothing but pale skin and violet eyes.

What DOES make sense however is that particular Guardsman is in this magical thing called "shadow". Unless you want to argue that half of his equipment has magically turned black as well?

Spoiler:

You understand the difference between combat armor and a dress uniform, right?

Spoiler:

So? They've also had art that depicted a Tyranid Gaunt as being a short-tailed thing the size of a poodle or a pug.

Spoiler:

Once again:
Combat armor != dress uniform. Commissars are wearing dress uniforms.

Commisars have flak armour... Mordians have flak armour... Everybody wears body armour but the Catachans

Look at all that solid boob armour:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Commisars have flak armour... Mordians have flak armour... Everybody wears body armour but the Catachans

I understand that, but what you need to be understanding is that per the background material that we've had?

Those two examples you put out there aren't wearing actual combat armor but rather are wearing dress uniforms with plates integrated. Commissars in the past have been mentioned as actually having the plates for their armor inside of their longcoats.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Make guardswomen models and bam! crisis averted

Why do you assume that all the models from the current Cadian sprues are men?

No boobs. And Im sure I know what a female face is and they dont look like the ones on the cadian sprues

Hey look, no boobies:

Spoiler:

The armour squishes it in, and the clothes can obscure the body form. Faces can be bad casts. Though, tbf, the models are clearly intended to represent men.

Courtesy of Fantasy Flight Games
Not only Boob armour, but theres a black Cadian

Which doesn't even make sense because Cadia is a relatively closed breeding pool, with nothing but pale skin and violet eyes.

What DOES make sense however is that particular Guardsman is in this magical thing called "shadow". Unless you want to argue that half of his equipment has magically turned black as well?

Spoiler:

You understand the difference between combat armor and a dress uniform, right?

Spoiler:

So? They've also had art that depicted a Tyranid Gaunt as being a short-tailed thing the size of a poodle or a pug.

Spoiler:

Once again:
Combat armor != dress uniform. Commissars are wearing dress uniforms.

Commisars have flak armour... Mordians have flak armour... Everybody wears body armour but the Catachans

No, they wear a hybrid dress uniform with what is essentially kevlar woven into the threads.

But I can tell you right now that men and women do NOT have different kinds of equipment in military's. It is incredibly ignorant to think that women wear "boob armor". That doesn't happen now, nor would it in the future. It makes no sense in any situation.

Great derailment. A single throwaway troll line and everyone's losing their mind over boob armour.

 MarsNZ wrote:
Great derailment. A single throwaway troll line and everyone's losing their mind over boob armour.

Classic dakka

 Ignatius wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Make guardswomen models and bam! crisis averted

Why do you assume that all the models from the current Cadian sprues are men?

No boobs. And Im sure I know what a female face is and they dont look like the ones on the cadian sprues

Hey look, no boobies:

Spoiler:

The armour squishes it in, and the clothes can obscure the body form. Faces can be bad casts. Though, tbf, the models are clearly intended to represent men.

Courtesy of Fantasy Flight Games
Not only Boob armour, but theres a black Cadian

Which doesn't even make sense because Cadia is a relatively closed breeding pool, with nothing but pale skin and violet eyes.

What DOES make sense however is that particular Guardsman is in this magical thing called "shadow". Unless you want to argue that half of his equipment has magically turned black as well?

Spoiler:

You understand the difference between combat armor and a dress uniform, right?

Spoiler:

So? They've also had art that depicted a Tyranid Gaunt as being a short-tailed thing the size of a poodle or a pug.

Spoiler:

Once again:
Combat armor != dress uniform. Commissars are wearing dress uniforms.

Commisars have flak armour... Mordians have flak armour... Everybody wears body armour but the Catachans

No, they wear a hybrid dress uniform with what is essentially kevlar woven into the threads.

But I can tell you right now that men and women do NOT have different kinds of equipment in military's. It is incredibly ignorant to think that women wear "boob armor". That doesn't happen now, nor would it in the future. It makes no sense in any situation.

umm... Have you seen Sororitas lately?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:
Great derailment. A single throwaway troll line and everyone's losing their mind over boob armour.

Classic dakka

Sig'd

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

umm... Have you seen Sororitas lately?

Baroque armor intended to exaggerate the feminine characteristics of the wearer is not the same as practical, mass-produced body armor.

Now, let's get back on topic.

There's a ton of different ideas about what's "wrong" with the Guard but I think it can be boiled down to 3 main talking points:
1) Tanks. They're too expensive for what they are in 7th edition.
2) Infantry. They're too weak, even for what they are meant to be, to reliably be dependent upon.
3) Allies. They're too much of a crutch to really discuss what's wrong with the Guard without going into territory where other players immediately jump in with "But you need to just ally in X/Y/Z".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

umm... Have you seen Sororitas lately?

Baroque armor intended to exaggerate the feminine characteristics of the wearer is not the same as practical, mass-produced body armor.

Now, let's get back on topic.

There's a ton of different ideas about what's "wrong" with the Guard but I think it can be boiled down to 3 main talking points:
1) Tanks. They're too expensive for what they are in 7th edition.
2) Infantry. They're too weak, even for what they are meant to be, to reliably be dependent upon.
3) Allies. They're too much of a crutch to really discuss what's wrong with the Guard without going into territory where other players immediately jump in with "But you need to just ally in X/Y/Z".

If we could go from a Gaunts Ghosts perspective, guard are badasses. Lasguns arent S3 any where in the fluff. Ive read plenty of times where they shoot through power armour(!).

Tanks are bread to the infantrymans butter. None of those tanks are worth the cost

 Kanluwen wrote:
There's a ton of different ideas about what's "wrong" with the Guard but I think it can be boiled down to 3 main talking points

It was discussed at length in a 50-60pg thread.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

umm... Have you seen Sororitas lately?

Baroque armor intended to exaggerate the feminine characteristics of the wearer is not the same as practical, mass-produced body armor.

Now, let's get back on topic.

There's a ton of different ideas about what's "wrong" with the Guard but I think it can be boiled down to 3 main talking points:
1) Tanks. They're too expensive for what they are in 7th edition.
2) Infantry. They're too weak, even for what they are meant to be, to reliably be dependent upon.
3) Allies. They're too much of a crutch to really discuss what's wrong with the Guard without going into territory where other players immediately jump in with "But you need to just ally in X/Y/Z".

If we could go from a Gaunts Ghosts perspective, guard are badasses. Lasguns arent S3 any where in the fluff. Ive read plenty of times where they shoot through power armour(!).

Tanks are bread to the infantrymans butter. None of those tanks are worth the cost

Right, the Tanith 1st, Cadians, Mordians, Catachans, etc. etc. are badasses. All of the named Regiments are awesome, but are a tiny fraction of the Imperial Guard on the whole. The codex gives rules for fighting with the organization as a whole, not rules for these specific regiments.

Where have you read that lasguns are shooting through power armor? Surely you mean piercing the eye slits on the marine helmets, not actually going through the ceramite.

Guardsmen should work on an exponential scale. The more you have, the more effective the whole is.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

umm... Have you seen Sororitas lately?

Baroque armor intended to exaggerate the feminine characteristics of the wearer is not the same as practical, mass-produced body armor.

Now, let's get back on topic.

There's a ton of different ideas about what's "wrong" with the Guard but I think it can be boiled down to 3 main talking points:
1) Tanks. They're too expensive for what they are in 7th edition.
2) Infantry. They're too weak, even for what they are meant to be, to reliably be dependent upon.
3) Allies. They're too much of a crutch to really discuss what's wrong with the Guard without going into territory where other players immediately jump in with "But you need to just ally in X/Y/Z".

Aye, this is pretty much what it boils down to. I went through that thread and gave my opinions on general functionality and cost changes I thought would be appropriate.

Upon reflection, I think we just fundamentally have a scale issue with 40k trying more and more to be Epic. Even if IG get the pricing cuts they really should get, how much more can IG armies stuff in before they literally run completely out of deployment zone space, and how long will games have to take with 20 tanks and 4x as much infantry in a 2k army