I love stormies,but they are in such a bad spot right now its frustrating.I agree with Vaktathi,there is no reason they should be pigeonholed to an anti-Meq role.My take on them would be something like:

WS 4 BS 4 S 3 T3 W 1 I 4 A 1 LD 8/9 Gear:Carapace Armor,Hot Shot Lasgun,Hot Shot Laspistol,CCW (sergeant),Frag&Krak grenades SRs: Deep strike,Stubborn,Move through Cover,Special Operations,Shock and Awe

Shock and Awe:Grants Furious charge.In addition,when declaring a charge,but before the targeted unit fires its Overwatch,each Storm trooper of the charging unit can use one of their grenades against the targeted unit,provided their targets are within the range of said grenade.
Special Operations: Pick one of the following before Deployment:

A)Airborne Assault:Re-roll the scatter dice when they Deep Strike and can Run after Shooting or Shoot after Running
B)Reconnaissance:Infiltrate,Scout,Stealth
C)Assault Grenadiers:Each Storm trooper is equipped with Blind and Stun grenades that can be used only when the equipped unit declares a charge.When using Blind grenades,the targeted unit must make an Initiative test.If it passes it,nothing happens.If it fails it,the WS and BS of all models in this unit are reduced to1 for one turn.When using Stun grenades,the targeted unit must make a Toughness test.If it passes it,nothing happens.If it fails it,the Initiative of all models in this unit is reduced to 1 for one turn.Each additional Blind and Stun grenade confer a minus -1 penalty to the rolls of their respective test,to a maximum of -9.


Hot Shot Lasgun: 18", S 4 AP - , Assault 3, Pinning
Hot Shot Laspistol: 9", S 4 AP - , Assault 1
Blind Grenade:6", S 1 AP - , Assault 1,Blast
Stun Grenade:6", S 1 AP - ,Assault 1,Blast

Options: All storm troopers can take a CCW (1 ppm).
Up to two storm troopers can replace their HS Lasgun with an option from the Special weapons list,and an addition storm trooper can do so provided the ST squad has the maximum amount of STs in it.
Up to one storm trooper can take a vox or a med pack.
The storm trooper sergeant can replace his CCW and/or HS Laspistol with options from the Melee weapons list,Plasma Pistol,Bolt Pistol or Boltgun.


My terrible english aside,this is a mix of 5th ed codex storm troopers with what i feel they should be,an elite unit that specializes in short ranged,behind enemy lines engagements while also having some punch in melee combat as long as it isnt charging targets that are dedicated melee units.They also get alot more options and flexibility than now,where if you actually decide to take them they are basically a melta suicide squad;not a very elite thing if you ask me

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I would take S5 or S6 over AP3 every time. The ability for Stomies to hunt MCs is gold.

Tbh I've never view them as units that should really be hurting MC. Imo opinion they should simply be better at killing infantry, not larger targets.

In that case, no changes are required, and the unit remains completely obsolete compared with ordinary Guardsmen available as Troops. And that's not even looking at cheaper Veteran Squad Troop choice that can take a 3rd Special and any Heavy weapon.

However, if Storms are to be generally useful, then a bump to S5+ would be required. Merely giving them Bolters doesn't address how terrible they are.

The basic Tau Fire Warrior is a better value, for pity's sake. Let's not be afraid to have Storms be at least as good as the basic Tau Troops choice, OK?

NO MANDATORY CCWS ON SERGEANTS!

For ANY Guard units.

No mandatory CCWs on Veteran Sergeants in Infantry Squads, no CCWs on Scion Tempestors, and no CCWs on Veteran Sergeants in Veteran Squads.

Why is it such a bad thing for Guard Sergeants to be able to be like Space Marines, Fire Warriors, Pathfinders, Skitarii Vanguard or Skitarii Rangers and have the same weapon as their squad members do?

And for the love of raptor Jesus, no. Absolutely NO CCW/Pistol options for Scion squads. They're not gunslingers. Nothing in the Guard list should ever be able to have an entire unit of CCW/Pistols.

You want to put a Sergeant with a pistol/ccw? Make it an upgrade option. I'd gladly reverse the crap I had to do last book change with pulling apart Sergeants and removing their rifle arms and adding CCW/Pistols to give them back their rifles.

 Kanluwen wrote:


And for the love of raptor Jesus, no. Absolutely NO CCW/Pistol options for Scion squads. They're not gunslingers. Nothing in the Guard list should ever be able to have an entire unit of CCW/Pistols.

Why? They're commando assault troops, they had the equipment in the 5E codex, if you move past just the AP3 and look at what the unit's background role is and what role it can play without duplicating that of Vets within the army, having the rifle/pistol/ccw isn't unreasonable.

You want to put a Sergeant with a pistol/ccw? Make it an upgrade option. I'd gladly reverse the crap I had to do last book change with pulling apart Sergeants and removing their rifle arms and adding CCW/Pistols to give them back their rifles.

And for all the people with already built pistol/CCW sergeants? why can't it just be an "and/or" option?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


And for the love of raptor Jesus, no. Absolutely NO CCW/Pistol options for Scion squads. They're not gunslingers. Nothing in the Guard list should ever be able to have an entire unit of CCW/Pistols.

Why? They're commando assault troops, they had the equipment in the 5E codex, if you move past just the AP3 and look at what the unit's background role is and what role it can play without duplicating that of Vets within the army, having the rifle/pistol/ccw isn't unreasonable.

Because he's not talking about them having the equipment like the previous books had.

Read the suggestion he made. He wants Stormtroopers to pay points for a CCW. No. Absolutely not.

And realistically, it's high time that there became rules where "Assault" ranged weapons can actually be used in CC.

You want to put a Sergeant with a pistol/ccw? Make it an upgrade option. I'd gladly reverse the crap I had to do last book change with pulling apart Sergeants and removing their rifle arms and adding CCW/Pistols to give them back their rifles.

And for all the people with already built pistol/CCW sergeants? why can't it just be an "and/or" option?

"A Sergeant with a Lasgun can replace it with a Pistol/CCW at no points cost" is still technically considered an upgrade option.

I would love to give my Sergeants Lasguns. Well, I give them Bolters because they are a steal but the option would be nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A simple fix for Stormies is to just give them more Special Weapons slots. Like, let them take 4 plasma guns per squad and drop their cost to like 9ppm. Maybe give them the ability to reroll ones to hit too if you want them at their current price point.

I don't see why Sergeants woudln't be LP&CCW or some variant thereof.

And I've said repeatedly that Conscripts should have a LP&CCW option with a max size of 20 models. Thematically, that makes sense, as they're crappy shots but still fight as a mob.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


And for the love of raptor Jesus, no. Absolutely NO CCW/Pistol options for Scion squads. They're not gunslingers. Nothing in the Guard list should ever be able to have an entire unit of CCW/Pistols.

Why? They're commando assault troops, they had the equipment in the 5E codex, if you move past just the AP3 and look at what the unit's background role is and what role it can play without duplicating that of Vets within the army, having the rifle/pistol/ccw isn't unreasonable.

Because he's not talking about them having the equipment like the previous books had.

Read the suggestion he made. He wants Stormtroopers to pay points for a CCW. No. Absolutely not.

Ah ok, sorry missed that

And realistically, it's high time that there became rules where "Assault" ranged weapons can actually be used in CC.

Might be a fair point, though that's a whole nother can of worms

"A Sergeant with a Lasgun can replace it with a Pistol/CCW at no points cost" is still technically considered an upgrade option.

Hrm, ok I can buy that.

I just play my Sargent's as though they have Lasguns. Solves the issue really.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Who cares when they DS in and delete 2x or 3x their points on turn 1? 150 pts of Scions would just drop in and kill 300 pts of Marines in one round of shooting (and Gods help you if you're a Terminator or Honour Guard).

Small correction: 300 points or the maximum value of the target unit. C:SM with 5-man combat squads, for example, limit the amount of damage even these hypothetical stormtroopers can do because the overkill wounds are just wasted. And honestly, if the unit can't significantly out-kill its point cost in the one, maybe two, turns that it gets to shoot then why are you taking it? Stormtroopers are a single-role unit with no purpose besides killing stuff. If your X-point stormtrooper squad can't trade with X+Y points of enemy models then it's never going to be a part of even a semi-competitive army.

Which is fair for your meta, but not everyone has it like that. In my opinion it is better to work towards the middle than the top.

The problem is that GW doesn't share your "work towards the middle" design philosophy. They aren't just aiming to put new codices at the top, they're trying to see how much they can beat the last codex by. If you aim for mid-tier with a new codex right now it's quickly going to become garbage-tier as every other army gets blatantly overpowered updates. The only meta where it will stay mid-tier is one where everyone ignores GW's new rules and imposes their own balance changes, in which case it doesn't matter if stormtroopers as-printed are overpowered for your meta because you can just re-balance them yourself.

Now, do I wish that we didn't have a situation where "power creep" is only a bad description of GW's design policy because "creep" is supposed to be subtle? Sure. But that's not the reality of 7th edition 40k, and balancing IG for a 5th edition design concept that no longer exists means printing a garbage-tier codex.

'nuther thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/665960.page

Its already got someone from the "IG are OP" bandwagon, and atm its only on page 1...

 Selym wrote:
'nuther thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/665960.page

Its already got someone from the "IG are OP" bandwagon, and atm its only on page 1...

Before I click over, I'm trying to guess what would prompt that claim. As I peer into my crystal ball, I'm thinking foot CSM player, no Daemons allies?

Crons player. 8,000 point army.

I would still like a veteran driver option.

Veteran Driver: +1 BS
+5 points (chimera/taurox), can only be taken if selected as dedicated transport for Veteran squads or CCS
+10 points (sentinels)
+15 points (Leman Russ)

I would just like to see that. Plus a formation where the IG can get free chimeras.

 Selym wrote:
Crons player. 8,000 point army.

WTF? I could understand if he had problems with Eldar, because Eldar have some seriously good stuff to neutralize the problem 'Cron units if they know they're hunting 'Crons. But Guard? Decurion can't handle Guard? Just how n00b is he?

 Kanluwen wrote:
NO MANDATORY CCWS ON SERGEANTS!

For ANY Guard units.

No mandatory CCWs on Veteran Sergeants in Infantry Squads, no CCWs on Scion Tempestors, and no CCWs on Veteran Sergeants in Veteran Squads.

Why is it such a bad thing for Guard Sergeants to be able to be like Space Marines, Fire Warriors, Pathfinders, Skitarii Vanguard or Skitarii Rangers and have the same weapon as their squad members do?

And for the love of raptor Jesus, no. Absolutely NO CCW/Pistol options for Scion squads. They're not gunslingers. Nothing in the Guard list should ever be able to have an entire unit of CCW/Pistols.

You want to put a Sergeant with a pistol/ccw? Make it an upgrade option. I'd gladly reverse the crap I had to do last book change with pulling apart Sergeants and removing their rifle arms and adding CCW/Pistols to give them back their rifles.

What about the options for regiments of Feral World Guardsmen?

Sure assault IG are pretty poop in general, typically being heavily outclassed by just about everything better than a Grot or Fire Warrior, but why can't we at least have the option for things like a regiment of the Kanak Skulltakers, or some bad@$$ Penal Legion?!
Hell, giving the likes of Scions and/or Veterans the ability to take things like Shotguns and/or pistol + ccw is also a pretty viable way to unofficially allow for Adeptus Arbites themed forces, much in the same way that a 'Sternguard-only' formation finally allows for proper Deathwatch forces.

 martin74 wrote:
I would still like a veteran driver option.

Veteran Driver: +1 BS
+5 points (chimera/taurox), can only be taken if selected as dedicated transport for Veteran squads or CCS
+10 points (sentinels)
+15 points (Leman Russ)

I would just like to see that. Plus a formation where the IG can get free chimeras.

Sentinels I'd probably actually make it the cheapest on, they've got the fewest number of weapons and the lowest number of hull points and potentially worst armor, you'd get less use out of it there than you could on another platform.

Experiment 626 wrote:

What about the options for regiments of Feral World Guardsmen?

Serious question: Who plays "Feral World Guardsmen"?

Sure assault IG are pretty poop in general, typically being heavily outclassed by just about everything better than a Grot or Fire Warrior, but why can't we at least have the option for things like a regiment of the Kanak Skulltakers, or some bad@$$ Penal Legion?!

I can't speak for you, but I'd like a codex that isn't garbage and full of garbage "options" that are really nothing but filler to pad the page count.

Hell, giving the likes of Scions and/or Veterans the ability to take things like Shotguns and/or pistol + ccw is also a pretty viable way to unofficially allow for Adeptus Arbites themed forces, much in the same way that a 'Sternguard-only' formation finally allows for proper Deathwatch forces.

Er yeah. The formation you're talking about isn't "Sternguard only". It's "Veteran Squads only"(Terminator squads of both flavors, Vanguard Squads, and Sternguard Squads).

And really, if you think that pistols+CCWs and shotguns are somehow relating to Adeptus Arbites you might as well say that Bullgryn "unofficially allow for Adeptus Arbites themed forces" because they have Slabshields or Mauls and Bucklers.

 Kanluwen wrote:
NO MANDATORY CCWS ON SERGEANTS!

For ANY Guard units.

No mandatory CCWs on Veteran Sergeants in Infantry Squads, no CCWs on Scion Tempestors, and no CCWs on Veteran Sergeants in Veteran Squads.

Why is it such a bad thing for Guard Sergeants to be able to be like Space Marines, Fire Warriors, Pathfinders, Skitarii Vanguard or Skitarii Rangers and have the same weapon as their squad members do?

And for the love of raptor Jesus, no. Absolutely NO CCW/Pistol options for Scion squads. They're not gunslingers. Nothing in the Guard list should ever be able to have an entire unit of CCW/Pistols.

You want to put a Sergeant with a pistol/ccw? Make it an upgrade option. I'd gladly reverse the crap I had to do last book change with pulling apart Sergeants and removing their rifle arms and adding CCW/Pistols to give them back their rifles.

Sure,i agree with you that there is no reason that our officers and sergeants MUST have CCW&Pistols and if they HAVE to start with them,an option to swap to a rifle version of them would be great.In fact,i wrote this while toying with my Kasrkin with which,you know,giving the sergeant something other than his pistol and sword involves drills and lots of sweating and swearing or a lazy patch job.
As for the CCW option for the regular storm troopers and them having to pay 1 ppm for CCWs,why not?Tacticals have to do so;CSM have to do so;other units which i cant think of right now have to do so;why should an elite commando unit that has superior gear compared to regular joes and will often find itself in melee combat not have the option to buy a CCW much like other elite (in the general sense) units?They wont become cowboys just because they get the option to carry a pistol and a knife.

 Kanluwen wrote:
NO MANDATORY CCWS ON SERGEANTS!

For ANY Guard units.

No mandatory CCWs on Veteran Sergeants in Infantry Squads, no CCWs on Scion Tempestors, and no CCWs on Veteran Sergeants in Veteran Squads.

Why is it such a bad thing for Guard Sergeants to be able to be like Space Marines, Fire Warriors, Pathfinders, Skitarii Vanguard or Skitarii Rangers and have the same weapon as their squad members do?

And for the love of raptor Jesus, no. Absolutely NO CCW/Pistol options for Scion squads. They're not gunslingers. Nothing in the Guard list should ever be able to have an entire unit of CCW/Pistols.

You want to put a Sergeant with a pistol/ccw? Make it an upgrade option. I'd gladly reverse the crap I had to do last book change with pulling apart Sergeants and removing their rifle arms and adding CCW/Pistols to give them back their rifles.

Ugh. This again. I'm not going to derail the thread here, but I just want to point out that I am completely unequivocally against the idea that Guard can't have CC squads. This comes down to you trying to force your idea of the faction into what you want it to be, and it really would take away from the feel of the way I play my Guard. We've already had this discussion at length regarding Rough Riders, and I'm not trying to bait a response. This is just me pointing out for anyone reading-but-not-posting the thread that not everyone agrees with this sentiment.

It just comes down to the idea that this game should really NEVER eliminate options "just because".

 Kanluwen wrote:
I can't speak for you, but I'd like a codex that isn't garbage and full of garbage "options" that are really nothing but filler to pad the page count.

What does how many options the codex includes have to do with how powerful the codex is? Having options that you personally don't want to use doesn't make the codex worse, and taking those options away from the people who want to use them (however common those people might be) does nothing to make it a better codex for you.

I say keep the CC options but for feths sake give us alternatives. Lasguns on offices, rather than this crappy CCW + Pistol loadout.

 master of ordinance wrote:
I say keep the CC options but for feths sake give us alternatives. Lasguns on offices, rather than this crappy CCW + Pistol loadout.

I kinda like giving officers swords, it has a ww1 feel to it. But, yes. They need the options to take proper guns.

In the Grim Darkness of the far future, promotions make you forget your training.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Serious question: Who plays "Feral World Guardsmen"?

Well, I for one would love to add a Feral World regiment to my Chaos & Radical Inquisitor forces.

I know it won't be hyper competitive at all, but feth it. Why can't I have a bunch of head-chopping savages loaded with power axes & flamers, supported by Roughriders & Sentinels, while being led by crazy as gak Priests and small squads of tribal shamans (psyker squads)?
Meanwhile at the back of the battle lines, is a ruthless Radical Inquisitor standing at the ready with his trusty Deathstrike missile to make sure to hide all the evidence of any potential wrong-doing!

 Kanluwen wrote:
I can't speak for you, but I'd like a codex that isn't garbage and full of garbage "options" that are really nothing but filler to pad the page count.

I highly doubt that a couple of lines here or there allowing the likes of Veterans and/or Infantry Platoons to swap out their lasguns for pistol/ccw is going to leave the entire codex as a pile of unplayable bullgak.

If you don't like an option, then don't make use of it. I personally hate plasma guns in any MEQ army because mine *always* explode and kill my Marines. That doesn't mean though that I'm going to go out and crusade to have plasma guns removed entirely from the codex, simply because I despise the things and think they're a terrible option.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Er yeah. The formation you're talking about isn't "Sternguard only". It's "Veteran Squads only"(Terminator squads of both flavors, Vanguard Squads, and Sternguard Squads).

Semantics. For Deathwatch fans, they've got what they've been waiting with baited breath for - a formation that let's them take nothing but Sternguard, thereby allowing for fully fledged Deathwatch armies. (minus the obvious PE: Xeno rule...)

 Kanluwen wrote:
And really, if you think that pistols+CCWs and shotguns are somehow relating to Adeptus Arbites you might as well say that Bullgryn "unofficially allow for Adeptus Arbites themed forces" because they have Slabshields or Mauls and Bucklers.

Shotguns + Carapace armour = basic Adeptus Arbites gear.
Pistol/CCW + Carapace armour = Adeptus Arbites 'riot squad' stand-ins.

You can always get the slab shields by taking an Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor and tooling up a Henchmen squad with Crusaders. Not perfect, but still close'ish enough and similar to how Marine players will treat 'Sternguard = Deathwatch'.

I think the idea of the guard needs to be reiterated again both within the context of this thread and the codex.

The guard is comprised of every imaginable possible combination of culture, tactics, equipment and training. If you want to run a horde army for the guard you should be able to make that horde army in the way that you want. If I want to make a feral world regiment I should be able to equip the men with close combat weaponry. Hell that regiment might even have special animals on its homeworld and might ride them into battle (sabre tooth tigers, maybe even woolly mammoths). If I want to run a conscript regiment I should be able to send those guys into the front lines in massive waves.

If I want to run a light infantry regiment that relies primarily on the skill of its soldiers and the element of surprise then I should be able to viably play them. If I want to run a Prussian or Napoleonic era regiment I should have slower firing, more inaccurate, less mobile, and more damaging infantry weapons.

It ultimately comes down to allowing the guard to viably represent everything that it is capable of. A guardsman from a feral world is going to fight vastly differently than a guardsman from cadia, just as a guardsman from elysia is going to fight differently than a guardsman from catachan. The standard platoons we have now only represent a very small portion of the varying qualities and tactics that different guardsmen use.

Ideally these differences would be best represented with different unit profiles, weapons, etc. I personally run all veterans for my troops because they are the closest to how my regiment operates. They perform their tasks ineffectively because the book never intended for them to be used in an ambush anti infantry role.

What I am saying, is that guardsmen platoons, veterans, etc, are semi viable depending on what role you want to use them for. Right now platoons are primarily useful for bubble wrapping, and veterans for chimera special weapons delivery when they should be able to do so much more.

At last the whole Conscripts with CC weapons thing. I would love to have this option. Replace laser gun for two CC weapons or X amount of points for two handed weapon. The whole juxtaposition of high tech and medieval fantasy is why I love 40K
This used to be an option in the 4th ed codex if I remember right. It was an army doctrine or something.

This plus the buffs to Rough Riders and Death strikes other people have already mentioned.

Cheers Vim

I'd use Catachan models for conscripts if melee conscripts were allowed.

Stick a priest in there and they would make a fun screening unit.

Sergeants *must* have the CCW/pistol because that's what the Departmento Munitorum issues them. It's also because the sword is used as a pointing device, and the pistol fits in his/her other hand.

While the unit is in cover, the Sergeant uses the chainsword to point at the target objective, whether that's a hill, a ruin, an enemy unit, a vehicle... whatever. It's a multi-functional command device.

Couldn't the sergeant just point with his finger?

Or even his lasgun?

Hell, he could just *fire* his lasgun at the target - it's basically just a laser-pointer anyway.

He could use a pointy stick, a cane, a Conscript's face... The list is endless.

Wyvern - shreds orks
Scions - soooo overpriced - took them on in 600 pts battle - killed all and took 3 SM casualties. 3!
Forward sentries doctrine - camo gear and snare mines for 10 points/squad
Demolitions doctrine - pretty niche but can kill a knight in one round since strength D does not carry over (90 points kills 375+points...)

The Forward Sentries is actually a really good Doctrine and I prefer it for most of my Veteran sections. Whilst near to useless when out in the open its strength comes when you put your troops in cover. Suddenly each of these 6 point guys has the save of a Space Marine against most weapons and whats better they do not lose their save to low AP weapons like Lascannons or Plasmaguns.
The Snare Mines really come in handy too, when your opponent launches an assault his troops do not get a bonus attack for charging, so the sudden shock of an assault is rendered useless against them.

It really makes my Veterans quite durable.

For a good laugh...

 Jancoran wrote:
THIS thread was about other factiosn getting the Tau treatment and all i'm here to testify to is that the IG dont NEED it. it would be nice. But lots of things are nice and yet not necessary. Lots.

Even better is how he's saying a 600+ 40-Guard blob is a game-winning competitive unit in the current meta.

This, after claiming how Guard are good *and* competitive in every phase of the game:

 Jancoran wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I would just like to confirm something:

Someone said that my Guard where A) good and B) competitive in every phase.

I would like this person to come right back here and provide evidence because in my experience this is about as far from the truth as it gets.

That was me. Evidence is in the codex. Take a gander i guess?

Some of us have been more than a little skeptical.

But if he's right, well, I guess the Guard Codex doesn't need any changes at all...

Yeah, don't worry lads! Bs 3 Str 3 Ap - weapons are super OP this edition!

Let guard go 4+ armor for free, and get every 3rd vehicle for free. Screw that, let us take companies, where we get 10 chimeras for free, if we buy 10 units of veterans (600 points) with free melta and plasma guns, like the Space Marines gladius formations.

A 30% cut across the board would be about right.

I'm with hwangDD, when you compare most of our units yo those of other codices we just don't get the same amount of bang for our buck. I'm not saying to make a guard like mini marines but if they just lowered the point costs I feel like it would put us in a good place (except for the wyvern, its already in a good place).

It's not that I don't want cool new units, rules, or formations, it just that I'm afraid of what could happen.

Secretly I want to be able to match the green tide in battle of numbers heh.

The problem then becomes "can you really fit 22 tanks or 200 infantry in a deployment zone, and even if you can, can they function"?

I've posted my thoughts on what I would like to see on page 3 of this thread, but after that I came to think that cost cutting can only go so far, and with the power inflation skyrocketing in weapons, wargear, special rules, formation abilities, etc, just making guard compete on cost alone has its limits.

More and more I think the game just needs a fundamental 2E/3E style reboot, and to remember that it's a 28mm game played on 6x4' boards ideally in about a couple of hours, and that hamfisting it into Epic's scale has severe limits.

The problem is that at the current costs, a typical IG army takes two large briefcases to move to the FLGS.

5 ppm for infantry is about the right cost for cannon fodder, but our cannnon fodder is worth about 3 ppm.

My standby army-wide rule that fixes our infantry (minus killpower):

Human Ingenuity:
Humans are right bastards to remove once entrenched.
-All IG infantry gain a permanent +1 cover save, to a minimum of 6+, and a maximum of 2+.

A simple way to fix them, would also be to increase the role of the officers. Let the fleet officer have both effects -1 and +1 without rolling leadership, let the priest always succeed in his song, make the MoA get a proper orbital bombard, etc. this could change the mechanic of how they play, and without too much tinkering. The feel of the army could be that its all about the officers.

OR:
Let them get Medics for their blobs. Would make them seem cute. Let them take their banners for the blobs. Let officers join blobs.

Oh yes please, what I would not give for a proper bombardment from my MOO. Something like D3 5" S9 AP3 blasts per turn that scatter like a regular barrage.

Aside from that cut the prices of our Ogryns and Bullgryns by 50% and the rest of the Elites by 40%, make our tanks worth taking and please for the love of all that is unholy and vile give us SOME buffs, PLEASE!

Can I fit 22 tanks & 200 infantry in a DZ? Probably, if a good chunk of that infantry is mech.

However, in the current environment, I think I do better to take 12 tanks, 100 infantry, and the balance in IKTs.

 Selym wrote:
The problem is that at the current costs, a typical IG army takes two large briefcases to move to the FLGS.

5 ppm for infantry is about the right cost for cannon fodder, but our cannnon fodder is worth about 3 ppm.

My standby army-wide rule that fixes our infantry (minus killpower):

Human Ingenuity:
Humans are right bastards to remove once entrenched.
-All IG infantry gain a permanent +1 cover save, to a minimum of 6+, and a maximum of 2+.

I sort of like that, but permi-stealth everywhere might be a but much. Something like they get +1 to existing cover saves would make more sense.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Selym wrote:
The problem is that at the current costs, a typical IG army takes two large briefcases to move to the FLGS.

5 ppm for infantry is about the right cost for cannon fodder, but our cannnon fodder is worth about 3 ppm.

My standby army-wide rule that fixes our infantry (minus killpower):

Human Ingenuity:
Humans are right bastards to remove once entrenched.
-All IG infantry gain a permanent +1 cover save, to a minimum of 6+, and a maximum of 2+.

I sort of like that, but permi-stealth everywhere might be a but much. Something like they get +1 to existing cover saves would make more sense.

Eh, it gives the Guardsmen a replacement save, to slightly buff their already poor armour save. Rather than getting no saves against bolters, the get a -1 to the save. Probably through them taking the initiative to jump into cover, rather than everyone else's habit of standing in the open/charging down a corridor.

Auto Stealth is not unreasonable for IG. Not sure it actually fixes the army, but it works for me.

would I be mad in suggesting for every 3 infantry platoons you get a 4th free, including its special and heavy weapons? or for every 2 you get the 3rd free, so for one troop slot you would pay for 4 infantry platoons, a command section and get 2 infantry platoons for free, obviously paying for the chimera if you want it?

IG Infantry? You could go Buy 2, Get 1 Free and it'd be OK.

If auto-stealth is too much, then what about +1 to their cover save when Gone to Ground, in addition to the +1 that Going to Ground normally gives? This bonus cannot improve the model's cover save (after all other modifiers) to better than a 3+. The soldiers are willing to swallow their pride and hit the dirt, even if their foes are too arrogant/proud/mindless/insane to do the same.
Also, give junior officers a variant of the "Get Back To the Fight!" order. Allow them to rally units that are falling back. Humans are far more likely to give ground compared to Necrons/Maines, but they'll reform and return. It gives the attacking player the satisfaction of putting a unit to flight (nearly as nice as wiping them out) but without costing the Guard player the unit.

I see no reason to cap the cover save below a 2+. If they are hiding in very hard cover, let it be very, very tough to dig them out!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
IG Infantry? You could go Buy 2, Get 1 Free and it'd be OK.

yeah infantry platoons, you could possibly extend it to tanks, would it be too op to buy 2 leman russ and get the 3rd free, or 2 hellhounds?

what about heavy weapons teams, buy 2 get a third free, as in buy 2 full teams, get the third free, some caveat like they must all have the same weapons loadout, that would stop 2 mortor teams and a lascannon team for free.

I was also thinking about the storm troopers, str5 lasguns make a hell of a lot more sense to me that the ap3, it would also gell well with the multilaser, as lasgun str3, hellgun str5, multilaser str6, lascannon str9, it makes more sense to me.

I don't see why B2G1 wouldn't work for Russes or esp. Hellhounds. Tho I don't think the Wyvern is so bad it needs an effective discount.

It's like buying women's shoes - only the cheapest is "free". So, take Lascannon & MLs, get the HBs for "free".

I kinda like that buy 2 get 1 free idea. What about if it was like the mechanic for the HH legions, how after certain number things are half priced or something like that. Keeping abit of a point cost would atleast keep some folk from screamin "omg free stuff cheese!" Not just that since it's a established mechanic I would hope there less stuff that could go wrong in implementing.

I'm pretty sure any guard player could easily fit 200 infantry and 20 tanks in a deployment zone

14 chimeras for 10 inf squads, 2 PCS, 1 CCS, and a vet squad
2x 3 russ squadron

Thats... a HQ, three troop choices, and 2 heavy support slots, we haven't even added any elites or fast attack yet!

Can we not double the cost of viable guard armies please?

It's like buying women's shoes - only the cheapest is "free". So, take Lascannon & MLs, get the HBs for "free".

Unless US is drasticly different from rest of the world there is no heavy bolter priced type of foot wear to buy in the entire world. So maybe go with more realistic buy 3 identical and get the third one cheaper or free. Makes more sense and would stop people from buying 2 naked russes to get one pimped out one for free.

Makumba wrote:

It's like buying women's shoes - only the cheapest is "free". So, take Lascannon & MLs, get the HBs for "free".

Unless US is drasticly different from rest of the world there is no heavy bolter priced type of foot wear to buy in the entire world. So maybe go with more realistic buy 3 identical and get the third one cheaper or free. Makes more sense and would stop people from buying 2 naked russes to get one pimped out one for free.

That's exactly what I suggested in the first place

As everyone would buy 2 motor teams and have a free lascannon team.

 Formosa wrote:

Makumba wrote:

It's like buying women's shoes - only the cheapest is "free". So, take Lascannon & MLs, get the HBs for "free".

Unless US is drasticly different from rest of the world there is no heavy bolter priced type of foot wear to buy in the entire world. So maybe go with more realistic buy 3 identical and get the third one cheaper or free. Makes more sense and would stop people from buying 2 naked russes to get one pimped out one for free.

That's exactly what I suggested in the first place

As everyone would buy 2 motor teams and have a free lascannon team.

Still Wouldn't be op this edition, though.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't see why B2G1 wouldn't work for Russes or esp. Hellhounds. Tho I don't think the Wyvern is so bad it needs an effective discount.

It's like buying women's shoes - only the cheapest is "free". So, take Lascannon & MLs, get the HBs for "free".

Honestly? It wouldn't work because then you just got a bunch of vehicles.

7th edition is NOT friendly to non-Skimmer/Flyer vehicles. Making the Guard's tanks "free" isn't a fix, it's just shoveling more of them on the field.

There's so much to fix with Guard though that picking one particular thing is difficult. I just can't see any kind of situation where I would be excited to field more tanks. They're not bad, but for what Leman Russes are now? They're way overpriced and even their specialized variants have large issues.

• Commisar Yarick is a Lord of War.
• Basilisk: 85 points
• Leman russ eradicator: 145 points
• Leman russ vanquisher: 145 points
• Hellhound: 90 points
• Devildog: 85 points
• Banewolf: 95 points
• Chimera, Taurox and Taurox Primes may be selected as fast attack choices.
• When a conscript unit is removed as a casualty, an identical unit goes into ongoing reserve on a 4+.
• The taurox prime has the command vehicle trait
• Rough riders have an additional wound each
• Vox casters give the following benefit: if a command squad and the target of an order it is issuing are both equipped with vox casters, add 12 inches to the maximum command range and the units do not require line of sight
• Tempestas scion units have one higher leadership

Militarum Tempestas
• Any unit embarked in a flyer chosen from this detachment, and any units placed in deep strike reserves may begin arriving from reserves starting in turn one. They must be rolled for normally.
• Gain all the relevant bonuses listed above
• Baneblade: 485 points
• Banehammer: 348 points
• Banesword: 420 points
• Doomhammer: 395 points
• Hellhammer:530 points
• Shadowsword: 365
• Stormlord: 470
• Stormsword: 475

Missile launchers all have the flakk missiles, all characters (not independent characters) gain an additional wound (max of 3)
After this, some cool fluffy formations should put them in a good place to be.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
• Commisar Yarick is a Lord of War.

I'd much rather he wasn't, to be honest.

 vipoid wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
• Commisar Yarick is a Lord of War.

I'd much rather he wasn't, to be honest.

Making a character a LoW is a terrible idea. It means that we cannot use it in many gaming groups and tournaments, and stops us from taking superheavies.

Except the people who ban them are being unreasonable and if they are banning the characters they are banning the superheavies anyway so it isn't a loss at all in those particular circles.

I don't suggest houserules and changes based on other people's houserules or opinions, I base them on warhammer 40k. Making him a lord of war is almost guaranteed to happen in the next book.

But why does Yarrick need to be a LoW at all?

Why can't he just be a solid HQ choice?

IG needs vehicles to not suck.

Lyth I don't think even GW is as strict about "systems" as you are. They might try something new or go in a completely different direction just because it's more attractive.

 vipoid wrote:
But why does Yarrick need to be a LoW at all?

Why can't he just be a solid HQ choice?

Same reason that Ghazkhull and Papa Smurf are LoW choices. Because they're warlords.

I haven't any fething clue how someone could think that its a good idea. Being a LoW does not grant you bonuses, and they can't be the Warlord...

Wait... Lords of War can't be your Warlord?

I wasn't actually aware of that. Any idea what page that rule is on?

The bit where it says you have to use a HQ unit.

Are you sure you're not thinking of 6th?

In 7th:

"When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord. Unless specified otherwise, this must be a character model. If you do not have any character models in your army, then select any other model in your army to be the Warlord. The model you choose as your Warlord also determines your Primary Detachment."

I know what you can have a sergeant (or equivalent) as your Warlord, and if your army has no characters your warlord can be literally anything.

It's possible that LoWs have a specific exception, but I'm not aware of such.

Huh, page 124 specifies that it just needs to be a character.
Probably was thinking of 6th.

Coolio.

Still wouldn't want Yarrick as a LoW though.

Yeah. It means I can't take him and a Beihnblehd.

 Selym wrote:
The problem is that at the current costs, a typical IG army takes two large briefcases to move to the FLGS.

5 ppm for infantry is about the right cost for cannon fodder, but our cannnon fodder is worth about 3 ppm.

My standby army-wide rule that fixes our infantry (minus killpower):

Human Ingenuity:
Humans are right bastards to remove once entrenched.
-All IG infantry gain a permanent +1 cover save, to a minimum of 6+, and a maximum of 2+.

No. Just no. Do you have any idea how much tougher that makes the IG? That's easily worth doubling their costs. And I have no idea what your taking about "fixing" their killpower.

 Formosa wrote:
would I be mad in suggesting for every 3 infantry platoons you get a 4th free, including its special and heavy weapons? or for every 2 you get the 3rd free, so for one troop slot you would pay for 4 infantry platoons, a command section and get 2 infantry platoons for free, obviously paying for the chimera if you want it?

Yes.

Not you again

You're that dude that thinks that the IG are broken.

 Selym wrote:
Not you again

You're that dude that thinks that the IG are broken.

Well they are.

Yarrick is just a man with a Power Klaw. He's not comparable to a Knight Titan, unless he comes with a free Baneblade.

That'd be nice

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yarrick is just a man with a Power Klaw. He's not comparable to a Knight Titan, unless he comes with a free Baneblade.

Why would an efficient character be allowed a Baneblade for free? They're undercosted as it is...

Thus ignoring all of statistics.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Not you again

You're that dude that thinks that the IG are broken.

Well they are.

This is beyond hilarious. Almost as good as the guy who claims IG are fine as they are.

And baneblades are undercosted? I have a bridge to sell you.

Why would you want to sell me a bridge? Baneblades have enormous amounts of firepower, 3 more hullpoints than an Imperial Knight, Av 14/13/12, and can move 12" per turn.

What's weak about that?

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Why would you want to sell me a bridge? Baneblades have enormous amounts of firepower, 3 more hullpoints than an Imperial Knight, Av 14/13/12, and can move 12" per turn.

What's weak about that?

I call troll.

 Selym wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Why would you want to sell me a bridge? Baneblades have enormous amounts of firepower, 3 more hullpoints than an Imperial Knight, Av 14/13/12, and can move 12" per turn.

What's weak about that?

I call troll.

I call person who has no valid argument against Baneblades being undercosted.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Why would you want to sell me a bridge? Baneblades have enormous amounts of firepower, 3 more hullpoints than an Imperial Knight, Av 14/13/12, and can move 12" per turn.

What's weak about that?

I call troll.

I call person who has no valid argument against Baneblades being undercosted.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]
Go and look at the stats son, 500 points for a mediocre cannon, a demolisher cannon (WTF are you doing that close in the first place?) twin heavy bolters and an autocannon.

*525 pts.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Why would you want to sell me a bridge? Baneblades have enormous amounts of firepower, 3 more hullpoints than an Imperial Knight, Av 14/13/12, and can move 12" per turn.

What's weak about that?

I call troll.

I call person who has no valid argument against Baneblades being undercosted.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]
Go and look at the stats son, 500 points for a mediocre cannon, a demolisher cannon (WTF are you doing that close in the first place?) twin heavy bolters and an autocannon.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS] Seriously. The damn thing is durable as all hell, and has a main gun with 72" range, Str 9 Ap 2 Apocalypse Blast.

You'll easily knock out almost anything under that template, and it covers a vast amount of space.

I play the arguably superior Hellhammer. With ignores cover on the main gun. Str 10, Ap 1. No saves, wounds on 2's, etc.

Still sucks.

 Selym wrote:
I play the arguably superior Hellhammer. With ignores cover on the main gun. Str 10, Ap 1. No saves, wounds on 2's, etc.

Still sucks.

Lol wat.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Why would you want to sell me a bridge? Baneblades have enormous amounts of firepower, 3 more hullpoints than an Imperial Knight, Av 14/13/12, and can move 12" per turn.

What's weak about that?

I call troll.

I call person who has no valid argument against Baneblades being undercosted.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]
Go and look at the stats son, 500 points for a mediocre cannon, a demolisher cannon (WTF are you doing that close in the first place?) twin heavy bolters and an autocannon.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]Seriously. The damn thing is durable as all hell, and has a main gun with 72" range, Str 9 Ap 2 Apocalypse Blast.

You'll easily knock out almost anything under that template, and it covers a vast amount of space.

Never played IG.. Don't know much.. But I do know I took out a babe blade with 10 tank bustas and a battle wagon once.. So if it's so OP idk how it died to that..

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:
The problem is that at the current costs, a typical IG army takes two large briefcases to move to the FLGS.

5 ppm for infantry is about the right cost for cannon fodder, but our cannnon fodder is worth about 3 ppm.

My standby army-wide rule that fixes our infantry (minus killpower):

Human Ingenuity:
Humans are right bastards to remove once entrenched.
-All IG infantry gain a permanent +1 cover save, to a minimum of 6+, and a maximum of 2+.

No. Just no. Do you have any idea how much tougher that makes the IG? That's easily worth doubling their costs. And I have no idea what your taking about "fixing" their killpower.

Whats the matter? Scared that the Guard might actually get a save against your AP5 and better spam? That you might actually have to apply more than brute force to deal with us?
A +1 to the cover save is nothing. It gives us a 6+ out of terrain and a slightly better save in it. And given that we are usually being hit and wounded on a 3+ or better there is no reason to deny us a little survivability.
As for the kill power, YOU try equipping all of your guys with Lasguns and see what happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS] Seriously. The damn thing is durable as all hell, and has a main gun with 72" range, Str 9 Ap 2 Apocalypse Blast.

You'll easily knock out almost anything under that template, and it covers a vast amount of space.

Well that is odd.... Because I have been playing IG since 3rd edition dropped. In other words, whilst you where still sucking your mothers tit I was playing IG and winning.
Durable? In the age of Hull Points, grav spam, massed AT and rapid fire medium strength weapons? You are out of your mind. And that blast is easy to avoid - just dont bunch up and use cover.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:
The problem is that at the current costs, a typical IG army takes two large briefcases to move to the FLGS.

5 ppm for infantry is about the right cost for cannon fodder, but our cannnon fodder is worth about 3 ppm.

My standby army-wide rule that fixes our infantry (minus killpower):

Human Ingenuity:
Humans are right bastards to remove once entrenched.
-All IG infantry gain a permanent +1 cover save, to a minimum of 6+, and a maximum of 2+.

No. Just no. Do you have any idea how much tougher that makes the IG? That's easily worth doubling their costs. And I have no idea what your taking about "fixing" their killpower.

Whats the matter? Scared that the Guard might actually get a save against your AP5 and better spam? That you might actually have to apply more than brute force to deal with us?
A +1 to the cover save is nothing. It gives us a 6+ out of terrain and a slightly better save in it. And given that we are usually being hit and wounded on a 3+ or better there is no reason to deny us a little survivability.
As for the kill power, YOU try equipping all of your guys with Lasguns and see what happens.

It's called "Wyverns".

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:
The problem is that at the current costs, a typical IG army takes two large briefcases to move to the FLGS.

5 ppm for infantry is about the right cost for cannon fodder, but our cannnon fodder is worth about 3 ppm.

My standby army-wide rule that fixes our infantry (minus killpower):

Human Ingenuity:
Humans are right bastards to remove once entrenched.
-All IG infantry gain a permanent +1 cover save, to a minimum of 6+, and a maximum of 2+.

No. Just no. Do you have any idea how much tougher that makes the IG? That's easily worth doubling their costs. And I have no idea what your taking about "fixing" their killpower.

Whats the matter? Scared that the Guard might actually get a save against your AP5 and better spam? That you might actually have to apply more than brute force to deal with us?
A +1 to the cover save is nothing. It gives us a 6+ out of terrain and a slightly better save in it. And given that we are usually being hit and wounded on a 3+ or better there is no reason to deny us a little survivability.
As for the kill power, YOU try equipping all of your guys with Lasguns and see what happens.

It's called "Wyverns".

Congratulations, you just named one of the 2 units in the entire Codex that is actually worth its points.

As someone who doesn't things IG are anywhere as bad as some people make out, they are anything but broken.

Wyverns are not the be-all-end-all solution to the IG's issues. The whole codex needs a rebuild at the conceptual level.

I took a baneblade once in a game and Immediately regretted not taking my cheaper, more efficient knight.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As someone who doesn't things IG are anywhere as bad as some people make out, they are anything but broken.

This from a Tau player Whats the matter, scared about the prospect of not being able to blow us away in a couple of turns anymore?

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As someone who doesn't things IG are anywhere as bad as some people make out, they are anything but broken.

This from a Tau player Whats the matter, scared about the prospect of not being able to blow us away in a couple of turns anymore?

Nah, they're still bad, just not CSM bad.

I'd love for IG to get a new, well deigned codex. Sadley, from what the tau got, you'll probably just get a paid FAQ and formations.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As someone who doesn't things IG are anywhere as bad as some people make out, they are anything but broken.

This from a Tau player Whats the matter, scared about the prospect of not being able to blow us away in a couple of turns anymore?

Nah, they're still bad, just not CSM bad.

I'd love for IG to get a new, well deigned codex. Sadley, from what the tau got, you'll probably just get a paid FAQ and formations.

If that happens I will abandon 40K.

If the formations are BOGO, that'd be OK.

From my POV, IG are not underpowered, just grossly suffering from overcosted ALL of the "classic" (2E) units: Platoons, Chimeras, Ogryns, Ratlings, Sentinels, Rough Riders, Hellhounds, Bassies & Russes.

Cut all of those costs in half via BOGO formations, and they are the shooty horde that I want to play.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If the formations are BOGO, that'd be OK.

From my POV, IG are not underpowered, just grossly suffering from overcosted ALL of the "classic" (2E) units: Platoons, Chimeras, Ogryns, Ratlings, Sentinels, Rough Riders, Hellhounds, Bassies & Russes.

Cut all of those costs in half via BOGO formations, and they are the shooty horde that I want to play.

But that's the issue that I have with this. Just doing "BOGO" isn't actually fixing the issue--they're stupidly costed for what you get. The only thing it does is encourage you to either spend money or spam the cheapest thing possible to get the good stuff free.

I would FAR rather have Orders applying to the whole army at once, vehicles being able to accept Orders, and a "Coordinated Fire" rule like what we just saw with the Tau--along with giving the Guard the Overwatch capability that THEY should have gotten instead of the Tau in the first place.

And honestly, when we talk about "BOGO formations"? People who keep pointing at Space Marines need to realize it's for Rhinos, Razorbacks, and Drop Pods for the two Gladius Companies.
Oh no, you've got a DT for each squad rolling at me! Let me surrender--those things are terrifying!
...Said noone ever about Rhinos/Razorbacks.

Drop Pods are an entirely different story though...and it's not like they're super expensive to begin with.

Giving IG the same sort of over-watch thing would make sense (at least on the guardsmen squads), but I'm unsure why tau shouldn't have gotten it. They're worse off against assaults than even IG.

Because very few things live long enough to assault Tau

Guard don't need overwatch or chromey rules. They're basic infantry.

The higher you raise the Guard, the more you lower *everything* else in the game. The point of the Guard is that they are ordinary humans against giant fungus monsters, inhumanly agile aliens, huge scary bugs - and they win via the inexhaustible mass of material the Imperial Soviet can eventually bring to bear.

Perhaps the "balancing" thing for BOGO would be that the freebies always start in Reserve, while the base unit must always start on the board. This solves the 22 tanks + 200 infantry deployment "problem" as well, while adding a tactical / strategic dimension of the initial Guard forces needing to hold out for reinforcements.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Guard don't need overwatch or chromey rules. They're basic infantry.

The higher you raise the Guard, the more you lower *everything* else in the game. The point of the Guard is that they are ordinary humans against giant fungus monsters, inhumanly agile aliens, huge scary bugs - and they win via the inexhaustible mass of material the Imperial Soviet can eventually bring to bear.

And? Why should that affect our defensive measures?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Giving IG the same sort of over-watch thing would make sense (at least on the guardsmen squads), but I'm unsure why tau shouldn't have gotten it. They're worse off against assaults than even IG.

I should have clarified a bit more:
Tau are not the only ones who should have gotten it. Guard should have gotten it first. Period. When we talk about Guardsmen, we're not talking about just waves of humanity--we're talking about trained soldiers who do the exact same kinds of overlapping fields of fire that the Tau have as their justification for Supporting Fire.

Hell, Supporting Fire should have been a USR instead of Tau specific.

Edit: Actually, nevermind. I'd argue with you, but I'd rather not swing this thread massively OT.

(directed at MoO)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Giving IG the same sort of over-watch thing would make sense (at least on the guardsmen squads), but I'm unsure why tau shouldn't have gotten it. They're worse off against assaults than even IG.

I should have clarified a bit more:
Tau are not the only ones who should have gotten it. Guard should have gotten it first. Period. When we talk about Guardsmen, we're not talking about just waves of humanity--we're talking about trained soldiers who do the exact same kinds of overlapping fields of fire that the Tau have as their justification for Supporting Fire.

Hell, Supporting Fire should have been a USR instead of Tau specific.

That would make sense. Although, I would still stand by my wanting of it to be restricted to 6", and it would defiantly need to be if everybody had it (so assault would still be viable).

@moo - I'm not sure I follow your objection. I'm saying the mostly grossly overcosted stuff gets an effective 50% price cut, in exchange for reduced deployment flexibility.

I don't see how that reduces defenses. If anything it doubled the defense (and offsense) by doubling the number of thing the enemy needs to kill.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Guard don't need overwatch or chromey rules. They're basic infantry.

And? Fire Warriors are basic infantry, yet given "overwatch and chromey rules".
Ork Boyz are basic infantry, yet given "chromey rules".
Etc etc


What do Guardsmen have? Serious question, what do you think they have that somehow justifies them being the "baseline" of the game?

The higher you raise the Guard, the more you lower *everything* else in the game. The point of the Guard is that they are ordinary humans against giant fungus monsters, inhumanly agile aliens, huge scary bugs - and they win via the inexhaustible mass of material the Imperial Soviet can eventually bring to bear.

That's a gross misunderstanding of Guard at the tabletop level--and of the more "elite" Guard Regiments to begin with.
The Guard don't succeed just because they can keep throwing bodies at a problem, they succeed by having the whole of the Imperium to draw upon. They can bring in Cadian Shock Regiments to have a core of well-trained and exceedingly disciplined marksmen to anchor the lines, they can bring in Catachans to have jungle fighting expertise, they can bring in Elysians to bring in highly mobile light infantry, etc etc.

Perhaps the "balancing" thing for BOGO would be that the freebies always start in Reserve, while the base unit must always start on the board. This solves the 22 tanks + 200 infantry deployment "problem" as well.

Or the "balancing" thing could be to properly price the stuff in the first place and completely eliminate the need for BOGO nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Giving IG the same sort of over-watch thing would make sense (at least on the guardsmen squads), but I'm unsure why tau shouldn't have gotten it. They're worse off against assaults than even IG.

I should have clarified a bit more:
Tau are not the only ones who should have gotten it. Guard should have gotten it first. Period. When we talk about Guardsmen, we're not talking about just waves of humanity--we're talking about trained soldiers who do the exact same kinds of overlapping fields of fire that the Tau have as their justification for Supporting Fire.

Hell, Supporting Fire should have been a USR instead of Tau specific.

That would make sense. Although, I would still stand by my wanting of it to be restricted to 6", and it would defiantly need to be if everybody had it (so assault would still be viable).

Even keeping it at 12" for everyone else wouldn't somehow eliminate the Tau advantage, since Tau and Dark Angels are the only armies which can approach their basic BS on Overwatch.
Notice that I said armies. I'm well aware that there is a Warlord trait for Skitarii which grants the Warlord and his unit the ability to Overwatch at their unmodified Ballistic Skill.


Assault armies need more in any regards, but that's a different thread.

Eh I wouldn't describe FWs as "basic infantry" when compared to conscripts, or even guardsmen. The fire caste have a birth-to-death training system, that constantly enforces teamwork, precision, covering the other teams weaknesses. But I agree with the point being made.


Edit:no, I want 6" for everybody, tau included.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Eh I wouldn't describe FWs as "basic infantry" when compared to conscripts, or even guardsmen.

They are. They really are. If you want something to compare Fire Warriors to, based strictly upon lore, it would be Guardsmen. Throw out your knowledge of Conscripts because even those guys if going on lore aren't the incompetent tools they're made out to be in certain novels.

The fire caste have a birth-to-death training system, that constantly enforces teamwork, precision, covering the other teams weaknesses. But I agree with the point being made.

Read anything about Cadians? Steel Legion? Catachans?
Cadians are if anything more hardcore about training than even the Schola Progenium.

Edit:no, I want 6" for everybody, tau included.

I can get behind that.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Eh I wouldn't describe FWs as "basic infantry" when compared to conscripts, or even guardsmen.

They are. They really are. If you want something to compare Fire Warriors to, based strictly upon lore, it would be Guardsmen. Throw out your knowledge of Conscripts because even those guys if going on lore aren't the incompetent tools they're made out to be in certain novels.

The fire caste have a birth-to-death training system, that constantly enforces teamwork, precision, covering the other teams weaknesses. But I agree with the point being made.

Read anything about Cadians? Steel Legion? Catachans?
Cadians are if anything more hardcore about training than even the Schola Progenium.

Edit:no, I want 6" for everybody, tau included.

I can get behind that.

Places like cadia and catachan are real outliers in the big scheme of things (cadia is in a constant state of war, can catachan is a fething deathworld, nowhere close to your average imperial world). Now this doesn't mean guardsmen aren't well trained, they'd just be at a level with a low-rank modern military force (like private or corporeal, I forget how military rankings work). A tau shas'la would be closer to a guard Sargent. Conscripts are, well, conscripts. Minimal training, sent out with a gun and a flack-jacket.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
I took a baneblade once in a game and Immediately regretted not taking my cheaper, more efficient knight.

You mean the thing with 1/6th the firepower and 3 fewer hullpoints? Riiiight...



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And "buy one get one free" is the most absurdly op thing I've ever heard of.

A basic baneblade (which has and auto-cannon, the baneblade cannon, the demolisher cannon, and a TL BH) costs over 525 points. A Knight Palidin (which has a heavy stubber, the rapid fire battle cannon, and the reaper chainsword) costs 375 points.


Not to push any side of the debate, just to make it a bit clearer.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
And "buy one get one free" is the most absurdly op thing I've ever heard of.

Not when the specific models you're buying and getting are as absurdly overpriced as they are in the current Codex.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
I took a baneblade once in a game and Immediately regretted not taking my cheaper, more efficient knight.

You mean the thing with 1/6th the firepower and 3 fewer hullpoints? Riiiight....

Sure it has less HP, but it is putting out more damage per shooting phase, can murder just about anything in lose combat, is far more survivable as it ignores 50% of damaging hits and is fare more cost efficient.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
And "buy one get one free" is the most absurdly op thing I've ever heard of.

Not when the specific models you're buying and getting are as absurdly overpriced as they are in the current Codex.

Agreed. We already pay through the nose for the middling tier crap that we get. Why not let us have some shiny stuff for free?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Eh I wouldn't describe FWs as "basic infantry" when compared to conscripts, or even guardsmen.

They are. They really are. If you want something to compare Fire Warriors to, based strictly upon lore, it would be Guardsmen. Throw out your knowledge of Conscripts because even those guys if going on lore aren't the incompetent tools they're made out to be in certain novels.

The fire caste have a birth-to-death training system, that constantly enforces teamwork, precision, covering the other teams weaknesses. But I agree with the point being made.

Read anything about Cadians? Steel Legion? Catachans?
Cadians are if anything more hardcore about training than even the Schola Progenium.

Edit:no, I want 6" for everybody, tau included.

I can get behind that.

Places like cadia and catachan are real outliers in the big scheme of things (cadia is in a constant state of war, can catachan is a fething deathworld, nowhere close to your average imperial world).

They're not as rare as you make them out to be. The Imperium has a great many Deathworlds, many of which are inhabited and produce Guard tithings. Cadia is not the only fortress world either; just the only one whose entire population is considered to be part of the fighting force.

Now this doesn't mean guardsmen aren't well trained, they'd just be at a level with a low-rank modern military force (like private or corporeal, I forget how military rankings work).

As a general rule, your run of the mill Guardsmen are recruited from the PDF per GW. So they're semi-professional soldiers(varying from planet to planet) before even being recruited into the Guard.

A tau shas'la would be closer to a guard Sargent.

Would he really be though? Tau have a much shorter lifespan compared to a human and they do not have access to Warp travel either--which is where a large amount of specialized Guard training takes place en route to a warzone.

A Shas'la is your basic Fire Warrior. Equating him to a Guard Sergeant(much less a veteran Guard Sergeant!) is kind of silly, even taking into account the whole "Fire Caste are bred solely for war". We don't know the age they mature at, we don't know when they start training, etc.

We do actually have that frame of reference for some specific Guard regiments.
Cadians start training around 6-8 years old(8 being on the "late" scale), get inducted into Whiteshield Platoons at 12-15, and can be brought in as full Guardsmen by the time most modern soldiers are graduating high school.

Just think about that for a moment there. That is a HUGE difference compared to "modern" militaries.
Additionally, for a modern military? The rank that someone holds does not necessarily reflect their level of experience.

Conscripts are, well, conscripts. Minimal training, sent out with a gun and a flack-jacket.

Conscripts vary wildly from world to world though.

On Cadia, "Conscripts" are exclusively Whiteshields--teenagers who are on their way to becoming full Guardsmen.
On Catachan/Elysia, they have no Conscripts--their populations are small enough that every one is best considered a "specialist".
On Armageddon/Necromunda/Hive Worlds of that nature, a "Conscript" could include Hive Gangers who have been engaged in some kind of violent act since their formative years.

Conscript is a very loose term, and it is why I object to them even having brought them into the Codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
I took a baneblade once in a game and Immediately regretted not taking my cheaper, more efficient knight.

You mean the thing with 1/6th the firepower and 3 fewer hullpoints? Riiiight...

He means the thing which has an Invulnerable save on one facing, that can make Stomp attacks and can fight in CC.

And "buy one get one free" is the most absurdly op thing I've ever heard of.

Eh. With the state of Guard now?

That's like Orks buying two mobs of Boyz and getting a free mob of Gretchin. Yeah, you get something free...but really who gives a crap?

I'd rather they fix the issues than just go BOGO.

All the fighting is crazy. IG suck because vehicles suck now. MCs are where its at and IG dont have those.

Baneblades need to be reduced in price, and bought in formations. 300 a piece for the lesser models, like the baneword or the stormlord should be a decent price, seeing where the game is going now. Then you get 3 of them for 750, with a 4+ invul save and fearless infantry within 12''.

Add inn off-bord artilley with infantry spotters as a new model, and we're in business.

I posted earlier where the baneblade variants would be if priced at a somewhat balanced level with imperial knights. Yaric would be a lord of war in order to allow you 2 command squads without buying extra troops and you still want him for some reason. Also, the three fast tanks the guard have are designed to close the distance and claim forward ground. You will notice the price tweeks I suggested for them also.


The primary problem with guard is the amount of escalating potency weapons in existence right now where they become more efficient the more durable your target is. Lance, haywire, and strD all ignore the points spent by things like the leman Russ on high armor value. If you drop the scatterbikes to a 4+ (which I have in my houserules since i picked up MY 6th ed book) and add the missing 100 points to the wraithknight suddenly there isn't as much to worry about. When a heavy bolter can make jetbikes jink, suddenly spending the extra 10 points for better guns isn't the obvious choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll notice with those changes the guardsmen can be farther afield and still receive orders, the roughriders are harder to put down, and some of the vehicles no longer pay obscene points for ranges they will almost never see.

 triplegrim wrote:
Add inn off-bord artilley with infantry spotters as a new model, and we're in business.

OK, just what sort of off-board artillery are we talking about?

1 "FREE" S9 AP2 Apocalypse (cloverleaf) Barrage for every non-Wyvern unit you buy?

In one of the first codexes, I forget which, Imperial Guard did have a preliminary bombardment where basilisk shells would land on the opposing army before the game began.

Please note that Rough Riders, Scions, Sentinels (even armoured sentinels), Infantry Guardsmen and any power weapon upgrade are never worth their points.

I can get 3 Armoured Lascannon Sentinels for 150 points. Space Marines get 1 twin linked lascannon and 2 lascannons at BS4 (with 3 less hull points and +1 armour) for 140 points. I feel as if sentinels should be a little cheaper.. I'm sure there's many more examples that can be made, for all of the different kinds of units.

3 Armoured Lascannon Sentinels have the advantage of being able to be in 3 different places...

Only if they're taking three up separate FoC slots.

I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Lance, haywire, and strD all ignore the points spent by things like the leman Russ on high armor value.

Dark Lances make up for that by being excessively overpriced and, well, crap.

Dark and bright lances should cost the same amount of points. They only seem crappy because the meta heavily favors medium tanks where they rarely have an av above 11-12. The close range engagement area forced by the maelstrom missions doesn't allow for the long range penetration of armor to be a factor in games after turn 2-3.

It is frustrating that the dark lance should only be 5 points more than the dissies. For some reason they seem to think that the reason people always upgraded them was that the bright lance was too cheap, not that the disintegrators were too expensive.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Dark and bright lances cost the same amount of points. They only seem crappy because the meta heavily favors medium tanks where they rarely have an av above 11-12. The close range engagement area forced by the maelstrom missions doesn't allow for the long range penetration of armor to be a factor in games after turn 2-3.

It is frustrating that the dark lance should only be 5 points more than the dissies. For some reason they seem to think that the reason people always upgraded them was that the bright lance was too cheap, not that the disintegrators were too expensive.

Honestly, even against AV 13 dark lances aren't great. Strength 8 still needs a 4 to cause any damage, then you need to hit....you really need 7-8 lances to cause 3HP against av 12+. It's too expensive. That's likely to be more than half of the darklances in the entire army, and they aren't on safe platforms.
It's not like eldar tend to use bright lances. Firedragons having 6 melta guns with AP 0 and possibly BS 5 destroy tanks. Especially since their delivery system allows them to hit rear or side armor with a high degree of safety.
Marines drop in and unload MG/PGs into rear armor. for <200 points, they can get 6 PG shots into rear armor, which is often a 10, sometimes an 11 (so 3+/4+ to wound, same as the lances for a fraction of the cost).
How many Dark Lances can DE take for 200 points? And on a platform that is sure to deliver?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Dark and bright lances should cost the same amount of points.

Yes, but the difference is Eldar don't rely on theirs. They have D-weapons and AP0 Meltas.

There's a damn good reason you don't see bright lances in Eldar lists - they're bloody awful weapons.

- Against AV10, A Dark Lance is a Lascannon with -1S and -12" range.
- Against AV11, A Dark Lance is a Lascannon with -1S and -12" range.
- Against AV12, A Dark Lance is a Lascannon with -1S and -12" range.
- Against AV13, A Dark Lance is a Lascannon with -12" range.
- Against AV14, A Dark Lance is a Lascannon with +1S and -12" range.

So, they are inferior to lascannons against any AV except 14. And Lascannons aren't good anti-vehicle weapons these days.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
They only seem crappy because the meta heavily favors medium tanks where they rarely have an av above 11-12.

Even against Heavy tanks though, they're still not good weapons.

Also, bear in mind that most armies have stuff like meltas. So, when they get close to a tank they're rewarded with a much better chance to pen and explode it.

When Dark Eldar get close they're rewarded with... more dark lances.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

It is frustrating that the dark lance should only be 5 points more than the dissies. For some reason they seem to think that the reason people always upgraded them was that the bright lance was too cheap, not that the disintegrators were too expensive.

What's frustrating is that they increased the cost of dark lances, instead of lowering the cost of dissies. And then they proceeded to remove the rule that let the Ravager move 12" and fire all its weapons at full BS. It wasn't overpowered in 5th, and now it's just a joke.

I don't rely on D weapons or meltas in my eldar lists. Also, my meta has a decent chance of seeing fortifications so the av14+ around here is a SERIOUS consideration on the table. The 50% chance of hullpoint removal is not bad, especially when now the ap2 weapons can actually explode vehicles in one shot. When you see the numbers of "7-8" lances to drop three hullpoints, with a penetrating hit you have a 1/6 chance to eliminate the tank they are firing at entirely, 1/3 to remove its mobility for the rest of the game (immobilized or dead) 50% chance to neuter the vehicles damage potential (weapon destroyed, immobilized, or exploded) and every other shot that pens will cause dramatic loss of firepower and/or limited movement.

People act as though causing penetrating hits are useless (and yes, against superheavies it can be) a single penetrating hit will DRAMATICALLY affect the rest of the game. Considering the very worst a bright or dark lance has is a 1/3 chance to pen there is no reason to think they are useless.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
Add inn off-bord artilley with infantry spotters as a new model, and we're in business.

OK, just what sort of off-board artillery are we talking about?

1 "FREE" S9 AP2 Apocalypse (cloverleaf) Barrage for every non-Wyvern unit you buy?

What is it with IG whiners recently? Your codex is fine. Stop trying to make it op.

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

IG don't need a buff.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

which ones are weaker then the IG ones, out of the ones marines use. IG has nothing like the drop pod and both razorbacks and rhinos are better then chimeras, because they are either much cheaper or free.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
Add inn off-bord artilley with infantry spotters as a new model, and we're in business.

OK, just what sort of off-board artillery are we talking about?

1 "FREE" S9 AP2 Apocalypse (cloverleaf) Barrage for every non-Wyvern unit you buy?

What is it with IG whiners recently? Your codex is fine. Stop trying to make it op.

What is with SM whiners these days? They seem to think that they should be the best and that no one should be able to get close.
Our codex is NOT fine. It is so weak that even when playing against less able opponents I struggle to win. It is a static hunk of crap in an age where games are decided by fast moving agile units. It is full of over priced junk units which have been needing a buff for several editions now - hell, only two IG units are worth their points cost and only another three are actually worth taking.

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

IG don't need a buff.

Yes we really do.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
Add inn off-bord artilley with infantry spotters as a new model, and we're in business.

OK, just what sort of off-board artillery are we talking about?

1 "FREE" S9 AP2 Apocalypse (cloverleaf) Barrage for every non-Wyvern unit you buy?

What is it with IG whiners recently? Your codex is fine. Stop trying to make it op.

What is with SM whiners these days? They seem to think that they should be the best and that no one should be able to get close.
Our codex is NOT fine. It is so weak that even when playing against less able opponents I struggle to win. It is a static hunk of crap in an age where games are decided by fast moving agile units. It is full of over priced junk units which have been needing a buff for several editions now - hell, only two IG units are worth their points cost and only another three are actually worth taking.

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

IG don't need a buff.

Yes we really do.

Don't bother replying to him, he just copy-pasted his (now locked) spam thread in proposed rules about how the Guard need to be toned down from being "OP". He supposedly plays guard, which is apparently where he gets his credibility for his claims. Even though a blind man can tell you guard are in a rough spot right now though.

Jancoran will disagree with you.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Jancoran will disagree with you.

This is not only an appeal to authority, this is someone who lacks credibility.
Look at his tournament list. It's an eldar net list, not his ig blob.

If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion then don't post.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

Strange then, is it not, that said triple Las predator will often remove the stock LRBT (the both cost roughly the same) and a lot more stuff than the LRBT could anyway, all on its own.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
What is it with IG whiners recently? Your codex is fine. Stop trying to make it op.

Using this puppet, show us where the IG codex touched you.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

Strange then, is it not, that said triple Las predator will often remove the stock LRBT (the both cost roughly the same) and a lot more stuff than the LRBT could anyway, all on its own.

That would be strange. Except it doesn't.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

Strange then, is it not, that said triple Las predator will often remove the stock LRBT (the both cost roughly the same) and a lot more stuff than the LRBT could anyway, all on its own.

That would be strange. Except it doesn't.

That would be extremely strange then because I can personally assure you that it does.

 vipoid wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
What is it with IG whiners recently? Your codex is fine. Stop trying to make it op.

Using this puppet, show us where the IG codex touched you.

*points everywhere*

Do any of you lot even read your own codex?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

Strange then, is it not, that said triple Las predator will often remove the stock LRBT (the both cost roughly the same) and a lot more stuff than the LRBT could anyway, all on its own.

That would be strange. Except it doesn't.

That would be extremely strange then because I can personally assure you that it does.

Poor you, rolling poorly. SM vehicles are just straight up worse. The IG even have a unit that can help Russes get a 2+ cover save.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
What is it with IG whiners recently? Your codex is fine. Stop trying to make it op.

Using this puppet, show us where the IG codex touched you.

*points everywhere*

Do any of you lot even read your own codex?

Several times over, then I pinched myself and took several large mugs of coffee, then I re-read it. Sadly I was awake and the book was not just a bad dream.

Yes, I've read my codex a lot the past few years. We can tell you that the vast majority of what you're saying is outright wrong. But then again you won't listen anyway.

Typically-Wardian wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

Strange then, is it not, that said triple Las predator will often remove the stock LRBT (the both cost roughly the same) and a lot more stuff than the LRBT could anyway, all on its own.

That would be strange. Except it doesn't.

That would be extremely strange then because I can personally assure you that it does.

Poor you, rolling poorly. SM vehicles are just straight up worse. The IG even have a unit that can help Russes get a 2+ save.

A 2+ save?!?! Well, with camo gear and good cover I can occasionally get a 3+...
Im not rolling poorly, I am rolling average/above average. SM vehicles are just, point for point, straight up better.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Jancoran will disagree with you.

When was the last time either you or Jancoran played competitively? My meta's pretty chill, but the IG still get thrashed, even after players swap codicies.

Does it matter?
Sm don't take tanks anyway outside of transports.
Gravs and bikers are way more common, drop pod squads trivially remove any tank outside of ones that can jink.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

Strange then, is it not, that said triple Las predator will often remove the stock LRBT (the both cost roughly the same) and a lot more stuff than the LRBT could anyway, all on its own.

That would be strange. Except it doesn't.

That would be extremely strange then because I can personally assure you that it does.

Poor you, rolling poorly. SM vehicles are just straight up worse. The IG even have a unit that can help Russes get a 2+ save.

A 2+ save?!?! Well, with camo gear and good cover I can occasionally get a 3+...
Im not rolling poorly, I am rolling average/above average. SM vehicles are just, point for point, straight up better.

Bullgryns, camo gear and an ADL. Do it right, and you can easily have 3 or 4 unkillable russes. Throw in prescience and you are far more accurate than most others.

 Selym wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Jancoran will disagree with you.

When was the last time either you or Jancoran played competitively? My meta's pretty chill, but the IG still get thrashed, even after players swap codicies.

 reds8n wrote:
If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion then don't post.

Quoting a mod is not an acceptable substitute for an argument.

 Selym wrote:
Quoting a mod is not an acceptable substitute for an argument.

Not to mention its the very same mod that locked his troll-thread directly related to this topic, so its not like he's on his side anyways.

I think that mod warning was more aimed at you mate.

Selym,
I believe jan is going to a tournament soon, he posted a list in another thread.
15 scat bikes,
2 fire dragons with trimmings
Hawks.

I was surprised since it's pretty net listy at 1500 points.

Don't feel bad, he never referenced me either. Senpai will never notice me.

Akiasura wrote:
Selym,
I believe jan is going to a tournament soon, he posted a list in another thread.
15 scat bikes,
2 fire dragons with trimmings
Hawks.

I was surprised since it's pretty net listy at 1500 points.

Don't feel bad, he never referenced me either. Senpai will never notice me.

Looks like the blob is not unkillable after all.

Just because he felt like using Eldar on the day, does not mean that the argument is any less valid.

Jancoran sure has been quiet since Wardian popped into the thread...hm....

I smell double trouble.

Ah yes, the plot thickens.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Just because he felt like using Eldar on the day, does not mean that the argument is any less valid.

Yes and no
If this blob is competitive and can't be defeated by pretty much anything, it should make appearances at some tournaments. The ig blob has been around since 6th after all.

The fact it doesn't, and someone who says it's amazing decides to bring a net list eldar tournament list (a list that I claimed could 2 round the blob nearly, and he called it list tailoring and net listing) is damning if you are going to act as a credible source.

If I told you your drink wasn't poisoned, knowing I'm a chemist who has researched poisons, but I refused to touch your drink, would you trust it? It doesn't mean it's poisoned but it's certainly awkward at a party.

I don't think it's him. Janc HAS a tendency to PUT emphasis on CERTAIN words by PUTTING them in ALL caps. But we're getting really off topic here.

Yeah blobs aren't great. I mean yeah you could buff them with fortifications and allied psykers bt you are dumping a lot of points to make a mediocre unit.

Losing lumbering behemoth killed most of the LRBT variants dead. Not being to put ignores cover on vehicles is also a serious problem. Vehicles sucking in general is yet another big problem.

A mediocre unit that, bee-tee-dubs, gets slaughtered in a turn by my BT army's core unit:

Land Raider Crusader w/Multi-Melta
Crusaders x10 with Neophytes x5 and two power swords.
Emperor's Champion

Weight of attacks, higher initiative, if a Neophyte dies to overwatch, everyone left gets + attack. If I win combat (I will), I get to sweep with I5 and +D3. I'd have to be having a really bad day to loose to it.

This is, in itself, a below-the-curve unit.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

Strange then, is it not, that said triple Las predator will often remove the stock LRBT (the both cost roughly the same) and a lot more stuff than the LRBT could anyway, all on its own.

That would be strange. Except it doesn't.

That would be extremely strange then because I can personally assure you that it does.

Poor you, rolling poorly. SM vehicles are just straight up worse. The IG even have a unit that can help Russes get a 2+ save.

A 2+ save?!?! Well, with camo gear and good cover I can occasionally get a 3+...
Im not rolling poorly, I am rolling average/above average. SM vehicles are just, point for point, straight up better.

Bullgryns, camo gear and an ADL. Do it right, and you can easily have 3 or 4 unkillable russes. Throw in prescience and you are far more accurate than most others.

And you're paying out the nose for that combo, and it's relatively easy to remove. To actually cover 3 or 4 Russ tanks, you need a relatively large unit which isn't cheap (and, don't forget, the *ENEMY* gets +1 cover save through the Bullgryns as well), you need an ADL, you need camo gear, and you need Ld reinforcement for the Bullgryns (otherwise knocking off a couple forces a fallback test on Ld7). Add Prescience and you need a Psyker as well. So lets say at *least* a 5 model unit of Bullgryns, a Commissar for Ld reinforcement, a Primaris Psyker, 3 LRBT's, and an Aegis line, you're talking 855 points, assuming everything is largely naked of options aside from Camo netting, to get that setup.

You're basically doubling the cost of those Russ tanks to get that save, your firepower is largely usefless against MC's, deathstar units, flyers, other tanks, infantry in decent cover, etc, and if an opponent has Drop Pods, or some sort of Ignores Cover mechanic themselves, then your great investment has become worthless.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
What is it with IG whiners recently? Your codex is fine. Stop trying to make it op.

Using this puppet, show us where the IG codex touched you.

*points everywhere*

Do any of you lot even read your own codex?

yes, we have. We also have tournament data backing up our assertions that IG are in poor competitive shape, which has been shared with you in other threads.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

The Predators are significantly cheaper, have Squadron benefits, and far better accuracy. A Tri-las Predator is a better tank hunter than any IG tank.

Many of IG vehicles and Leman Russ tanks in particular rarely earn their points back, regardless of what marines have. The reason I think there should be a rule like the marine full sized squadron bonus is because many IG tanks and Leman Russes are supposed to be in squadrons but you rarely see them taken in full sized squadrons because there is every advantage not to; it would promote fluffiness by promoting rules.

Consider how Leman Russ squadrons are used in an average game, where if you're moving your squadron correctly you're only giving your enemy AV14 to shoot at... So what if to simplify that early movement game the squadron bonus was a rule that as long as the tanks of the squadron are within a distance of each other all shooting is resolved against their front armor. Some sort of "Wall of Steel"

Tis sad but what Vak says is the truth. AP2 or worse AT weaponry are largely going to kill tanks by hull pointing them to death. A Tri-Las Predator has no useless weapons and is more accurate to boot. A Leman Russ Vanquisher, unless you dump a ton of points to make it better (Am I the only one seeing a pattern here?), will only either hit with it's Lascannon or it's main gun thanks to BS3 and no twin linked. And it can't even take useful sponson guns for it's main role as a long range hull point plinker.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Many of IG vehicles and Leman Russ tanks in particular rarely earn their points back, regardless of what marines have. The reason I think there should be a rule like the marine full sized squadron bonus is because many IG tanks and Leman Russes are supposed to be in squadrons but you rarely see them taken in full sized squadrons because there is every advantage not to; it would promote fluffiness by promoting rules.

Consider how Leman Russ squadrons are used in an average game, where if you're moving your squadron correctly you're only giving your enemy AV14 to shoot at... So what if to simplify that early movement game the squadron bonus was a rule that as long as the tanks of the squadron are within a distance of each other all shooting is resolved against their front armor. Some sort of "Wall of Steel"

What I'd like to see is Leman Russes being able to be taken in Squadrons with the Squadron commander being BS4 for like a 10 point upgrade. He can be taken alone but if taken in a squadron he can issue orders to his men. Or he can sacrifice his own shooting to use some kind of targeting relay that gives his men +1 BS, ignores cover or whatever.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
Add inn off-bord artilley with infantry spotters as a new model, and we're in business.

OK, just what sort of off-board artillery are we talking about?

1 "FREE" S9 AP2 Apocalypse (cloverleaf) Barrage for every non-Wyvern unit you buy?

What is it with IG whiners recently? Your codex is fine. Stop trying to make it op.

IG don't need a buff.

I'm not whining. I'm simply leaving my IG on the shelf, while I enjoy my Eldar. However, if someone wants to play low tier, non-competitive, I'm happy to dust them off to play down to their level.

IG are not fine; IG kinda suck, being clearly sub-par.

I'm merely suggesting that IG be at par with Decurion; that is not unreasonable.

IG totally need a buff.

Anyhow, I'm Ignoring you from here on out. Good luck convincing the IG players who don't / won't have Eldar / Tau / Necrons / SMs to fall back on.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

Do any of you lot even read your own codex?

Yes, and it seems you don't.

But it doesn't matter, does it? Your mind is already made up, and you have no intention of letting the facts sway you.

You started a thread asking how people could possibly think IG were underpowered. Many people took the time to reply and gave you many, many reasons why IG are demonstrably underpowered. You ignored all of them. Because that wasn't what the thread was about. You had no intention of ever actually listening - you just wanted conformation of your own personal bias against IG. When you failed to get it because your bias was just that - unfounded bias, you instead resorted to non-arguments to try and justify your bias, insisting that everyone else must just be wrong and you are the only person who can see the truth.

I see no point whatsoever in trying to argue with you because you have demonstrated that you simply won't listen. You will remain in a state of denial until reality itself alters to fit your baseless beliefs.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Many of IG vehicles and Leman Russ tanks in particular rarely earn their points back, regardless of what marines have. The reason I think there should be a rule like the marine full sized squadron bonus is because many IG tanks and Leman Russes are supposed to be in squadrons but you rarely see them taken in full sized squadrons because there is every advantage not to; it would promote fluffiness by promoting rules.

Consider how Leman Russ squadrons are used in an average game, where if you're moving your squadron correctly you're only giving your enemy AV14 to shoot at... So what if to simplify that early movement game the squadron bonus was a rule that as long as the tanks of the squadron are within a distance of each other all shooting is resolved against their front armor. Some sort of "Wall of Steel"

What I'd like to see is Leman Russes being able to be taken in Squadrons with the Squadron commander being BS4 for like a 10 point upgrade. He can be taken alone but if taken in a squadron he can issue orders to his men. Or he can sacrifice his own shooting to use some kind of targeting relay that gives his men +1 BS, ignores cover or whatever.

It would make sense if there were a tank squadron commander... Giving him a set of orders for the squadron with a variety of effects would help buff the unit without altering the fundamentals of what they are.

 vipoid wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

Do any of you lot even read your own codex?

Yes, and it seems you don't.

But it doesn't matter, does it? Your mind is already made up, and you have no intention of letting the facts sway you.

You started a thread asking how people could possibly think IG were underpowered. Many people took the time to reply and gave you many, many reasons why IG are demonstrably underpowered. You ignored all of them. Because that wasn't what the thread was about. You had no intention of ever actually listening - you just wanted conformation of your own personal bias against IG. When you failed to get it because your bias was just that - unfounded bias, you instead resorted to non-arguments to try and justify your bias, insisting that everyone else must just be wrong and you are the only person who can see the truth.

I see no point whatsoever in trying to argue with you because you have demonstrated that you simply won't listen. You will remain in a state of denial until reality itself alters to fit your baseless beliefs.

Have an exalt, I could not have put it better myself.

 vipoid wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

Do any of you lot even read your own codex?

Yes, and it seems you don't.

But it doesn't matter, does it? Your mind is already made up, and you have no intention of letting the facts sway you.

You started a thread asking how people could possibly think IG were underpowered. Many people took the time to reply and gave you many, many reasons why IG are demonstrably underpowered. You ignored all of them. Because that wasn't what the thread was about. You had no intention of ever actually listening - you just wanted conformation of your own personal bias against IG. When you failed to get it because your bias was just that - unfounded bias, you instead resorted to non-arguments to try and justify your bias, insisting that everyone else must just be wrong and you are the only person who can see the truth.

I see no point whatsoever in trying to argue with you because you have demonstrated that you simply won't listen. You will remain in a state of denial until reality itself alters to fit your baseless beliefs.

Have an exalt sir.

Lemon Bus Squadron:
-Up to three Russ tanks may be taken, but they must be of the same kind (e.g. 3x Eradicator or 3x Demolisher).

Bonus:
-One tank becomes a Squadron Command Tank, gaining Bs4 and Tank Orders (see Pask)
-Russes in this squadron may fire at separate targets to eachother, but must remain in coherency, and follow all other squadron rules. Each tank may only fire at a single target.

I like what you're doing here Selym, maybe have it so taking a squadron of say; 3 Punishers offers a benefit for having 3 of them in addition to the benefits you have here?

Punishers should be S6 and Rending period.

Not really what I was thinking, as the psuedo split fire with tank orders, combined with the should-be-there lumbering behemoth would make this unit useful.

What sort of bonus did you have in mind?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Punishers should be S6 and Rending period.

Yes.

Actually, a rule which allows tanks to be taken in squadrons but allows them to operate independently on the battlefield - IE ignore unit coherency and splitfire - would be a really good one for our tanks. Throw in a Veteran Crew upgrade which give BS 4 for +10 points and the old LB rules and we might have something to work with here.

A veteran crew upgrade would be absolutely perfect in my mind. As for benefits... I'm not entirely sure yet. I just saw how Predators get monster hunter and tank hunter (I think?) when they're taken in threes. So maybe Punishers would gain shred when they're taken in 3's. That's probably a bit weak, but I just think each Russ Variant should get some benefit when taken in 3's. (in addition to getting Lumbering Behemoth back)

Just rebuilt the Russ tanks, manticor, and death strike with my vdr.

Battle tank: 120
Exterminator: same
Vanquisher: 120
Eradicator: 140
Demolisher: 140
Punished: 120
Executioner: 140
Manticor 130
Dewthstrike: 130

Combine that with my houserule of "heavy vehicles ignore the ordinance penalties" and I think they would be on solid ground again.

Well, a squadron with unlimited coherency is not a squadron in terms of original meaning.

Split fire, yes. Unit coherency? Yes, but with 12 inches instead of 4 inches.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Punishers should be S6 and Rending period.

Even S5 Rending might be enough.

 Hawky wrote:
Well, a squadron with unlimited coherency is not a squadron in terms of original meaning.

This. A unit can't just be scattered across the board or partly in Reserves.

Deathstrike needs the d, ogryns and bullgryns need a points reduction, hydra needs to be bs2 at non flying stuff to make it versatile enough to use.

Plus the obligatory formations. What is really unlikely but I still really want is a new Russ kit. Love tanks, hate the Russ model.

Russes need the Lumbering Behemoth special rule back more than anything else....

Vanquisher needs AP1 and twinlinked (permanent or upgrade) main gun.

 Hawky wrote:
Vanquisher needs AP1 and twinlinked (permanent or upgrade) main gun.

Aye, if the main gun were AP1 and it came with the coaxial heavy stubber, it'd be a pretty solid unit.

Martel732 wrote:
Losing lumbering behemoth killed most of the LRBT variants dead. Not being to put ignores cover on vehicles is also a serious problem. Vehicles sucking in general is yet another big problem.

All it did was make the battlecannon slightly more balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hawky wrote:
Vanquisher needs AP1 and twinlinked (permanent or upgrade) main gun.

Aye, if the main gun were AP1 and it came with the coaxial heavy stubber, it'd be a pretty solid unit.

You mean OP. It's great as it is.

You fail at statistics. At the moment:

50% chance to hit per turn
Admittedly very likely to pen on each hit
16.5% chance to explode

Odds are you'll only take out one light-medium vehicle per game.

You pretty much always pen with it, and all you really need to do is get weapon destroyed and immobilized results.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
You pretty much always pen with it, and all you really need to do is get weapon destroyed and immobilized results.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
You pretty much always pen with it, and all you really need to do is get weapon destroyed and immobilized results.

You're missing the point. The Vanquisher is supposed to be a Tank-Killer. Right now it's more of an irritant. You miss about half the time. Get a solid pen most of the time. But you rarely get a kill. The Vanquisher is supposedly one of the best Tank-killers the Guard has, but it needs a 6 to do it's job. If I wanted to destroy a weapon or immobilize it I would fire a stock LRBT at the target.

 War Kitten wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
You pretty much always pen with it, and all you really need to do is get weapon destroyed and immobilized results.

You're missing the point. The Vanquisher is supposed to be a Tank-Killer. Right now it's more of an irritant. You miss about half the time. Get a solid pen most of the time. But you rarely get a kill. The Vanquisher is supposedly one of the best Tank-killers the Guard has, but it needs a 6 to do it's job. If I wanted to destroy a weapon or immobilize it I would fire a stock LRBT at the target.

Then do that and stop complaining.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
You pretty much always pen with it, and all you really need to do is get weapon destroyed and immobilized results.

That depends on the tank.
For a skimmer getting immobilized can be pretty brutal. Weapon destroyed isn't a big deal, since they have a few guns and can afford to lose 1 without being worthless, if we are talking about WS. Raiders are in trouble, which is why they are only good as cheap transports and not fighting platforms.
Razorbacks aren't that concerned about immobilization providing they take the LC/PG (still gives them a good effective range, and they are usually up the field by T2 quite a ways. WD can be harsh on them though.
Predators don't move much at all, and have 3 weapons. Neither result bothers them.
IG tanks don't want to move, and usually have a few guns besides their main cannons except in some corner cases (Basilisks).

In addition, you still need to hit. The hit chance is why PGs into rear armor are often a better bet than a MG. An MG will only hit with 2/3 most of the time, so you need a destroyed result (not to mention being super close). A PG will hit with 4/6, so can HP something down. Also can be further out.
That's somewhat matchup based though.

pax_imperialis wrote:
Deathstrike needs the d, ogryns and bullgryns need a points reduction, hydra needs to be bs2 at non flying stuff to make it versatile enough to use.

Honestly, the Hydra needs to be given Interceptor and they need to bring in the Auto-Targeter from FW, while also granting the Hydra Autocannon two profiles.

Auto-Targeter gave the Hydra the ability to Ignore Cover...provided that it was being granted by Jink(so if a vehicle Jinked, it wouldn't get a Cover save--but if it was entitled to a Cover save from being obscured it would still get it).
One profile gets Interceptor and Skyfire, the other is just Autocannons cranked down to minimum elevation to shred infantry/light vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
You pretty much always pen with it, and all you really need to do is get weapon destroyed and immobilized results.

You're missing the point. The Vanquisher is supposed to be a Tank-Killer. Right now it's more of an irritant. You miss about half the time. Get a solid pen most of the time. But you rarely get a kill. The Vanquisher is supposedly one of the best Tank-killers the Guard has, but it needs a 6 to do it's job. If I wanted to destroy a weapon or immobilize it I would fire a stock LRBT at the target.

Then do that and stop complaining.

Heavens forbid players want something priced and billed as a tank killer/monster hunter to actually do what it advertises on the tin!

Do you have anything useful to add?

pax_imperialis wrote:
Deathstrike needs the d, ogryns and bullgryns need a points reduction, hydra needs to be bs2 at non flying stuff to make it versatile enough to use.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
You pretty much always pen with it, and all you really need to do is get weapon destroyed and immobilized results.

Remind me again about the hit ratio? What, 50%?
The Vanquisher is THE iconic tank killer of 40K and yet its job can be done better by a regular Battletank or an Exterminator on the flank.

I vote that the Vanquisher gains a +3/+4 on the damage roll.

As to my earlier suggestion, how about giving Russ squadrons Splitfire all the time and increasing the unit coherency to 12"? That way each tank can function in a more independent manner.
If you followed this up with a Veteran Crew option for 10 PPM which gave +1 BS and an option to upgrade one tank per squadron to a Squadron Command tank which gave that tank some orders which could only be issued to its squadron you would be starting to get somewhere.
Combine this with the Tank Commander being changed to an upgrade which is available to all tanks (yes, even LOW) in the army and change his orders to something half decent and allow him to issue orders to any tank.tank squadron on the board and you would have something here.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
You pretty much always pen with it, and all you really need to do is get weapon destroyed and immobilized results.

Remind me again about the hit ratio? What, 50%?
The Vanquisher is THE iconic tank killer of 40K and yet its job can be done better by a regular Battletank or an Exterminator on the flank.

I vote that the Vanquisher gains a +3/+4 on the damage roll.

As to my earlier suggestion, how about giving Russ squadrons Splitfire all the time and increasing the unit coherency to 12"? That way each tank can function in a more independent manner.
If you followed this up with a Veteran Crew option for 10 PPM which gave +1 BS and an option to upgrade one tank per squadron to a Squadron Command tank which gave that tank some orders which could only be issued to its squadron you would be starting to get somewhere.
Combine this with the Tank Commander being changed to an upgrade which is available to all tanks (yes, even LOW) in the army and change his orders to something half decent and allow him to issue orders to any tank.tank squadron on the board and you would have something here.

Pretty much this. Give the infantry a little love as well and you are on the way to a decent codex.

If you make the unit coherency 12", the squadron rules make no sense, as damage carries over.

Ad squadrons have to all fire at the same target for a reason: 9 tanks with enormous guns getting to all fire separately is not balanced.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
If you make the unit coherency 12", the squadron rules make no sense, as damage carries over.

Ad squadrons have to all fire at the same target for a reason: 9 tanks with enormous guns getting to all fire separately is not balanced.

Yet somehow 9 Crisis Suits with just as much relative firepower, far more mobility, the ability to Overwatch and to boost up their Ballistic Skill/gain Ignores Cover on demand via Markerlights or a Buffmander and the ability to have Armor/Cover saves is totally balanced.

Still weaker than most IG lists.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Still weaker than most IG lists.

Yeah, that unit of 9 is weaker than an entire army.

But put that into the context of the new Tau codex and it becomes no contest which unit is better.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
If you make the unit coherency 12", the squadron rules make no sense, as damage carries over.

Ad squadrons have to all fire at the same target for a reason: 9 tanks with enormous guns getting to all fire separately is not balanced.

But the damage does not carry over. Besides, even if it did 4" makes no sense either. I dont suppose you have ever looked into how tanks work historically either? Squadrons will split up and move around. They will engage diferent targets with their main guns.
I see you whining about splitfire. Well, how about Tau crisis suits? How about Wraithknights? How about Marine trilaspred squadrons? How about Scatbikes? How about GK teleport nonsense?

Guys, just ignore him...

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Still weaker than most IG lists.

What game do you play? Because Tau battlesuits are a lot better than Leman Russ tanks.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Still weaker than most IG lists.

What game do you play? Because Tau battlesuits are a lot better than Leman Russ tanks.

In what universe are those better than a Russ tank?

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Still weaker than most IG lists.

What game do you play? Because Tau battlesuits are a lot better than Leman Russ tanks.

In what universe are those better than a Russ tank?

The 40k one?
How is a LRBT better than Tau battle suits when compared at equal points?

Why is anyone taking T-W seriously?

Seriously, that's either some next level trolling or a deep misunderstanding of game design and balance.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is anyone taking T-W seriously?

Seriously, that's either some next level trolling or a deep misunderstanding of game design and balance.

Or how about someone with a realistic take on the IG codex?

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is anyone taking T-W seriously?

Seriously, that's either some next level trolling or a deep misunderstanding of game design and balance.

Or how about someone with a realistic take on the IG codex?

Well at least we know you have a sense of humor.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is anyone taking T-W seriously?

Seriously, that's either some next level trolling or a deep misunderstanding of game design and balance.

Or how about someone with a realistic take on the IG codex?

Nah man, when you're literally the only person I've seen on this board in the last year and change to think the way you do, I'm positive that you are either trolling or have a deep misunderstanding of the game and balance. You have yet to provide any real arguments to substantiate any claims that the IG are good or powerful in any sense of the words, while posters like Vaktathi have outlined in explicit detail why the Guard codex is rather weak.

In other words, provide an in depth analysis with comparisons and substantiate it with records of dozens of tournaments where Guard only lists make up a healthy chunk of the top 10%.

Until you do, everyone and their dog will continue to not take you seriously.

*Edit* And then you gak post with a troll reference. Until you prove otherwise, I'm 99% positive everyone reading this now thinks you're nothing more than a troll.

*Further editing* Anyways, seeing as this thread has been quite awesome for most of its pages, lets carry on.

Has there been any rumours or whispers at all about the Guard?

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is anyone taking T-W seriously?

Seriously, that's either some next level trolling or a deep misunderstanding of game design and balance.

Or how about someone with a realistic take on the IG codex?

There's a fairly easy way to understand if your opinion is just an opinion, and not a fact. Does your side of the argument use credible statistics or any solid facts? No, in fact literally every time you argue against someone you have yet to to say anything more then the equivalent to "nuh uh tho!". Does both sides of the argument have differing views supported by at least a few people? No, in this case it is You thinking you know better then a dozen or more imperial guard players, and denying to give Any ground in your arguments.Its the same as you saying that chaos marines are OP because they can be taken in squads of 20: you are stating rules but the basis of balance seems to be at a preschool level of power and tactical thought.

 Blacksails wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is anyone taking T-W seriously?

Seriously, that's either some next level trolling or a deep misunderstanding of game design and balance.

Or how about someone with a realistic take on the IG codex?

Nah man, when you're literally the only person I've seen on this board in the last year and change to think the way you do, I'm positive that you are either trolling or have a deep misunderstanding of the game and balance. You have yet to provide any real arguments to substantiate any claims that the IG are good or powerful in any sense of the words, while posters like Vaktathi have outlined in explicit detail why the Guard codex is rather weak.

In other words, provide an in depth analysis with comparisons and substantiate it with records of dozens of tournaments where Guard only lists make up a healthy chunk of the top 10%.

Until you do, everyone and their dog will continue to not take you seriously.

*Edit* And then you gak post with a troll reference. Until you prove otherwise, I'm 99% positive everyone reading this now thinks you're nothing more than a troll.

*Further editing* Anyways, seeing as this thread has been quite awesome for most of its pages, lets carry on.

Has there been any rumours or whispers at all about the Guard?

Supposedly we're coming up on the update block. But when exactly that'll be is unknown. Some people think sometime in the next few months. Nothing concrete though.

I suspected as much. They're certainly due anyways.

My interest in 40k is hanging by a thread these days, and seeing what they do with the IG will be a big factor in how I carry on in this particular game.

That said, the rest of the codices still leave me scratching my head with what the hell the designers were thinking.

GW is doing HH and CSM next, likely Daemons after that, with BA and DA tobfollow soon enough after.

IG just don't fit into that without a 30k regiment in plastic.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW is doing HH and CSM next, likely Daemons after that, with BA and DA tobfollow soon enough after.

IG just don't fit into that without a 30k regiment in plastic.

Um yeah...

There is absolutely nothing suggesting that BA or DA are coming soon. Hell, Dark Angels just got updated a few months back.

They just need to borrow a page from FW's renegade list, at least for the platoon squads. The overall stats of the units are fine, except stormtroopers need to be even cheaper to compete with things like Skiitari.

There is not much you can change about the individual Guard units, but I think you can find a lot of power from formations.

Stuff like each platoon of 3+ squads gets a free heavy weapon team, 5+ squad platoons get two free heavy weapon teams.

Steal interlocking tactics from 30K Ultras, giving pseudo-preferred enemy to units that shoot at a target that has already been shot at by a friendly unit.

Russ squadrons form a wall of iron and smoke, so either +1 cover or -1 to enemy gun S, something.

A squadron of hellhounds combining for an apocalyptic flamer template.

More orders.

TBH, I like "free" stuff more than bonus rules. I rarely forget "free" models, but I can easily forget special rules.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is anyone taking T-W seriously?

Seriously, that's either some next level trolling or a deep misunderstanding of game design and balance.

Seconded. I'm not sure why people are letting themselves get trolled like this, although I commend the fine trolling form, it's a dying art.

HandofMars wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is anyone taking T-W seriously?

Seriously, that's either some next level trolling or a deep misunderstanding of game design and balance.

Seconded. I'm not sure why people are letting themselves get trolled like this, although I commend the fine trolling form, it's a dying art.

Thirded, although we are trying to re-educate him, or at least find the reasons for the prejudice.

He made this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/669705.page

He's just trollin'.

Hasn't posted since.

Hopefully he was banned

I'd like to see regular Russ and the vanquisher get combined so you have one Russ that can choose he or at rounds like modern tanks. The vanquisher is too much of a gamble to take at the moment, especially without twin linking

Something similar to how the HH railgun works? Might be interesting.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yarrick is just a man with a Power Klaw. He's not comparable to a Knight Titan, unless he comes with a free Baneblade.

Yes, all the yes, give him the Fortress of Arrogance please. Baneblade chariot! (obviously you are paying for the baneblade but it would justify the LOD slot).

Am I the only one who really wants to see the option for playing pistol/ccw Feral World Guardsmen?

I'd honestly just use the Renegades & Heretics, but they don't get any form of Roughriders, nor a proper Radical Inquisitor to blindly lead them down the path of heresy.

You're not the only one, although I want them to be BS3 A2 Conscripts.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Am I the only one who really wants to see the option for playing pistol/ccw Feral World Guardsmen?

I'd honestly just use the Renegades & Heretics, but they don't get any form of Roughriders, nor a proper Radical Inquisitor to blindly lead them down the path of heresy.

What about allying with Inquisition and/or Regular guard (Maybe Krieg if you want rough riders)? I know Heretics are Come the Apocalyse to guard, but if you doesnt include any Chaos-specific items like Marks, Marines or Chamions, it can by founded by Fluff and played as Battle Brothers. Or as Allies of Convinience, because of their feral nature.
I would have no problem playing like that.

pax_imperialis wrote:
I'd like to see regular Russ and the vanquisher get combined so you have one Russ that can choose he or at rounds like modern tanks. The vanquisher is too much of a gamble to take at the moment, especially without twin linking

Give the regular Russ AP2 shots without a blast and without the Armourbane special rule.
Give the Vanquisher the ability to fire small blasts and give its AP shell a +4 on the damage table. Also give the AP shells ID as well.

Now you have your regular tank which can, in a pinch, deal with enemy tanks with a slight chance of an insta kill if it manages to pen and a specialist tank killer which will murder-feth enemy armour but is not as good against enemy infantry.

The Vanquisher cannon used to be an upgrade to the Battle Tank way back in the day, giving it the additional armourbane rounds on top of the standard ordnance round. If they go back to this, they would need new rules for the standard battle tank (since no one would take it otherwise), like renaming them Conquerors and making them fast, maybe?

Keeping the current designations as is, I would like this:

NEW SCULPT.

Battle Tank/Demolisher need Lumbering Behemoth, so they aren't forced to snap-fire their other weapons.

Vanquisher needs co-axial option and AP1 on the main gun. Maybe even causing 2 or D3 hull points? Lascannon sponsons would also be nice, but very unlikely.

Executioner cannon needs to go back to not having gets hot, it's annoying to HAVE to get preferred enemy on it for it not to melt itself to death (which it for some reason does more frequently than guardsmen, since vehicles have no sort of armour save).

Punisher needs to be S6 AP - Rending, with only 15 shots.

Eradicator needs to have two shots on the main gun.

Exterminator... I got nothing, it's 4 autocannons, which is pretty sad main armament for a heavy tank. Maybe make them more like the Aiolos, with S8 or Sunder?

So we're basically doing Frag / Krak?

I'd make the secondary mode much more marginal.

Battlecannon
- 72" S8 AP3 5" Blast Ordnance (HE)
- 72" S9 AP2 Ordnance (AP)

Vanquisher Battlecannon
- 96" S8 AP2 Ordnance Armorbane Fleshbane (AP)
- 96" S7 AP4 3" Blast (HE)

Vanquisher Tank - Vanquisher Battlecannon is Twin-linked due to Co-ax Autocannon

Ooohhh... Shiny....

Besides the usual power creep, if IG had some drastic point reductions across the board and were given the ability to shoot even more than they do currently I think they would be better off. Bringing them up to par with decurion formations however would probably take a re-write of the entire codex.

I wouldn't mind the s3 lasguns if they became salvo weapons. They either need to be able to fire more or be bumped up to s4 ap- or s3 ap4. The guard seem to be designed around the idea of quantity over quality. Since Tau/Eldar are obviously the best with quality weaponry, guardsmen should be able to just drown enemies (more effectively) with small arms fire if they are going to continue to have some of the weakest weapons in the game.

Perhaps give the vanquisher lance to make it an actual tank hunter, give tanks the ability to upgrade their WS +1 and allow them to fire all their weapons again after movement. Maybe even give them one more HP and suddenly the Leman Russ becomes a threat again.

Take the minimum range off of the basilisks, the model alone makes me want to field them but they nearly become useless after the first turn. Make orgryns a competent melee unit since the guard crumbles in most melee situations. Make stormtroopers worth taking.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
Besides the usual power creep, if IG had some drastic point reductions across the board and were given the ability to shoot even more than they do currently I think they would be better off. Bringing them up to par with decurion formations however would probably take a re-write of the entire codex.

THAT'S THE POINT!!!

Getting the points cost down and the shootiness up to match Decurion is all that I ask for.

The units need a power buff, not a cost reduction, in general. I don't want to have to bring 50% more stuff every game, just because GW can't write for gak...

There's only so much you can fit on a table / in a carrier box...

Suggestions that seem to work:
>Give all infantry a permanent +1 to cover
>Drop the costs of LR Tanks by about 10 pts or so each, add LB
>Give the Battlecannon and Vanquisher a shot buff, the Vanq gets twin-linked
>Drop the Basilisk to 120 ppm
>Up the Wyverns to 75 ppm
>Squadron bonuses
>Drop the costs of Hellhound (and variants) significantly

 Selym wrote:
The units need a power buff, not a cost reduction, in general. I don't want to have to bring 50% more stuff every game, just because GW can't write for gak...

There's only so much you can fit on a table / in a carrier box...

Suggestions that seem to work:
>Give all infantry a permanent +1 to cover
>Drop the costs of LR Tanks by about 10 pts or so each, add LB
>Give the Battlecannon and Vanquisher a shot buff, the Vanq gets twin-linked
>Drop the Basilisk to 120 ppm
>Up the Wyverns to 75 ppm
>Squadron bonuses
>Drop the costs of Hellhound (and variants) significantly

Pretty much this. Give the Ogryns/Bullgryns some buffs too and I'm happy as can be.

 Selym wrote:
The units need a power buff, not a cost reduction, in general. I don't want to have to bring 50% more stuff every game, just because GW can't write for gak...

There's only so much you can fit on a table / in a carrier box...

If I want to bring uber elite T3 models, I have a zillion points of Eldars for that. And even then, their best models are T8, not T3. If Guard are not the shooty horde to contrast the the Orky fighty horde, then nobody fills that role in 40k, which would make no sense. Guard need to be cheaper for sure; if some of the cheapness is offset with more (better) shootiness, I'd be OK with that. And definitely, Guard need some kind of trick that offsets their crappy Sv5+, like, I dunno, Cameoline for everybody?

I can carry the vast bulk of my IG in a 2' duffel bag: 200 Guardsmen, 9 Chimera / Russ, and 2 Baneblades. I could fit my remaining dozen vehicles & Leviathan Crusader in a 2nd bag, no problem. Thing is, that's way more than any regular IG game would be. Heck, it's probably enough for 3x 2,250-pt games. Even if the IG points got cut in half across the board (won't happen), I think I could deploy 2,000 new pts (4,000 current points) in a 6 SF DZ, assuming, that I have Vehicles and/or Reserves.

Dont forget the option for veteran tank crew. If we can have veteran infantry then we need BS 4 veteran tanks.

 Selym wrote:

>Give all infantry a permanent +1 to cover

With how much stuff Reduces or Ignores Cover? Naaaaaaah.

It should be called "Entrenched" and Guardsmen should get +1 to their armor save while they can claim a Cover save.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Selym wrote:
The units need a power buff, not a cost reduction, in general. I don't want to have to bring 50% more stuff every game, just because GW can't write for gak...

There's only so much you can fit on a table / in a carrier box...

If I want to bring uber elite T3 models, I have a zillion points of Eldars for that. And even then, their best models are T8, not T3. If Guard are not the shooty horde to contrast the the Orky fighty horde, then nobody fills that role in 40k, which would make no sense. Guard need to be cheaper for sure; if some of the cheapness is offset with more (better) shootiness, I'd be OK with that. And definitely, Guard need some kind of trick that offsets their crappy Sv5+, like, I dunno, Cameoline for everybody?

I can carry the vast bulk of my IG in a 2' duffel bag: 200 Guardsmen, 9 Chimera / Russ, and 2 Baneblades. I could fit my remaining dozen vehicles & Leviathan Crusader in a 2nd bag, no problem. Thing is, that's way more than any regular IG game would be. Heck, it's probably enough for 3x 2,250-pt games. Even if the IG points got cut in half across the board (won't happen), I think I could deploy 2,000 new pts (4,000 current points) in a 6 SF DZ, assuming, that I have Vehicles and/or Reserves.

Heck kinda bag are you using? And 5 ppm is already about as low as the standard IG trooper needs to be. You can have a shooty horde at that ppm cost, but the IG need a straight up power boost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Selym wrote:

>Give all infantry a permanent +1 to cover

With how much stuff Reduces or Ignores Cover? Naaaaaaah.

It should be called "Entrenched" and Guardsmen should get +1 to their armor save while they can claim a Cover save.

And suddenly Grav-Cannons affect the IG, and can have all their saves removed more easily... :/