It's going to do exactly the same amount and type of damage shooting a Tau Crisis/Broadside/Riptide/whatever suit in the chest as it would be shooting a Sentinel's cockpit or a Dreadnought's stupidly heavily armored sarcophagus. The pilot for the Crisis suit is in the chest and it's not like they're somehow treated against explosives.
Not really, think about it. Sentinal cockpit gets hit, spalling etc hurts the target, now MC's are generally bigger. Concerning the riptide only 1/4 of the entire main trunk of the suit is the cockpit. Not only that but that compartment is also seperated from the rest of the vehicle. Including Limbs, it's only around 1/8th to 1/10th of it's mass, compared to a sentinel that it's about 1/2 the mass and the dreadnought that is around 1/3-1/4 (ignoring it's also acts as life support). Comparing it to a leman russ make it even worse, pretty much anywhere the russ is penetrated will result in shrapnel filling the fighting compartment, harming the crew and potentially causing ammo to ignite. Most MC's have enclose fighting compartments, akin to a real life fighter, of which many will survive being hit by ridiculous amounts of rounds that have not hit something critical or the pilot directly.
By your logic, a single hit on the Riptide should shred the pilot into hamburger.
It's actually one of the main bonuses to having separate fighting compartments IRL.
Have you ever looked at any of the cutaways of modern tanks versus the Leman Russ?
In the end, Crisis Suits got labeled the way they were because of rules concerns when they were first introduced. When they came out, vehicles were actually powerful and thus an army which could take a huge amount of Walkers was seen as potentially overpowered by the design team.
Well aren't normal crisis suits simply infantry? Main reason being the suit mimics the users movements much better and more enhances the pilot akin to terminator and centurion armour?
No. They're a pilot with a neural linkage inside of the middle--just like a Dreadnought or a Knight or any class of Titan.
What do Sniper weapons do?
Aim for vulnerable points on their targets(represented by the roll of a "6" to Wound being AP2; the sniper round found an extremely vulnerable point in the armor/protection of their target). Nothing about simply becoming a GMC removes that. Limbs are still vulnerable points, you just can't make a killshot. You can't do that to a GMC anyways.
You'd have a case for Poisoned Weapons, seeing as how a GMC is so large that it would take longer for poisons to affect them--but if that's the case, then MCs should be given the same thing since they're so much bigger than your "average"
Snipers to creatures those size would be like using a 9mm to take on a tank.... sure you can fit a scope to it and aim for the rear armour, but it will not do anything. It may be a weak point, but if your weapon isn't big enough it's not going to do anything.
Sniper weapons aren't weak. They're really not. I will never understand why they have the AP they do.
Maybe it's time Precision Shots does something more than just allowing you to choose who you allocate Wounds to, but it's a precision instrument. A sniper isn't aiming for legs or arms, they're going for killshots whenever possible. Even on a GMC they're going to be hitting some kind of weak spot.
To use your analogy, it would be like if you were to use a 9mm to take on a tank...when the tank commander left the hatch open and you're able to get elevation to see inside.
Okay, and?
It's Ratlings. They need something to finally justify their points.
Haha they're only 30 points..... they're actually one of the only decent elite options, especially if you run a bar minimum squad or two.
That's like comparing one turd to another, because the Elite options in AM are distinctively lackluster.
GMC point costs need to be elevated upwards, significantly, or vehicles need to be elevated upwards beyond MCs/GMCs to justify the bloated points cost that most vehicles pay.
In all honesty I do agree, I think MC's are very underpriced. How much is it for a riptide? 180 points + upgrades... I think it's around 240points for a fully upgraded one, that's only slightly more than a pask vehicle... which arguably is not 'quite' as good
180 points plus upgrades for a 2+ save, the ability to get a boosted Invulnerable save and FNP with high Toughness.
And it can claim Cover relatively easily along with firing their weapons with no real penalties.
One thing I would like to see is some love for shotguns.
Even tho assault 2 is quite nice, I don't see the S3 AP- nice at all, all the while concidering the firing platform of said shotgun is T3 and most likely 4+ save.
I find shotguns need some sort of tweaking or at the least a choice of ammo to fire. The typical buckshot and slug and even more various ammo could be a interesting option.
War Kitten wrote:Yeah, Ratlings aren't really worth it are they? 10 PPM for a BS4 sniper shot on a toughness 2 platform.
Well my main argument being anyone who wastes a turn shooting a 30 point unit and in efefct waste a units shooting should have their brain checked.
A 30 point ratling unit is actually a perfect target saturation unit.... that can still be a annoyance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: By your logic, a single hit on the Riptide should shred the pilot into hamburger.
How? Would result in less damage to the pilot and the entire vehicle, should get an idea to how spalling and damage works in combat....
Have you ever looked at any of the cutaways of modern tanks versus the Leman Russ?
Yeah looking at the leman russ cutaway right in front of me, russes actually have vastly much larger compartments.
No. They're a pilot with a neural linkage inside of the middle--just like a Dreadnought or a Knight or any class of Titan.
Neural link is irrelevant.... fighting compartment size in comparison to the vehicle size was more of an issue. Plus volatile parts of the vehicle. Titans are a completely different topic however.
Sniper weapons aren't weak. They're really not. I will never understand why they have the AP they do.
Maybe it's time Precision Shots does something more than just allowing you to choose who you allocate Wounds to, but it's a precision instrument. A sniper isn't aiming for legs or arms, they're going for killshots whenever possible. Even on a GMC they're going to be hitting some kind of weak spot.
To use your analogy, it would be like if you were to use a 9mm to take on a tank...when the tank commander left the hatch open and you're able to get elevation to see inside.
Right... you know MC's and GMC 's don't need hatches thus the commander logic does not work? Stop trying to compare a vehicle that logistically and intrinsically works nothing like a normal vehicle. Again the best comparison is an upsized terminator armour in how they work, but with more agility.
That's like comparing one turd to another, because the Elite options in AM are distinctively lackluster.
To an extent I agree, but even scions have their usage as suicide squads. Now I admit their usage does not match their intended usage and they need improvement, but ratlings are great in their minimum 30 point units.
180 points plus upgrades for a 2+ save, the ability to get a boosted Invulnerable save and FNP with high Toughness.
And it can claim Cover relatively easily along with firing their weapons with no real penalties.
Wooo, vehicles!
Well again I agree with you point wise, cover point? Well how is it easier to get a 25% obscurement on a large walker than it is a tank using the same scenery?
As I said earlier, I think the main problem with MC's and GMC's is A) Their wound count and B) Their point cost, not them actually being MC's or GMC's.
Kanluwen wrote: By your logic, a single hit on the Riptide should shred the pilot into hamburger.
How? Would result in less damage to the pilot and the entire vehicle, should get an idea to how spalling and damage works in combat....
I have an idea as to how spalling and damage work, thankyouverymuch. The point is that if you're going to argue that Glancing/Penetrating Hits or whatever are representing "spalling", then why is there nothing similar for MCs? A Riptide has the pilot in the center of the suit, surrounded by layers of armor plating. Spalling can still happen from ceramic armor--and a Tau pilot "linked" to the suit is going to be just as vulnerable to being shredded by debris as a guy sitting in the cockpit of a Sentinel.
Have you ever looked at any of the cutaways of modern tanks versus the Leman Russ?
Yeah looking at the leman russ cutaway right in front of me, russes actually have vastly much larger compartments.
Yup. And it's worth mentioning that crew aren't just wearing fatigues either, they're usually wearing Flak gear.
No. They're a pilot with a neural linkage inside of the middle--just like a Dreadnought or a Knight or any class of Titan.
Neural link is irrelevant.... fighting compartment size in comparison to the vehicle size was more of an issue. Plus volatile parts of the vehicle. Titans are a completely different topic however.
Actually the neural link is relevant. Riptides had issues during testing where their pilots were being killed by neural feedback.
Sniper weapons aren't weak. They're really not. I will never understand why they have the AP they do.
Maybe it's time Precision Shots does something more than just allowing you to choose who you allocate Wounds to, but it's a precision instrument. A sniper isn't aiming for legs or arms, they're going for killshots whenever possible. Even on a GMC they're going to be hitting some kind of weak spot.
To use your analogy, it would be like if you were to use a 9mm to take on a tank...when the tank commander left the hatch open and you're able to get elevation to see inside.
Right... you know MC's and GMC 's don't need hatches thus the commander logic does not work?
You understand what a "weak spot" is, right?
Eyes/sensor suites/power supplies/whatever are "weak spots".
Stop trying to compare a vehicle that logistically and intrinsically works nothing like a normal vehicle. Again the best comparison is an upsized terminator armour in how they work, but with more agility.
Look at the Stormsurge or Riptide and tell me that's "upsized Terminator Armour in how they work".
That's like comparing one turd to another, because the Elite options in AM are distinctively lackluster.
To an extent I agree, but even scions have their usage as suicide squads. Now I admit their usage does not match their intended usage and they need improvement, but ratlings are great in their minimum 30 point units.
Your definition of "great" must be wildly different to mine.
30 points for 3 bods whom will be removed as soon as the enemy so much as farts in their general direction and whom will struggle to kill 2 Guardsmen a turn? No thankyou, that is not good by any stretch of the imagination.
Y'know, I've had a bit more thinking time and come up with the following:
--Only in Death Does Duty End: Any model with this special rule counts as being T4 for the purposes of resolving Shooting Attacks or Psychic Powers which behave as Shooting Attacks.
--Combat Elements: A unit with this special rule can split its members into smaller groups, with a minimum of 3 models per group and a maximum of 5 models per group. These groups count as their own units for all intents and purposes but do not award Victory Points unless the whole unit is destroyed.
Put those two rules on any actual Guard models(read: not Ogryns/Ratlings/Rough Riders) and you get some interesting effects.
master of ordinance wrote: 30 points for 3 bods whom will be removed as soon as the enemy so much as farts in their general direction and whom will struggle to kill 2 Guardsmen a turn? No thankyou, that is not good by any stretch of the imagination.
It wasn't a suggestion, it was an idea of the bs well likely get.
master of ordinance wrote: 30 points for 3 bods whom will be removed as soon as the enemy so much as farts in their general direction and whom will struggle to kill 2 Guardsmen a turn? No thankyou, that is not good by any stretch of the imagination.
It wasn't a suggestion, it was an idea of the bs well likely get.
Ugh, very true. With all the whining that SM players do every time they lose so much as a single model to IG shooting our prices are likely to skyrocket whilst our units are nerfed yet again.
master of ordinance wrote: 30 points for 3 bods whom will be removed as soon as the enemy so much as farts in their general direction and whom will struggle to kill 2 Guardsmen a turn? No thankyou, that is not good by any stretch of the imagination.
It wasn't a suggestion, it was an idea of the bs well likely get.
Ugh, very true. With all the whining that SM players do every time they lose so much as a single model to IG shooting our prices are likely to skyrocket whilst our units are nerfed yet again.
Seriously, who is doing that? Marine player who has played against Tau or Eldar should not be complaining about IG. So you're telling me that marine players are actively complaining about IG? Or are you just using a massive hyperbole here?
As a Marine player I'm mildly irritated by his comment. I bet it's just that the people he plays with that play Marines complain about it, so he assumes that all of us are like that.
I'm more than mildly irritated, frankly. I'm still civil with Eldar players who table me in 3-4 turns and Nid players bringing pentaflyrant. I've had turns where I've lost 40+ marines due to a confluence of events. But somehow the concern here is IG firepower? And I'm being painted as concerned about losing a few extra marines to a theoretically buffed IG list?
And this is after I have repeated showed how BA are likely an inferior list to IG. If the base marine was worth a thing, this wouldn't be true.
Sorry, most of the Marine players whom I have run in to in my time have been younger members of the community.
That, and I have a built up cynicism against the SM forces.
master of ordinance wrote: Sorry, most of the Marine players whom I have run in to in my time have been younger members of the community.
That, and I have a built up cynicism against the SM forces.
I've said repeatedly in this thread to not generalize SM players.
How would you like it if someone started posting about "how Guard players are all whiners who need to learn to play"?
If you want to make a point about players you have in your local meta(which is kind of silly, unless they actively post here they won't know they're doing something that annoys someone else), then make a point of establishing that you're discussing someone in your local play group.
master of ordinance wrote: 30 points for 3 bods whom will be removed as soon as the enemy so much as farts in their general direction and whom will struggle to kill 2 Guardsmen a turn? No thankyou, that is not good by any stretch of the imagination.
It wasn't a suggestion, it was an idea of the bs well likely get.
Ugh, very true. With all the whining that SM players do every time they lose so much as a single model to IG shooting our prices are likely to skyrocket whilst our units are nerfed yet again.
Seriously, who is doing that? Marine player who has played against Tau or Eldar should not be complaining about IG. So you're telling me that marine players are actively complaining about IG? Or are you just using a massive hyperbole here?
I know 3 Ultramarine players IRL. They all complain like donkey-caves. I also know one BA player, who did the same in 5E, 6E as well as now. I know another guy who playes a homebrew chapter, who still complaint like an asshat. These are people from two very different gaming groups. It's very much a thing.
master of ordinance wrote: 30 points for 3 bods whom will be removed as soon as the enemy so much as farts in their general direction and whom will struggle to kill 2 Guardsmen a turn? No thankyou, that is not good by any stretch of the imagination.
It wasn't a suggestion, it was an idea of the bs well likely get.
Ugh, very true. With all the whining that SM players do every time they lose so much as a single model to IG shooting our prices are likely to skyrocket whilst our units are nerfed yet again.
Seriously, who is doing that? Marine player who has played against Tau or Eldar should not be complaining about IG. So you're telling me that marine players are actively complaining about IG? Or are you just using a massive hyperbole here?
I know 3 Ultramarine players IRL. They all complain like donkey-caves. I also know one BA player, who did the same in 5E, 6E as well as now. I know another guy who playes a homebrew chapter, who still complaint like an asshat. These are people from two very different gaming groups. It's very much a thing.
Glad (and sad) to see that I am not the only one whom experiences this.
I get that everyone complains. I live in the UK, we exist to complain. But the SM players I come across usually have a habit of looking at CSM and IG codexes, and pointing out that they think that those two codexes are in some way OP compared to C:SM, simply due to having a specialized something, or due to having something that is designed specifically to hurt MEQ's. They then go on to be totally fine with everything else. These are also players who often win, but when they lose to either of these codexes, it's because that codex has an "unfair advantage". It's a very strange phenomenon, possibly caused by them taking BL fluff to heart too much, where Boltguns > humans > CSM at every turn.
Selym wrote: I get that everyone complains. I live in the UK, we exist to complain. But the SM players I come across usually have a habit of looking at CSM and IG codexes, and pointing out that they think that those two codexes are in some way OP compared to C:SM, simply due to having a specialized something, or due to having something that is designed specifically to hurt MEQ's. They then go on to be totally fine with everything else. These are also players who often win, but when they lose to either of these codexes, it's because that codex has an "unfair advantage". It's a very strange phenomenon, possibly caused by them taking BL fluff to heart too much, where Boltguns > humans > CSM at every turn.
Fair enough. I just ask that you realize that not all of us Marine players are donkey caves.
People need to understand something here. Space Marines are a very strong codex, but you need to take very specific builds and units to unlock that strength. Note that very few of these units are actually meqs. If little Timmy is just throwing out a bunch of tac squads, a devastator squad, and a couple of crappy marine tanks, then his implementation of SM is indeed inferior to many CSM or IG lists.
A huge part of this is just how terrible tactical squads are at killing, well, pretty much anything. Defensively, they are efficient, but that's no longer relevant in deathhammer 40K. I understand that guardsmen are a sweet spot for the bolter, but that one fact does not make the tactical marine good. They are still a terrible, terrible troop.
Martel732 wrote: People need to understand something here. Space Marines are a very strong codex, but you need to take very specific builds and units to unlock that strength. Note that very few of these units are actually meqs. If little Timmy is just throwing out a bunch of tac squads, a devastator squad, and a couple of crappy marine tanks, then his implementation of SM is indeed inferior to many CSM or IG lists.
A huge part of this is just how terrible tactical squads are at killing, well, pretty much anything. Defensively, they are efficient, but that's no longer relevant in deathhammer 40K. I understand that guardsmen are a sweet spot for the bolter, but that one fact does not make the tactical marine good. They are still a terrible, terrible troop.
Well unfortunately for me when I got into Space Marines I got a battle company. So most of my stuff is Tactical Marines. And it irks me that some people still think I'm a donkey cave for playing Marines. But this thread isn't about Marines. It's about Guard, and what they need to be fixed in their next book. Let's get back on topic. I'll start.
Guard Needs:
-Lumbering Behemoth back for the Russes
-Points drop on the Hellhound and it's variants
-Points drop on Ogryns/Bullgryns
-Regimental Doctrines
-Something to help out bog standard Guardsmen
-Not even going to start on Rough Riders
Martel732 wrote: People need to understand something here. Space Marines are a very strong codex, but you need to take very specific builds and units to unlock that strength. Note that very few of these units are actually meqs. If little Timmy is just throwing out a bunch of tac squads, a devastator squad, and a couple of crappy marine tanks, then his implementation of SM is indeed inferior to many CSM or IG lists.
A huge part of this is just how terrible tactical squads are at killing, well, pretty much anything. Defensively, they are efficient, but that's no longer relevant in deathhammer 40K. I understand that guardsmen are a sweet spot for the bolter, but that one fact does not make the tactical marine good. They are still a terrible, terrible troop.
Inferior to IG lists, I'll grant you. But speaking as a SM player, and IG player an an ex CSM player, lil' Timmy is now playing a somewhat balanced army against CSM. And by balanced, I mean only slightly more points efficient.
Martel732 wrote: People need to understand something here. Space Marines are a very strong codex, but you need to take very specific builds and units to unlock that strength. Note that very few of these units are actually meqs. If little Timmy is just throwing out a bunch of tac squads, a devastator squad, and a couple of crappy marine tanks, then his implementation of SM is indeed inferior to many CSM or IG lists.
A huge part of this is just how terrible tactical squads are at killing, well, pretty much anything. Defensively, they are efficient, but that's no longer relevant in deathhammer 40K. I understand that guardsmen are a sweet spot for the bolter, but that one fact does not make the tactical marine good. They are still a terrible, terrible troop.
Well unfortunately for me when I got into Space Marines I got a battle company. So most of my stuff is Tactical Marines. And it irks me that some people still think I'm a donkey cave for playing Marines. But this thread isn't about Marines. It's about Guard, and what they need to be fixed in their next book. Let's get back on topic. I'll start.
Guard Needs:
-Lumbering Behemoth back for the Russes
-Points drop on the Hellhound and it's variants
-Points drop on Ogryns/Bullgryns
-Regimental Doctrines
-Something to help out bog standard Guardsmen
-Not even going to start on Rough Riders
I brought up space marines because the IG players brought them up.
I'd agree with those guard needs, but you forget the #1 thing: better vehicle rules.
Martel732 wrote: People need to understand something here. Space Marines are a very strong codex, but you need to take very specific builds and units to unlock that strength. Note that very few of these units are actually meqs. If little Timmy is just throwing out a bunch of tac squads, a devastator squad, and a couple of crappy marine tanks, then his implementation of SM is indeed inferior to many CSM or IG lists.
A huge part of this is just how terrible tactical squads are at killing, well, pretty much anything. Defensively, they are efficient, but that's no longer relevant in deathhammer 40K. I understand that guardsmen are a sweet spot for the bolter, but that one fact does not make the tactical marine good. They are still a terrible, terrible troop.
Inferior to IG lists, I'll grant you. But speaking as a SM player, and IG player an an ex CSM player, lil' Timmy is now playing a somewhat balanced army against CSM. And by balanced, I mean only slightly more points efficient.
Nurgle marines are still better infantry than anything SM have. What CSM lack are the toys like invis cent stars. But against tac marines and marine vehicles, CSM can wreck face with relatively little problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
War Kitten wrote: That goes without saying Martel. But yes. I did forget to put that on there.
The guardsmen have always been dependent upon vehicles. Now that vehicles are generally bad, there is more weight put on the shoulders of the guardsmen. I think that if vehicles were substantially improved, the regular guardsmen go back to being able to do their jobs fine with no little/no buffs.
Note that guardsmen have synergies in the game that marines lack. Ie, they get way more out of most divination powers, especially misfortune.
Akiasura wrote: What about the tau shotguns? I think they are fluffy but not op, but I've never seen them played
The problem with them is that they have an overpriced delivery system. And they have to get within that short rang to be effective, otherwise carbines are better.
Games Workshop wrote:Pushing ever forward, led by the watchful eyes of a reconnaissance Sentinel, the soldiers of the Emperor’s Shield Infantry Platoon are as relentless as they are determined. Laying down a constant hail of withering fire as they move, this platoon scythes down rank upon rank of enemies - few targets can withstand the brunt of their assault for long.
This bundle gives you everything needed to field the Emperor’s Shield Infantry Platoon, a formation found in War Zone Damocles: Mont’ka. You’ll receive a Cadian Command Squad, two sets of Cadian Shock Troops, two Cadian Heavy Weapons Squads and three Sentinels - thirty-four models in total, for an awesome Astra Militarum strike force!
Games Workshop wrote:Pushing ever forward, led by the watchful eyes of a reconnaissance Sentinel, the soldiers of the Emperor’s Shield Infantry Platoon are as relentless as they are determined. Laying down a constant hail of withering fire as they move, this platoon scythes down rank upon rank of enemies - few targets can withstand the brunt of their assault for long.
This bundle gives you everything needed to field the Emperor’s Shield Infantry Platoon, a formation found in War Zone Damocles: Mont’ka. You’ll receive a Cadian Command Squad, two sets of Cadian Shock Troops, two Cadian Heavy Weapons Squads and three Sentinels - thirty-four models in total, for an awesome Astra Militarum strike force!
Games Workshop wrote:Pushing ever forward, led by the watchful eyes of a reconnaissance Sentinel, the soldiers of the Emperor’s Shield Infantry Platoon are as relentless as they are determined. Laying down a constant hail of withering fire as they move, this platoon scythes down rank upon rank of enemies - few targets can withstand the brunt of their assault for long.
I think I can guess one of their rules...
Games Workshop wrote:thirty-four models in total, for an awesome Astra Militarum strike force!
34 models? You and I have different definitions of the word "awe", GW.
Games Workshop wrote:Pushing ever forward, led by the watchful eyes of a reconnaissance Sentinel, the soldiers of the Emperor’s Shield Infantry Platoon are as relentless as they are determined. Laying down a constant hail of withering fire as they move, this platoon scythes down rank upon rank of enemies - few targets can withstand the brunt of their assault for long.
I think I can guess one of their rules...
Games Workshop wrote:thirty-four models in total, for an awesome Astra Militarum strike force!
34 models? You and I have different definitions of the word "awe", GW.
GW and I have different definitions of "strike force". This thing will flop like a pancake.
Well, all we know is that it's a Formation and it mentions the Platoon "laying down a constant hail of withering fire as they move".
IF Montka is going to have rules updating AM? This might be our "basic" Formation here.
The descriptions of the various Kauyon Formations had an element of the rules to them(Optimised Stealth Group flatout namedropped "Wall of Mirrors"), so who knows how this could go in any regards?
I would say that the guard need to pay less for close combat weapons. A company commander shouldn't pay the same amount of points for a power fist as a space marine. That commander won't survive combat to swing it once 9 out of 10 times.
Loon wrote: I would say that the guard need to pay less for close combat weapons. A company commander shouldn't pay the same amount of points for a power fist as a space marine. That commander won't survive combat to swing it once 9 out of 10 times.
Loon wrote: I would say that the guard need to pay less for close combat weapons. A company commander shouldn't pay the same amount of points for a power fist as a space marine. That commander won't survive combat to swing it once 9 out of 10 times.
Unless we get some kind of special rule called "Not me! Take him first, take him first!" where the Commander can never be targeted until everyone else is dead.
Possibly, but it seems like that's just in connection to Warzone Mont'ka, and it looks like the Tech Priest is being released in a bundle with the Tank+Commander. I'd love a new book, but I'm not holding my breath.
War Kitten wrote: Possibly, but it seems like that's just in connection to Warzone Mont'ka, and it looks like the Tech Priest is being released in a bundle with the Tank+Commander. I'd love a new book, but I'm not holding my breath.
There's no "tank+commander".
It's just a Leman Russ Battle Tank boxed set with the Techpriest. POTENTIALLY with a "Squadron Command Frame".
alasta wrote: Since they're about to release a new techpriest as well, does this mean they're getting close to a new codex?
If it's anything like the Tau "update" codex, I hope not. IG really need and deserve an entire overhaul of their army design. A few tweaks and their decurion formations won't cut to the core issue with the dex and will likely leave the majority of the weak units in their current position with little change, I really can't see how they can do all the various units in the IG book justice.
At most I think they'll get a few formations, a special detachment to go with some of the potential updated models, similar to the formations they got from the Sanctus Reach campaign.
War Kitten wrote: Possibly, but it seems like that's just in connection to Warzone Mont'ka, and it looks like the Tech Priest is being released in a bundle with the Tank+Commander. I'd love a new book, but I'm not holding my breath.
There's no "tank+commander".
It's just a Leman Russ Battle Tank boxed set with the Techpriest. POTENTIALLY with a "Squadron Command Frame".
War Kitten wrote: Possibly, but it seems like that's just in connection to Warzone Mont'ka, and it looks like the Tech Priest is being released in a bundle with the Tank+Commander. I'd love a new book, but I'm not holding my breath.
There's no "tank+commander".
It's just a Leman Russ Battle Tank boxed set with the Techpriest. POTENTIALLY with a "Squadron Command Frame".
I see. I heard wrong then. I apologize.
You didn't hear wrong, people just keep posting it wrong and it gets spread that way.
It's meant to be a Tank Commander. The model in the picture shown sticking out of the hatch? He's clearly commanding that tank!
BUT he's the basic "tank in chargey guy" that goes in the cupola.
War Kitten wrote: Guard Needs:
-Lumbering Behemoth back for the Russes
-Points drop on the Hellhound and it's variants
-Points drop on Ogryns/Bullgryns
-Regimental Doctrines
-Something to help out bog standard Guardsmen
-Not even going to start on Rough Riders
Other things I would add is
- Chimeras return to their old point cost.... plus a return to three firing out the turret
- Heavy Weapon squads are fixed and points reduced. Why you pay more for their base unit over guardmens is beyond me, especially when they die easier vs S6+ weapons, all for an extra 2.5 points. Reduce them to 30 points, and even then I would still say make them two separate models like they used to be. Hell you can force them to be in base contact or on the same base so all current models can still be used.
- Make Hydra's worth the points.... hell I wouldn't even mind a point hike so they can also shoot at ground units, similar real life AA can be used in a similar way quite successfully, why not the hydra?
- Return some of the older artillery units, give us some new ones (less rocket artillery please) and give us some cool artillery abilities too. Wyverns are fine as they are, but I find the rest are really lacklustre.
Lukash_ wrote: Wyverns lose twin-linked, go up to 80 pts.
Wholeheartedly agree. The Wyvern is a bit too good IMO.
Hydras go up to 80 pts, but can choose between having Skyfire or not on each turn (like flyers.)
The ONLY way I will accept 80 point Hydras is if they regain their "Auto-targeting System" rule(which was removed from C: Imperial Guard to Astra Militarum, but remained in Imperial Armour) in addition to a "Choose whether or not to fire as Skyfire" option and a ROF increase to Heavy 5.
Oh. And ATS goes from "Ignores Jink Saves" to "Ignores Cover".
Executioner Plasma Cannon no longer gets hot, goes up by 15 pts. Sponson plasma weapons can still get hot (lack of a built-in cooling system.)
I'd posit that any "primary weapon" Plasma weapons get the removal of "Gets Hot". Sentinels, Dreadnoughts, etc.
If the wyvern nerfed I'd prefer that it go from heavy 1 from heavy 2 and retain twin-linked. The reason I say this is I'd prefer it be more accurate and do a few wounds than just throwing out more blasts that will never hit with guard BS and have potential to do masses of wounds.
The Twin-Lined will probably stay I imagine, if it loses anything it will probably be either Ignores Cover or Shred. Shred would probably be the most likely candidate.
That said, with the way GW's going these days, I expect they'll add Armorbane to it and nerf the Hydra to S5 :/
Kanluwen wrote: They can't nerf the Hydra without nerfing Autocannons in general.
.
Don't worry, it's a "Hydra Autocannon" now - it has lighter and weaker shells to give it a longer range!
Y'know...
Hydra Autocannons having lighter and "weaker" shells with Shred and Haywire(shells with a proximity fuse and an EMP effect on detonation) might not be a bad idea.
It loses some "oomph" against bigger flying beasties but gains some "oomph" against Flyers and Skimmers.
Craaaaaaaaaap, now I'm starting to wonder if "variant" Autocannon shells should become a thing for Guard.
This, oh so much this. The silly "Astra Militarum" name is so painfully stupid sounding, and, even worse, so painfully hamfisted onto the faction that it's just impossible to take seriously.
It's even worse when tournaments or blogs insist on using it
I believe such examples of AM acceptance to be the product of two things. First, the desire so many people apparently have of "sticking to the official" (which, in a broader state of affairs, it's what's primarly allowed GW to have such gakky rules for their games and get away with it). Second, it seems everything latin (even if stupid faux latin) sounds cool to many english-speaking people.
The funniest part is that, most of the time, latin as a language is as pragmatic as the people who originally spoke it. Get a direct, faithful translation and odds are it'll actually sound cool enough. Custodia Imperii or Milites Imperii ("Soldiers/Troops of the Empire") would have worked just fine. However considering how the 40k fluff reads more and more like teenagey fanfiction with each edition that goes by, perhaps the stupid faux latin names are actually more appropiate and fitting for what the setting has become, a silly "wow so serious" unintentional self-parody.
It's in the book hardly ever, and it even says something to the extent of "most commonly known to citizens of the Imperium as the Imperial Guard".
Who cares what it says on the boxes or the Codex cover?
On the flip side, if it keeps saying "they're really the Imperial Guard" and we all know what it is, why bother changing the name?
We all know exactly why they did. It's very disingenuous to behave as though this happened in some kind of vacuum with nobody being able to predict it, ever.
Korinov wrote:I believe such examples of AM acceptance to be the product of two things. First, the desire so many people apparently have of "sticking to the official" (which, in a broader state of affairs, it's what's primarly allowed GW to have such gakky rules for their games and get away with it). Second, it seems everything latin (even if stupid faux latin) sounds cool to many english-speaking people.
All honesty? I accept it because it's easy to write off the name as what the High Lords of Terra and the other agencies of the Imperium refer to the Imperial Guard as on paper.
The funniest part is that, most of the time, latin as a language is as pragmatic as the people who originally spoke it. Get a direct, faithful translation and odds are it'll actually sound cool enough. Custodia Imperii or Milites Imperii ("Soldiers/Troops of the Empire") would have worked just fine. However considering how the 40k fluff reads more and more like teenagey fanfiction with each edition that goes by, perhaps the stupid faux latin names are actually more appropiate and fitting for what the setting has become, a silly "wow so serious" unintentional self-parody.
It's long been established that High Gothic is faux-Latin, not actual Latin.
It's long been established that High Gothic is faux-Latin, not actual Latin.
Of course, but one would assume they'd go for the faux Latin in search of coolness. Yet their faux latin names sound pretty lame, while the actual latin words look pretty fine to me.
It's as if I were designing a game in Spanish and went for fake-English words, naming a certain piece of artillery a "Mowrthaer" while specifiying in its description that "it's actually called Mortar by the common soldiers". How to craft silly names for the sake of it.
vipoid wrote: The name sounds like a spell from Harry Potter.
Indeed.
The tacking on of the faux-latin 25+ years after the faction was invented, for the faction that probably had the least faux-latin pretentiousness, particularly without any discernible rhyme or reason, just feels really awkward, particularly as both "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are also some of the more ridiculous sounding faux-latin titles in the 40k universe. They don't feel organic to the faction, they appear very forced.
Selym wrote: At least "Adeptus Astartes" fits the Space Marines. Godlike superhumans. Highly adept. The second word sounds like stars. "Adepts of the Stars".
Astra Militarum is just a cheesy, sloppy attempt at copyright.
Exactly, its a stupid faux Latin name which makes no sense at all.
Selym wrote: At least "Adeptus Astartes" fits the Space Marines. Godlike superhumans. Highly adept. The second word sounds like stars. "Adepts of the Stars".
Astra Militarum is just a cheesy, sloppy attempt at copyright.
Exactly, its a stupid faux Latin name which makes no sense at all.
Lukash_ wrote: Wyverns lose twin-linked, go up to 80 pts.
Meh I would say 80 points would be slightly too high. Although currently at 65 points they're a steal, but that being said most other codices have far worse culprits.
The ONLY way I will accept 80 point Hydras is if they regain their "Auto-targeting System" rule(which was removed from C: Imperial Guard to Astra Militarum, but remained in Imperial Armour) in addition to a "Choose whether or not to fire as Skyfire" option and a ROF increase to Heavy 5.
Oh. And ATS goes from "Ignores Jink Saves" to "Ignores Cover".
Well surely that was because the IA was written prior to the current codex? I know this is the case with IAv1:2e. Many other unit's such as the chimera are pretty much the same as they were in C: Imperial Guard represented by their lower point cost, the Hydra also did not use to be open topped.
Well the ATS wording already is in effect "Ignores Cover saves or Cover Bonuses provided by Supersonic or Jink", why would you give it an overall Ignore Cover save without doing the same to normal autocannons? Especially if they normal Hydra's rate of fire increased? Ignoring Jink should return at the very least however.
The ONLY way I will accept 80 point Hydras is if they regain their "Auto-targeting System" rule(which was removed from C: Imperial Guard to Astra Militarum, but remained in Imperial Armour) in addition to a "Choose whether or not to fire as Skyfire" option and a ROF increase to Heavy 5.
Oh. And ATS goes from "Ignores Jink Saves" to "Ignores Cover".
Well surely that was because the IA was written prior to the current codex? I know this is the case with IAv1:2e. Many other unit's such as the chimera are pretty much the same as they were in C: Imperial Guard represented by their lower point cost, the Hydra also did not use to be open topped.
FW in their FAQ went out of their way to ignore the Hydra, and one of the designers said at the Open Day that year the lack of ATS on the Hydra was "dumbassery". Sooooo...it being written prior to the current codex means nothing.
Well the ATS wording already is in effect "Ignores Cover saves or Cover Bonuses provided by Supersonic or Jink", why would you give it an overall Ignore Cover save without doing the same to normal autocannons? Especially if they normal Hydra's rate of fire increased? Ignoring Jink should return at the very least however.
Truthfully? If I'm paying 80 points for a Skyfiring Autocannon(even two twin-linked ones), it better be ignoring all cover saves and putting an obscene number of shots downrange.
Compare the Hydra to an Onager with the Icarus Array or a Hunter with the Icarus Stormcannon Array. The Hydra is woefully outclassed these days.
Starting to brainstorm again, this time regarding Heavy Weapon Squads and Special Weapon Squads.
Thinking about specialized rules tied to purchasing specific weapon loadouts.
I'm thinking of the following for Special Weapon Squads:
"Extermination Teams": The models in an Extermination Squad break into three teams of two(each one counting as its own unit for victory points purposes), one with a Lasgun(Spotter) and one with a Sniper Rifle(Marksman).Extermination Teams gain the Stealth and Shrouded special rules when they remain stationary during their turn. As long as the unit has remained stationary that turn, at the beginning of each Shooting phase, the Spotter may choose a single non-vehicle model. Until the Spotter designates another target, the Marksman gains Fleshbane and Precision Shot(5+) against that model.
When a Spotter designates a target, the Extermination Team cannot fire Overwatch or use their Lasgun.
"Purge Team": The models in a Purge Team all may take Flamers. A Purge Team may opt to fire its Flamers as Torrent weapons but may not fire Overwatch if they choose to do so.
"Armour Hunter Team": Three models in the Armour Hunter Team come equipped with Meltaguns. The unit gains Stealth and Move Through Cover.
"Assault Team": Three models in the Assault Team may take Flamers and a single model in the Assault Team may take a Demolition Charge. Unit gains Move Through Cover.
Some of these aren't great, but this is still just brainstorming. Feel free to chime in; I gotta get ready to go somewhere.
For Heavy Weapons squads I would like to see a special rule (maybe called weapons team or something like that) where weapons that would normally count as instant death to the squad actually only cause one wound (to represent either the gunner or the loader getting hit). It makes 0 sense for one plasma gun shot to kill both the gunner and the loader imo
Leman Russ troop
If a Leman Russ troop consists of 2 or more tanks then all Leman Russ within the troop gain the Splitfire special rule. This is in addition to the benefits listed below.
Leman Russ support troop
If a Leman Russ troop includes 3 tanks then provided they do not move in the moving phase they may fire each weapon twice
Leman Russ Suppression troop
If a Leman Russ troop includes 3 Punishers then all 3 tanks gain Pinning
Leman Russ demolition troop
If a Leman Russ troop includes 3 Demolisher's then all 3 tanks gain Ignores Cover. In addition any terrain piece at least 50% under a blast marker will be removed on a 4+
Leman Russ hunter troop
If a Leman Russ troop includes at least 1 Vanquisher then all Vanquishers gain the Ignores Cover special rule and +1 BS, provided at least one other tank within the troop can draw line of sight to the target. In addition all the Vanquishers may ignore unit coherency limitations
Leman Russ extermination troop
If a Leman Russ troop includes 3 Eradicators then all 3 tanks gain the Instant Death and Shred special rules
Leman Russ advance troop
If a Leman Russ troop includes 3 Exterminators then all 3 tanks gain the Rending special rule and may fire their Exterminator Autocannons twice
Make base Veteran squads consist of only 5 individuals (sarge + 4 vets), while retaining the option to add five more. No change in point costs (I mean, the base squad of five would be 30 points, the carapace upgrade +1 ppm, etc.).
For full squads (10 vets), same weapon options as currently (three special weapons, 1 heavy weapon, etc). For five-man squads, only two special weapons. But also the option to pick a jeep as a dedicated transport. 10/10/10, fast vehicle, open topped. Dunno about the cost, can't really compare with either Taurox or Chimera, as both of them (specially the Chimera) look overpriced to me as they currently are.
On a different note, specific rules for each "named" IG flavour (Catachan, Krieg, Mordians, etc.) should be an absolute must. I mean formation-like rules, perhaps similar to what Chaos had in 3.5 (special tweaks towards army composition, some special rules for all infantrymen, etc.). Won't happen though.
Came up with this idea how to boost the functionality of the Basilisk and Earthshaker carriage in normal games while also aligning their TT presence with the fluff. Given that these weapons are typically deployed for long range artillery bombardments, their rules should reflect this purpose with the following special rule.
Heavy Bombardment Units with this special rule can choose to perform D3 attacks after army deployment, but immediately before the game begins. These attacks can only target enemies in the deployment zone, scatter 2D6 without BS adjustment, and are resolved with the Earthshaker cannon weapon profile. Deep striking, scouting, or infiltrating units cannot be targeted. Alternatively, D3 ground units in reserve can be targeted. Targeted reserve units with the deep strike, scout, or infiltrator special rule cannot be targeted. On a 4+, the targeted reserve unit is delayed by one turn on the turn it should normally arrive. Delayed reserve deployments due to the Heavy Bombardment special rule do not stack.
I wonder how many of this kind of topics were longer on dakka.
I like the barrage idea. Maybe give one for each tank or vehicle to represent the mechnicsed presence of IG in the area. A taurox or a chimera would be a lot less bad, if it gave a barrage token.
Don't ask what exactly this can accomplish, but would it be terrible to remove special weapon squads and instead give the normal infantry squad the option to have two special weapons?
We can divide the answers into answers about the rules and answers about the background.
Or something like dig in for heavy weapon teams. As long as they don't move they double the T, they have. with t6 it may actualy be a good thing to take HWS or take heavy weapons in commmmand sections.
Add a +2 to their cover save (combine with ruins and GTG for a mighty 2+ save
Automatically Appended Next Post: Give the Tank Commander the ability to be placed in any tank - including a LOW tank. I want my Machirus Vanquisher Command Tank dammit!
master of ordinance wrote: Add a +2 to their cover save (combine with ruins and GTG for a mighty 2+ save
Automatically Appended Next Post: Give the Tank Commander the ability to be placed in any tank - including a LOW tank. I want my Machirus Vanquisher Command Tank dammit!
master of ordinance wrote: Add a +2 to their cover save (combine with ruins and GTG for a mighty 2+ save
Automatically Appended Next Post: Give the Tank Commander the ability to be placed in any tank - including a LOW tank. I want my Machirus Vanquisher Command Tank dammit!
The old FW rules for Baneblade variants allowed you to pay points (50?) to turn it into a HQ; it'd be kinda cool if that came back.
I like the barrage idea. Maybe give one for each tank or vehicle to represent the mechnicsed presence of IG in the area. A taurox or a chimera would be a lot less bad, if it gave a barrage token.
Although I could see an army wide Heavy Bombardment-like special rule for a unique, artillery-centric formation, that was not my original intention.
Rather, this special rule would be applied to units with barriage weapons that have large min - max ranges (i.e. Earthshakers and Colossus Bombards). The rational being that these units quickly become unreliable on normal sized boards due to their mimimum range. Additionally, this rule would fit the fluff of these units hammering the enemy from long range well before the engagement on the TT.
I'd be happy to just tie with the tau dex or heck even just below with be better than now. As for the baneblade I'd guess we won't see a change for the loadouts, but a point drop across all of 5he varieties. IF we're lucky there might be a boost to AV, or hull points, or even special rules to make baneblades more resistant to things like lance, melta and haywire, but I'll not bank on it.
Like I've said in the rumors thread, I'm hoping that whatever is in Mont'ka is good and will set the stage for what is to come in the dex.
vipoid wrote: I'd also like squads to be able to use the Lord Commissar's Ld Aura for orders.
Personally I think it should apply to ANY check involving the leadership stat. It would make things like hymns much more reliable which I always have trouble pulling off for some reason.
Yeas, that is very true. Other armies (Tau, Marines, etc) get their special abilities off for free so why do we, the Guard, have to make a check for it where we have a 50% chance to fail?
master of ordinance wrote: Yeas, that is very true. Other armies (Tau, Marines, etc) get their special abilities off for free so why do we, the Guard, have to make a check for it where we have a 50% chance to fail?
Flexibility, largely. You can choose which order to use when you need it, vs something like chapter tactics will work all the time for the whole army but you can only use that one through out the game even if it's useless in that battle. This is especially considering that some orders the IG get are the same effect as those other armies have (Forwards for the Emperor lets you run after shooting, like Eldar's battle focus, and Fire on my Target gives ignore cover the same as Tau markerlights).
I do think that the Orders should use the issuing unit's LD rather than the receiving one (so that the command squads can get the most out of their raised LD), but just a allowing them to be auto pass combined with their inherent fexibility makes them more useful that those other armies abilities.
Its not just that, the limit of an 18" range on said orders (or 12" for PCS officers) means that you essentially have to clump up all your Infantry around the officers or risk them ending up unale to function at all. It forces the Guard to play even more of a static gunline than we already were.
Why advance? All you will be doing is isolating your already weak Infantry farther away from the units which can actually make them do stuff and you will be getting closer to melee range at the same time.
master of ordinance wrote: Its not just that, the limit of an 18" range on said orders (or 12" for PCS officers) means that you essentially have to clump up all your Infantry around the officers or risk them ending up unale to function at all. It forces the Guard to play even more of a static gunline than we already were.
Why advance? All you will be doing is isolating your already weak Infantry farther away from the units which can actually make them do stuff and you will be getting closer to melee range at the same time.
This is why they need to change vox-casters to allow any unit with one to take orders from any command squad with a vox caster themselves. I don't get how radio technology isn't reflected by increased range.
master of ordinance wrote: Its not just that, the limit of an 18" range on said orders (or 12" for PCS officers) means that you essentially have to clump up all your Infantry around the officers or risk them ending up unale to function at all. It forces the Guard to play even more of a static gunline than we already were.
Why advance? All you will be doing is isolating your already weak Infantry farther away from the units which can actually make them do stuff and you will be getting closer to melee range at the same time.
This is why they need to change vox-casters to allow any unit with one to take orders from any command squad with a vox caster themselves. I don't get how radio technology isn't reflected by increased range.
The way vox casters work now kinda reminds me of 2 cans attached by a string, go too far and it suddenly doesn't work. It should be across the table (assuming they both a have a vox caster) or maybe 18" if both squads don't have a vox caster (to represent the limited range on com beads)
Orders themselves should also be more widespread to some extent. To allow some measure of MSU and not require the guard player to blob up to effectively use orders, stuff like FRF! SRF! shouldn't be limited to just one squad of guardsmen going all out. It should be a general order for all guard infantry with lasguns that have to take a Ld test to see if they can carry it out. Obviously the other more powerful orders would have to be more limited but given the fact that guys like Skitarii have free one use boosters, SM have chapter tactics, and so on I think guard deserve a little more oomph from orders at the very least, given that they lost doctrines.
If you're worried about being assaulted, why are you advancing anyway?
I do think that making the vox caster an infinite range for orders to units that also have a vox caster fixes that problem somewhat (especially for veteran based armies), and/or letting infantry sergeants getting a very limited amount of orders than can give to their own unit. There are certainly plenty of fast moving elements in the guard and it's better when you can use those elements to their fullest potential.
Conversely, limited range on needed special abilities has been a something of a weakness for horde armies (Orks with the KFF or synapse with Tyranids) especially compared to psyker powers which are always better. It's a question of if that's intentional to the theme of the army, and while guard does have those mobile element they're still a slow army at heart and just dumping that completely makes it feel less like Imperial Guard. Mechanics should try to work around those themes rather than just ape what other armies have because they work better.
Luke_Prowler wrote: If you're worried about being assaulted, why are you advancing anyway?
I do think that making the vox caster an infinite range for orders to units that also have a vox caster fixes that problem somewhat (especially for veteran based armies), and/or letting infantry sergeants getting a very limited amount of orders than can give to their own unit. There are certainly plenty of fast moving elements in the guard and it's better when you can use those elements to their fullest potential.
Conversely, limited range on needed special abilities has been a something of a weakness for horde armies (Orks with the KFF or synapse with Tyranids) especially compared to psyker powers which are always better. It's a question of if that's intentional to the theme of the army, and while guard does have those mobile element they're still a slow army at heart and just dumping that completely makes it feel less like Imperial Guard. Mechanics should try to work around those themes rather than just ape what other armies have because they work better.
I think the issue is that IG are supposed to be a sledgehammer to the SM's scalpel, but so far this has not been translated very well (if at all) on the tabletop. Guard can't bring their proper numbers to bear with the power creep that has skyrocketed over the years and have to resort to using veterans spamming special weapons to get the job done. The tanks don't have the firepower to compensate for their lack of mobility and price. I think that if the rigid chain of command were to give some serious benefits to mainline troops and potentially some guard vehicles it could represent that once the order is given that it only takes the guard some momentum before they hit home hard, the command squads could functionally be like synapse units in that sense by being the lynchpin of the guard army. Unfortunately, until they revamp the order system, command squads are just too limited and fragile to be anything more than a slight force multiplier and SW spammers.
A sledgehammer? Most of the time we feel more like a damn inflatable mallet.
Sure, we look big and impressive but we dont actually hurt anything we hit and even a single poke will destroy us utterly.
I think the issue is that IG are supposed to be a sledgehammer to the SM's scalpel, but so far this has not been translated very well (if at all) on the tabletop. Guard can't bring their proper numbers to bear with the power creep that has skyrocketed over the years and have to resort to using veterans spamming special weapons to get the job done. The tanks don't have the firepower to compensate for their lack of mobility and price. I think that if the rigid chain of command were to give some serious benefits to mainline troops and potentially some guard vehicles it could represent that once the order is given that it only takes the guard some momentum before they hit home hard, the command squads could functionally be like synapse units in that sense by being the lynchpin of the guard army. Unfortunately, until they revamp the order system, command squads are just too limited and fragile to be anything more than a slight force multiplier and SW spammers.
I think the issue is that IG are supposed to be a sledgehammer to the SM's scalpel, but so far this has not been translated very well (if at all) on the tabletop. Guard can't bring their proper numbers to bear with the power creep that has skyrocketed over the years and have to resort to using veterans spamming special weapons to get the job done. The tanks don't have the firepower to compensate for their lack of mobility and price. I think that if the rigid chain of command were to give some serious benefits to mainline troops and potentially some guard vehicles it could represent that once the order is given that it only takes the guard some momentum before they hit home hard, the command squads could functionally be like synapse units in that sense by being the lynchpin of the guard army. Unfortunately, until they revamp the order system, command squads are just too limited and fragile to be anything more than a slight force multiplier and SW spammers.
^ THIS
Agreed. I think much of that could be solved through formations that make that kind of synergy more tangible. I like orders, but when you consider the bonuses that certain armies just get for free and without having to take any tests, orders as a system just seem lacking. Orders should just work until the Company Command is killed and the chain of command deteriorates.
Even the largest IG army is simply a small bit of an army that campaigns in the millions. I think abilities like the Master of Ordnance brings should be available to platoon command squads; it would help to emphasize platoons functioning as part of a larger army in contrast to veterans that are effectively autonomous skirmishers.
There's also just fundamental problems with the functionality of the IG's signature units and weapons.
Non-skimmer, non-Fast vehicles simply do not have an adequate lifespan They're MC's without saves, and have largely poor mobility. The army relies heavily on these units however.
Likewise, the IG army relies heavily on blast weapons. Unfortunately, blast weapons aren't what really works in this edition. Weapons like Battlecannons are very scary against clustered, low-T/single-wound infantry in the open. Against other tanks, MC's, medium/high-T multi-wound units, flyers, etc, (i.e. the stuff that works rather well in 7E), such weapons are painfully inadequate.
aka_mythos wrote: Agreed. I think much of that could be solved through formations that make that kind of synergy more tangible. I like orders, but when you consider the bonuses that certain armies just get for free and without having to take any tests, orders as a system just seem lacking. Orders should just work until the Company Command is killed and the chain of command deteriorates.
Now there's a good idea. All of the orders available to all units inherently - the CCS and PCS let you forego the tests for those orders.
Vaktathi wrote: There's also just fundamental problems with the functionality of the IG's signature units and weapons.
Non-skimmer, non-Fast vehicles simply do not have an adequate lifespan They're MC's without saves, and have largely poor mobility. The army relies heavily on these units however.
Likewise, the IG army relies heavily on blast weapons. Unfortunately, blast weapons aren't what really works in this edition. Weapons like Battlecannons are very scary against clustered, low-T/single-wound infantry in the open. Against other tanks, MC's, medium/high-T multi-wound units, flyers, etc, (i.e. the stuff that works rather well in 7E), such weapons are painfully inadequate.
Dropping the cost of those slow moving, non skimmer vehicles could help with this as it goes with the quantity feel, or something like the old conquer rules, also on the theme of un-told trillions at the emperors disposal dropping the basic cost of a trooper/squad would help as what can lass carbines really kill unless you've got 250 of them?
aka_mythos wrote: Agreed. I think much of that could be solved through formations that make that kind of synergy more tangible. I like orders, but when you consider the bonuses that certain armies just get for free and without having to take any tests, orders as a system just seem lacking. Orders should just work until the Company Command is killed and the chain of command deteriorates.
Now there's a good idea. All of the orders available to all units inherently - the CCS and PCS let you forego the tests for those orders.
And IF it needs a downside, when the CCS is destroyed there could be some sort of LD test taken by the PCS to maintain order.
The fact that I see IG players taking their CCS and PCS squads loading them into Chimeras and using them as suicidal special weapon squads has never sat right by me. It seems silly because even if its a lead from the front mentality that their trying to represent, with such a bureaucratic command structure it'd be a dereliction of duty to abandon a position that supports their full company in favor of only supporting a small detachment such as what a standard IG armies represents.
I would like our standard infantry to get some sort of buff. I despise running blobs of Guardsmen. If I wanted to run giant units like that I'd play Orks. I would like my basic infantry squads to be decent enough where I can run each one separately without feeling like I'm shooting myself in the foot.
War Kitten wrote: I would like our standard infantry to get some sort of buff. I despise running blobs of Guardsmen. If I wanted to run giant units like that I'd play Orks. I would like my basic infantry squads to be decent enough where I can run each one separately without feeling like I'm shooting myself in the foot.
This. When you have the kinds of crud which are flying around in this day and edition the average Guardsman and his flashlight/tissuepaper just does not make the cut. For the love of all which is steelbally give us SOMETHING PLEASE!
War Kitten wrote: I would like our standard infantry to get some sort of buff. I despise running blobs of Guardsmen. If I wanted to run giant units like that I'd play Orks. I would like my basic infantry squads to be decent enough where I can run each one separately without feeling like I'm shooting myself in the foot.
This. When you have the kinds of crud which are flying around in this day and edition the average Guardsman and his flashlight/tissuepaper just does not make the cut. For the love of all which is steelbally give us SOMETHING PLEASE!
I still don't think the guardsmen are the problem. For the points, they are fine.
War Kitten wrote: I would like our standard infantry to get some sort of buff. I despise running blobs of Guardsmen. If I wanted to run giant units like that I'd play Orks. I would like my basic infantry squads to be decent enough where I can run each one separately without feeling like I'm shooting myself in the foot.
This. When you have the kinds of crud which are flying around in this day and edition the average Guardsman and his flashlight/tissuepaper just does not make the cut. For the love of all which is steelbally give us SOMETHING PLEASE!
I still don't think the guardsmen are the problem. For the points, they are fine.
For the points...? If they cost 3 points each I would agree with you.
I think you are definitely guilty of hyperbole on this matter. Under typical battle conditions, guardsmen are more resilient/pt and have more dakka/pt than marines. The problem is that vehicles are now a dumpster fire in 7th. Except Eldar skimmers.
Martel732 wrote: I think you are definitely guilty of hyperbole on this matter. Under typical battle conditions, guardsmen are more resilient/pt and have more dakka/pt than marines. The problem is that vehicles are now a dumpster fire in 7th. Except Eldar skimmers.
*Laughs bitterly* yeah, so resilient that almost every basic weapon out there wounds us on a 3+ or better and completely ignores our armour. Of course we do get a lot of shots but when did you ever hear anyone say 'Lasguns, feth no those things are scary'. When an entire section has to FRFSRF just to kill one opponent you know there is something wrong.
Martel732 wrote: I think you are definitely guilty of hyperbole on this matter. Under typical battle conditions, guardsmen are more resilient/pt and have more dakka/pt than marines. The problem is that vehicles are now a dumpster fire in 7th. Except Eldar skimmers.
*Laughs bitterly* yeah, so resilient that almost every basic weapon out there wounds us on a 3+ or better and completely ignores our armour. Of course we do get a lot of shots but when did you ever hear anyone say 'Lasguns, feth no those things are scary'. When an entire section has to FRFSRF just to kill one opponent you know there is something wrong.
I said per point. This is a concept that you seem to completely not understand. Also, cover is free in this game. Use it, and suddenly guardsmen have triple the efficiency of a marine against plasma and melta and six times the efficiency against grav.
There is also a very important weapon that does NOT ignore your armor: the scatterlaser. Being efficient against the most unfair weapon in the game is a huge advantage.
Lasguns provide 66% of the dakka of a boltgun against T4 targets, and 100% of the dakka against T6 targets. AP 5 rarely helps, because of the nature of most lists and because of cover.
Look at what IG are paying big points for and getting nothing: the vehicles. None of the IG vehicles are efficient in my view except the Wyvern and maybe Manticore.
I posted a better point range for vehicles earlier. The other fix I have recently added to my houserules is having smoke launchers activate when a unit fires at the tank with no effect on shooting the following turn.
It makes NO sense that a single switch the pilot could flick with one hand would totally eliminate the ability for the gunners to shoot. Let it be reactionary and it would help the vehicles move forward for a bit without being totally helpless when doing so.
War Kitten wrote: I would like our standard infantry to get some sort of buff. I despise running blobs of Guardsmen. If I wanted to run giant units like that I'd play Orks. I would like my basic infantry squads to be decent enough where I can run each one separately without feeling like I'm shooting myself in the foot.
i suppose you could make orders given by a PCS universal to the entire platoon? Or may make an order given by the PCS to one Infantry squad apply to all 2-5?
Tbh I don't really like using blobs, but I do like how effective they can be.
What about a leman russ battle tank that can fire a super heated or high explosive round that is strength d but rolls gets hot and cannot fire if it has moved that turn
I do find russes a pain at times (mostly as I both have a lot of multi-wound T4 3+ models, and only have one really effective tactic against heavy armor, melta-cide), but they are anything but OP. Maybe if you dropped them in price by half or something.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I do find russes a pain at times (mostly as I both have a lot of multi-wound T4 3+ models, and only have one really effective tactic against heavy armor, melta-cide), but they are anything but OP. Maybe if you dropped them in price by half or something.
The current points cost of a Leman Russ is only acceptable if it includes the hull mounted Lascannon and sponson weapons.
It'd be really hard to make IG tanks worth anything without increasing the number of weapons they can fire, somehow giving them a 5+ save (some sort of netting or plating?), or increasing their HP by 1 across the board. Probably 2 out of those 3, tbh.
Or lowering their points, but I'd rather tanks be scary then a swarm.
Akiasura wrote: It'd be really hard to make IG tanks worth anything without increasing the number of weapons they can fire, somehow giving them a 5+ save (some sort of netting or plating?), or increasing their HP by 1 across the board. Probably 2 out of those 3, tbh.
Or lowering their points, but I'd rather tanks be scary then a swarm.
Drop the prices by 20%-40% across the board, make them HP 4 and give them a 'Heavy Armour' rule whereby they have a 5+ invun save against all damaging hits. Also bring the price of camo gear down by about 30%.
Akiasura wrote: It'd be really hard to make IG tanks worth anything without increasing the number of weapons they can fire, somehow giving them a 5+ save (some sort of netting or plating?), or increasing their HP by 1 across the board. Probably 2 out of those 3, tbh.
Or lowering their points, but I'd rather tanks be scary then a swarm.
Drop the prices by 20%-40% across the board, make them HP 4 and give them a 'Heavy Armour' rule whereby they have a 5+ invun save against all damaging hits. Also bring the price of camo gear down by about 30%.
Honestly, I'd rather keep the prices the same, let them fire all weapons if they move 6" or less, and keep everything else.
Probably have lances ignore the heavy armor rules (and only lances) to make lances worth taking.
Give landraiders the same treatment, along with predators (basically imperium non transport non skimmer tanks)
Akiasura wrote: It'd be really hard to make IG tanks worth anything without increasing the number of weapons they can fire, somehow giving them a 5+ save (some sort of netting or plating?), or increasing their HP by 1 across the board. Probably 2 out of those 3, tbh.
Or lowering their points, but I'd rather tanks be scary then a swarm.
Drop the prices by 20%-40% across the board, make them HP 4 and give them a 'Heavy Armour' rule whereby they have a 5+ invun save against all damaging hits. Also bring the price of camo gear down by about 30%.
Honestly, I'd rather keep the prices the same, let them fire all weapons if they move 6" or less, and keep everything else.
Probably have lances ignore the heavy armor rules (and only lances) to make lances worth taking.
Give landraiders the same treatment, along with predators (basically imperium non transport non skimmer tanks)
I like this idea though the Leman Russ will still need a major points drop (20% to 40% depending upon variant - looking at you Demolisher) and make the 5+ save work against all hits, becoming 4+ for a glance (FFS they are heavy tanks, not some pipsqueak APC.
The save doesn't make sense against something like haywire grenades. The Russ needs to be deadlier, not impossible to kill. We already have GMCs for that.
Akiasura wrote: It'd be really hard to make IG tanks worth anything without increasing the number of weapons they can fire, somehow giving them a 5+ save (some sort of netting or plating?), or increasing their HP by 1 across the board. Probably 2 out of those 3, tbh.
Or lowering their points, but I'd rather tanks be scary then a swarm.
Drop the prices by 20%-40% across the board, make them HP 4 and give them a 'Heavy Armour' rule whereby they have a 5+ invun save against all damaging hits. Also bring the price of camo gear down by about 30%.
Honestly, I'd rather keep the prices the same, let them fire all weapons if they move 6" or less, and keep everything else.
Probably have lances ignore the heavy armor rules (and only lances) to make lances worth taking.
Give landraiders the same treatment, along with predators (basically imperium non transport non skimmer tanks)
I like this idea though the Leman Russ will still need a major points drop (20% to 40% depending upon variant - looking at you Demolisher) and make the 5+ save work against all hits, becoming 4+ for a glance (FFS they are heavy tanks, not some pipsqueak APC.
I do like the save modifiers...I'd really like them back in the game.
How about the following;
Heavy tanks get a 3+ save
Against a penetrating hit, -1 (so 4+)
Against a lance or melta weapon under half range, additional -1 (So 5+)
Against AP 1, an additional -1.
So scat bikes suddenly are not very good at killing heavy tanks, and haywire becomes better at killing transports than heavy tanks as well. Probably how it should be.
This puts lances and melta weapons back in the game as the tank killers of choice, and you probably don't need to put the +1 HP in there.
Str D is still a problem however. I have no idea how to change it.
Martel732 wrote: The save doesn't make sense against something like haywire grenades. The Russ needs to be deadlier, not impossible to kill. We already have GMCs for that.
Aye, I agree that it needs to be much deadlier but it is a Heavy Tank, and you do expect such a vehicle to actually have some survivability, hence the save.. It eans that your opponent actually has to dedicate some decent AT stuff to deal with the Leman Russ threat of risk them running ramapant.
Martel732 wrote: The save doesn't make sense against something like haywire grenades. The Russ needs to be deadlier, not impossible to kill. We already have GMCs for that.
Aye, I agree that it needs to be much deadlier but it is a Heavy Tank, and you do expect such a vehicle to actually have some survivability, hence the save.. It eans that your opponent actually has to dedicate some decent AT stuff to deal with the Leman Russ threat of risk them running ramapant.
I rarely see the survivability of AV 13/14 be a true issue. Str D, sure, but most other weapons really struggle. Even ST 10, because it is usually single shot. It's the fact that the firepower on the thing has been nerfed so hard.
With the proposed system a melta weapon would allow a 6+ save. Reducing the saves from a 3+ to a 4+ standard would remove this.
I do think haywire should allow a save. Haywire and grav weapons are too powerful, or need to work better against GMCs and MCs somehow (ignore FnP on these guys maybe?)
Akiasura wrote: With the proposed system a melta weapon would allow a 6+ save. Reducing the saves from a 3+ to a 4+ standard would remove this.
I do think haywire should allow a save. Haywire and grav weapons are too powerful, or need to work better against GMCs and MCs somehow (ignore FnP on these guys maybe?)
Grav, yes; it's ranged. Haywire, no. I won't support any nerfs on anything that requires assaulting. Assault is so bad for so many units right now. I have an entire army that can't assault effectively.
Akiasura wrote: With the proposed system a melta weapon would allow a 6+ save. Reducing the saves from a 3+ to a 4+ standard would remove this.
I do think haywire should allow a save. Haywire and grav weapons are too powerful, or need to work better against GMCs and MCs somehow (ignore FnP on these guys maybe?)
Grav, yes; it's ranged. Haywire, no. I won't support any nerfs on anything that requires assaulting. Assault is so bad for so many units right now. I have an entire army that can't assault effectively.
I don't use a lot of haywire personally, but it seems that armies that can use haywire spam it quite a bit. Eldar are possibly the only exception, since firedragons are so good, but I did see a few armies with swooping hawks.
I would rather buff lances and melta. Right now you are better off spamming haywire, grav, or mid strength weapons with high RoF than actual dedicated anti-tank weapons like lances and melta.
Martel732 wrote: The save doesn't make sense against something like haywire grenades. The Russ needs to be deadlier, not impossible to kill. We already have GMCs for that.
Actually? Yeah, it does.
Russes are supposed to have EMP shielding in place.
Martel732 wrote:Grav, yes; it's ranged. Haywire, no. I won't support any nerfs on anything that requires assaulting. Assault is so bad for so many units right now. I have an entire army that can't assault effectively.
So you'll support nerfs to Grav, a type that essentially gets nerfed by itself when fighting an army with anything higher than a 4+ armor save because it's ranged...but not for Haywire because you think it requires Assaulting?
Dark Eldar, Harlequin, and Skitarii all have ranged Haywire options. Some of which have fairly high ROF as well.
So I run a personal codex that intends to represent light infantry/ long range reconnaissance patrols/groups.
I made an assault squad unit. That unit has camo cloaks, infiltrate, bs4 and range 18 assault 3 lasguns. I changed the vox caster to allow for infinite range instead of order rerolls. Frfsrf works on those assault 3 lasguns as well. The unit was designed to take out other infantry units by flanking around cover and engaging its target at close range. Against tyranids it proved devastating to both gaunts and monsterous creatures due to the frfsrf and take it down orders. Against marines and necrons the unit has failed to do much damage. I quite like the unit that I created as it seems to fufill its purpose nicely, while still having weaknesses,
Co'tor Shas wrote: Really? AFAIK, most armies don't have that much access to haywire.
Off the top of my head;
Dark eldar use exclusively haywire weapons to take out tanks. Lances are bad and blasters aren't much better. This was the same last codex, where wyches basically spammed haywire to take out tanks.
Eldar use Dragons or Hawks. Dragons are good because everyone has a melta weapon and they are effectively Ap 0, the fact hawks are even considered a viable (and cheaper) alternative says a lot about the strength of haywire.
Skitarri have ranged haywire. They use it exclusively to remove tanks it seems.
As I said, armies that do have access tend to spam it. I can't think of many armies that have access and leave it at home, unless they have Str D or something unique like fire dragons. Even then, they get taken.
Grav weapons are also not common across the game, but the armies that can take them, do tend to spam them for similar reasons. They are just way to effective against their chosen targets.
If haywire had a concussive effect on GMCs/MCs only, but had to roll a save against heavy tanks (not transports or skimmers) I think they'd be balanced and considered instead of auto includes for armies that have access. It'd be nice if a small unit of hawks could target a wraithknight with haywire and reduce its speed, or subtract it's Bs/Ws by 1 for each haywire hit. Or remove it's ability to stomp unless it passes a check of some kind.
GMCs need counters. Currently it seems to be other GMCs and grav.
jreilly89 wrote: Any thoughts on the newIG formations? They look interesting, but as a non-IG player, I'm not sure how good they'll be.
It's going to be entirely dependent, in my opinion, upon how the as yet unseen "Cadian Detachment" rules define Infantry Squads for the purposes of the Emperor's Shield Infantry Company and how points heavy the Relics are going to be.
The Infantry Company gaining FRFSRF for every Lasgun armed model? That's big; not terrifyingly big--but big. Detachment-wide rerolls of "1s" on HSL and Lasguns? Also big.
The Artillery Company granting Orders to the artillery and vox-caster equipped models being able to grant Twin-Linked to anything firing at their targets and the ability for the Tank Commander to get a Relic that allows him to issue Orders to all of his accompanying Russes in the Armoured Company formation? That's huuuuge.
Yes, good point actually, the Leman Russ is EM hardened meaning that Haywire should have little to no effect unless the Russ has already been damaged.
The new formations dont look too bad, personally I am looking at that triple Baneblade formation:
>3 Baneblade chassis variants of any type and an Enginseer
>>Enginseer gains a +2 to all repair rolls
>>Enemy units hit by three primary weapons from this formation must take a morale test on 4D6 >>Everything within 12" of the tanks counts as Difficult Terrain for enemy units
I sent a link to it to my certain SM playing friend. His response: "No chance of anyone letting you use that"
His response after being told that it is a formation and he has no say as to whether I can bring it or not: "Well it will cost you loads of points and time and its not really worth it." followed by: "Guard have been given OP as feth formations."
All those times he has brought that Librarian Conclave, all those surprise Primarchs, all those triple Vindicator spam games..... I will be avenged
master of ordinance wrote: Yes, good point actually, the Leman Russ is EM hardened meaning that Haywire should have little to no effect unless the Russ has already been damaged.
And every other vehicle isn't? Of course is can resist it, just like all vehicles, that's why you roll and it's not just an auto-destroyed.
master of ordinance wrote: Yes, good point actually, the Leman Russ is EM hardened meaning that Haywire should have little to no effect unless the Russ has already been damaged.
And every other vehicle isn't? Of course is can resist it, just like all vehicles, that's why you roll and it's not just an auto-destroyed.
No but the whole point is that the Russ is designed to be nearly completely immune to EMP effects meaning that unless the defensive systems are damaged Haywire should do nothing against them. A simple 5+ save is surely not asking too much.
master of ordinance wrote: Yes, good point actually, the Leman Russ is EM hardened meaning that Haywire should have little to no effect unless the Russ has already been damaged.
And every other vehicle isn't? Of course is can resist it, just like all vehicles, that's why you roll and it's not just an auto-destroyed.
No but the whole point is that the Russ is designed to be nearly completely immune to EMP effects meaning that unless the defensive systems are damaged Haywire should do nothing against them. A simple 5+ save is surely not asking too much.
So what about necron vehicles, they are so advances that the imperium might as well be using WWI tanks. You don't think that they would have, at minimum, the same level of protection? Or Eldar tanks? And what about SM heavy tanks, like the LR? Surely they would have installed the same sort of protections on to the vaunted land raider that they do a lowly russ. Or tau vehicles, they use EM granades, so surely they would use EM shielding to defend against it? The point being that there is very little reason that they russ, specifically, needs haywire protection. If haywire is too strong, that's a different problem entirely.
Honestly, I'm not sure it's special rules that the russ needs. Maybe make then 14/13/11, 14/12/11, or something? That would make them pretty much immune to small arms fire, but dedicated anti-tank weapons would not be effected.
master of ordinance wrote: Yes, good point actually, the Leman Russ is EM hardened meaning that Haywire should have little to no effect unless the Russ has already been damaged.
And every other vehicle isn't? Of course is can resist it, just like all vehicles, that's why you roll and it's not just an auto-destroyed.
No but the whole point is that the Russ is designed to be nearly completely immune to EMP effects meaning that unless the defensive systems are damaged Haywire should do nothing against them. A simple 5+ save is surely not asking too much.
So what about necron vehicles, they are so advances that the imperium might as well be using WWI tanks. You don't think that they would have, at minimum, the same level of protection? Or Eldar tanks? And what about SM heavy tanks, like the LR? Surely they would have installed the same sort of protections on to the vaunted land raider that they do a lowly russ. Or tau vehicles, they use EM granades, so surely they would use EM shielding to defend against it? The point being that there is very little reason that they russ, specifically, needs haywire protection. If haywire is too strong, that's a different problem entirely.
Honestly, I'm not sure it's special rules that the russ needs. Maybe make then 14/13/11, 14/12/11, or something? That would make them pretty much immune to small arms fire, but dedicated anti-tank weapons would not be effected.
Necron and Eldar tanks are skimmers, which shows their advanced technology just fine (and necron have extra rules). They can fly around and shoot their weapons more effectively than Imperial armies can, and can jink for a really nice cover save as well.
Because they are flying fast moving balls of death, haywire/penetrating shot is more likely to cause them a complication and thus they do not get an armor save. Skimmers are already very good.
The problem with the armor values you propose is you can still rear armor drop pod PG the russ off the table with even the slightest amount of luck (I think 2HP are the average). It still explodes to grav or haywire (which ignore the armor values). LCs are terrible against that front armor, and are usually too slow to reach side armor. Scat bikes would still go for the side armor and just hope for 6's (though a 13 would prevent that from working).
So you still have the best anti-tank weapons being haywire by a huge amount and grav. Lances and LCs are still terrible against tanks.
Martel732 wrote: The save doesn't make sense against something like haywire grenades. The Russ needs to be deadlier, not impossible to kill. We already have GMCs for that.
Actually? Yeah, it does.
Russes are supposed to have EMP shielding in place.
Martel732 wrote:Grav, yes; it's ranged. Haywire, no. I won't support any nerfs on anything that requires assaulting. Assault is so bad for so many units right now. I have an entire army that can't assault effectively.
So you'll support nerfs to Grav, a type that essentially gets nerfed by itself when fighting an army with anything higher than a 4+ armor save because it's ranged...but not for Haywire because you think it requires Assaulting?
Dark Eldar, Harlequin, and Skitarii all have ranged Haywire options. Some of which have fairly high ROF as well.
I haven't seen ranged haywire before. I'll have to reconsider.
master of ordinance wrote: Yes, good point actually, the Leman Russ is EM hardened meaning that Haywire should have little to no effect unless the Russ has already been damaged.
And every other vehicle isn't? Of course is can resist it, just like all vehicles, that's why you roll and it's not just an auto-destroyed.
No but the whole point is that the Russ is designed to be nearly completely immune to EMP effects meaning that unless the defensive systems are damaged Haywire should do nothing against them. A simple 5+ save is surely not asking too much.
So what about necron vehicles, they are so advances that the imperium might as well be using WWI tanks. You don't think that they would have, at minimum, the same level of protection? Or Eldar tanks? And what about SM heavy tanks, like the LR? Surely they would have installed the same sort of protections on to the vaunted land raider that they do a lowly russ. Or tau vehicles, they use EM granades, so surely they would use EM shielding to defend against it? The point being that there is very little reason that they russ, specifically, needs haywire protection. If haywire is too strong, that's a different problem entirely.
Honestly, I'm not sure it's special rules that the russ needs. Maybe make then 14/13/11, 14/12/11, or something? That would make them pretty much immune to small arms fire, but dedicated anti-tank weapons would not be effected.
The Imperium IS using WWI tanks. Look at the Land Raider. They also have no targeting systems, as the BS of the firer is used, unmodified. What a joke.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Lances and LCs are still terrible against tanks."
Because single shot kills have been replaced by HP stripping.
If the new codex is anything but an improvement my Guard are probably being shelved, I just can't keep getting my hopes up only for them to be shattered.
Well it is playing with numbers, and that is close to numerology, which if forbiden by the church. Only people who have to use math for stuff at work can or should, be using it to train outside of working. And even then it isn't certain, if it is always the case. For example if someone works at a church found or in party think tank, it is probably ok. But if he is using math for personal gains or anti national actions, it is probably a sin.
Man, between the "meh" relics, warlord traits, the "alright" formations, and just the straight slap to the face with the copy paste baneblades, I feel like IG got kicked in the teeth to make Tau look better. Maybe I'm just being downer but with the recent codices, I was really excited. I feel like I know how CSM players feel now.
drunken0elf wrote: Meanwhile Ogryns are sad. Sad sad lovely big meaty man.
Just dropping their points would make them so much more viable. As it is now I could use the points from them to buy a tank and it is a sad thing that I will get so much more out of that tank than I will the Ogryns.
Now all I can think of is a sniffling ogryn holding a tiny teddy bear while a commissar awkwardly pats him on the back. Breaks the emperor's heart I tell you!
But I would have to agree that with a point slash for ogryn/bullgryn they would see alot more use with me. heck I'd dare say they would be a auto include if the stormlord cost a point slash as well, for superheavy transport shenanigans.
Fer da Empahrahhhhhh *smashes everything in sight*
It makes me smile just thinking about it.
Ir0njack wrote: Now all I can think of is a sniffling ogryn holding a tiny teddy bear while a commissar awkwardly pats him on the back. Breaks the emperor's heart I tell you!
Someone needs to make some art about this. It's brilliant. Sadder then titanic I tell you.
I just don’t understand the thinking behind the point cost of Bullgryns. With their upgrades they are supposed to be a CC beat stick, but really they can just as easily be stuck in combat with a tactical marine squad that won’t fail a 3+ save. I really would love to see them make the Maul an AP3 weapon to give them some true punch along with a reasonable point drop.
Always been hoping for Vox’s to give you range across the board since our last update. Not sure if it’s worth holding my breath for again but would be amazing.
I know I would love formation built entirely around conscripts. 1-2 50 man conscript squads with Commissars in each? I would LOVE sending them into battle to hold the line while my tanks/artillery do the actual work. Bonus points of fun if my artillery scatters onto my conscript hordes. I would probably also find a way to ally that formation in to all my Space Marine games as well.
This holds for pretty much everything in the IG Codex: Platoons, Tanks, just about everything.
Except Rough Riders. Those just suck.
Yeah, that is true.
Rough Riders... Remind me, what are they again?
1 wound, toughness 3, "melee" Cavalry with a "meh" one use melee weapon, WS3, munitorium issued cardboard armor, and they treat all difficult terrain as dangerous.
Make them 2 wound, toughness 4, with hit and run, move through cover, the ability to be upgraded to vets, and able to buy carapace and special weapons (power lance anyone?). I'd like rough riders like THAT.
Rough riders should really get the jetbike treatment. Or the light Cav rules in WMH.
Rough Riders
2 Wounds, T4, Hit and Run, Skilled Rider, 5+ Armor save, WS 3
New Rules;
Shaped Charges
Rough Riders have shaped charges on their lances, making them devastating on the charge.
If a Rough Riders unit charges, they double their strength and gain AP 2 for 1 turn.
Devastating charge,
Rough Riders gain +2 WS and I when charging.
Master hunters
Rough Riders have preferred enemy everything.
Light Cavarly
During the assault phase, Rough riders may make a run move even if they have ran in the shooting phase or fired their weapons.
If rough riders use HaR or win a combat, they may move an additional d6+1" and ignore terrain while doing so.
I think this would make them fast deadly threats with still obvious weaknesses. They really need to get the charge, and concentrated shooting will bring them down. However, they can move through cover pretty well and if they do charge, will cause a lot of damage since they will hit and wound quite well and be devastating (finally).
Robbert Ambrose wrote: Personally I'd like to see something like bicycle infantry being introduced, just something out of the ordinary, but not totally unreasonable.
Robbert Ambrose wrote: Personally I'd like to see something like bicycle infantry being introduced, just something out of the ordinary, but not totally unreasonable.
Well, how about we follow up that Bicycle Infantry with a unit of British Constables?
Elites, Units of 1-5, Guardsman statline, 7pts per model and come with the following:
- Truncheon (S: User, AP-, Concussive)
- Custodian helmet (If an non-fearless enemy attempts to run, shoot or charge within 6" of a unit of British Constables, they must pass a Ld test. If the test is failed, the sight of the constable's helmet has unnerved them and they may not perform the selected action.)
- Whistle (Instead of shooting, a unit of British Constables may instead elect to blow their whistles. Place a Whistle Counter by the squad. At the beginning of your next turn, two further units of British Constables - each comprised of d6 models - arrive on the scene and may be placed anywhere within 6" a unit with a whistle counter.)
- 'Ello, 'ello, 'ello (For each enemy unit that attempts to infiltrate within 18" of a unit of British Constables, roll a d6. On a roll of 3+ the unit has been spotted and must instead set up within its owning player's deployment zone.)
Panzer1944 wrote: I just don’t understand the thinking behind the point cost of Bullgryns. With their upgrades they are supposed to be a CC beat stick, but really they can just as easily be stuck in combat with a tactical marine squad that won’t fail a 3+ save. I really would love to see them make the Maul an AP3 weapon to give them some true punch along with a reasonable point drop.
Always been hoping for Vox’s to give you range across the board since our last update. Not sure if it’s worth holding my breath for again but would be amazing.
The problem with mauls is, as I see it, very similar to the problem with axes. They have wrong rules. The maul should be +1S AP2, and the axe +2S AP4.
Robbert Ambrose wrote: Personally I'd like to see something like bicycle infantry being introduced, just something out of the ordinary, but not totally unreasonable.
Well, how about we follow up that Bicycle Infantry with a unit of British Constables?
Elites, Units of 1-5, Guardsman statline, 7pts per model and come with the following: - Truncheon (S: User, AP-, Concussive) - Custodian helmet (If an non-fearless enemy attempts to run, shoot or charge within 6" of a unit of British Constables, they must pass a Ld test. If the test is failed, the sight of the constable's helmet has unnerved them and they may not perform the selected action.) - Whistle (Instead of shooting, a unit of British Constables may instead elect to blow their whistles. Place a Whistle Counter by the squad. At the beginning of your next turn, two further units of British Constables - each comprised of d6 models - arrive on the scene and may be placed anywhere within 6" a unit with a whistle counter.) - 'Ello, 'ello, 'ello (For each enemy unit that attempts to infiltrate within 18" of a unit of British Constables, roll a d6. On a roll of 3+ the unit has been spotted and must instead set up within its owning player's deployment zone.)
Robbert Ambrose wrote: Personally I'd like to see something like bicycle infantry being introduced, just something out of the ordinary, but not totally unreasonable.
Stats-wise, that's what Rough Riders are: not any bump to T W or Sv, and only marginally faster.
I honestly wonder if they're worth trying to save. Right now the unit has more problems with it than you can shake a stick at, not to mention a distinct lack of models for the unit. I'd almost rather our other units get some love before Rough Riders, but that's just my opinion.
War Kitten wrote: I honestly wonder if they're worth trying to save. Right now the unit has more problems with it than you can shake a stick at, not to mention a distinct lack of models for the unit. I'd almost rather our other units get some love before Rough Riders, but that's just my opinion.
Well, ironically, it is quite easy to fix them: Cut the costs, allow them to outflank, take flak armour and make the hunting lance work every combat and give the two wounds and a FNP save and +1 toughness.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why FNP and +T? I mean, +T could work (although they are still just a guy on a horse), but there is no reason for them to get FNP, gameplay or fluff.
Apart from to make them actually capable of surviving. Right now they cost over twice the amount of a regular bod but deliver far less.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why FNP and +T? I mean, +T could work (although they are still just a guy on a horse), but there is no reason for them to get FNP, gameplay or fluff.
Apart from to make them actually capable of surviving. Right now they cost over twice the amount of a regular bod but deliver far less.
That's what decreasing them in price, making them hit harder, ect. should do. They don't need to have FNP. It's unnecessary. +T makes as much sense as bikers getting it, but FNP makes absolutely no sense. They are just a guy on a horse. And 2W is sort of weird too. It really sounds like you don't want rough-rides but a whole new unit.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why FNP and +T? I mean, +T could work (although they are still just a guy on a horse), but there is no reason for them to get FNP, gameplay or fluff.
Apart from to make them actually capable of surviving. Right now they cost over twice the amount of a regular bod but deliver far less.
That's what decreasing them in price, making them hit harder, ect. should do. They don't need to have FNP. It's unnecessary. +T makes as much sense as bikers getting it, but FNP makes absolutely no sense. They are just a guy on a horse. And 2W is sort of weird too. It really sounds like you don't want rough-rides but a whole new unit.
I want a whole new unit.
One that isn't just "Napoleonics in SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!".
Sadly, we're stuck with Rough Riders for awhile. They're name-dropped on the regimental stuff for Mont'ka, so they're not going anywhere.
Anyways, 2W and FNP? Not that far-fetched considering horses that were bred for knights were renowned for being hard to kill. It took the development of pikes and rifles to effectively kill off knights.
And the Imperium? The Imperium is mentioned as not just having horses bred for war, but CYBERNETICALLY ENHANCED WARHORSES!
Yes, quite far-fetched, horses are not that tough, even cyberneticly enhanced horses would be no tougher than, say, a war-bike. All it takes is a single broken leg, and that horse is down. At that point, most horses are just put down, it's so hard to fix. +T is acceptable considering bikes get it, but 2W is not, and FNP is just fething ridiculous and unnessiary.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why FNP and +T? I mean, +T could work (although they are still just a guy on a horse), but there is no reason for them to get FNP, gameplay or fluff.
Apart from to make them actually capable of surviving. Right now they cost over twice the amount of a regular bod but deliver far less.
That's what decreasing them in price, making them hit harder, ect. should do. They don't need to have FNP. It's unnecessary. +T makes as much sense as bikers getting it, but FNP makes absolutely no sense. They are just a guy on a horse. And 2W is sort of weird too. It really sounds like you don't want rough-rides but a whole new unit.
I mean, that's basically what FW did to DKoK Death Riders, they have 6+ FNP , 4+Sv, and W2, just not the +T
The big problem is that being T3, most of the time they're shot at, they don't ever get to use that 2nd wound, the FNP, or the 4+ save, or at least the 2nd wound and FNP, with stuff like Autocannons, Scatterlasers, Assault Cannons, Shuriken Cannons, Missile Pods, etc en-masse
Ultimately, I think however that the multi-wound, increased toughness, FNP-sporting units are a big problem with the game. Most of these units (Bikers, TWC's, Wraiths, etc) really have very little justification for being as hardy as they are, and they end up being absurdly resilient against both quantity and quality of firepower with basically no downsides in their functionality.
Initially, I really liked the DKoK Death Rider model, but in practical functionality they still don't really live long enough to do anything, and to make them do so starts putting them in the same realm as the above units. I think more and more that really they may be functional if they remain as they are, but are just made extremely cheap. If they were like 6ppm, people might look at them. Then if they die, oh well, if they don't, great, and that I think fits IG better than trying to make yet another multi-wound unit.
I'd go with S4 T4 Sv4+ on Rough Riders, ignoring the W2 and FNP in favor of a hefty points reduction - that brings the base model with LP&CCW to 7 pts.
Option to upgrade to +S Power Lances and/or 3 Special Weapons.
They are cavalry, The spacewolf cavalry doesn't get a bonus T if I remember, so I don't see RR getting a bonus T, which is unfortunate.
BS4 can't be spat at either. It's crappy laspistols, but oh well. An upgrade to bolt pistols could be nice tho.
Carapace armor, YES PLEASE.
They need to either be a lot stronger on the initial charge or better after they have used their ok 1 trickpony weapons.
Idea of dragoons could be also cool. Basically a RR but with two boltpistols type of thing. Same rules and principle as the batlesisters Seraphim but it's cavalry in space yo! 100% more badass.
For people who don't know what Dragoons are : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoon
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why FNP and +T? I mean, +T could work (although they are still just a guy on a horse), but there is no reason for them to get FNP, gameplay or fluff.
Apart from to make them actually capable of surviving. Right now they cost over twice the amount of a regular bod but deliver far less.
That's what decreasing them in price, making them hit harder, ect. should do. They don't need to have FNP. It's unnecessary. +T makes as much sense as bikers getting it, but FNP makes absolutely no sense. They are just a guy on a horse. And 2W is sort of weird too. It really sounds like you don't want rough-rides but a whole new unit.
I want a whole new unit.
One that isn't just "Napoleonics in SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!".
Sadly, we're stuck with Rough Riders for awhile. They're name-dropped on the regimental stuff for Mont'ka, so they're not going anywhere.
Anyways, 2W and FNP? Not that far-fetched considering horses that were bred for knights were renowned for being hard to kill. It took the development of pikes and rifles to effectively kill off knights.
And the Imperium? The Imperium is mentioned as not just having horses bred for war, but CYBERNETICALLY ENHANCED WARHORSES!
I think you'll find that the invention of the longbow basically killed off knights. Since the longbow came out, it was a race to build armor that could withstand it, which saw only limited success by the time gunpower became a thing, and it wasn't rifles but smoothbores that put the final nail in the coffin.
The way to get around having your horse be put down if its leg breaks is to make a servitor-horse mounted on an anti-grav sled.
As much as I really dislike the concept of cavalry in a universe like 40k's in the "conventional military" faction, there's a couple ways I can see Cavalry having some sort of function.
Units raised from low-tech worlds operating in places where support for armored units simply may not be available in terms of logistics, or because of severe electrical storms or other atmospheric conditions, and against foes that are not likely to be utilizing significant ranged weapons. Say against Feral Orks or maybe primitive Eldar Exodites or operating along the flanks of armored columns through terrain that may be unsuitable for tanks.
I can see *some* applications, but nothing like the "yeah, hamfist Napoleonic cavalry into frontal attacks against automatic weapon wielding super soldiers" that the game tries to force them into.
Really, historically the most capable and feared cavalry units were not lancers or knights, but horse archers, that basically acted like an angry swarm of bees with gigantically powerful bows, devastating civilizations for over two thousand years, amongst dozens of Chinese states, ancient middle eastern empires like Babylon and Assyria, up through the Roman Empire and into the middle ages with the Mongols and their descendants, and not really being subdued until the widespread development of disciplined, organized, and plentiful firearms wielding infantry.
EDIT: actually, a cool cavalry unit, that would fit the "mongol" image the actual RR's have, would be basically just a normal Infantry Squad, but with the Cavalry unit type, and a special rule (they could call it "Feigned Flight") that would allow them to do something like the Warp Spiders "Flickerjump" if assaulted. That would probably work better in general, and reflect the "mongol" aspect better, along with fitting the IG playstyle more closely. Make them relatively cheap, and you'd have a winner.
It is easier and better to simply make "Rough Riders" a Veteran subtype, a la "Grenadiers", gaining Cavalry and H&R like Seraphim, or else Bikes with S&P. IG do not deserve "exotic" rules like Flickerjump, and even H&R / S&P are a bit much.
JohnHwangDD wrote: It is easier and better to simply make "Rough Riders" a Veteran subtype, a la "Grenadiers", gaining Cavalry and H&R like Seraphim, or else Bikes with S&P. IG do not deserve "exotic" rules like Flickerjump, and even H&R / S&P are a bit much.
the Veteran type I might agree with. I don't think however something like "flickerjump" is beyond something that IG would "deserve" on a specialized (and relatively fragile) unit reflecting a real-world tactic used for hundreds of years to great success by Cavalry, that kind of logic is what has kept IG a junk army for most of the game's lifespan.
Honestly. the more I think about it, the less I think RR's should really be a CC oriented unit. Successful cavalry throughout history has only rarely been melee centralized (and usually European), and I don't think with the way IG functions and the way the lances have ever worked, that something like H&R would ever do much good.
I strongly believe that IG should have only basic SRs, nothing really exotic or good. And that should be reflected in rock bottom per-model and per-unit costs. The idea of making IG "good" is foolish. We already have Eldar / Sisters / DEldar / Tau for that. Let IG be cheap and plentiful. The IG should only ever win through sheer quantity of volume and big numbers of, not quality or elites.
If IG become a Veteran-based unit, then the CC-focus functionally disappears because they start with BS4, while retain the option to take 3 Specials, which they will likely do. The Power Lance option becomes like the twin Lightning Claw option on Raptors - something that looks interesting from a completist standpoint, but nothing you'd ever take on the tabletop.
In principle I agree that IG should largely be a relatively "basic" army, but I don't think a "flickerjump" style ability against assaults, on T3 5+sv (maybe 4+sv) infantry would make them really astoundingly overly good or elite, it wouldn't augment killing power, wouldn't make them unkillable, it'd just force opponents to deal with them differently than normal putz guardsmen.
Also, at this point, with the way things are at this point in the game's life, I don't think any army can be made to function well purely on points costs. The killing power, speed, and ability of many units already existing in the game can cut through a few more guardsmen relatively easily, and, more fundamentally, there's a simple limit as to how much you can put on the table and how much of what you put on the table can be effective (e.g. "sweet, I've got 40 lascannon HWS's, but half of them can't see anything because I can't put them anywhere where they have LoS to anything, so my opponent only has to deal with half of them...")
Flickerjump is a *very* exotic ability, because it keeps happening and WS can move huge distances in a turn. It's only possible because it teleports the unit through the warp in a blink of an eye. For a ground-based unit, flickerjump is simply not appropriate. At best, they might voluntarily fall back. If RRs need flickerjump to be functional, I'd rather RRs be removed from the game permanently.
IG definitely can be resolved via points costs. Right now, a unit of 10 Guardsmen costs me 80+ points to field with ML & Plasmagun. That should be 45 points for the unit (with +1A Sgt, HB & Flamer) +5 for ML + pts for Plasma = 55 pts. I'd save -30% on Infantry costs. The 1,000 pts of Infantry I'd take today becomes 700 pts of Infantry, freeing up 300 pts. The 160 pts I currently play for a Leman Russ (Demolisher) becomes 110 pts, freeing up another 50 pts each. The 1750 pt army I currently field drops to 1250 pts, giving me 500-ish points overall. Instead of taking more low-density stuff that I already have enough of, I'd take those extra points for Baneblade & Valk, or Mech or whatever - increasing density and impact.
tl;dr, imagine if every IG army simply got a "FREE" Baneblade (in any configuration desired). Wouldn't that make Guard far more competitive than they are right now?
JohnHwangDD wrote: Flickerjump is a *very* exotic ability, because it keeps happening and WS can move huge distances in a turn. It's only possible because it teleports the unit through the warp in a blink of an eye. For a ground-based unit, flickerjump is simply not appropriate. At best, they might voluntarily fall back. If RRs need flickerjump to be functional, I'd rather RRs be removed from the game permanently.
Suffice to say I disagree, I don't think the such an ability used to guard against assaults, on a relatively weeny unit that can be very successfully engaged by other means, would be wildly exotic (certainly no moreso than combined squads or valyrie deep strike abilities or other such things). The problem I see with it being a fallback is that they'd be useless then next turn which is when you'd really need them to act.
And quite frankly, when armies like Eldar get to basically add +1 BS to their entire army for free (on top of lots of other new & free special rules) over the space of a couple of years, just because "well...space elves", the special rules have to go around a bit more.
IG definitely can be resolved via points costs. Right now, a unit of 10 Guardsmen costs me 80+ points to field with ML & Plasmagun. That should be 45 points for the unit (with +1A Sgt, HB & Flamer) +5 for ML + pts for Plasma = 55 pts. I'd save -30% on Infantry costs. The 1,000 pts of Infantry I'd take today becomes 700 pts of Infantry, freeing up 300 pts. The 160 pts I currently play for a Leman Russ (Demolisher) becomes 110 pts, freeing up another 50 pts each. The 1750 pt army I currently field drops to 1250 pts, giving me 500-ish points overall. Instead of taking more low-density stuff that I already have enough of, I'd take those extra points for Baneblade & Valk, or Mech or whatever - increasing density and impact.
tl;dr, imagine if every IG army simply got a "FREE" Baneblade (in any configuration desired). Wouldn't that make Guard far more competitive than they are right now?
How much do we inflate the scale of this game? If Superheavies are a required component in every game, how much *more* does that then contribute to the irrelevancy of something like the basic guardsman, when the scale inflates to the point where their only functional role is taking up physical board space?
I mean, I'm a huge fan of tanks. I own 4 Baneblades and dozens of other IG tanks and gobs of guardsmen. But I don't want to have to lug all that around all the time I don't want to be lugging one to every game. Once in a while, cool, but for evert 2k pickup game? Lets transition to Epic instead for that. Baneblades were supposed to be amazing centerpieces of large armies in special games, a transplant from a game of much larger scale, not taking the place of what the Leman Russ once was.
I mean, if we set that aside, sure, yeah, "free baneblades" will help anything, but I think if we step back, and take a look at that phrase, and put it within the context of 40k as a game, the issues become immediately apparent. "Free Baneblades" would be something you'd expect to see from a late night hyperbolic 4chan joke thread, not an actual serious balancing mechanic. If that's the point we're at, we've got problems.
That said, sadly, it would not be the only reality that just a short time ago was limited to late night 4chan joke threads.
They are men on horses retreating from the Enemy...
Eldar *should* get +1 BS - they're truly superhuman in every way except S&T. And BS5 vs BS4 really isn't that big of a deal when you look at the math for how much they cost. Just because Eldar are finally properly awesome does not mean that any other army should be Eldar-like. "Eldar envy" misses the entire point of what Eldar are.
Superheavies are already a required component of every game. As are Flyers. Guardsmen have never been more than extra wounds. And the easiest way to keep massed Guardsmen relevant is to always allow the Guard player to ignore "closest first" by always choosing their casualties. You want to kill a Lascannon, you'll have to go through 9 Guardsmen to do so...
I would have no problem "lugging" a Baneblade with me to every game, along with a dozen tanks and 200 Guardsmen. It's not like it takes up any more space in the bag (unlike a Warhound Titan or similar). If you're not fielding GCs & SH armor in your 2k games, you're doing it wrong. Baneblades should be part and parcel of any "large army", and 2000 pts of 40k7 is a large army. Very large indeed compared to the 1500 pts of 40k2 when the only Baneblade was Armorcast resin scaled up from the Epic model.
"FREE" Baneblades are indeed a serious balancing mechanic, given how much IG are currently overcosted. Do you dispute that IG are currently at least 25% overcosted? Do you dispute that the Baneblade is currently at least 25% overcosted? If you're talking 2,000 pts, then you're overpaying by at least 500 pts - the equivalent of what a fairly-priced, fully-loaded Baneblade platform should cost. So yes, IG have problems, and a massive points cost reduction across the board is a valid way to address it. It just happens to be my preferred "fix" for Guard.
Again, if you take your current 2k list, added a "FREE" Baneblade-equivalent, would that not give Decurion and Gladius and the others a relatively competitive game? So, what's the problem?
Again, if you take your current 2k list, added a "FREE" Baneblade-equivalent, would that not give Decurion and Gladius and the others a relatively competitive game? So, what's the problem?
Most games are at 1500pts not 2k, a free baneblade dies turn one what ever it is free or not. And it would suck if to play IG one would have to start with buying a baneblade. Where would one get one anyway, stores don't sell them and even the recast ones cost a lot. Worse while a store owner may not notice or care if a Knight is a recast one, because he sells them too, he will notice automaticly if an IG player suddenly turns up with a baneblade he does not sell.
@Makumba - in the US, most games are 1850-2000; games haven't been 1500 for a long time.
Stores definitely do sell Baneblades - it's been available in plastic for several years.
Finally, I'm not sure, but I suspect that you miss the key point of IG being overcosted. The "FREE" Baneblade is simply a concrete way of describing 400-500 points.
JohnHwangDD wrote: imagine if every IG army simply got a "FREE" Baneblade (in any configuration desired). Wouldn't that make Guard far more competitive than they are right now?
In a game with drop podding melta marines, no scatter D "flamer" eldar, gauss necron infantry and tank hunting / always rear hitting tau everywhere, the baneblade as it is, is useless. too much buck for a WS 3 bang.
i would prefer 6 chimeras over one baneblade any time ...
vostroyan second born wrote: In a game with drop podding melta marines, no scatter D "flamer" eldar, gauss necron infantry and tank hunting / always rear hitting tau everywhere, the baneblade as it is, is useless. too much buck for a WS 3 bang.
That's what lovely blobs of cheap Guardsmen are for! To be honest there are a few pretty good formations in the book I think, I'm a big fan of the Sentinels one in particular. Take three teams all with autocannons for a good rate of fire and good strength and AP value and go to town.
Also the Leman Russ formation we're basically you get the old Holo Field rules is also quite viable. 5 Leman Russ battle tank variants and a tech priest with those rules is nothing to sneeze at. And I'm okay with not having all the cool new and shiny stuff that other armies get, I enjoyed the tactical challenge!
vostroyan second born wrote: In a game with drop podding melta marines, no scatter D "flamer" eldar, gauss necron infantry and tank hunting / always rear hitting tau everywhere, the baneblade as it is, is useless. too much buck for a WS 3 bang.
That's what lovely blobs of cheap Guardsmen are for! To be honest there are a few pretty good formations in the book I think, I'm a big fan of the Sentinels one in particular. Take three teams all with autocannons for a good rate of fire and good strength and AP value and go to town.
Also the Leman Russ formation we're basically you get the old Holo Field rules is also quite viable. 5 Leman Russ battle tank variants and a tech priest with those rules is nothing to sneeze at. And I'm okay with not having all the cool new and shiny stuff that other armies get, I enjoyed the tactical challenge!
I run a light infantry long range penetration group. Bane blades, leman russes, and tracked vehicles in general, do not fit within the structure of that regiment.
Baneblades and hoards of infantry should not be the only way to play the guard. The problems with the guard need to be addressed differently and cannot be fixed by just giving out free stuff.
Ground support is supplied via sentinels as they can easily, and stealthily, traverse terrain that conventional vehicles cannot. Small buggies and troop transports are supplied to the force for logistical reasons, and can also provide tactical mobility (although their inclusion is rare). I will in the future be making an armored car that will hopefully look like a Cadillac Gage with a 120mm cannon.
Tanks, APC's, and vehicles larger and/or heavier than the armored car that I just mentioned (which itself will suffer due to the terrain it is tasked to operate in) will have trouble maneuvering at all. To supplement the lack of armor, the group is often in contact with multiple artillery fire bases, and forward airfields.
The infantry engage only when it best suits them, using the terrain to mask their operations and strength of force.
Ground support is supplied via sentinels as they can easily, and stealthily, traverse terrain that conventional vehicles cannot. Small buggies and troop transports are supplied to the force for logistical reasons, and can also provide tactical mobility (although their inclusion is rare). I will in the future be making an armored car that will hopefully look like a Cadillac Gage with a 120mm cannon.
Tanks, APC's, and vehicles larger and/or heavier than the armored car that I just mentioned (which itself will suffer due to the terrain it is tasked to operate in) will have trouble maneuvering at all. To supplement the lack of armor, the group is often in contact with multiple artillery fire bases, and forward airfields.
The infantry engage only when it best suits them, using the terrain to mask their operations and strength of force.
Okay, well how does that translate into game terms, I'm all for fluff based armies (I run one myself) but I seems far from practical when it set on the board. Sentinels and Tauroxes (armored cars?) And even guardsmen rely on cover, but with the prevalence cover ignoring weapons that notion flies right out the window. Artillery and air support that you describe isn't a possible thing atm except by the MoO, so your forced to bring models on the field to represent these normally unassailable assets. Lastly masking operation and strength if force isn't possible either due to the nature of the game, I'd say the closest you might get is deep striking scions?
I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud, but the concept of your army run into the same issues that mine does there's jus no way to represent it. So how do you think it could be well represented within the confines of a new IG dex?
All of my infantry are trained to operate within a vast expanse of forested terrain. They excel in infiltration, reconnaissance, precision assaults, and search and destroy. Their lack of large vehicles is what allows them to remain hidden and mobile in an otherwise treacherous environment.
The infantry all come equipped with camo cloaks standard (they are modeled on all of my infantry)
Moves through cover is universally granted, in order to represent their ability to remain mobile in dense terrain.
I have a troop choice called a veteran assault squad. It has the exact same stats as a veteran squad, but has the infiltrate special rule. In addition they are equipped with shredder lasguns that are 18inc range assault 3. Instead of being able to equip 3 special weapons they are limited to two.
I have changed the vox caster to instead change the order range to infinite. This squad allows me to outflank enemy positions and actually take out enemy infantry with guardsman. At 120 points base i quite like this unit.
Sentinels are there to provide on site fire support via their plasma cannons and lascannons.
Dedicated transports are generally not going to be used within combat, as the troop transports attached to them are too lightly armored to be safely utilized under fire. Valkyries are a dedicated transport, but generally I still feel like they are too overpriced to be effective.
Fast ground buggies like the tauros (NOT THE TAUROX), or something like this
Spoiler:
are there to attack an enemy position, and leave before the enemy can react.
Long range artillery is currently only represented via the master of the ordinance, but I am mulling over adding in spotters to fill in the heavy support slot. In the future I will eventually add a heavy mortar for closer support.
An armored car like the cadilliac gage
Spoiler:
will be there to take out enemy vehicles stupid enough to enter into terrain that they are unsuited for.
Then there is the airsupport which can be used to clear the sky, or ground of any opposition.
Kanluwen wrote: HEY!
You mock, but I've tried the Emperor's Shield Infantry Company. That many Lasguns? It actually gave someone pause, when fired en masse with FRSRF!
Kanluwen wrote: HEY!
You mock, but I've tried the Emperor's Shield Infantry Company. That many Lasguns? It actually gave someone pause, when fired en masse with FRSRF!
and? was the formation worth its "points"
Well...
I testfired it against my brother's Tyranids.
Before I could resolve any other weapons, the Lasguns alone had wiped out a Carnifex brood.
Very well explained, thank you; very thematic pictures as well. I understand where you're coming from with this, but in the game I'm creating, I want much attention to overall strategy and constant tactical decisions but if much of your damage output comes from off-map artillery and such, then I think much is lost as relatively few light infantry won't do much damage on their own and thus are reduced to spotters. Maybe I got it wrong but imagine a balanced Chaos or Tyranid force going against your light infantry - should light vehicles and light infantry be able to do that much damage to advancing heavy forces like Terminators, Land Raiders, several monstrous creatures or the like on their own? Or do you mostly need artillery and flyers for that?
Very well explained, thank you; very thematic pictures as well. I understand where you're coming from with this, but in the game I'm creating, I want much attention to overall strategy and constant tactical decisions but if much of your damage output comes from off-map artillery and such, then I think much is lost as relatively few light infantry won't do much damage on their own and thus are reduced to spotters. Maybe I got it wrong but imagine a balanced Chaos or Tyranid force going against your light infantry - should light vehicles and light infantry be able to do that much damage to advancing heavy forces like Terminators, Land Raiders, several monstrous creatures or the like on their own? Or do you mostly need artillery and flyers for that?
Well giving us F/O officers and tanks would be a massive boost, especially if we used the old IA rules for the bombardments. You purchase your F/O unit who comes with one Earthshaker blast per turn and can then purchase multiple other blasts for him:
3 Mortar shells @15 points
4 Quad Mortar shells @20 points
2 Griffon shells @40 points
2 Medusa shells @55 points
1 Earthshaker shell @ 60 points
1 Bombard shell @70 points
1 Bombard< shell @100 points
etc
Each turn the F/O can call in his barrages. Unless he has LOS to the target the scatter is not reduced but if he does have LOS then the scatter is reduced by his BS.
Kanluwen wrote: HEY!
You mock, but I've tried the Emperor's Shield Infantry Company. That many Lasguns? It actually gave someone pause, when fired en masse with FRSRF!
and? was the formation worth its "points"
Well...
I testfired it against my brother's Tyranids.
Before I could resolve any other weapons, the Lasguns alone had wiped out a Carnifex brood.
Anecdotal, but... Okay. That is fine,
I hope master of ordinance is finally satisfied now...
I might have to pick up the new campaign book then. I only have 50 Guardsmen at the moment (yes I know it's heresy), but I can build up to that. Plus the artillery formation sounds intriguing.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I don't understand why we don't just make MOO a Sentinel Squadron upgrade?
IG should have more things like that. The main distinction between IG and Space Marines, as an IG player if your army were wiped out the high command has 1000 more armies identical to yours ready to sweep in and deal with any surviving threats. Every time a Marine player loses that'd be a catastrophic loss to a Chapter. To the same degree that Marine's ability to be where ever they need to be is represented with drop pods, the sheer size of the IG and the army's ability to rely on off table but near-by assets such as artillery should be represented.
Kanluwen wrote: HEY!
You mock, but I've tried the Emperor's Shield Infantry Company. That many Lasguns? It actually gave someone pause, when fired en masse with FRSRF!
and? was the formation worth its "points"
Well...
I testfired it against my brother's Tyranids.
Before I could resolve any other weapons, the Lasguns alone had wiped out a Carnifex brood.
Anecdotal, but... Okay. That is fine,
I hope master of ordinance is finally satisfied now...
Well here is what you would do on average with an Emperor's Shield Infantry Company. 3 lots of 5 Infantry Squads equals 135 Lasguns (since the Sergeants only have Laspistols), with another 12 Lasguns from the 3 Platoon Command Squads, for a total of 294 Lasgun shots with FRFSRF at 24".
16.33 dead Space Marines
27.22 dead Ork Boyz, assuming no cover saves but with the FNP from a Painboy.
2 dead Carnifexes in a Brood (8.17 unsaved wounds)
4 dead Canoptek Wraiths (8.17 unsaved wounds, assuming no Resurrection Protocols)
5.44 Unsaved Wounds on a Stormsurge
If you could somehow manage to get it all alive into Rapid Fire range (441 lasgun shots!), you would do the following:
24.5 dead Space Marines
40.83 dead Ork Boyz, assuming no cover saves but with the FNP from a Painboy.
3 dead Carnifexes in a Brood (12.25 unsaved wounds)
6 dead Canoptek Wraiths (12.25 unsaved wounds, assuming no Resurrection Protocols)
1 dead Stormsurge (8.17 unsaved Wounds)
The worst part about the ESIP is, That when I emailed GW about the ESIP in the web store their response was "Oh! ,your right!" at which point I got slightly excited only to read "Thanks for letting us know, we've changed the description on the website! Nice catch!"
Truly I was saddened. I know it was a long shot it had hoped It would get a FAQ out of them.. but...
Well here is what you would do on average with an Emperor's Shield Infantry Company. 3 lots of 5 Infantry Squads equals 135 Lasguns (since the Sergeants only have Laspistols), with another 12 Lasguns from the 3 Platoon Command Squads, for a total of 294 Lasgun shots with FRFSRF at 24".
16.33 dead Space Marines
27.22 dead Ork Boyz, assuming no cover saves but with the FNP from a Painboy.
2 dead Carnifexes in a Brood (8.17 unsaved wounds)
4 dead Canoptek Wraiths (8.17 unsaved wounds, assuming no Resurrection Protocols)
5.44 Unsaved Wounds on a Stormsurge
If you could somehow manage to get it all alive into Rapid Fire range (441 lasgun shots!), you would do the following:
24.5 dead Space Marines
40.83 dead Ork Boyz, assuming no cover saves but with the FNP from a Painboy.
3 dead Carnifexes in a Brood (12.25 unsaved wounds)
6 dead Canoptek Wraiths (12.25 unsaved wounds, assuming no Resurrection Protocols)
1 dead Stormsurge (8.17 unsaved Wounds)
nice 1000+ pts of AM to kill 240 points canoptek wraiths with reanimation more likely 3 wraiths -> 120 points
or 360 pts stormsurge assuming the whole formation is within 12" (not possible) so it will not die at all ...
Kanluwen wrote: HEY!
You mock, but I've tried the Emperor's Shield Infantry Company. That many Lasguns? It actually gave someone pause, when fired en masse with FRSRF!
and? was the formation worth its "points"
Well...
I testfired it against my brother's Tyranids.
Before I could resolve any other weapons, the Lasguns alone had wiped out a Carnifex brood.
Anecdotal, but... Okay. That is fine,
I hope master of ordinance is finally satisfied now...
Nope, because that formation is over 1000 points before upgrades. For less than that I could take two Shadowswords and wreck face.
For the same points as an ESIC, I could (and would) take 3 IKTs. Not only would it dramatically outperform the ESIC on the tabletop, it cost significantly less.
Hmm...
$471 = 3x Imperial Knights
-or-
$756 = 3x ESIP core
$145 = 5x IG squad
$901 total
The IKTs cost you half as much, are vastly easier to build & paint, and perform better on the tabletop in *every* phase of the game (movement, shooting, assault, morale). The ESIC is so bad, it's laughable.
Selym wrote: Well feth me. $1 per point, or thereabouts. And still made of turds. I don't have much hope for the next IG dex, given the current precedent.
You never know, we may finally get a buff.... If pigs grow wings and start flying.
That was only a short term strategy for the Soviet Union. Eventually, they fielded better equipment than the Germans. Whose equipment is highly overrated.
Did I miss something or didnt the new formation allow you to take any number of Command squads (and thus) MOO without requiring any other units. All as part of one formation?
That also means that conceivably one could take a CAD and an extra 6 command squads to order them about and support them with whatever other nasty tricks one would like?
Where is your God Emperor now? In the chimera with the officers where he has always been!
Redleg wrote: Did I miss something or didnt the new formation allow you to take any number of Command squads (and thus) MOO without requiring any other units. All as part of one formation?
That also means that conceivably one could take a CAD and an extra 6 command squads to order them about and support them with whatever other nasty tricks one would like?
Where is your God Emperor now? In the chimera with the officers where he has always been!
The catch is that you are paying 145 pts per MOOmera. That's +20 points more than a Basilisk with the same S9 AP3 large blast.
If you take 6 MOOmeras, that's 870 pts before any weapon upgrades for the Vets inside. If each takes 30 pts in upgrades, we're at 1050 pts total.
For very similar points, I can take an IKT AdLance of 3 Paladins. I lay down the same 6x AP3 Large Blasts, but are far more survivable due to the higher AV and re-rollable Ion Shield, not to mention the S(D) attacks and Stomp in assault.
If Imperial Knights are better, AdMech doesn't need to exist.
OgreChubbs wrote: Make the average guard better. So you do not need 170 of them for a 1k game.
Better compared to what? I mean if you want troop infantry that can compete with Marines and Eldar troops, point-for-point... why not just play Marines or Eldar?
I would rather see the support elements of the IG (read: their tanks and stuff) get improved over their infantry. Guardsmen by design are basically supposed to do nothing but die while costing you very little points, and they do that pretty well.
OgreChubbs wrote: Make the average guard better. So you do not need 170 of them for a 1k game.
Better compared to what? I mean if you want troop infantry that can compete with Marines and Eldar troops, point-for-point... why not just play Marines or Eldar?
I would rather see the support elements of the IG (read: their tanks and stuff) get improved over their infantry. Guardsmen by design are basically supposed to do nothing but die while costing you very little points, and they do that pretty well.
The problem is that IG sections are vastly overpriced and far too weak. A small buff is needed.
OgreChubbs wrote: Make the average guard better. So you do not need 170 of them for a 1k game.
Better compared to what? I mean if you want troop infantry that can compete with Marines and Eldar troops, point-for-point... why not just play Marines or Eldar?
I would rather see the support elements of the IG (read: their tanks and stuff) get improved over their infantry. Guardsmen by design are basically supposed to do nothing but die while costing you very little points, and they do that pretty well.
The problem is that IG sections are vastly overpriced and far too weak. A small buff is needed.
How about allowing them to take 2 heavy or special weapons in a squad? Doesn't alter costs or stats but allows them to fling out a fair bit more fire-power and can be focused towards long range denfensive units or offensive blobs.
OgreChubbs wrote: Make the average guard better. So you do not need 170 of them for a 1k game.
Better compared to what? I mean if you want troop infantry that can compete with Marines and Eldar troops, point-for-point... why not just play Marines or Eldar?
I would rather see the support elements of the IG (read: their tanks and stuff) get improved over their infantry. Guardsmen by design are basically supposed to do nothing but die while costing you very little points, and they do that pretty well.
The problem is that IG sections are vastly overpriced and far too weak. A small buff is needed.
How about allowing them to take 2 heavy or special weapons in a squad? Doesn't alter costs or stats but allows them to fling out a fair bit more fire-power and can be focused towards long range denfensive units or offensive blobs.
Said Special/Heavy weapons are vastly overpriced and really need a points reduction before they become viable.
BlaxicanX wrote: Guardsmen by design are basically supposed to do nothing but die while costing you very little points, and they do that pretty well.
The imperial guardsman embodies the indomitable will, and power of the human spirit. If the guardsmen exists only to die, that will cannot persist.
Why play guard if not for the guardsman?
I'm not arguing that they should be on the level of space marines, but they should serve a function besides simply dieing.
It is the ability to relate to the guardsman that makes him special., By treating him not as an individual, but as a single part of a collective entity, you have removed him from the guard. Yes, wave tactics, and hordes of guardsmen are an important part of the guard, but you need to balance that with the ability for the guardsman to be useful as himself.
I think the biggest problem with guard lies not in the codex but in the edition. Tanks are just bad in 7th edition. I can't really see anything good happen to guard until 8th drops whenever that is.
BlaxicanX wrote: Guardsmen by design are basically supposed to do nothing but die while costing you very little points, and they do that pretty well.
The imperial guardsman embodies the indomitable will, and power of the human spirit. If the guardsmen exists only to die, that will cannot persist.
Why play guard if not for the guardsman?
I'm not arguing that they should be on the level of space marines, but they should serve a function besides simply dieing.
I have to agree with this. I would like to take non-blob infantry squads and NOT feel like I'm shooting myself in the foot for doing so. My Guard may not be a light infantry regiment, but right now my Guardsmen just feel like a tax unit, and I'm sick of taking vets.
One of the coolest things about 40k is that you can come up with your own stories and narratives whilst playing the game. Narratively speaking, the guard currently function as a way to juxtapose the might of space marines to the fragility of normal humans. It is very hard for me to actually have characters within my guard force, as they die with ease, lack distinguishing characteristics in game, and struggle to eliminate any kind opposition. You can't have a hero if he/she is just like everyone else.
I guess what I am saying here is that there needs to be something about guardsmen that allows a single model to stand above the rest.
I want that guardsman that is brave enough to climb ontop of a tervagon and plant a melta bomb.
I want that one guardsman to hold his ground when everyone else in his squad has perished, and then to go on and avenge them.
I want that commander that gets lucky with a cheap shot on a chaos lord.
I want that one sniper that through both luck and skill takes out an enemy leader across the board.
I just want cool gak to happen and it saddens me that the guard are in a position where awesome stuff just dosen't happen.
ragnorack1 wrote: How about allowing them to take 2 heavy or special weapons in a squad?
Doesn't alter costs or stats but allows them to fling out a fair bit more fire-power and can be focused towards long range denfensive units or offensive blobs.
The IG already have that - HWS (3 Heavy) & SWS (3 Special), along with Veterans (1 Heavy & 3 Special @ BS4) and CCS/PCS (1 Heavy & 2 Special / 4 Special). The ability to take more Heavy & Special weapons isn't the problem.
The problem is that IG pay far too much for Heavy & Special weapons. Paying a full 15 pts for a Plasma Gun on a BS3 Sv5+ model instead of a BS4 Sv3+ model is ridiculous - the mass-produced IG version should cost at least 5 points less. And this ripples through all of the other Imperial weapons upgrades.
For IG to be competitive, costs definitely need to be revised downward.
Sledgehammer wrote:It is the ability to relate to the guardsman that makes him special., By treating him not as an individual, but as a single part of a collective entity, you have removed him from the guard. Yes, wave tactics, and hordes of guardsmen are an important part of the guard, but you need to balance that with the ability for the guardsman to be useful as himself..
Hey, I play the Guard not the Borg.... although the idea of the Imperial Guard being a massive collective does appeal - "We are the Imperial Guard. Power down all weapons and prepare to join us, resistance is futile". They could even have a special rule that makes all opponents killed in melee join the blob which killed them
On a serious note though the Special and Heavy weapons are so stupidly over priced that being able to take more will have no effect on most playstyles. Right now Veterans are the only semi viable option we have and even then they are of debatable use. We need some buff and a vast reduction in Special/Heavy weapon costs.
The problem is that IG pay far too much for Heavy & Special weapons. Paying a full 15 pts for a Plasma Gun on a BS3 Sv5+ model instead of a BS4 Sv3+ model is ridiculous - the mass-produced IG version should cost at least 5 points less.
To be fair, things like plasma guns and meltaguns? They're not exactly "mass-produced" in the sense you're thinking of. They're still relatively rare with certain Forge Worlds producing them.
Heavy Weapons, Grenade Launchers, and Flamethrowers? Radically different story.
I, personally, feel like the reason we got these points costs was that they had intended to have some kind of rule where special/heavy weapons got a "Look Out, Sir!" save to represent other members of the squad picking the weapons up.
For IG to be competitive, costs definitely need to be revised downward.
Oh definitely. Biggest offender is melee/pistol weapons for Sergeants and Officers with Special/Heavy Weapons on the same level.
I again would like to see our basic infantry become worth a damn, I would like to run a mechanized infantry list (to match my regiment's fluff) without feeling like I'm shooting myself in the foot, and I don't mean veterans. I mean actual infantry platoons.
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+.
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+.
And I still maintain that it should be a +1 armor save while they are able to claim a Cover Save.
The problem is that IG pay far too much for Heavy & Special weapons. Paying a full 15 pts for a Plasma Gun on a BS3 Sv5+ model instead of a BS4 Sv3+ model is ridiculous - the mass-produced IG version should cost at least 5 points less.
To be fair, things like plasma guns and meltaguns? They're not exactly "mass-produced" in the sense you're thinking of. They're still relatively rare with certain Forge Worlds producing them.
Heavy Weapons, Grenade Launchers, and Flamethrowers? Radically different story.
I, personally, feel like the reason we got these points costs was that they had intended to have some kind of rule where special/heavy weapons got a "Look Out, Sir!" save to represent other members of the squad picking the weapons up.
That'd go a long way to help, but even if we accept that Plasma and Meltaguns are rarer, it just means the more conventional special and heavy weapons should be free. I think it also means GW needs to think outside the box and come up with some other conventional means to afford the IG the type of capabilities they need to remain relevant.
For IG to be competitive, costs definitely need to be revised downward.
Oh definitely. Biggest offender is melee/pistol weapons for Sergeants and Officers with Special/Heavy Weapons on the same level.
I agree. I'm hesitant about individual guardsmen getting cheaper, because I think if they improved these peripheral point costs, it goes a long way towards getting us close enough. I think our army size is pretty unwieldy as it is and I'd rather they find any and all other ways of getting point efficiency where it needs to be.
...So obviously we don't want them to end up with an even higher model count on the table through cost reduction, or else you'll need a bigger duffel bag.
AM codex is a mess. I never played them and by simply scanning through the codex and seeing them played by my brother's friend i noticed evident flaws.
commissars are way overpriced.
special characters suck
lord commissar is wayyyyyu overpriced
many units are crazy overpriced
bs3 everywhere! a 150pt tank at bs3...
25pts upgrade for a 5pt guy with str 3... y even bother
etc
biggest flaw i see so far
Inquisition Acolyte + boltgun = 5pts
AM guardsman + flashlight = 5pts
both have same exact stats except moral i think. one has a good gun that can do something while the other one doesn't do jack and both cost same price. jeez, wonder ehich one id rather have.
aka_mythos wrote: ...So obviously we don't want them to end up with an even higher model count on the table through cost reduction, or else you'll need a bigger duffel bag.
Not really.
This is how I roll... 1 duffel bag, 10" wide, 17" long and 11" high.
Spoiler:
On top is Codex : Imperial Guard
Directly underneath is a pencil box holding my dice, tape measures, templates, etc.
I could also fit my Shadowsword (WiP) It's currently 500+ points.
Below that are 2 Large Chessex storage boxes, each capable of holding 112 minis on 25mm bases... That's 110+ standard Guardsmen: CCS, 2 PCS, 6 Infantry Squads, HWS & 2 SWS worth 1,250 points
This is another 100+ Guard models: Commissars, 25 Stormtroopers, Hive Gangers, another 3 Infantry Squads worth 1,200 points or so.
Finally, I have a box capable of carrying 9 Tanks (Chimera / Leman Russ): 2 Leman Russes, Basilisk, Hydra, & 5 Chimeras worth 800+ pts. If I sub for my 3 Demolishers and/or 2 Hellhounds, this could be 1,250 pts.
All told, that bag could easily carry: 500+ pts 1 Shadowsword 2,500 pts 200+ IG infantry 1,250 pts 9 IG Armor = 4,250 pts total
If the next Codex should cut points in half, I will still be able to carry my entire IG force in that bag, with points/models to spare.
I'm not really worried about points costs. Worst case, I bring a backpack and throw a few superheavies in there...
Sledgehammer wrote: The imperial guardsman embodies the indomitable will, and power of the human spirit. If the guardsmen exists only to die, that will cannot persist.
This is poetic, but in the context of game design/mechanics it's an empty platitude. Going back to my question, what exactly is your 3-5 point model supposed to be doing that it can't currently do? And again, what model exactly are guardsmen being compared to as the metric here? Fire Warriors? Marines? Guardians?
JohnHwangDD wrote: The problem is that Guardsmen are very expensive for what they don't do.
I don't really think that's true. 150 points of guardsmen is almost as durable point-for-point as a 150 point tactical squad against small arms fire, and is over twice as durable as an equally costed tactical marine squad point-for-point when given a 5++ save, or against AP3 and stronger weapons.
It's hard to say how Guardsmen should be changed when no one can offer any concrete example of what they should be doing that they currently aren't doing. Neublous statements like "they need to be better!" or "they need to be stronger" don't leave much room for critical thinking, imo.
I'm assuming you're talking about basic SMs and IG without any weapons upgrades and in a relatively narrow construct of small arms fire. Now have them fight 150 pts of Ork Boyz, or engage 150 pts of Tau shooting. The notion of 5++ saves means you need to cost in the source of that save.
As I've said before, I'm not looking for stats changes, mostly cost changes.
Assuming typical S4 AP5 "small arms" 10 hits = 6.7 kills = 33 pts of dead 5-pt IG. Or 23 pts of dead 14-pt SM. Point for point, the SM are about 50% more durable against standard AP5 small arms. For parity, IG would have to see points reduced down to 3 pts per model.
Personally, I like IG around 4 points per model, so I can have Conscripts at 3 points. However, as 4 points is "high", I throw in a "free" Flamer and HB.
Rules-wise, I'd like to see IG start with +1 to all Cover Saves (with a 6++ in the open), and the ability to pull casualties as they see fit. I'd also roll Heavy Weapons back to regular Guardsmen as Gunner & Loader so that enemies can't pick out the Heavies until all the Lasguns are dead.
Considering the massive amounts of models you can bring to the table as a guard player already I would personally find it much easier to buff current guardsmen instead of making them cheaper. At least that is what my wallet wants. I know I want a veteran tank crew upgrade though!
JohnHwangDD wrote: Rules-wise, I'd like to see IG start with +1 to all Cover Saves (with a 6++ in the open), and the ability to pull casualties as they see fit.
With ignore cover around every corner a +1 to cover save is may be not the best idea ...
may be a special rule to sacrifice movment in order to "dig in" which could be a +2 to armor save.
!AND! medi kit for every guard unit (feel no pain 5+)
We need doctrines and a way to make our armies feel our own.
The current IG codex is a joke in that it took everything good about the 5th ed one and removed it! Then gave us a teaser of other units while being subpar. I play both Tau and IG and I can tell you that Tau are way better updated then IG.
I use to play my IG all the time but after getting raped to death 500 times by necrons because BS 3 cant kill them and BS 4 vets are like paper to cron, i just gave up. Its not worth the frustration of dealing with a lazy codex. I WANT to play my IG army, I really do but in its current state its just bad..
swampyturtle wrote: We need doctrines and a way to make our armies feel our own.
The current IG codex is a joke in that it took everything good about the 5th ed one and removed it! Then gave us a teaser of other units while being subpar. I play both Tau and IG and I can tell you that Tau are way better updated then IG.
I use to play my IG all the time but after getting raped to death 500 times by necrons because BS 3 cant kill them and BS 4 vets are like paper to cron, i just gave up. Its not worth the frustration of dealing with a lazy codex. I WANT to play my IG army, I really do but in its current state its just bad..
i know that feeling ... its a bit frustrating if you only killt 5 to 10 models during the shooting pahse tue to a 3+ or 4+ reanimation protocoll ...
swampyturtle wrote: We need doctrines and a way to make our armies feel our own.
The current IG codex is a joke in that it took everything good about the 5th ed one and removed it! Then gave us a teaser of other units while being subpar. I play both Tau and IG and I can tell you that Tau are way better updated then IG.
I use to play my IG all the time but after getting raped to death 500 times by necrons because BS 3 cant kill them and BS 4 vets are like paper to cron, i just gave up. Its not worth the frustration of dealing with a lazy codex. I WANT to play my IG army, I really do but in its current state its just bad..
Ugh, I have been there too my friend. When you throw everything you have at the enemy only to kill less than a squad and they respond by wiping a big portion of your army off the board the despair does really start to set in.
swampyturtle wrote: We need doctrines and a way to make our armies feel our own.
The current IG codex is a joke in that it took everything good about the 5th ed one and removed it! Then gave us a teaser of other units while being subpar. I play both Tau and IG and I can tell you that Tau are way better updated then IG.
I use to play my IG all the time but after getting raped to death 500 times by necrons because BS 3 cant kill them and BS 4 vets are like paper to cron, i just gave up. Its not worth the frustration of dealing with a lazy codex. I WANT to play my IG army, I really do but in its current state its just bad..
Ugh, I have been there too my friend. When you throw everything you have at the enemy only to kill less than a squad and they respond by wiping a big portion of your army off the board the despair does really start to set in.
Pretty much this. I've lost all hope for my Guard army, so I'm focusing on my Eldar and my future 30k army. It just feels so disheartening putting the fire of 30 guys into 1 squad and only killing 4 marines total.
Baneblades should be part and parcel of any "large army", and 2000 pts of 40k7 is a large army. Very large indeed compared to the 1500 pts of 40k2 when the only Baneblade was Armorcast resin scaled up from the Epic model. 
