I love the IG like no other army. Oh don't get me wrong, I hate playing them, especially against marines, but for fluff and emphathy and modeling I love them.

The 3.5 edition codex has some crap in it. It needs some work but the freedom it offers and the diversity of doctrines really makes it great for creating new regiments differentiated by more than color schemes.

The 5th edition codex will no doubt take this away. It will offer some new toys though and might address some long standing problems.

So... do we want a new one?

We need a new codex to remove imbalances, but I know if it is changed it will be to destroy all flavour of the army. So I can vote only NO.

Of course we need a new Codex.

Right now, IG options are extremely limited because there are so few units and combinations that "work" in the current Codex. The imbalance between "good" and "bad" is currently very high, so the army choices are very pigeon-holed to point that lists practically build themselves once you pick a couple starting things.

Despite the appearance of options, if 5th Edition moves forward with a push for Objectives to be taken by (Infantry?) Troops, the IG are totally screwed. Right now, the only semi-viable approach to taking Objectives would be via Drop Troops, and that's only because Drop Troops, as a Doctrine, is FREE. But when the enemy has the ability to Run, it is *not* a good thing to be a Guardsman standing in the open... Mechanized Guard, which should be a semi-default approach is so grossly overcosted and fragile as to be a non-starter here.

The IG need a major revamp in design. Guardsmen need to have points cost cut to no more than 5 pts/model. Guard need more Troops Platoon options (Grenadiers, Mechanized, Light Infantry). Chimera costs need to be cut drastically while bumping the side armor to 11+. Vehicles, while effective, are still overpriced. Guard needs decent Leadership, so Vox should be made "free". And so on.

Losing Doctrines is fine, as 90% of the important stuff can be captured in army-wide rules or wrapped up into new Troops Platoons, allowing for a more varied and viable force overall. I won't miss them, because the point is for the vanilla list to be playable and competitive.

It would be nice if any/all of the advisors became viable options. They're all ineffective, or over-costed, or both.

MinMax wrote:It would be nice if any/all of the advisors became viable options. They're all ineffective, or over-costed, or both.

agreed. To put it mildly, there are good ideas in there that are poorly executed.

Guard need a new codex.

I expect they will recut the Russ sprue, I think it is one of the oldest. Second vehicle after the old Rhino?

6 pt ork and a 6 pt guardman are pretty much on equal footing right?

The assumption, of course, is that a new codex will eliminate the current imbalances and fix those units that are underperforming, while not also having the obverse effect on currently useful units.

The Devil you know vs. The Devil you don't, eh?

Well said, Syr. While I don't play Guard, I would think that you'd be leary of wanting a new codex just yet. I'd say wait until 5th has had a few months to sink in and see how the various Codei fare.

I was under the impression that the run feature precluded any firing or charging on the turn it was performed. Am I wrong about this?

I'm going to propose something horrific. Everyone is going to disagree, it's going to be terrible, but meh.

Guardsmen should have BS4 when firing lasguns. Taking heavy weapons in platoon squads should require a doctrine, or simply not be an option.

Just lasguns. Not laspistols, not heavy weapons, not tanks. But the lasgun needs a boost, and I think that making them hit more effectively with it might just work. It would make guardsman worth something without giving them heavy weapons that require them to stay still. They should be able to move towards the enemy and fire their weapons into the enemy to a good effect. The primary guard firepower SHOULD be a case of many, many lasguns blasting apart targets with sheer numbers, SUPPORTED by their heavy weapons and artillery. A Guardsman platoon should be able to unleash enough firepower into a enemy unit to reduce them to bloody chunks.

Let people take heavy weapons squads as add-ons to platoons. It doesn't make much sense to tie them to infantry squads from a fluff standpoint (tactically, what infantry squad would want to tie themselves down like that?) and gameplay (the Guard now need to close on objectives!)

Run is identical to Fleet of Foot, with the exception that you cannot charge after Running.

NO. If that means the loss of doctrines then no no no no no no.
And the first person that says "well you can use XXX in Apocalypse is a tidliwinks playing girly man.

Good riddance to doctrines - talk about a good idea with poor execution.

The thing to remember about the execution of IG doctrines is that many of them came from CA lists that were invalidated by the new IG codex. things like Chem inhalers, Xenos hunters, die hards, and hardened fighters are exist to build the old CA lists.

By my rough count, 17 of the 28 doctrines have at least some value in play. I would consider that a decent batting average. I fully expect them to disappear, and I think a well executed Chaos or Eldar style codex could be really amazing, but the problem is still in execution, not in theory.

Finally, do you (Nurglitch) need to mock, minimize, or express disdain for everything enjoyed by people that disagree with you? I mean, it's one thing to have an opinion, but it seems you have a default sort of dismissal for things enjoyed by a lot of posters here. I don't think I've ever seen somebody dislike the doctrine system like apparently you do.

I vote no.

After the treatment Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Chaos Marines have received, I'm terrified that they're going to redo the guard codex and make it even less competitive then it is now, and take away all the fun doctrines that make so many builds possible.

Yes, the implementation of doctrines included a lot of legacy rules that were thrown in to appease the people that went out and designed armies based on what were essentially home-brew army lists.

The problem with the implementation is that there's gamers involved and gamers have a tendency to game the system, and not only that but suppress dissent of popular opinions about how the gamed should both be played and gamed. The implementation has resulted in there being doctrines that some people refer to as 'compulsory' and doctrines that are summarily dismissed as not having value in play. The end result of this unimaginative attitude has been the bland homogenization of the Imperial Guard back into cookie-cutter Imperial Guard armies.

While doctrines were intended to allow people to explore the diversity of the Imperial Guard, they just became another factor in producing the Competitive Imperial Guard Army. Part of the problem is the execution, in improperly valued doctrines and superfluous repetition. But part of the problem is in the concept, in separating these strategic choices too fully from the armies that they are chosen for. This problem was shared by codex armouries: that one value of each rule did not fit all.

Seeing as the content of those armouries have been made organic to the lists, resulting in the limited conceptual diversity of newer codicies resulting in more live options, expect to see the doctrines back as options integrated into the army list - some doctrines will be lost because they were superfluous and needlessly decorative diversity, and the surviving ones will be re-pointed* to account for the units that have them as option.

*When I say re-pointed I don't mean that some units will have the rule of doctrine X for 5 points and some units will have it for 10 points (though that might happen), I mean that if they have that option (such that the option is useful) the difference in cost will be taken up elsewhere in the list.

Edited for topical content.

Nurglitch wrote:
And yes Polonius, I do need to mock, minimize, or express disdain for everything enjoyed by people that disagree with me because (1) what they enjoy should be mocked, minimized, and disdained, and (2) I feel that like should be paid for like, and favours paid in full. Call it a moral compulsion, if you like.

Ok, I was just checking. It's a bit of shame really, because I think you raise a lot of valid topics of discussion (even if I frequently disagree.)

As for the doctrines:

I disagree wholeheartedly on the nature of IG homogenization. I think any single minded approach to IG is purely a resutl of reading Dakka, as I so seldom see IG armies as to make any comparison based on a pretty small sample pool. Even so, I seldom run into anything I would consider homogenous. The IG codex has the following builds, each distinct and viable:
1) all infantry SAFH
2) Mechanized/tank SAFH
3) Drop Troops
4) "Stealth" armies with Light Infantry
5) Codex, or hybrid armies.

That's more diversity then out of such current Codices as DA, and in practice is much more diverse then what you see from Tau, Tyranids, or necrons.

Two of those builds rely on Organizational doctrines, as does the lamentably weak Stormtrooper army. Outside of bum units, of which there are plenty, there are really only a handful of completely garbage doctrines (Die hards, chem inhalers, cyborg bodies, Warrior weapons), and There is really only one that would be considered mandatory: Iron Discipline. Close Order Drill and Drop Troops are arguably too powerful while being free, but lots of people build great lists without either one.

Competitve IG armies tend to use a small subset of Doctrines, but the IG book is old and was never a top notch book. It's like complaining that DE armies usually use one or two builds: it's amazing there's anything viable left in that book!

To Dr. Thunder: there are two issues you address:

1) The power level of the book. There's virtually nothing that can be done about it. Certain units will certainly be recosted, and in all fairness, the new books are balanced, in terms of each other. There are two arguably broken books (SM and NIds), but with 5th edition and a new SM codex on the horizon, the power balance of 40k is utterly in flux. I would not base any desire for a new book, or fear, on what it's strength will be.

2) GW has shown that when it wants to (Eldar, Orks, and to a certain extent DA) it can eliminate sub lists, clans, etc. and still retain the fundamental nature of those old lists. In addition, they generally gain flexibility in return. Chaos is a notable aberance, but the 3.5 book was insanely broad and diverse, and in all honesty needed a trim. Could GW have cut less? Of course, and I've argued in the past. The fact is, outside of IW SAFH and Daemonbombs, the spirit, if not the exact form, of the old lists were retained.

So what does this mean for IG? As many, many people have pointed out, the Doctrines offer at least some false choice. Of the 28, 10 are simply to unlike other units, leaving doctrine IG one of the smallest unit palettes in the game. Of the remaining 18, they can be divided more or less as follows:

Folded into the list:
Mechanized
Iron Discipline
Close Order Drill
Veterans

Allowable to certain platoons for a cost:
Light Infantry
Camo
Carapace
Drop Troops

Either Cut or unlocked with a character
Grenadiers
Hardened Fighters
Xenos Fighters

Cut with little great loss:
Die Hards
Independent commissars
Jungle Fighters
Sharpshooters
The rest of the equiptment.

If the IG retain the ability to field diverse looking formations (drop troops, mechanized, etc) I think any new IG codex will be a success, if only because it will also bring with it an update to the many, many underutilized units in the book.

Nurglitch wrote: And yes Polonius, I do need to mock, minimize, or express disdain for everything enjoyed by people that disagree with me because (1) what they enjoy should be mocked, minimized, and disdained, and (2) I feel that like should be paid for like, and favours paid in full. Call it a moral compulsion, if you like.

I especially like the last sentence (2). Hypocrisy at its finest.

If that doesn't scream "Ignore me! I am an Obnoxious, Flamebaiting Troll!" I dont know what does.

Time to use that all important ignore button now I suppose. its a shame, because I do find some usefulness out of your posts, even when they are rife with platitudes.

[edit]

On topic though, like many codecies in 4th edition before DA, there were alot of great ideas with bad execution.

Sadly, doctrines will likely go. I dont see why, as all GW has to do is balance them and call it a day. but now they will have to start from scratch and rework the whole thing.

Neither option is really bad, I suppose, but I imagine it would just be easier for designers to actually balance the iteration we have.

open_sketchbook wrote:Guardsmen should have BS4 when firing lasguns. Taking heavy weapons in platoon squads should require a doctrine, or simply not be an option.

Um, Guardsmen could be auto-hit with their S3 AP- Lasguns and they'd still be crap for shooting.

Note that many of the "Doctrines" are rules disasters. Sharpshooters and Jungle Fighters come to mind. These rules don't belong and would need to be simplified or rewritten.

Of the remaining Doctrines, many are grossly mis-costed. Warrior Weapons, for example, should be FREE, whereas Drop Troops is probably worth 25 pts per unit. If these Doctrines were costed properly, then they could be carried forward.

In light of the CSM book, I don't think that IG would suffer at all from a rewrite. Indeed, I suspect a CSM-style IG book could do wonders to further invigorate the IG.

"Um, Guardsmen could be auto-hit with their S3 AP- Lasguns and they'd still be crap for shooting."

Don't think so, if you take all the squads you can in six platoons you get 360 gaurdsmen who would then at 12 inches put out 720 shots that auto hit.

Against MEQs

720 hits 240 wound 80 dead marines.

Against Orcs

720 hits 240 wound 200 dead orcs *at 6+ save or 160 dead orcs at 5+ save

Not many armies, (in fact I can't think of any) can put out that much firepower at such a low cost.

As for right now,

360 hit, 120 wound, 40 kill against MEQs Now I do know armies that can do that. But very few with just troop options.

Well, I think that the IG have the best (note: I did not say "most powerful") codices in the game. They are the standard to which all other codices should be compared. Sure, they could maybe use a bit of tweaking (ogryns, advisors, tech-priests, some of the traits) but after the fiasco of the Chaos Space Marines codex, I'm skeptical about the current design team's ability to improve upon the IG Codex.

The IG Codex is supposed to represent the varied human armies (Inquisition aside) of the Galaxy. Those doctrines give them a lot of flexibility. I'd like to see the old book stay in print a while longer, at least until we see how it performs in 5th edition. If it's a failure in 5th, then obviously it needs to be reexamined.

Wow, how lucky for the player who can buy and model 360 Guardsmen, and then get them within 12" range of the enemy without any casualties or HtH to prevent the rest of the army from shooting.

But for sake of argument, let's just assume that you have 360 Guardsmen. At 6 pts each, that's 2160 pts.

Now for 2160 pts, that's 10 squads of Space Marines (1 Veteran, 6 Tactical, 3 Devastators), each in an AV11/11/10 Rhino...

720 hits with S3 + d6 for AP gives:
- 120 S4 hits for NO EFFECT,
- 120 S5 hits for NO EFFECT,
- 120 S6 hits for NO EFFECT,
- 120 S7 hits for NO EFFECT,
- 120 S8 hits for NO EFFECT, and (wait for it)...
- 120 S9 hits for NO EFFECT.

Awesome shooting, too bad about S3 not being able to scratch AV10+...

Now, you say that they were all within 12" to Rapid-Fire?

OK, great. No Movement.

10 Rhinos with 2 twin Bolters fire. That's 40 re-rollable shots for 35 hits, 23 kills.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Yay Rhinoes!

____

Oh, yeah. If we're talking about optimal MEQ-killing power, I think the new Bloodletters under similar conditions (no losses, in HtH) will do quite well for the points. Hellblades are just murder on SM.

Your poll is broken Kyoto.

I can see the 'Yes' and 'No' options, but where's the 'F**k no!' option?

BYE

I agree with HBMC?!? PARTY!!!

open_sketchbook wrote:I'm going to propose something horrific. Everyone is going to disagree, it's going to be terrible, but meh.

Guardsmen should have BS4 when firing lasguns. Taking heavy weapons in platoon squads should require a doctrine, or simply not be an option.

Just lasguns. Not laspistols, not heavy weapons, not tanks. But the lasgun needs a boost, and I think that making them hit more effectively with it might just work. It would make guardsman worth something without giving them heavy weapons that require them to stay still. They should be able to move towards the enemy and fire their weapons into the enemy to a good effect. The primary guard firepower SHOULD be a case of many, many lasguns blasting apart targets with sheer numbers, SUPPORTED by their heavy weapons and artillery. A Guardsman platoon should be able to unleash enough firepower into a enemy unit to reduce them to bloody chunks.

Let people take heavy weapons squads as add-ons to platoons. It doesn't make much sense to tie them to infantry squads from a fluff standpoint (tactically, what infantry squad would want to tie themselves down like that?) and gameplay (the Guard now need to close on objectives!)

making them 5 points each with an increase in the cost of heavy weapons would do the same thing.

True, tho 5 pts each with Heavy weapons pts unchanged would be more balanced. IG have a bad statline, and 5th penalizes static armies, so they get less utility out of their Heavy weapons.

Both yes and no, mainly no.

re cheaper guardsmen: I think the opposite. Guardsmen should cost more points, perhaps 7 each with frag greandes as standard equipment. to make up for this Sentinels, Chimeras Advisiors, rough riders some weapon options and Orgyns should be (much) cheaper, Ratlings and Veterans should be easier to get (i.e. not 0-1) and Advisors, Orgyns, Mortars Autocannons and Storm Troopers should be more powerful.

I'd like to see a streamlined Doctrine system but I've seen GW 'streamline' things before

First up I just want to say this is a really good, thoughtful discussion, the sort of stuff that makes Dakka great.

Tacobake wrote:

I expect they will recut the Russ sprue, I think it is one of the oldest. Second vehicle after the old Rhino?

Barring long OOP stuff like the Mk 1 land raider and the old Ork battlewagon (still not replaced!) the Russ is the oldest of them. Isn't the Chimera from the same time? They're still a decent looking kits, they just need some more options. Or we'll lose the ones not supported (like from mounted HBs on Russes and turret HBs on chimeras).

Polonius has some really good thoughts

Polonius wrote:Of the remaining 18, they can be divided more or less as follows:

Folded into the list:
Mechanized
Iron Discipline
Close Order Drill
Veterans

Allowable to certain platoons for a cost:
Light Infantry
Camo
Carapace
Drop Troops

Either Cut or unlocked with a character
Grenadiers
Hardened Fighters
Xenos Fighters

Cut with little great loss:
Die Hards
Independent commissars
Jungle Fighters
Sharpshooters
The rest of the equiptment.

If the IG retain the ability to field diverse looking formations (drop troops, mechanized, etc) I think any new IG codex will be a success, if only because it will also bring with it an update to the many, many underutilized units in the book.

But I think you're looking at it in reverse of how GW will. These days GW is asking what models does it have, what models does it want to sell and what are the best rules to make that happen.

5 point guardsmen are more likely simply because it would require buying more models.

With all the regiments but Cats and Cads OOP, I can see the following happening:

Troops:
Light infantry (6+ save, infiltrate, +1 in cover)
Infantry platoons (5pts a model, chimeras available to all)
Heavy infantry (storm troopers in plastic)

MAYBE conscripts, but probably not since GW would say they need to make a new kit for it.

I'd expect hellhounds, griffins and exterminators to come back with new sprues

Dropping would be limited to elite storm troopers, vets would get infiltrate. Close order drill and iron discipline if they survive at all would become wargear (the Iron Eagle Metal of Disciple or something).

Command platoons I think would be heavily reworked. Heavy weapon teams would go into heavy support where they should have always been. With luck, command platoons will become more like the IG General's retinue (WD a few years back) or Inquisition retinues.

The biggest problem in the IG is the tiny little bit sized units. Players need to option of combining squads to make 20-50 man units that can soak up losses for days.

I can understand why GW might drop doctrines-some people do try to min/max the hell out of their army with them

But whne I read the new CSM codex I was really disapointed with it, not really being customisable enough for my liking (Deamon Princes and Chaos Lords spring to mind) And removing doctrines would ruin many of the well thought out armies out there, and may discourage people to keep playing

The biggest problem in the IG is the tiny little bit sized units. Players need to option of combining squads to make 20-50 man units that can soak up losses for days.

I agree. My Tau firewarriors can deal with 12-man units. The IG cannot. I'm actually surprised that forgeworld didn't take the initiative and make their WW1 krieg army lists require at least 20 men per squad. You know, what with the whole "selling more models" and "massed infantry rush" themes.

Considering the Combat Squad rule in recent codicies, and the recent trend of some units unlocking options in other units (such as Interrogator-Chaplains allowing a Sacred Standard to be taken by a Command Squad), I think it's reasonable to assume that the basic unit of the Imperial Guard will become Platoons in the way Conscript Platoons are already configured. I'd expect a Combat Squad like rule that allows individual squads to be detached from their Platoons and to operate as units - perhaps like Independent Characters in that being within 2" will make them part of the same unit, while being further away (and perhaps having a vox caster) will make them operate independently.

George Spiggott wrote:re cheaper guardsmen: I think the opposite. Guardsmen should cost more points, perhaps 7 each with frag greandes as standard equipment.

to make up for this Sentinels, Chimeras Advisiors, rough riders some weapon options and Orgyns should be (much) cheaper, Ratlings and Veterans should be easier to get (i.e. not 0-1) and Advisors, Orgyns, Mortars Autocannons and Storm Troopers should be more powerful.

I'd like to see a streamlined Doctrine system but I've seen GW 'streamline' things before

Guardsmen with Frags aren't worth 6 pts and definitely not 7 pts. BS3 Guardsmen with a Lasgun are worth about 4 or 5 pts. Frags are worth less than 1 pt to a WS3 T3 A1 Ld7 Sv5+ Guardsman. The only way Guardsmen are worth 7 pts is if they get Cameoline or Carapace bundled in with the Frags.

I generally agree with your lists of overcosted / too-limited / underpowered units.

I don't know why you're worried about the Doctrines. A few discrete choices should stay. Most of it should be scrapped.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Barring long OOP stuff like the Mk 1 land raider and the old Ork battlewagon (still not replaced!) the Russ is the oldest of them. Isn't the Chimera from the same time? They're still a decent looking kits, they just need some more options. Or we'll lose the ones not supported (like from mounted HBs on Russes and turret HBs on chimeras).

But I think you're looking at it in reverse of how GW will. These days GW is asking what models does it have, what models does it want to sell and what are the best rules to make that happen.

I'd expect hellhounds, griffins and exterminators to come back with new sprues

Dropping would be limited to elite storm troopers, vets would get infiltrate. Close order drill and iron discipline if they survive at all would become wargear (the Iron Eagle Metal of Disciple or something).

Command platoons I think would be heavily reworked. Heavy weapon teams would go into heavy support where they should have always been. With luck, command platoons will become more like the IG General's retinue (WD a few years back) or Inquisition retinues.

The Russ is the model kit that has aged the most. It's scale is clearly for 25mm, not 28mm, and it's design and proportions are way off. As can be seen from the Forgeworld band-aids of new hull and turret, the Russ is a kit that really needs to be redone with the next IG Codex. The Chimera, OTOH, is fine.

Going from models to Troops Platoons still gives plenty of options:
Cadians = Infantry Platoon (Sv5+)
Catachans = Light Infantry Platoon (Sv6+ w/ Cameoline)
Stormtroopers = Grenadier Platoon (BS4 Sv4+)
Chimera = Mechanized Platoon
WFB Flagellants = Conscript Platoon

I agree the Hellhound will be done in plastic; hopefully, this is FW Artemia-pattern. The Exterminator adds relatively little but would be nice.

Deep Strike should be restricted to Storms and Sentinels. Tho a Drop Troop Platoon for plastic Elysians would be awesome.

Vox, ID should be HQ rules / options. COD and Sharpshooting should go away.

Command Platoon should be reworked, and the Heavy Weapons Squads should attach to the Troops Platoons, not to Heavy Support. IG Heavy Support is for Pie.

IG Troops should use the Platoon model of multiple 10-man squads exclusively, but the Command Squads should be variable size of 5 to 10 men. This standardizes the rules for the Guard and makes a clear statement of how they fight. Mobs are how Orks fight, so would be inappropriate for IG.

Storm Lord wrote:But whne I read the new CSM codex I was really disapointed with it, not really being customisable enough for my liking (Deamon Princes and Chaos Lords spring to mind)

I don't know what CSM Codex you might be talking about, because the current CSM Codex is what got me excited to play CSM again. As far as I'm concerned, all of the important options are there, particularly for HQs and Troops.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Guardsmen with Frags aren't worth 6 pts and definitely not 7 pts. BS3 Guardsmen with a Lasgun are worth about 4 or 5 pts. Frags are worth less than 1 pt to a WS3 T3 A1 Ld7 Sv5+ Guardsman. The only way Guardsmen are worth 7 pts is if they get Cameoline or Carapace bundled in with the Frags.

I generally agree with your lists of overcosted / too-limited / underpowered units.

I don't know why you're worried about the Doctrines. A few discrete choices should stay. Most of it should be scrapped.

I feel that Guardsmen are about right at 6 points each and I field about 95 'warm bodies' in 1500 points (and I suspect JJ does too). However what the IG codex needs more than anything is a move towards a more maneuver based fighting style. In order to do this you need to make many of the faster under-performing units in the codex (Sentiels, rough riders hellhounds, Ogryns etc.) cheaper or better (or both). If you do this without raising the base cost (even indirectly by forcing wargear upgrades) of guardsmen then the IG army will simply become more powerful (perhaps too powerful) as opposed to different, the essence if codex creep.

What it comes down to is, what are you prepared to give up in order for the under par units to be brought up to speed?

Why am I worried about Doctrines? Because I have several squads of carapace armoured guardsmen (models with no official model support) who only just survived the change from the old Elysian WD list and I saw what happened to Codex Chaos.

Nurglitch wrote:The end result of this unimaginative attitude has been the bland homogenization of the Imperial Guard back into cookie-cutter Imperial Guard armies.

Looking at the IG armies I play and play against I’m not seeing this. I think you missed your mark here.

Well, one way to fix the guard would be to make the base platoons say 100 pts? Then just add on the points used for special weapons and troop upgrades. But make the actual number of gaurds men vary. So for 100 pts you would have to have at least a command squad and two squads of infantry. Then you could add 1-4 more squads for no extra cost. So your 360 guardsmen now cost 600 pts without any wargear or special weapons. Have the heavey weapon platoons be upgrades you can buy with the platoons command squad. And make Chimeras cheaper, say 35 pts for 12 11 10 armour. (seeing as the Str 4 Defensive weapon would mean that it can't really move and fire as well) and make the kit 35 dollars. Also make it so that every squad in the platoon can buy the Chimera. That should increase maneuverability and firepower at the same time while still fitting with the theme of massed infantry. Seeing as you get 60 guardsmen at roughly 1.75 pts each to 5 pts each. The more Guardsmen you take the cheaper they get.

The Vostroyans have carapace armor, and they were only released two years ago with a larger line of minis then either Sisters or Grey Knights got with their codices.

Not that GW won't wave the "Counts as" wand over them, but there is at least a chance that GW will want to keep selling Vostoyans.

Here's an interesting thought: will GW bring back the idea that IG armies on the tabletop represent an amalgamation of various regiments? Now that Eldrad fights for any craftworld and Emperor's Children and Berzerkers are BFF, why not bring back the 2nd edition ideal of varying regiments?

Polonius wrote:The Vostroyans have carapace armor, and they were only released two years ago with a larger line of minis then either Sisters or Grey Knights got with their codices.

So they have, You're right. According to the GW website the Vostroyans have the following doctrines:

* Restricted Troops:
Special Weapon squads
* Restricted Troops:
Heavy Weapon platoons
* Sharpshooters
* Carapace armour
* Hardened Fighters

Interestingly they are not wearing (much) Carapace armour on the models (less than Cadians who don't have Carapace armour) and are desperately short of Heavy and Special weapon options (Meltagun, Autocannon and Missile Launcher). Given the model range the Vostroyans have a very odd Doctrine set indeed.

George Spiggott wrote:... what the IG codex needs more than anything is a move towards a more maneuver based fighting style. In order to do this you need to make many of the faster under-performing units in the codex (Sentiels, rough riders hellhounds, Ogryns etc.) cheaper or better (or both). If you do this without raising the base cost (even indirectly by forcing wargear upgrades) of guardsmen then the IG army will simply become more powerful (perhaps too powerful) as opposed to different, the essence if codex creep.

What it comes down to is, what are you prepared to give up in order for the under par units to be brought up to speed?

Why am I worried about Doctrines? Because I have several squads of carapace armoured guardsmen (models with no official model support) who only just survived the change from the old Elysian WD list and I saw what happened to Codex Chaos.

I completely agree that the IG need to be changed to support maneuver warfare. I disagree that Sentinels, etc. are "good enough" for their current points and that points increases would be warranted. I don't believe that Guardsmen are worth 6 pts in a maneuver environment - they were bumped from 5 to 6 because the environment was static shooting. So I'm not worried about Codex creep from fixing the problem units - they're not taken so much because they're simply bad.

Making more units more-playable will simply trade off against other currently-playable units. So the overall power level would remain the same, but the player would have more viable options to work with.

As for Doctrines, I have several squads in Cameoline. I fully expect Platoon of Cameoline Guardsmen, and you should expect Platoon of Carapace Guardsmen.

Ratbarf wrote:Well, one way to fix the guard would be to make the base platoons say 100 pts? Then just add on the points used for special weapons and troop upgrades. But make the actual number of gaurds men vary. So for 100 pts you would have to have at least a command squad and two squads of infantry. Then you could add 1-4 more squads for no extra cost. So your 360 guardsmen now cost 600 pts without any wargear or special weapons. Have the heavey weapon platoons be upgrades you can buy with the platoons command squad.

And make Chimeras cheaper, say 35 pts for 12 11 10 armour. (seeing as the Str 4 Defensive weapon would mean that it can't really move and fire as well) and make the kit 35 dollars. Also make it so that every squad in the platoon can buy the Chimera. That should increase maneuverability and firepower at the same time while still fitting with the theme of massed infantry. Seeing as you get 60 guardsmen at roughly 1.75 pts each to 5 pts each. The more Guardsmen you take the cheaper they get.

I think the current Platoon structure and pricing model is OK, just a bit overpriced. It would be simpler to have discrete Platoons, a la Cult Marines, because then it's easier to tailor the options to the Platoon and make each distinctive.

I believe general consensus for Chimeras should be AV 12/11/10, tho I think 50 pts with both Heavy weapons added would be about right.

Polonius wrote:The Vostroyans have carapace armor, and they were only released two years ago with a larger line of minis then either Sisters or Grey Knights got with their codices.

Here's an interesting thought: will GW bring back the idea that IG armies on the tabletop represent an amalgamation of various regiments?

The Vostroyans are still in stock, and Carapace is popular, so I think they'll hang around for a little while.

I think that we could (and should) see mixed-role IG Regiments. For example, a valid IG Regiment could be composed of 2 Light Infantry Platoons with a (Mechanized) Grenadier Platoon or some other mix. This would expand modeling and tactical options considerably in the same way that Chaos Skittles is possible. That's what I'm betting on.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I disagree that Sentinels, etc. are "good enough" for their current points and that points increases would be warranted.

Disagree with who? Not me. Sentinels are over priced.

JohnHwangDD wrote:As for Doctrines, I have several squads in Cameoline. I fully expect Platoon of Cameoline Guardsmen, and you should expect Platoon of Carapace Guardsmen.

You hold your breath John, I'll wait and see, best not to get my hopes up. In addition this wouldn't help my army in any way. My army consists of the following carapace armoured troops, as you an see carapace armoured platoons would be of no help.

Command Squad
Heavy Bolter Squad
2-3 Hardened Veteran Squads
3 Grenadier Squads
2 Inquisitorial Storm Trooper Squads w/ Rhinos

I was contemplating increasing the number of heavy and assault weapon squads I have, however I don't have enough faith in the new codex.

I voted yes (hoping for a change for the good).They need to make the Chimera cheaper ever try to do the math hammer on a Me ch army it doesn't work its going to cost way to much . the only one thats got you close was the storm trooper army you could win if you played it right and had a lot of luck. i have about three platoons of Steele legion guys with 2 Russ and about 5 las canons siting on my shelf waiting to b painted I'm just holding off for the new codex. GW make me with there long over do codex's and old models that go up in price ever year

noooo. my entire army is built around light infantry and sharpshooters

Maybe there are 'too many' options but I think it is one of the few ways to actually make the list competitive and still be based around flashlight toting chumps and big tanks.

George Spiggott wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I disagree that Sentinels, etc. are "good enough" for their current points and that points increases would be warranted.

Disagree with who? Not me. Sentinels are over priced.

If the Sentinel were made worth its points, either by cutting cost or improving the unit, that's no reason to increase the cost on Guardsmen or any other unit. If you overinflate the cost of Guardsmen, all you do is make Guardsmen suck instead of Sentinels.

George Spiggott wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:As for Doctrines, I have several squads in Cameoline. I fully expect Platoon of Cameoline Guardsmen, and you should expect Platoon of Carapace Guardsmen.

You hold your breath John, I'll wait and see, best not to get my hopes up.

Given the recent Codices, it's hard to imagine any other approach to be taken for IG Troops.

George Spiggott wrote:In addition this wouldn't help my army in any way. My army consists of the following carapace armoured troops, as you an see carapace armoured platoons would be of no help.

Command Squad
Heavy Bolter Squad
2-3 Hardened Veteran Squads
3 Grenadier Squads
2 Inquisitorial Storm Trooper Squads w/ Rhinos

I was contemplating increasing the number of heavy and assault weapon squads I have, however I don't have enough faith in the new codex.

Your models would be fully-playable, just not necessarily in the exact same configuration. To me, it looks like they would reshuffle into 2 Grenadier Platoons for your Troops, along with Vets and HQ. Instead of burning 5 Troops slots, you might only use 2 (or 3), but you'd lose nothing in terms of Scoring Units.

George Spiggott wrote:Looking at the IG armies I play and play against I’m not seeing this. I think you missed your mark here.

No, still seems right on the mark. The plural of anecdote is not data, so I've heard, and so you'd need to look at everyone else's IG armies besides the ones in your corner of the world. My experience suggests no two Imperial Guard armies are alike, but then I don't pretend that I have the same gaming experience as most of the people playing the game.

It would be interesting to see whether my claim is actually true, that we see very little variation in armies called "competitive", but it doesn't seem like we can. In the absence of positive proof I think the fact that words like "mandatory" and "garbage" are used to describe doctrines suggests widespread public perception of homogeneity regardless of the actual state of things. After all, even if the codex actually allows a diversity of competitive lists to be fielded, that actuality is irrelevant in the face of GW's need to appeal to some profitable quorum (not necessarily the loudest voices either...).

man, I'm gonna miss doctrines, hopefully they will allow you to keep your trools mechanised otherwise im screwed

Well i think one thing we can look forward to (i hope)is new models . Or GW will lower the points cost on some things so you have to buy more models which means more $$$ feed to GW

Another big hole in the IG codex is, other than the ubiquitous plasma gun there's no good stand and shoot special weapon. GLs might be good if they were 5 points per.

Adding the heavy stubber as a special weapon option would require new models, but would make the gun line squads more interesting.

Also I think the plastic catachans are now the oldest of the multi-part plastics. They'd be likely candidates for a re-do or recut. It probably means a stealth price hike, from $35 for 20 to $22 for 10 but if they added the special weapon options it would almost be a price cut.

The old IG codex is only broken because in the crazy mixed-up world of 40k if you bring a knife to a gunfight, you win!

The problem is not the IG codex, it is the fact that in 4th ed (don't have a clue with 5th, frankly I'll wait until its out and see what happens before I can be bothered to think about it) standing and shooting makes for a boring game (which is the fault of the rules, there are many other games in which standing and shooting makes for an interesting game), so the rules encourage "close combat". Therefore armies that suck at close combat aren't "competitive" and therefore are only played by those who prefer an uphill struggle.

The obvious "quick fix" would be to make IG tanks less vulnerable to close combat - the whole idea of a demon snipping one open with its crab claws is just ridunkulous to me...

Of course somehow that would have to be fiddles so that it didn't make non-IG tanks stupidly good so, it probably won't work in the meta game.

Nurglitch wrote:

It would be interesting to see whether my claim is actually true, that we see very little variation in armies called "competitive", but it doesn't seem like we can. In the absence of positive proof I think the fact that words like "mandatory" and "garbage" are used to describe doctrines suggests widespread public perception of homogeneity regardless of the actual state of things. After all, even if the codex actually allows a diversity of competitive lists to be fielded, that actuality is irrelevant in the face of GW's need to appeal to some profitable quorum (not necessarily the loudest voices either...).

Of course those "less effective" doctrines are still around permitting more thematic/fluffy players the ability to do what they desire. Elimination of doctrines, even if not impacting the tourney scene, impact the ability to field those types of lists. If I want to play some sort of feral, roman legion (warrior weapons, close order, carapace, rough riders) I can under the current codex. Will it be stomped by a Tier One list-potentially. But remove those doctrines and its highly likely that option goes by the wayside.

Thats my issue with the doctrine removal. Some minor tweekages in points (or lack of points) and they could be much more balanced. Indeed, instead of removing doctinres, more should be added, to provide greater variety and sales. Imagine rough rider companies, rhino doctrines, tank riders, and more points efficient ogryns. But it won't happen.

i am amazed that there are so many people who want to get rid of doctrines. you don't have to use the doctrines to play IG. doctrines were the last real innovation in 40k, something all armies should have had access to.

do you guys complain that there are too many varieties of beer ? seriously, even if you don't use all the options it nice that they are there.

anyway, i vote HELL NO !!!

I will be honest, I started my Guard army when the green 3rd codex came out. When the 3.5 codex came out my army didn't change a bit, well I did loss my ratling squad, and a squad of IG troops so i could trade my griffon in for a second bassy and pay for the up costed heavy and special weapons in the other ones. I looked at the doc and read them , and honestly the only one I have found myself wanting to use is the one that lets me have 3 squads of vets.

Now I will admit I play a SAFH gunline IG, with 3 pie plates , 5 las cannons, 3 autocannon/rocketlauncher, 1multi laser, 1heavy bolter, 1 heavy stubber, 2 plasma, 1 melta, 1 storm bolter, and 34 flashlights at 1000 points. I won't miss docs at all, but I don't use them. A re-write of the guard codex really most likely would only help me as its very likely for the guard to drop to 5 points each, its unlikly for the specials or heavy's to go up in cost, and I might actually get my griffon back, or the points to put my ratlings back on the field.

On the other hand i do understand that alot of people are playing very fluffy ig armies useing warrior weapons and carp armor for the guard army of dieing. These are the people who are gonna get burned by a re-write, its very likely that drop troop will be in the ig dex as a troop option, same for camo, and mech. The stuff they will drop is the stuff the fluff bunnies are useing.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Another big hole in the IG codex is, other than the ubiquitous plasma gun there's no good stand and shoot special weapon. GLs might be good if they were 5 points per.

Adding the heavy stubber as a special weapon option would require new models,

Also I think the plastic catachans are now the oldest of the multi-part plastics.

Each Special weapon is supposed to have a different role, so it's OK that the Plasma Gun is the only good stand-and-shoot gun. That's the point.

I agree Heavy Stubber would be a good thing to add.

The plastic Catachans should stay, and the IG should simply get a 3rd plastic regiment. I'd suggest Tallarn for Cameoline to sit along plastic Stormtroopers in Carapace.

jeremycobert wrote:i am amazed that there are so many people who want to get rid of doctrines.

You presume that Doctrines are the only way to provide variety, and that is a very poor assumption. With more Troops Platoon types and well-focused unit options, Doctrines are completely unnecessary.

For once, I have to agree with JHDD. A sensible unit spread and options for those units should be able to give the dex variety just as well as doctrines do (or rather could--they are very poorly balanced right now). Whether GW will manage a sensible spread is another thing entirely, but the potential for a good dex without doctrines is there.

I too, agree with John. As other posters have pointed out (I think it wa Ozy and/or Nurglitch, but I could be wrong), there is a huge difference between an array of choices and an array of choices that are actually in any way appealing. Generally speaking, when people are worreid about a loss of choice, or a loss of options, they're really mostly concerened with losing the option they like. that's fine and natural, but let's not confuse the two issues.

I also think you'd have to look pretty hard to find lots of people that want to scrap doctrines. I like them, I think it would be swell if they were kept and simply better balanced, but I think we all know that's not going to happen.

The doctrines system is considered successful primarliy because it gave a huge amount of flexibility to the basic IG platoon, a unit that was pretty good to start with and could become a buch of things with doctrines. What this concealed was a staggering lack of actual unit options in the book, both in terms of not having many units to begin with, and having some really, really bad units (particularly in the Elites section).

I think if the new book was both internally balanced and competitve AND had doctrines, everybody would be thrilled. I, for one, would trade the flexibilty of taking Independent commisars and Die-Hards for better Ogryn, Stormtroopers, sentinels and Chimeras.

Doctrines are a good idea, but the implementation is not without faults. I think they were better done than Traits. In general, I think it would be best if each Doctrine option had an included mandatory drawback instead of (or in addition to) the options you need to 'buy back' if you use Doctrines.

My big issue with traits and doctrines is that the drawbacks tend to be too easy to work around. Especially with Space Marine traits, it's usually easy to find a couple units that won't be used, at least in normal sized games, and accept that you can't take those... In some cases it might be an option you wouldn't want to take anyway, so it's even less of a drawback.

That's basically the problem I identified back on the first page of this thread: that doctrines are a good idea (because promoting diversity is good), but the implementation of them is bad (because they way they are implemented is easy to game). The options should be integrated into the list so that if you want a Mechanized infantry list, then you simply take Chimeras and so on. One way of balancing points would be to make some options depend on others. I like the idea of taking certain HQs to allow some shifts in force organization a la the Warboss and Belial, and taking some upgrade to allow units an option to a la Grotsnik and Fabius Bile.

Something like:

HQ
1. Senior Officer
2. Commissariat Cadre
3. Primaris Psycker Cadre
4. Ministorum Cadre
5. 1 Command Platoon per Senior Officer (1 Command Squad, 0-3 Support Squads)

Elites
1. Storm Trooper Platoon (1-3 Storm Trooper Squads)
2. Ogryn Platoon (1-3 Ogryn Squads)
3. Veteran Platoon (1-3 Veteran Squads)
4. Sniper Detachment (1-3 Sniper Teams)
5. 1 Enginseer per Vehicle or Vehicle Squadron

Troops
1. Conscript Platoon (1-5 Conscript Squads)
2. Infantry Platoon (1 Command Squad, 2-4 Infantry Squads)

Light Support
1. Rough Rider Platoon
2. Sentinel Platoon
3. Salamander Light Tank

Heavy Support
1. Leman Russ Main Battle Tank
2. Demolisher Infantry Support Tank
3. Hellhound Flame Tank
4. Basilisk Self-Propelled Gun
5. Medusa Self-Propelled Mortar

Senior Officer
WS4 BS4 S3 T3 W3 I3 A3 Ld9 Sv5+

Wargear: Lasgun or Laspistol and Chainsword, Flak Armour

Command Squad
1 Junior Officer + 1 Sergeant + 3 Guardsmen

Wargear: Lasgun or Laspistol and Chainsword, Flak Armour, 1 Vox-caster
Options: May take Company Standard Bearer or 0-1 Regimental Standard Bearer if HQ choice, Medic, Mechanicus Liason (Enginseer), 1 Heavy Weapon (Heavy Stubber, Mortar, Autocannon, or Rocket Launcher unless Mechanicus Liason then also Heavy Bolter, Lascannon, or Multi-Laser), up to 3 Special Weapons (Grenade Launchers and Flamethrowers unless Mechanicus Liason then also Plasma Guns or Melta Guns). May take Chimera as dedicated transport, in which case the entire Platoon must take Chimera dedicated transports. May take Carapace Armour, in which case the entire Platoon must take carapace armour.

Infantry Squad - 50pts
1 Sergeant + 9 Guardsmen

Wargear: Lasgun, Flak Armour, 1 Vox Caster, Frag Grenades.
Options: Sergeant may exchange Lasgun for Laspistol and Chainsword. May take one Special Weapon and one Heavy Weapon as Command Squad. Must take a Chimera dedicated transport if the platoon command squad takes one. Must all take Carapace Armour if the platoon command squad takes one. All models may be equipped with krak grenades.

Conscript Squad - 30pts
1 Conscript Sergeant + 9 Conscripts

Wargear: Lasgun
Options: 1 Heavy Weapon (Heavy Stubber, Mortar, Autocannon, or Rocket Launcher), 1 Special Weapons (Grenade Launchers and Flamethrowers).

Storm Trooper Squad
1 Junior Officer + 9 Storm Troopers

Wargear: Lasgun or Shotgun, Carapace Armour, Targeters, Frag and Krak Grenades. Grav-Chutes.
Options: Junior Officer may exchange his Lasgun for a Las Pistol and Chainsword. The Laspistol may be upgraded to Plasma Pistol. The Chainsword may be upgraded to a Power Weapon. Any model in the squad can carry Melta Bombs. One Junior Officer in the platoon may be upgraded to a Senior Officer. Two Storm Troopers per squad can take either a Flamethrowers, a Melta Gun, or a Plasma Gun. May take Valkyrie as dedicated transport, if so, then the entire Platoon must take Valkries as dedicated transports.

Veteran Squad
1 Sergeant + 9 Veterans

Wargear: Either (1) Lasgun or (2) Shotgun or (3) Laspistol and Close Combat Weapon, Frag and Krak Grenades, Vox-Caster
Options: One Veteran Sergeant in the platoon may be upgraded to a Junior Officer. Junior Officer may exchange his Lasgun for a Las Pistol and Chainsword. The Laspistol may be upgraded to Plasma Pistol. The Chainsword may be upgraded to a Power Weapon. Any model in the squad can carry a heavy weapon, three models not carrying the heavy weapon may take special weapons or demolition charges. Veterans can take a Chimera as a dedicated transport. The entire Veteran platoon may be upgraded to Carapace Armour or lose their save entirely and gain Stealth and Move Through Cover. Veterans can infiltrate if they do not take a dedicated transport.

Support Squad
1 Sergeant + 5 Guardsmen

Wargear: Lasgun, Flak Armour, 1 Vox Caster
Options: Three Guardsmen must exchange their lasguns for either Heavy Weapons or Special Weapons, as Command Squad. Likewise Carapace Armour or Chimera Dedicated Transport if Command squad takes these options.

Salamander Light Tank
Armour 12/12/10, BS3, Type: Fast, Tank, Crew: Imperial Guard
Weapons: Heavy Flamethrower, Autocannon
Equipment: Searchlight, Smoke Launchers
Options: Autocannon may be upgraded to Twin-Linked Lascannon, Heavy Flamethrower may be exchanged for a Heavy Bolter, may take Extra Armour (loses Fast), Rough terrain Modification (loses Fast), Track Guards, Pintle Heavy Stubber

Vox-Caster
If a squad has a Vox-Caster, then it can be split off from its parent platoon like an independent character. In addition that detached squad may still use that platoon's highest Ld for Morale and Pinning so long as that platoon's Command Squad has a vox-caster.

Master-Vox
If a Command squad has a Master-Vox, then any platoon whose Command squad has a vox-caster can use that Command squad's Ld for Morale and Pinning tests.

wow to much to read at work lol

Nurglitch wrote:One way of balancing points would be to make some options depend on others. I like the idea of taking certain HQs to allow some shifts in force organization a la the Warboss and Belial, and taking some upgrade to allow units an option to a la Grotsnik and Fabius Bile.

That's OK, though I'd rather have things unlocked and part of the basic list. There isn't anything in the IG that is so powerful or rare it needs to be handled this way.

Of course, the way this is currently done in the Codex is clumsy: May only take 1 AF Squad and/or Conscript Platoon per Infantry Platoon.

This isn't about something being rare and powerful so much as creating themes like those that can be made under the Doctrine system.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

You presume that Doctrines are the only way to provide variety, and that is a very poor assumption. With more Troops Platoon types and well-focused unit options, Doctrines are completely unnecessary.

you assume GW has writers that can competently write interesting yet balanced rules. i however have been around the block a few times and know differently.

the doctrine system was very innovative for a codex, it allowed the end users to create their own unique army and even allowed you to make crappy units somewhat worthwhile.

jeremycobert, is the the Doctrine system an instance of an interesting yet balanced rule? Is there any reason why a new, Doctrine-less codex would necessarily be less interesting and less balanced?

It is a crap shoot, to be sure, but there's a difference between a crapshoot and Certain Doom. I suspect what IG players eventually get will be less than ideal, but I know it could be otherwise. Sometimes you get the Chaos dex, but other times you get Orks or Eldar.

As pointed before by Kid we all know what will happen: [tongue in cheek]Las Cannons will be bumped to 200 pts each while mortars will be free in each squad to redress balance issues (i.e. GW´s IG warehouse is full with unselled mortars), the Chimeras will be replaced by Rhinos and the new heavy option will be Land Raiders ala Rogue Trader (did you notice the new box went up 10 pounds?) but don´t go yelling Yahooo! yet the land raiders will last only until next year revision of the codex to be substituted by elven chariots on the TO&E.
And of course, the doctrines will be dropped new players to dumbhammer can´t endure having to choose between many options, their brains overload (I wonder where GW find their playtesters nowadays? Perhaps in Miss Marbles School for slowed Monkeys?) [/tongue in cheek]
So like it or not a new codex without doctrines is due, no matter that some were good and some not, simplification is the new rage word at the studio I think.

M.

jeremycobert wrote:you assume GW has writers that can competently write interesting yet balanced rules. i however have been around the block a few times and know differently.

the doctrine system was very innovative for a codex, it allowed the end users to create their own unique army and even allowed you to make crappy units somewhat worthwhile.

OK, speaking of Doctrines, how often did anybody take Warrior Weapons (a Doctrine that turns somewhat worthwhile Guardsmen into totally crappy units) to make their unique armies?

No, I merely assume that GW's Doctrine-Free IG would be no worse than the current Doctrine disaster.

This is a very trivially low bar for competence, that even a blind monkey (or Jervis himself) could achieve with little effort.

The Doctrine System was a fanastic concept, but it was executed poorly, leaving most of the Doctrines a complete waste of time, and a few so good that you basically had to take them to have a competative army.

The problem lies in the fact that GW won't try to fix the Doctrine System, they'll just cut it in the same way they give Rending to any unit they don't know how to fix.

BYE

This has been a good thread so far, plenty of nice points raised pro and con. I voted yes, because as it stands, I never win anyway, so I have nothing to lose with my IG army.

GW will probably not fix Doctrines, that's true. They won't fix chapter traits either, and they didn't fix the Chaos Legions or Eldar Craftworlds. All in all, they're no big on fixing.

I suspect we'll end up losing some units. Conscripts, almost certainly. A lot of units will be "rebalanced". I expect Ogryns will go back to 5-man squads, gain Fleet and, surprise, Rending, for the low, low price of 180pts per unit.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The Doctrine System was a fanastic concept, but it was executed poorly, leaving most of the Doctrines a complete waste of time, and a few so good that you basically had to take them to have a competative army.

The problem lies in the fact that GW won't try to fix the Doctrine System, they'll just cut it in the same way they give Rending to any unit they don't know how to fix.

BYE

Let's hope for rending bayonets!

stonefox wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:The Doctrine System was a fanastic concept, but it was executed poorly, leaving most of the Doctrines a complete waste of time, and a few so good that you basically had to take them to have a competative army.

The problem lies in the fact that GW won't try to fix the Doctrine System, they'll just cut it in the same way they give Rending to any unit they don't know how to fix.

BYE

Let's hope for rending bayonets!

Dude, do you remember the WD mailbag request for super bayonets from a few (?) years ago? I was practically rolling with laughter.

Attaching a small pointy stick will not make a Guardsman into a HtH combat god.

Personally, I like to presume that they're fighting with sharpened shovels, rather than screwing around with little knives.

My guys stab incredibly fast and use sharpened shovels as well as knives. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. (They count as Kroot.)

edit: Oh wait we were talking about IG.

So is the 60%+ in favor of a new codex a sign that we have strong faith in the current design team, or a lingering hatred of the current codex's flaws?

It may be more acceptance that the current codex will somehow be hamstrung under 5th edition rules.

Kyoto, I'd say it's a lot of things:

For change:
- Objectives are a problem
- Maneuver warfare is not supported
- Unnecessary complexity in current list
- Doctrines are a mess
- Excessively limited basic list

Against change:
- fear of invalidated models / conversions
- fear of army list changes
- dislike of rebalancing in general

JohnHwangDD wrote:Kyoto, I'd say it's a lot of things:

For change:
- Objectives are a problem
- Maneuver warfare is not supported
- Unnecessary complexity in current list
- Doctrines are a mess
- Excessively limited basic list

Against change:
- fear of invalidated models / conversions
- fear of army list changes
- dislike of rebalancing in general

More like:
Against Change:
-fear of loss of options
-fear of straight jacket vanilla list only
-fear of invalidated armies
-fear GW will go at the codex with a sledgehammer to fix "imbalances."
-fear concerns of maneuver/objective warfare will not be addressed.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:So is the 60%+ in favor of a new codex a sign that we have strong faith in the current design team, or a lingering hatred of the current codex's flaws?

As scary as this sounds, I might have to go with that it's a sign of faith.

The current codex isn't bad, and few IG players I've talked to hate it. It does suffer from a harsh case of "late 3rd ed-itis": tons of crappy units, nonsensical choices, atrocious internal balance (Stormtroopers vs. vets; Ogryn vs. Rough riders), and the desire to shoe horn as many evocative rule ever written for a sublist into one single codex. It was also written during 3rd edition, and while the studio claims they had 4th edition in mind, I think that's BS. Chimeras were a decent light tank/scoring unit at 85, but as a transport it's overcosted. Guardsmen were good in the static days of 40k, but in a manuever world are overcosted. The codex, like the DE one, needs an update if only because there is a dwindling number of effective builds in the book.

On the plus side for the designers, I'm starting to think that there might be some method to their madness. I think GW has learned the lesson that providing a la cart options isn't the only way to ensure a variety of innovative lists. If the current IG book is similar to Orks, Eldar, or even Chaos I think IG are in good shape. I think there is a kneejerk fear that IG will end up like the old 3rd edition book, but that simply won't happen. Even the much maligned DA, which are a subset of the less interesting end of the MEQ spectrum have a couple of neat builds and tons of options in their book. (Fact: DA have tons more HQ, the same # of elites, fewer troops unless you count RW and DW, same # of fasts and more heavies, plus they enjoy more transport options).

Wow, what a great thread!

I really like the eb and flow of the comments. Particularly Polonius even handed writing. Huzah!

I voted yes, I would love to see a new IG dex. I am terified by the concept though as I do not like the new lockstep (limited options we have seen in the current dexes: Chaos and Daemons are both total failures IMO).

What the IG dex really needs is, to stay the same structure wise and have all the odd units corrected. I seriously doubt this would be what we actually get because of the direction of ciurrent codex development ie: Chaos Codex and Daemon COdex. What everyone wanted there: Chaos as a side; Daemons, lots of chaos options and some nod to the LATD codex to make it work somehow, what we got: Codex Spikey Marines and Codex Deep Striking Nidzilla. I'm afraid thats what will happen to IG. I expect we will get no more doctrines, and all the same awful problems with all the existing units, combined with a creamy whipped topping of units removal! In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see the heavy company as a formation disapear entirely and the old tank units (like mortar medusas and the autocannon leman russ and vanquisher) to all stay dead.

What'd I'd like:

Viable CC Options
Fix Ogryns, ripper guns are rending, lower point cost, attached in the HQ or as an Elite choice, Bonehead gets a power weapon
Fix Roughriders, why do they have the only weapon in the game that breaks? They always have power weapons, they get the bonus everytime they charge
Add Jump Pack IG back, with flamers
IG Commanders are not ICs, just take it away from them, then they would work right in HtH in their squads, and a power glove might be ok.

Multiple Troop Options
Remove the limits for conscripts and Armored fist squads ratio to platoons, totally unnecesary
Restore Penal Battalions, Units that you can SHOOT INTO THE CC they are involved in, 3 or 4 points each BS2 LD7, failed leadership checks are automatically passed by
a loss of models equal to the difference (Bomb Collars)
Make Veterans, Storm Troopers and Grenadiers all Troop Choices
Make a roughrider Platoon a Troop choice

Return of all the tanks:
Put the Vanquisher, Tank Destroyer, Autocannon leman russ, Medusa, Manticore In the list
Add the baneblade in as a 2x Heavy support choice option

Retsore the armored company list
Allow an IC to be taken as a "Tank Commander" HQ choice who would make Leman Russes Troop choices if he was taken

FIX the Elites and HQ Choices for Advisors
None of these are really ICs, make them all squad options for existing sqauds and remove their IC status: fixed (scrap the doctrines to take them)

Combined Imperial Armies
Redress the allies rules for IG: Bring Back Harlequins with them, and redefine the ally for Kroot Mercs
Simplify the allied rules, essentially any imperial armies can be combined at any points level as long as the force org requirements for both codices are met


What I predict we will get:

Removal of doctrines and the complete disapearance of light infantry, drop armies, abhumans, and cameoline etc, Vanilla IG Only that match the models currently sold. Removal of all the units that aren't sold as units or dont have box sets or models: the heavy Platoon entirely, no new allied rules, exact same units for rats, ogryns and IC characters as current codex, possible removal of the conscript unit also. Some tinkering with characters. Innexplicable inclusion of the flawed CC units RRs and Ogryns even though they have never had a regiment/unit box. Just like the dameons and chaos codexes, fewer options, themed down armies, everyone is the same.

Remeber, you are a precious unique snowflake,

...

JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!

@Kid_Kyoto i think the folks who voted no a thinking back to what happen to DA, Chaos .. no more legions,ravenwing,deathwing etc.
for the folks who voted yes hoping for a change lets face it some lists didn't work or were so restricted it wasn't funny IMO

Augustus wrote:Wow, what a great thread!

I really like the eb and flow of the comments. Particularly Polonius even handed writing. Huzah!

I voted yes, I would love to see a new IG dex. I am terified by the concept though as I do not like the new lockstep (limited options we have seen in the current dexes: Chaos and Daemons are both total failures IMO).

What the IG dex really needs is, to stay the same structure wise and have all the odd units corrected. I seriously doubt this would be what we actually get because of the direction of ciurrent codex development ie: Chaos Codex and Daemon COdex. What everyone wanted there: Chaos as a side; Daemons, lots of chaos options and some nod to the LATD codex to make it work somehow, what we got: Codex Spikey Marines and Codex Deep Striking Nidzilla. I'm afraid thats what will happen to IG. I expect we will get no more doctrines, and all the same awful problems with all the existing units, combined with a creamy whipped topping of units removal! In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see the heavy company as a formation disapear entirely and the old tank units (like mortar medusas and the autocannon leman russ and vanquisher) to all stay dead.

What'd I'd like:

Viable CC Options
Fix Ogryns, ripper guns are rending, lower point cost, attached in the HQ or as an Elite choice, Bonehead gets a power weapon
Fix Roughriders, why do they have the only weapon in the game that breaks? They always have power weapons, they get the bonus everytime they charge
Add Jump Pack IG back, with flamers
IG Commanders are not ICs, just take it away from them, then they would work right in HtH in their squads, and a power glove might be ok.

Multiple Troop Options
Remove the limits for conscripts and Armored fist squads ratio to platoons, totally unnecesary
Restore Penal Battalions, Units that you can SHOOT INTO THE CC they are involved in, 3 or 4 points each BS2 LD7, failed leadership checks are automatically passed by
a loss of models equal to the difference (Bomb Collars)
Make Veterans, Storm Troopers and Grenadiers all Troop Choices
Make a roughrider Platoon a Troop choice

Return of all the tanks:
Put the Vanquisher, Tank Destroyer, Autocannon leman russ, Medusa, Manticore In the list
Add the baneblade in as a 2x Heavy support choice option

Retsore the armored company list
Allow an IC to be taken as a "Tank Commander" HQ choice who would make Leman Russes Troop choices if he was taken

FIX the Elites and HQ Choices for Advisors
None of these are really ICs, make them all squad options for existing sqauds and remove their IC status: fixed (scrap the doctrines to take them)

Combined Imperial Armies
Redress the allies rules for IG: Bring Back Harlequins with them, and redefine the ally for Kroot Mercs
Simplify the allied rules, essentially any imperial armies can be combined at any points level as long as the force org requirements for both codices are met


What I predict we will get:

Removal of doctrines and the complete disapearance of light infantry, drop armies, abhumans, and cameoline etc, Vanilla IG Only that match the models currently sold. Removal of all the units that aren't sold as units or dont have box sets or models: the heavy Platoon entirely, no new allied rules, exact same units for rats, ogryns and IC characters as current codex, possible removal of the conscript unit also. Some tinkering with characters. Innexplicable inclusion of the flawed CC units RRs and Ogryns even though they have never had a regiment/unit box. Just like the dameons and chaos codexes, fewer options, themed down armies, everyone is the same.

Remeber, you are a precious unique snowflake,

...

JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!

yea what he said!

Kid_Kyoto wrote:So is the 60%+ in favor of a new codex a sign that we have strong faith in the current design team, or a lingering hatred of the current codex's flaws?

For me it's Option D) What's the worst that could happen. At the very least, a change will be interesting. I doubt they can make Ogryns, GLs, MLs and ratlings worse than they are today, so why not give them a ride on the ol' Reshuffleometer and see what comes out?

it worked for Eldar.

jfrazell wrote:yea what he said!

Thanks, when I write a long one like that I sometimes wonder if anyone reads it all, heh.

Lets hope for a verbose codex season instead of the abbreviated codices they have been publishing! Recycle the fluff, write more rules instead of the other way 'round says I!

Augustus wrote:

jfrazell wrote:yea what he said!

Thanks, when I write a long one like that I sometimes wonder if anyone reads it all, heh.

Lets hope for a verbose codex season instead of the abbreviated codices they have been publishing! Recycle the fluff, write more rules instead of the other way 'round says I!

I read it, too. I don't agree with all of it, but at least there are people still that interested in fate of the poor bloody infantry.

Yea, some of it was nostalgic pie! Fair enough.

i voted no because i believe that GW is out of ideas. we can either have no doctrines and all armies will eventually look the same or we keep the current codex with the possibility of having a different army on the field.

jfrazell wrote:
More like:
Against Change:
-fear of loss of options
-fear of straight jacket vanilla list only
-fear of invalidated armies
-fear GW will go at the codex with a sledgehammer to fix "imbalances."
-fear concerns of maneuver/objective warfare will not be addressed.

I don't do this often, and I am loathe to do it even now, but:

QFT

BYE

edit: figured out what QFT meant. Thanks HBMC.

I'd love to see IG get their sub-par doctrines buffed &/or bundled with those popular ones... And make them less dependant on those ownyou-lisks...

Change is inevitable. GW will redo the codex, and do so to fit the current "vision" of design, for better or worse.

I expect doctrines as they stand now to dissapear.

What I would like to see tho, is for many of the doctrines to be folded up into either the standard rules for the guardsman, or into a form of a traits system.

If I were planning the Guard codex, I would shoot for a codex that would allow for all types of human armies, regardless of allegience.

The idea being, when you create your army, you make say 3 choices that will influence your gear/allies, etc.

Choice 1 : Are you Loyal, Xenos Influenced, or Chaos Corrupted ?

This decision would result in different options for allied units, but also adjust basic units. Loyal units would have free/discounted Priests, Chaos Corrupted would have free Psykers. Conscripts in Chaos Corrupted armies would become mutants with no armor and just 2 hand weapons, but could be given Chaos banners to benefit from marks of Chaos.

Obviously Loyal armies would be able to take allies from the Inquisition Codecies, whereas Xenos/Chaos could take Troop choices, such as Chaos Marines, or Kroot/Fire Warriors, either as actual Troop choices or perhaps as elites choices.

Choice 2 : Is your regiment provided with Light Armor, Standard, or Heavy Armor.

This decision most directly influences your armor saves. But could also influence things like Infiltration, Scouting, Chameoline, Tank availability.

Choice 3 : What is your training level? Feral, Line, Hardened

This choice directly effects leadership choices, but might also open other options. Such as Feral troops having the option to go with pistol/ccw.


Just ideas really, and alot of this would need some simplification based on GWs current 'vision'. Maybe just simply use the first choice, Loyal, Xenos, Chaos.

Ultimately the goal is to allow people to play not just generic Imperial Guard, but Hordes of Chaos, Genestealer Cults, Tau Loyalists, etc.

That's a cool idea, I'd be happy if that was they way it worked, I just think its to inventive to be close to the truth, but neat anyway!

Lets hope they do something inventive when it eventually rolls around.

Thats part of the issue. Although there are mutliple avenues, its really not difficult to modify the existing codex to make it a strong tier 1 list with lots of options. This route, balanced traits, multiple platoon options, they all lead to a similar conclusion.

Because it can both be fixed easily with useless units/doctrines modified to not be useless (and thereby increasing sales) those who are leery of any GW tweek are doubly leery-because this one is easy to fix.

I want a new codex. I could care less about the rules in it. I'll make it work for me. I want the new codex because new codex = new models. I'm not in the hobby to play the game, I'm in it to build the models, and play the game sometimes with the models I'm building

Most important of all.. NEW UNITS!! WE NEED NEW UNITS!!! ARGHHH!!!

I'd like the new units to be plastic Ogryns and plastic Roughriders, and maybe even the great coated IG that went round and round before.

(And not from FW, real GW plastics, resin minis suck.)

Well having nearly completed Legion, I want laslance wielding pikemen. Now there's a counter assault unit I could get behind.

Or Jackal gunships, because thats just kewl.

Whoah, can you explain the laslance pikemen idea a bit j? I'd love to convert a few of my men-at-arms that way since I'm already working on 'em.

Spoiler:
The Jokers-an IG unit- had your standard lasguns. However they also had a front rank of pikemen to repel the good guys. The laspikes were 30 ft. long telescoping gravimetrically sheathed pikes with gravimetric counterweights in back. The spearhead itself glowed and was described in simlar manner to a power weapon (light sabre actually). Im thinking it could be modelled as a laser scalpel head.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:So is the 60%+ in favor of a new codex a sign that we have strong faith in the current design team, or a lingering hatred of the current codex's flaws?

No, I don't think so.

I think it has more to do with wanting newr models, as stated a few time sin this thread.

In fact, the ones that wanted new models said they wanted the old codex, but if a new codex was what it took to get new models, then so be it.

Personally, I would be all for a new IG codex if I played them, just to get new models and use the old rules.

GW doesn't really care what frickin' rules you use, so long as you buy models.

open_sketchbook wrote:Guardsmen should have BS4 when firing lasguns.

Nope. The standard infantryman in the guard army is just a grunt. Some dude that was drafted, volunteered, or press-ganged into service. Each guy is just one guy out of millions exactly like him. BS3 is the basic, 50-50, run-of-the-mill BS. They should not have a 4. BS4 is more like a sharpshooter. A rifleman that is better than the norm. Every gruardsman can shoot as straight and easily as an enhanced Space Marine? Not a chance.
Now, elites should have BS4. Possibly even HQ retinues.

Personally, I think that merely adding AP5 to the lasgun and dropping the points per man to 5 would be a big, yet subtle, upgrade that would go a long way to helping the poor guardsman.



Ghidorah

When everything is AP5, AP kind of starts to lose its meaning.

S3 AP- is fine for the Lasgun.

Now the the real problem weapon is the Hotshot Lasgun / Hellgun - should be S4!

The current IG codex has ended up producing the exact same type of lists as every other codex built around sublists and glue-on options. There’s a wide variety of possible lists to build, around half of which are utterly terrible and never see the light of day, while the other half are almost entirely one dimensional and not fun.

For all the options listed in the book, all I ever see on the field is drop troops armies from hell, static tank armies and static infantry armies.

It’s an inevitable problem with the idea of building a basic list, then adding a range of glue on options at the back to alter that list. Incorporating variety into the basic list and unit options reduces this problem considerably, at the expense of superficial variety.

A new list could easily produce more diverse armies without doctrines. Just improve the rubbish units like ogryns and ratlings, and do whatever it takes to make a basic guardsman a genuinely worthwhile troop. For all the intense study and furrowed brows you see around this place, it seems no-ones noticed the efforts made to make basic troops really useful. CSM are excellent troops who are now capable of delivering brutal close range fire and have two attacks in close combat. Ork boyz have better guns than they used to and cost 1/3 as much. People take troops as the backbone of their army becuase troops are good, not just to access another heavy weapon or because there's a minimum two units to be taken.

A similar approach to the guard would improve their army massively. The only question is how... five points a model is a start but something else is needed.

Tetchy wrote:The old IG codex is only broken because in the crazy mixed-up world of 40k if you bring a knife to a gunfight, you win!

The problem is not the IG codex, it is the fact that in 4th ed (don't have a clue with 5th, frankly I'll wait until its out and see what happens before I can be bothered to think about it) standing and shooting makes for a boring game (which is the fault of the rules, there are many other games in which standing and shooting makes for an interesting game), so the rules encourage "close combat". Therefore armies that suck at close combat aren't "competitive" and therefore are only played by those who prefer an uphill struggle.

The obvious "quick fix" would be to make IG tanks less vulnerable to close combat - the whole idea of a demon snipping one open with its crab claws is just ridunkulous to me...

Of course somehow that would have to be fiddles so that it didn't make non-IG tanks stupidly good so, it probably won't work in the meta game.

Not really. Most games you see a mix of ranged shooting, close quarters shooting and assault. The move from 3rd to 4th can be almost entirely explained in the increase in mobility of certain units and in close range gunfights, which never existed previously.

There certainly are mad rushes into assault, but with 4th ed seeing the emergence of armies dominated by skimmers, lists built entirely around melee have become a lot less common.

The other time it occurs is when you’re facing armies that are really, utterly terrible in melee, basically Tau and IG. Even then an IG unit with a powerfist can represent a decent disincentive to assault, and given the IG tendency to melt like butter against rapid fired small arms, even then you’re often better off just shooting the little buggers.

JohnHwangDD wrote:When everything is AP5, AP kind of starts to lose its meaning.

S3 AP- is fine for the Lasgun.

Now the the real problem weapon is the Hotshot Lasgun / Hellgun - should be S4!

or a lower AP to represent its superior armor penetration (referencing gaunt ghost novels)

sebster wrote:A similar approach to the guard would improve their army massively. The only question is how... five points a model is a start but something else is needed.

jfrazell wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:S3 AP- is fine for the Lasgun.

Now the the real problem weapon is the Hotshot Lasgun / Hellgun - should be S4!

or a lower AP to represent its superior armor penetration (referencing gaunt ghost novels)

Better Hellgun AP would be icing on the cake. But from a tactical standpoint, Stormtroopers need to be S4. They operate alone and often in the enemy's face. Being able to Glance AV10 dramatically increases their overall basic utility. Suddenly, they can drop light vehicles (e.g Landspeeders & Vypers) with their Hellguns, or attack the light Rear armour. And S4 will wound more often, which will be useful against MEQs that would get a save anyways.

Sure you could give them better AP, but from a practical standpoint, if they're not AP2 or AP3, it doesn't matter. Sv5+ (and worse) fail often enough for AP5 to be unnecessary. Sv4+ isn't common enough for AP4 to be worth any premium. So if you make them S3 AP3, it'll be like Banshees. Nothing wrong with that, but they'll need something else to crack any Transports before they can do much, and that pretty much leaves them where they are.

Guardsmen, OTOH, should stay S3 AP- because it defines the lower limit of weapon utility in the game. It's the most common weapon in the universe, so shouldn't be anything other than totally basic.

As I've said before, Guardsmen are probably worth 4 or 5 pts. They'd be worth 5 pts if Vox and/or Sergeant were bundled into the unit prices so that they didn't automatically run from anything that says "Boo!".

I could go with S 4 as well. There's nothing positing that a boltgun is the only thing thats S 4 in the Imperium.

Or just some way to make guard more shooty. Something that allows them to fire twice if standing still... or an 18" or 24" assault 1 or 2 lasgun. Supposedly gaurd are suppose to be able to defeat their enemies with massed fire, but because of space and cost, you can't really bring that much firepower to bear. Just allowing a lot more shots somehow would mitigate this, but still allow higher toughness and armour save units to weather the storm without fearing it outright. Str 4 would cause a lot more fear than 2 str 3 shots.

Give me Assault 2 (24") lasguns, and I would be ecstatic. Or some sort of platoon "volley fire" rule.

At present, Toreador has the right of it - you need true volume of fire to make lasguns useful, but you can't pack closely enough together to get it, or a single assault unit will wipe you off the board. There is no Guard equivalent of "Fish of Fury," where you can mass at rapid-fire range, but be safe from 12" assault troops.

Thats an interesting idea Janthkin. A2 (24") lasguns. Still not powerful but makes them the shooters they are in fluff and makes them different from other troops without breaking rules.
*Allows troops to move and fire.
*Better range than guardians, balanced by guardian S 4 weaponry.
*Effectively equal to bolters and firewarrior rifles at range, but less effective at short range-making them the range shooters of the game.

Add in an S4 special weapon heavy stubber and your average squad is putting some serious fire downrange, but keeps them vulnerabel in the short range to pretty much everything else in the game.

I'd take 36" (18" rapid-fire) almost as happily, if they wanted to better preserve the lasrifle.

Or give me a Fantasy-like multishot rule: 1 shot as normal, or 2x shots at -1 to hit (1 on 4, or 2 on 5's). But that would involve math....

I dunno, guys, these are Lasguns, not souped-up Eldar-style Lasblasters. Guard are cheap and plentiful, but they are just Men, so they need their upgrades to be effective. In 40k, those are their Heavy and Special Weapons, along with their Tanks.

Men who can shoot over 600 meters with accurate fire (Legion).

JHDD you espouse troops and their tactical strength. yet you pooh pooh any real difference by stating they should be using tanks and heavy weapons (which I might add cost more than marine weapons).

While it won't be carried through its an interesting option. It separates them from other troop choices without being overpowering. Marines and eldar are masters of short range fire in fluff and gaming. Tau are good medium and long range shooters. This put guardsmen on the same pedestal-not by the strength of the weapons, but a very fluffy weight of lasgun firepower.

I think that a variety of Troops Platoons with good options will make Guard competitive. Especially if the scoring rule is to the last man. Lots of Guard Platoons will do just fine.

I don't think that the Lasgun-toting Guardsman is anything to celebrate. I think he mostly exists to define the minimum standard for regular combat forces in the 40k universe.

The Ballad of Rodger Young

No, they've got no time for glory in the Infantry.
No, they've got no use for praises loudly sung,
But in every soldier's heart in all the Infantry
Shines the name, shines the name of Rodger Young.

Shines the name--Rodger Young!
Fought and died for the men he marched among.
To the everlasting glory of the Infantry
Lives the story of Private Rodger Young.

Caught in ambush lay a company of riflemen--
Just grenades against machine guns in the gloom--
Caught in ambush till this one of twenty riflemen
Volunteered, volunteered to meet his doom.

Volunteered, Rodger Young!
Fought and died for the men he marched among.
In the everlasting annals of the Infantry
Glows the last deed of Private Rodger Young.

It was he who drew the fire of the enemy
That a company of men might live to fight;
And before the deadly fire of the enemy
Stood the man, stood the man we hail tonight.

On the island of New Georgia in the Solomons,
Stands a simple wooden cross alone to tell
That beneath the silent coral of the Solomons,
Sleeps a man, sleeps a man remembered well.

Sleeps a man, Rodger Young,
Fought and died for the men he marched among.
In the everlasting spirit of the Infantry
Breathes the spirit of Private Rodger Young.

No, they've got no time for glory in the Infantry,
No, they've got no use for praises loudly sung,
But in every soldier's heart in all the Infantry
Shines the name, shines the name of Rodger Young.

Shines the name--Rodger Young!
Fought and died for the men he marched among.
To the everlasting glory of the Infantry
Lives the story of Private Rodger Young.

I don't think that with the current rumours of 5th edtion guard will be anything but an easy win for every army out there right now.

Nothing about guard right now strikes me as being worth fielding without it being picked up again 1 turn later as destroyed.

I think this thread is best served by not entertaining thoughts of lasguns with 36” range, A2 or St 4. There’s throwing ideas out there and there’s completely ignoring the point of a unit.

A guardsman is defined by his basic ability. He’s a human grunt in a world of ancient monsters. Giving him a rifle that outranges the Tau, or the ability to put out as many shots at the same range as a storm bolter is completely missing the point.

If you want the guard to work like the fluff… guard die like nothing else, but characters hold the army together. Make the average guardsman 5 points, and then make officers, commissars, monks, psykers, enginseers and all the other weird and wonderful characters really worth taking. Give them abilities that improve units meaningfully.

In the fluff there is two kinds of IG elites and cannon fodder. I hope they give us sometime to improve the basic guardsmen, so you can play elites not just the ran of the mill grunt p.s.@Janthkin good song

sebster wrote:I think this thread is best served by not entertaining thoughts of lasguns with 36” range, A2 or St 4. There’s throwing ideas out there and there’s completely ignoring the point of a unit.

A guardsman is defined by his basic ability. He’s a human grunt in a world of ancient monsters. Giving him a rifle that outranges the Tau, or the ability to put out as many shots at the same range as a storm bolter is completely missing the point.

If you want the guard to work like the fluff… guard die like nothing else, but characters hold the army together. Make the average guardsman 5 points, and then make officers, commissars, monks, psykers, enginseers and all the other weird and wonderful characters really worth taking. Give them abilities that improve units meaningfully.

I disagree.

While guard do need more support for the plebes from their character types in the form of officers and such, I do think that changing how they work do have merit.

assault 2 24" str3 ap- lasguns would be an excellent addition.

Why?

Because it allows the volume of low strength fire that guard are supposed to be known for. They are an attrition army, and that proposed lasgun states very well represents that. it also gives the guardsmen to have the option of assaulting, making for a more tactical game as opposed to static gunlines of boredom.

I love the IG army, but I really hate the way they are currently played by most. Predictable doesn't even begin to describe them.

Even if someone somehow figures out how to easily break Janthkin's proposal, it is atleast worth noting as a trial rule for playtesting instead of dismissing it out of hand.

skullspliter888 wrote:In the fluff there is two kinds of IG elites and cannon fodder.

Yes. Veterans and Platoons.

Hellfury wrote:assault 2 24" str3 ap- lasguns would be an excellent addition.

I disagree. That is what the Eldar Guardian Lasblaster should be.

The Imperial Guardian should be saddled with what is clearly and unquestionably the worst weapon in game, and that should be a 24" S3 AP- Rapid-Fire gun. If nobody has the worst gun, then it makes it hard to show how much of an improvement a Hellgun, Splinter Rifle, or Lasblaster might be. Much less a Bolter, Shuricat, or Tau rifle. Basic Guardsmen need to suck. That's the point.

That also means that basic Guardmen need to be cheap, which is why 5 pts is the maximum they can cost, and 4 pts makes even more sense.

Nah. Grots should have the worst weapon in the game!

Hellfury wrote:I disagree.

While guard do need more support for the plebes from their character types in the form of officers and such, I do think that changing how they work do have merit.

assault 2 24" str3 ap- lasguns would be an excellent addition.

Why?

Because it allows the volume of low strength fire that guard are supposed to be known for. They are an attrition army, and that proposed lasgun states very well represents that. it also gives the guardsmen to have the option of assaulting, making for a more tactical game as opposed to static gunlines of boredom.

I love the IG army, but I really hate the way they are currently played by most. Predictable doesn't even begin to describe them.

Even if someone somehow figures out how to easily break Janthkin's proposal, it is atleast worth noting as a trial rule for playtesting instead of dismissing it out of hand.

There might be an argument to make rapid fire weapons capable of firing one shot out to 24” even if they moved, as that would make all tactical troops a little more mobile. But I’d have to see that in play a lot before I half considered it.

But there is just no reason to make this change to one single troop choice, particularly one defined by the basic nature of its equipment? And to make it even better, by giving IG double taps out to 24”? No.

I agree that the Imperial Guard need changes. But people kept arguing that the orks needed to be made zany or kept the same but given fleet. Turns out the answer to the ork problem was not found by adding a superficial kludge that damages the style of the army. Similarly, fixing the IG problem won’t come from giving them mobile or stronger lasguns.

I think the answer is in making the IG something genuinely unique. Making them an army about heroism and exceptional deeds. If, at the end of every game you know you sent out troops that were weaker and undergunned than the genetically engineered supermen or ancient race they faced… but came out triumphant because they were inspired to great deeds by highly disciplined officers and religious fanatics?

That’d be an exciting army.

What I'd like to see in the new IG Codex:

5pt Guardsmen

Advisors that don't suck

Non-IC Commanders

T5 Ogryns with FNP and Str5 AP5 Ripper Guns

Ratlings replaced by a Vindicare-style sniper team

Assault 2 Hellguns

COD and Sharpshooters (Lasguns only) as integrated rules for Guardsmen and Conscripts

A multipurpose light tank like the Hellhound, but with the option of taking a Turret Autocannon or TL Lascannon or something.

FOC-Modifying Commanders a la DA and Orks Codexes. If I take Carapace Armor for my Schola Progenium Officer, I can take Storm Troopers as Troops, for example.

* * * * *

Despite the fact that the new Codexes are dumbed down and much blander compared to 2nd and 3rd Edition codexes (even 4th, though it was getting pretty dry by then), the direction they're taking with the streamlining and paring down of units is IMHO, a good one to take. The new codexes written with 5th in mind all pair up pretty well, I think, while retaining a reasonable list of options and diversity.

Yes, I'm very worried that I'm going to have to radically rethink my army once the Imperial Guard become massively standardized and straight-jacketed, but that's something I'm willing to do if it means I can compete with other builds without having to rely on 3 Russes and a huge contingent of Drop Troops to do so.

CK

JohnHwangDD wrote:

skullspliter888 wrote:In the fluff there is two kinds of IG elites and cannon fodder.

Yes. Veterans and Platoons.

Hellfury wrote:assault 2 24" str3 ap- lasguns would be an excellent addition.

I disagree. That is what the Eldar Guardian Lasblaster should be.

The Imperial Guardian should be saddled with what is clearly and unquestionably the worst weapon in game, and that should be a 24" S3 AP- Rapid-Fire gun. If nobody has the worst gun, then it makes it hard to show how much of an improvement a Hellgun, Splinter Rifle, or Lasblaster might be. Much less a Bolter, Shuricat, or Tau rifle. Basic Guardsmen need to suck. That's the point.

Great point. So guardsmen just need to suck? Thats all they get? Just reduce the point cost and call it a day?

Boy, I cant wait for that exciting version of the IG codex. I think I just shat my pants in quivering anticipation.

While I agree with you on some level, there has to be more than "I just stand here waiting to die really, thats my job. A placeholder until the spaz marines get here". Giving guardsmen a billion heavy weapons may be effective, but the snoozfest that will ensue will make many IG players happy, I am certain. Want to win a game? Bore your opponent to death. Interrupt his death throes with the grating noise the bucket of dice you roll make.

That my friends, is TACTICS!

I really hate to not offer a better solution than the one I am criticizing, but I honestly think that the simple cost reduction doesn't trump a more drastic and, frankly, interesting proposal that Janthkin made.

@sebster:
Its funny how you mention fixing orks.
They gave them double tapping assault shootas, AND lowered the cost.

But I do agree with how IG should be made more unique. Though I am sure the counter argument to that will be from someone quoting the military disdain for unique butterflies.

Hellfury wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

skullspliter888 wrote:In the fluff there is two kinds of IG elites and cannon fodder.

Yes. Veterans and Platoons.

Hellfury wrote:assault 2 24" str3 ap- lasguns would be an excellent addition.

I disagree. That is what the Eldar Guardian Lasblaster should be.

The Imperial Guardian should be saddled with what is clearly and unquestionably the worst weapon in game, and that should be a 24" S3 AP- Rapid-Fire gun. If nobody has the worst gun, then it makes it hard to show how much of an improvement a Hellgun, Splinter Rifle, or Lasblaster might be. Much less a Bolter, Shuricat, or Tau rifle. Basic Guardsmen need to suck. That's the point.

Great point. So guardsmen just need to suck? Thats all they get? Just reduce the point cost and call it a day?

Boy, I cant wait for that exciting version of the IG codex. I think I just shat my pants in quivering anticipation.

While I agree with you on some level, there has to be more than "I just stand here waiting to die really, thats my job. A placeholder until the spaz marines get here". Giving guardsmen a billion heavy weapons may be effective, but the snoozfest that will ensue will make many IG players happy, I am certain. Want to win a game? Bore your opponent to death. Interrupt his death throes with the grating noise the bucket of dice you roll make.

That my friends, is TACTICS!

I really hate to not offer a better solution than the one I am criticizing, but I honestly think that the simple cost reduction doesn't trump a more drastic and, frankly, interesting proposal that Janthkin made.

@sebster:
Its funny how you mention fixing orks.
They gave them double tapping assault shootas, AND lowered the cost.

But I do agree with how IG should be made more unique. Though I am sure the counter argument to that will be from someone quoting the military disdain for unique butterflies.

Exactly. Fluffwise one aspect of the guard is overwhelming grunt firepower, not massed heavy weapons (referencing Gaunt, 15 hours, Legion). Its literally the death of a thousand flashlights that does the damage.

Making the guard the red headed step child of all lists so that everyone has someone to beat on when they've had a bad day is exactly NOT the way to make a list. Its not good for GW (no sales), its not good for IG players (when you can find them), and its not good for the game as a whole.

You already have V5 modification which essentially turns your vehicles into pillboxes (ah less than fond memories of V3), and massivley nerfs chimeras. Removing options for deepstrike/reserve/heavy infantry etc. will just leave you with the bad stereotype of sit all day and shoot IG. Frankly I shifted to shooty mech eldar so I could maneuver and avoid that boredom. Its just meh.

Sorry, but just lowering the points cost of a Guardsman
makes them sound like a goon squad rather than something
interesting or with character.

Maybe they can have some kind of true combined fire rules
that allow multiple squads to combine shots for special
benefits or something (ala Markerlights and fire prisms).

jfrazell wrote:Fluffwise one aspect of the guard is overwhelming grunt firepower, not massed heavy weapons (referencing Gaunt, 15 hours, Legion). Its literally the death of a thousand flashlights that does the damage.

5th edition, if the rumors are true, would make that even more difficult to acheive then it is now. Not being able to shoot through your own squads makes it even more difficult for lots of guard squads to support each other, and the more they are bunched together, the more vulnerable they are to consolidation. At least in the current edition you could deploy two or three squads deep. In 5th edition, those rear squads would have nothing to do or shoot at.
So, even if they lowered the points, you'd still not be able to combine the firepower of more then a couple of squads in any given area.
Making matters worse, attacking armies can effectively screen, because they'd rather run then shoot anyway, allowing them to force you to shoot as their meat shield as they advance.

It just seems that all the game mechanics work against the guard when they fight as massed infantry, which is bizzare considering that is their fluff. On top of that, their basic infantry is horribly overcosted, as has been stated.

I like the idea of a str 4 hellgun. Personally, for any army I build there's either AP3 or nothing. Why bother with AP4 or AP5 or AP6 with 80% of the armies you play against have a 3+ save? So, I rarely take a gun based on it's AP, I take it for it's str, because the higher that is, the more wounds I can cause and the more potential for the other guy to fail a couple. On that note, I'll take a gun that's assault 2 over AP-whatever because more hits = more wounds = more armor saves to fail. I wouldn't mind seeing the lasgun get assault 2, but I doubt it would happen. they want the lasgun to be the wimpiest because they want you to add more men to increase your firepower because when you do that, they sell more plastic people. Why do you think they keep saying in 5th edition the troops get better? because more troops = buy more models. However I do agree with what they say, that's how an army should be. The troops should be the backbone of the army, other things should enhance said backbone. One problem I had when I first started my army was the tanks were just so cool that I had to add a lot, so I have a lot more tanks and only the bare minimum for troops, but I hope to change that soon.

I'd like to see new rough rider models that aren't mongolians, on horses if they look as good as the FW ones, or bikes if not. I'd also like to see "ratling snipers" go away and just get replaced with normal snipers.. why do the guard need halflings?

I had no clue there was this much disdain for the performance of the average guardsman.

I've played IG since I started 40k in 2002, I started posting on the old RGMW at the same time, and I started disagreeing with John soon after; and I totally have his back on this one. The IG trooper, for sheer game balance reasons, needs to be kept weak. I hate to beat a tired drum, but IG revolve around the heavy and specials, with the lasguns chipping in a bit here and there. The worst part of this discussion is that people seen to think that the basic troops of other races are magically capable. Look at guardians, or DE warriors or even Tactical Marines. To what extent do the basic troops rock, and to what extent do the heavy/special combo do more damage?

there is a unit in 40k with an awesome, long range basic gun with high strength. however, Fire Warriors aren't exactly spammed in tau lists.

The current IG squad is 60 pts. No other army has access to a base squad that cheap that can also take heavies and specials. A price drop will help balance things out (especially with the shift from 1850 to 1500 as the new standard).

People here seem to question what the "IG Essence" is. It's simple: mulitple relatively small, fragile units packing 2 powerful weapons and a bunch of chumps.

We've been using Hellguns like this for a while now:

Standard - R24" S3 AP5 Rapid Fire
Overcharged - R24" S6 AP4 Rapid Fire/Gets Hot!

Works wonders.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:We've been using Hellguns like this for a while now:

Standard - R24" S3 AP5 Rapid Fire
Overcharged - R24" S6 AP4 Rapid Fire/Gets Hot!

Works wonders.

BYE

do you up the price of stormtroopers, or is this just an admission that Stormtroopers are easily 2-3pts overcosted?

People here seem to question what the "IG Essence" is. It's simple: mulitple relatively small, fragile units packing 2 powerful weapons and a bunch of chumps.

This is what the rules have made of it; it doesn't follow that this is all it should be.

GW keeps ratcheting up the costs on Guard heavy/special weapons (lascannons & plasma guns), because they feel there are too many of them. But they don't give us any other way to play the list, so we just pay more for the guns, and trim out even more of the "fun" elements - Guard army construction is a simple exercise in "how many heavy weapons can I fit in this point level, while including 1 counter-assault element and 2 token mobile elements for occasional objective-taking."

This is a horrible approach to what should otherwise be a characterful army.

The IG are not Space Marines. That doesn't mean that they are a bunch of hive gangers, rounded up and issued their weapons Stalin-style. They're not even simple planetary militia. They are a professional fighting force, trained and equipped to the best of their planet's abilities, backed by the best of humanity's armored vehicles, and seconded to the Imperium to confront the overwhelming majority of the dangers that confront Mankind. Show a little respect!

Malfred: the only "mass fire" rule that comes immediately to mind (and would be actually useful) would involve some sort of auto-pinning, e.g., a unit fired on by more than 20 lasguns in a given turn is automatically pinned as they seek cover from the sheer weight of fire.

Or else give markerlight-like benefits for each squad dumping fire into a target....

The IG are not Space Marines. That doesn't mean that they are a bunch of hive gangers, rounded up and issued their weapons Stalin-style. They're not even simple planetary militia. They are a professional fighting force, trained and equipped to the best of their planet's abilities, backed by the best of humanity's armored vehicles, and seconded to the Imperium to confront the overwhelming majority of the dangers that confront Mankind. Show a little respect!

The problem here is that the same description is given to Tau firewarriors and the only reason they get by is due to their 4+ save, guns, and markerlights. Sadly the IG don't get such saving graces.

Wow, ok. The basic IG trooper isn't a conscript bullet catcher, that's what actual, you know, conscripts are for.

Take a quick look at a single Marine shooting at orks. He gets one shot at long range. 1 shot --> 2/3 hit --> 1/3 wound. Now, a single guardsman at the same range. 1 shot --> 1/2 hit --> 1/6 wound --> 5/36 failed saves. In simple, basic gunnery, a marine is just barely twice as good as a trooper, for 2.5 times the price!

It's admittedly tough for lasguns to kill marines (it takes 18 lasgun shots to drop a marine) but it's not like bolters are tearing through marines (it takes 9 bolter shots to drop a marine) either. Now, it's usually trickier to bring that many lasguns to bear compared to bolters, but I think that my point holds.

When compared to Orks, it takes 7.2 lasgun shots to kill an Ork, while it takes 6.75 shoota shots to kill a trooper. That's pretty close, and considering Orks are agressively (if not under) costed, while IG are very conservatively (and most likely over) costed.

My point is twofold: access to heavy and special weapons is an incredibly valuable asset to the IG, while the basic trooper is not as currently valueless as people claim (especially once compared to the basic troopers of other races).

Once the IG drop in cost a little, and the chimera get's its long overdue points drop a la Razorbacks (it is infuriating that the DA can take twin linked lascannon for cheaper then I get a ML/HB) the IG will develope into a more interesting army.

finally, I know you were joking, but as a person with 7000 points of fully painted IG, I have plenty of respect.

By your calculations, the Marine is ~2.4 times better at killing Orks than a Guardsman is. If that's "barely twice as good," then a Marine is pretty much "barely twice the price."

tegeus-Cromis wrote:By your calculations, the Marine is ~2.4 times better at killing Orks than a Guardsman is. If that's "barely twice as good," then a Marine is pretty much "barely twice the price."

A poor choice of words, no doubt. I meant just over twice as good for 2.5 times the price. My point is that it's hard to call lasgun toting IG bad when they are ~42% as good at shooting for 40% the cost. Space marines are at least three times as durable and far better in HtH, but in terms of actually shooting lasguns, IG simply aren't awful.

Something has to be worst. It just does. An IG trooper, as glorious and wonderful as he may be, is a crappier combatent than anything in 40k except grots and possibly spinegaunts. That's just the truth, and it's hard to imporve on the basic IG trooper without upsetting a lot of balance.

Why?

Lets posit-same price. Same stats.
Lasgun A2 R24" Str 3 Ap-

How does this unbalance, well anything?

Is it unbalancing in that it will make the IG too good? No. It's actually a pretty interesting idea. The problem is that it turns the lasgun into a very effective mobile firepower weapon, as well as being twice as good at range.

Let's call these things lasrifles. Lasrifles would be almost as good at 12"-24" stationary as marines with bolters, superior at 12"-24" while moving, and would be far better for moving, shooting, and assaulting. In short, IG could move and shoot quite well at range, on the move. I like the idea of long range guard, I like the idea of short range and assaulty guard, and I like the idea of mobile guard. All three things at once? In the same unit?

Keep in mind that Swooping hawks pay through the nose for lasblasters (and wings and fleet and aspect profile and greandes, but my point remains) and for IG to get them for effectively 1 point (to make up for the long rumoured price drop) would be odd.

The problem here isn't that lasguns are too crappy (they are exactly as crappy as they should be) it's that shootas got too good. The price drop, the range bump, and the switch to assault 2 made them stupidly good. Still, orks can't take reliable heavy weapons in their squads (although they can take a Nob with claw), so it makes a bit more sense that shootas marginally outperform lasguns.

I think I agree with your broader point, which is that IG should be more than stand and shoot. I'm with that 100%, but in an environment where only very elite units get 24" assault 2 basic weapons (termies, GKs, hawks), I'm not sure that's the way to bump up IG's mobility. I'd do that with cheaper chimeras and sentinels, Assault 2 grenade launchers, etc.

I agree with the fact Lasguns arent any good, their modern day equivilant would appear to be glow sticks...

Guard either need to be Cheaper of have slightly better guns in some way-longer range maybe to be of any worth

Something to keep in mind: EVERYTHING you're comparing the Guardsman with is better in HtH than he is. Nearly everything (save the Ork) has a better save than he does.

If the marines and orks would agree to just stand over yonder and trade shots with me at 24", the current lasgun is fine. The problem is that the shoota is coming CLOSER (and let's not neglect the rokkits that are in that essentially fearless mob), and I can't maintain range while shooting.

A drop in points is not a solution here - you can make the Guardsman 2 pts (though the studio would then jack heavy/assault prices through the roof), and it won't fix the issue: you can't get enough of them on-target to have any significant utility. If you try, you cluster so many bodies in so small an area that a single assault unit can chop through half of your army. (And let's not pretend that weight-of-bodies will be any disincentive to an assault army, not when it takes 18 Guardsman to kill 1 MEQ.)

If the IG are meant to be a shooty army, then they need to have the tools to be so. Unless GW really, really wants a pure, static gunline (boring for everyone concerned), some "fix" to allow for mobile firepower is pretty much required.



Note that I don't expect any of this to happen. I fully anticipate a 1 pt drop in the Guardsman, and a 5 pt bump to both lascannons & plasma guns; net effect, zero change. Combined with the return to 3rd ed vehicle pillboxes (with "vehicle cover saves" replacing the mandatory "hull down"), it's a return to 3rd ed guard. Hopefully, we'll at least get semi-useful Ogryn back, and maybe some new horses to go with them.

Storm Lord wrote:I agree with the fact Lasguns arent any good, their modern day equivilant would appear to be glow sticks...

Guard either need to be Cheaper of have slightly better guns in some way-longer range maybe to be of any worth

there is, on this very forum, a serious discussion about if Dire Avengers are a good unit. This is a unit, which, as a base gun, has effectively an 18" assault 3 bolter. This is one of, if not the best, weapon in 40k, and people still argue that it's not worth taking.

What is my point? that all basic weapons suck! Lasguns are the worst (save maybe grot blasters), but there's not much you can do to lasguns to make them much better. To make my point, you can currently buy sharpshooters for any squad. 1pt a model, and they are effectively BS3.5. It's not worth it. Why? Because no matter how good your basic shooting is, it pales compared to your specials and heavies.

Janthkin wrote:Something to keep in mind: EVERYTHING you're comparing the Guardsman with is better in HtH than he is. Nearly everything (save the Ork) has a better save than he does.

If the marines and orks would agree to just stand over yonder and trade shots with me at 24", the current lasgun is fine. The problem is that the shoota is coming CLOSER (and let's not neglect the rokkits that are in that essentially fearless mob), and I can't maintain range while shooting.

And the IG can take a special and heavy in every squad at BS3, something that more then makes up for it. IG can take, enough flamers and pie plates to clear hordes and enough plasma to cut down MEQs at the same time!

Don't get me wrong, i think IG need improved coutner charge elements, and I'm aware that the enemy is coming closer. Fixating on making the lasgun better doesn't fix the problems IG have, it just means slightly better performance from lasguns.

And the IG can take a special and heavy in every squad at BS3, something that more then makes up for it. IG can take, enough flamers and pie plates to clear hordes and enough plasma to cut down MEQs at the same time!

A whirlwind is just as effective at killing Guardsmen, as a battlecannon is at killing Marines (except cheaper, and easier to hide than a Basilisk).

Guard don't need better counter-charge (though Ogryn should be improved back to semi-usefulness). Guard are *weak* to assault, with just enough counter-assault to kill off a small incursion, typically through sacrifice of a unit (Rough Riders/suicidal platoon command squads with plasma/melta/flamers). They need a design theme - either they are supposed to be a boring, purely-static gunline (which makes cheaper grunts marginally better, though I still think net-change will approach zero), OR they need enough effective mobile elements to make a game of it.

(You responded too fast to my last post - I edited in additional thoughts. )

Janthkin wrote:

And the IG can take a special and heavy in every squad at BS3, something that more then makes up for it. IG can take, enough flamers and pie plates to clear hordes and enough plasma to cut down MEQs at the same time!

A whirlwind is just as effective at killing Guardsmen, as a battlecannon is at killing Marines (except cheaper, and easier to hide than a Basilisk).

Guard don't need better counter-charge (though Ogryn should be improved back to semi-usefulness). Guard are *weak* to assault, with just enough counter-assault to kill off a small incursion, typically through sacrifice of a unit (Rough Riders/suicidal platoon command squads with plasma/melta/flamers). They need a design theme - either they are supposed to be a boring, purely-static gunline (which makes cheaper grunts marginally better, though I still think net-change will approach zero), OR they need enough effective mobile elements to make a game of it.

(You responded too fast to my last post - I edited in additional thoughts. )

Two things:

1) I'd argue that boring static gunline is going to be the IG's theme: they've effectiely eliminated the option from Chaos, and Space Marines are next. I don't think it's horrible for the game to have one army with a strong gunline/firebase, etc.

2) I contest that even now, IG are a truley static army. Show me an IG player that never moves, and I'll show you an IG player that loses a lot. There is nothing you can add to the basic guardsmen to make him a truely effective mobile threat. A cheaper transport, coupled with continued access to tons of specials, can make for an interesting mobile shooting army.

Your argument seems to be that IG aren't very good, so giving htem an usual weapon (the lasrifle) will make up for it. You're still counting on 16 S3 shots to accomplish anything, which isn't exactly the path to awesome.

Now, giving stormtroopers an assault 2, 18" S4 ap- gun, and/or allow them a ton of specials, would really, really help add mobile firepower. Allowing armored fists to take two specials and/or shotguns would help. Adding a cheaper rhino/trukk style transport would help. I'd like all of those over the lasrifle.

I wonder if a nice addition might be prepared positions. Perhaps for a small points fee, or even free, guard get a +1 to the cover save and count as being in difficult terrain. Maybe put a little breastworks/sandbag line in front of each unit to represent them digging in and preparing defensive structures.

Ok, probably worth +1 pt per model, but that might help a bit with their survivability, though it would make the static gun line more favorable early game.

I like HBMC's hell-gun upgrade too, since that goes in well with the fluff of over charging/under charging lasguns.
Perhaps every las guns should have 2 settings, one S3 Ap- Rapid fire, then S5 Ap5 Rapid/Gets Hot!. That would be an interesting change, and allow a little more tactical flexibility.

Except everyone would always use the overcharged mode, because what are you shooting at that isn't worth frying a few Guardsmen to kill? In 5th, with Gets Hot! supposedly going back to its 3rd ed. version, you lose what, 1/5th of the Guardsmen firing when you double-tap. A small price to double your kills against T4.

Polonius wrote:

Let's call these things lasrifles. Lasrifles would be almost as good at 12"-24" stationary as marines with bolters, superior at 12"-24" while moving, and would be far better for moving, shooting, and assaulting. In short, IG could move and shoot quite well at range, on the move. I like the idea of long range guard, I like the idea of short range and assaulty guard, and I like the idea of mobile guard. All three things at once? In the same unit?

1. Respectfully how are two shots with BS3 / Str 3 significantly better then 1 shot at B34 / Str 4?
shots BS S to wound T4 wounds
guard 2 0.5 0.33 0.33
marine 1 0.66 0.5 0.33

2. How are two shots at BS3/Str3 AP- better than two shots with BS4/Str4 AP5 at short range?

3. Technically it could help with assault but I'm trying to avoid breaking a rule with a special rule. Rapid Fire weapon is more appropriate with 24" rapid fire range.

1)Well, I said they're almost as good at 12-24, so yeah, they break even on

2) They're not better at short range. They're better at moving, shooting, and assaulting then bolters, because bolters can only do two of those things. If I can double tap and then charge with my IG, they don't become close range beasts but they're pretty good for 6pts.
2 shots 1 hit, 1/3 wound and
2 attacks 1 hit, 1/3
total of 2/3 wound

Marines:
2 shots, 4/3 hit, 2/3 wound or
2 Attacks, 1 hit, 1/2 wound

For being 6 pts compared to 15, I know which one I like better.....

3)if your arguement is that all rapid fire weapons should be able to move and shoot once at 24", I'm in total agreement. I jsut think that that the IG, one of the least rule dependent armies out there, is a bad place to fix that.

If you want to modify and make it a special weapon with a 24" rapid fire range I'd be ok with that.

If models wielding Lasguns always counted as stationary for the purposes of firing, and Guardsmen were 5 pts/model, we'd have a pretty good start.

The IG has something of a problem in that it tries to combine several very different ideas. There's some early generic 'Space Army Men' stuff, the WWI-inspired influence, and other sources. The Gaunt's Ghosts novels added their own influences, and the various detailed legions expand this to countless more influences... Catachans from various 'jungle fighting' influences, etc. Then all the older metals, the Forge World, etc.

To be honest I still feel that IG should be the 'zero point' for 40k, as opposed to the Space Marines. But that's unlikely as we're getting another 'revision' edition.

5pts with Close Order Drill, free Vox-casters and Sharpshooters would be good.

The problem definately seems to be a question of target saturation. You can only get so many guardsmen pointed at the same target, and they are fairly ineffective when they do it. Guardians are S4 AP5, Orks are 18" and Fire Warriors are S5 AP5 30". Everything else is pretty elite, comparatively.

The other thing they could do is get 3 shots when they rapid-fire. I was also thinking 12-15 man squads, since 12 will fit in a Chimera. Ditto the option of two specials. Just to make their role less of a gunline.

Polonius wrote:do you up the price of stormtroopers

Of course not. Stormtroopers aren't worth 10 points in GW's rules.

And even if they were, I wouldn't up the price in them with the overcharge rule, as the Gets Hot! is the balance. It's like a Plasma Gun. Probably worth 15 points on a Marine, but priced at 10 (or, it was priced at 10) because it can kill you. Anything that can kill you just by using it gets a price break.

Our Storm Trooper units are basically:

10 Points Each
WS3 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I3 A1 Ld8 Sv4+
5-10 Storm Troopers
Weapons: Hellgun + Frag/Kraks + Targeter (+1/2 range if stationary)
Options: Up to 4 models can take Special Weapons
Special: Deep Strike, Infiltration, Night Vision, Stubborn

What this means is that they replace Hardened Vets as the designated 'suicide unit', and can be competative in non-Guard armies (like an Inquisitorial Storm Trooper army). One of our aims was to make everything useful. In the current Guard Codex Storm Troopers are not useful. There's nothing that they do that H-Vets can't do better for less or equal points.

The only problem is we've yet to 'nut out' what H-Vets do now...

BYE

Isn't the real core problem this:

If you have an army that relies on concentrating fire from a dozen cheap units onto one expensive enemy unit, you need to have the ability to concentrate that much fire or it won't work. Isn't that why we are talking about increasing their abilities instead?

Possible solution:
Allow guard in 5th to fire through their own units. Use whatever justification pleases you.

I'm working on a homebrew rewrite of the Guard Codex. I haven't had the opportunity to really playtest this to any great extent - it's more for my own amusement. I'll put it up on Dakka's Article system once I've finished.

CK

Hellfury wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The Imperial Guardian should be saddled with what is clearly and unquestionably the worst weapon in game, and that should be a 24" S3 AP- Rapid-Fire gun.

Great point. So guardsmen just need to suck? Thats all they get? Just reduce the point cost and call it a day?

While I agree with you on some level, there has to be more than "I just stand here waiting to die really, thats my job. A placeholder until the spaz marines get here". Giving guardsmen a billion heavy weapons may be effective, but the snoozfest that will ensue will make many IG players happy, I am certain.

That my friends, is TACTICS!

I really hate to not offer a better solution than the one I am criticizing, but I honestly think that the simple cost reduction doesn't trump a more drastic and, frankly, interesting proposal that Janthkin made.

For some insight, I'll ask you how crappy Empire is in WFB. The answer is that Empire is quite good, despite having Men who are utter crap. Empire wins from having good options and good rules built around their Men.

Guard can be the same way. The basic Guardsman is nothing more than a pretty 4-pt wound marker who is lucky if he does cause any damage whatsoever. But he should have access to Heavy & Special weapons at reasonable cost, along with inexpensive Chimera transport for mobility and protection that make him worth much more from a tactical standpoint, especially with his friends supporting him.

jfrazell wrote:Fluffwise one aspect of the guard is overwhelming grunt firepower, not massed heavy weapons (referencing Gaunt, 15 hours, Legion). Its literally the death of a thousand flashlights that does the damage.

Making the guard the red headed step child

I'm not proposing Ginge Guard. I'm proposing a crap Guardsman with good options, in quantity. And while flashlights sound good, I'm guessing your Fluff authors have never actually played Guard for 40k.

Stupid Imperial recruiting posters and propaganda...

Necros wrote:I like the idea of a str 4 hellgun. Personally, for any army I build there's either AP3 or nothing. I rarely take a gun based on it's AP, I take it for it's str, because the higher that is, the more wounds I can cause and the more potential for the other guy to fail a couple.

QFT

I think the las gun debate can be fixed pretty easily.

Make the hellgun worthwhile (S4, or my pick S6 once per game) and offer it as an upgrade to standard IG at 1 point a model.

I think the lasgun profile is too set in everyone's mind to alter it.

A 'suppressing fire' rule causing pinning checks if a unit is shot at 20+ times, regardless of losses, is interesting.

I would like to see the IG get the ability to drop there heavy weapon and be able to take a second special. Then reduce the cost of the Chimera and add to it two fire points out the top for a whole lot of drive by goodness. That would be alot of fun I think.

Centurion.

Janthkin wrote:GW keeps ratcheting up the costs on Guard heavy/special weapons (lascannons & plasma guns), because they feel there are too many of them. But they don't give us any other way to play the list,

Malfred: the only "mass fire" rule that comes immediately to mind

GW ratched up the costs on heavy & special because at the time (3rd Edition), the game revolved around shooting pretty much to the exclusion of anything else. They didn't have to give you another way to play, because there wasn't any other way until 4th Edition, when suddenly the concept of Objectives became important. 5th Edition will have a very different focus (i.e. TROOPS and OBJECTIVES!), so the costs will be redone signficantly. That said, the current IG Heavy and Special costs are OK for BS3. There is no basis for increasing these costs. But the basic Trooper should drop to the equivalent of 4 pts each, and the basic Chimera should be around 50 pts.

The current "mass fire" rule is Torrent. Having to count to 20 for each target would slow the game and be less effective than Torrent. Though, I would say that it would be good for Torrent to also require a Pinning test.

jfrazell wrote:Lasgun A2 R24" Str 3 Ap-

It's unbalancing, because you're raising the bar at the bottom, so naturally, everything else that was better, should be a little better or cheaper. So I would expect more Codex Creep.

Janthkin wrote:Something to keep in mind: EVERYTHING you're comparing the Guardsman with is better in HtH than he is.

If the IG are meant to be a shooty army, then they need to have the tools to be so. Unless GW really, really wants a pure, static gunline (boring for everyone concerned), some "fix" to allow for mobile firepower is pretty much required.

I fully anticipate a 1 pt drop in the Guardsman, and a 5 pt bump to both lascannons & plasma guns; net effect, zero change.

Pretty much everything *should* be better than a basic Guardsman in HtH. And shooting. That's why the Guardsman represents the baseline for the entire 40k universe.

IG are currently stuck as a shooty army, because that is how they were designed in 3rd Edition. The should be rebuilt to allow for mobilty as an alternative, resulting in modern bounding fire teams supported static fire teams.

I'm a bit more sanguine about the likely IG changes. I anticipate a 2-pt drop and no las/plas bump, for a net cost decrease, along with reduced Chimera costs. This would allow Guard to basically mechanize for "free".

Janthkin wrote:They need a design theme - either they are supposed to be a boring, purely-static gunline (which makes cheaper grunts marginally better, though I still think net-change will approach zero), OR they need enough effective mobile elements to make a game of it.

As above, I think the IG need both static gunline *and* effective mobile elements (which are currently lacking).

Wehrkind wrote:I wonder if a nice addition might be prepared positions.

That would be like the Wood Elves getting a "free" Wood in their games. IMO, it's a bad thing because it further encourages the IG into static play, along with encouraging dodgy terrain tactics.

MinMax wrote:If models wielding Lasguns always counted as stationary for the purposes of firing, and Guardsmen were 5 pts/model, we'd have a pretty good start.

Guardsmen are basic, so USRs like S&P would be very bad. Though I could see Ad Mech getting this for their guys...

Balance wrote:To be honest I still feel that IG should be the 'zero point' for 40k, as opposed to the Space Marines.

Totally agreed. More 40k should be Guard-centric, and hopefully, 5th Edition is what makes that happen.

Either Guard or Tau will be next on my list of armies to make. The Guard army I could make would be a Grenadiers/Storm Troopers army, so I'd likely wait till any new codex did come out first, but I would indeed like to see one.

GW ratched up the costs on heavy & special because at the time (3rd Edition), the game revolved around shooting pretty much to the exclusion of anything else. They didn't have to give you another way to play, because there wasn't any other way until 4th Edition, when suddenly the concept of Objectives became important. 5th Edition will have a very different focus (i.e. TROOPS and OBJECTIVES!), so the costs will be redone signficantly. That said, the current IG Heavy and Special costs are OK for BS3. There is no basis for increasing these costs. But the basic Trooper should drop to the equivalent of 4 pts each, and the basic Chimera should be around 50 pts.

The price bump on plasma has been pretty universal. Tie in the reduction in heavy weapons we've seen in the CSM and new SM-variant 'dexes (e.g., 10-man squads required for a heavy weapon, fewer heavies in Terminator squads), and a design shift AWAY from massed heavy weaponry is fairly apparent. Add in the rumored "running" rules, and it looks like you'll have less time to put heavy weapons to use. And if marines can assault out of moving rhinos again....

I'm not as sanguine as you, I guess.

That would be like the Wood Elves getting a "free" Wood in their games. IMO, it's a bad thing because it further encourages the IG into static play, along with encouraging dodgy terrain tactics.

Don't think WE; think Bretonians (and the spikey-things their archers can buy to hide behind). Kind of an interesting idea, but impractical - any sort of Reserves rules would make them useless (or illogical - hard to dig in, when you've not reached the battlefield yet!), which means they won't show up in competitive lists.

Janthkin wrote:The price bump on plasma has been pretty universal.

a design shift AWAY from massed heavy weaponry is fairly apparent.

I'm not as sanguine as you, I guess.

Yeah, but IG already got Plasma bumped for their current Codex. You can't charge the same 15 pts for Plasma on a BS3 Sv5+ model as on a BS4 Sv3+.

Agree. I expect Heavy Weapons Platoons will disappear entirely, with Heavy Weapons squads being attached to Troops. I think this change would be quite positive for the IG, though, with more, larger, and more powerful Troops choices.

I gotta have hope. GW has been selling a ton of IG starting with Apocalypse, so you have to imagine they'll want to convert all of that into 40k play.

Don't think WE; think Bretonians (and the spikey-things their archers can buy to hide behind). Kind of an interesting idea, but impractical - any sort of Reserves rules would make them useless (or illogical - hard to dig in, when you've not reached the battlefield yet!), which means they won't show up in competitive lists.

Either way, probably not a good add for the army, but a great thing for a scenario or mission.

Yeah, but IG already got Plasma bumped for their current Codex. You can't charge the same 15 pts for Plasma on a BS3 Sv5+ model as on a BS4 Sv3+.

But you can charge 10 pts for a BS3 Heavy Bolter, and only 5 for a BS4 one?

Janthkin wrote:

Yeah, but IG already got Plasma bumped for their current Codex. You can't charge the same 15 pts for Plasma on a BS3 Sv5+ model as on a BS4 Sv3+.

But you can charge 10 pts for a BS3 Heavy Bolter, and only 5 for a BS4 one?

For 5th Edition Marines, I think you're mistaken.

Spiky Marines
- Chosen pay 15 pts for a HB
- Regular CSM 10 pts for a HB - if they number 10 or more.
- Havocs pay 15 pts for a HB,

Red Marines
- Tacs pay 10 pts for a HB
- Devs pay 15 pts for a HB.

Perhaps you are using outdated points costs to make your point?

Well considering that even the current Codex Space Marines came out after the current Codex Imperial Guard, I'd say he has some kind of point. A point that's been belabored for the last four years, but a point nonetheless.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Yeah, but IG already got Plasma bumped for their current Codex. You can't charge the same 15 pts for Plasma on a BS3 Sv5+ model as on a BS4 Sv3+.

But you can charge 10 pts for a BS3 Heavy Bolter, and only 5 for a BS4 one?

For 5th Edition Marines, I think you're mistaken.

Spiky Marines
- Chosen pay 15 pts for a HB
- Regular CSM 10 pts for a HB - if they number 10 or more.
- Havocs pay 15 pts for a HB,

Red Marines
- Tacs pay 10 pts for a HB
- Devs pay 15 pts for a HB.

Perhaps you are using outdated points costs to make your point?

Unless, I've missed something, C: SM is still valid, and still includes 5 pt heavy bolters. Moreover, it's still newer than the IG codex, even if it is about to be replaced.

Moreover, there is an obvious historical disconnect between option-pricing across different 'dexes. I disagree that we have anything like enough data to show a change in design philosophy on this matter, and I *can* see them charging 15 pts/plasma gun (and chalking it up to "they're supposed to be rare for the IG" as an explanation...just as they did when they bumped lascannons to 25 and plasma to 10, in the current IG codex).

And thats a nice argument for guard. Have certain weapons being heavily priced. Have other weapons (flamers, grenade launchers, heavy bolters and above all missile launchers) as absolutely dirt cheap in line with their fluff. Plus it separates them. Lascannons are a relative rarity, but TOWmen guys are a dime a dozen.

Janthkin wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Yeah, but IG already got Plasma bumped for their current Codex. You can't charge the same 15 pts for Plasma on a BS3 Sv5+ model as on a BS4 Sv3+.

But you can charge 10 pts for a BS3 Heavy Bolter, and only 5 for a BS4 one?

For 5th Edition Marines, I think you're mistaken.

Spiky Marines
- Chosen pay 15 pts for a HB
- Regular CSM 10 pts for a HB - if they number 10 or more.
- Havocs pay 15 pts for a HB,

Red Marines
- Tacs pay 10 pts for a HB
- Devs pay 15 pts for a HB.

Perhaps you are using outdated points costs to make your point?

Unless, I've missed something, C: SM is still valid, and still includes 5 pt heavy bolters. Moreover, it's still newer than the IG codex, even if it is about to be replaced.

Moreover, there is an obvious historical disconnect between option-pricing across different 'dexes. I disagree that we have anything like enough data to show a change in design philosophy on this matter, and I *can* see them charging 15 pts/plasma gun (and chalking it up to "they're supposed to be rare for the IG" as an explanation...just as they did when they bumped lascannons to 25 and plasma to 10, in the current IG codex).

No, for the purposes of this discussion and argment, C: SM v.4 is NOT a valid basis for argument, because it's successor has been announced and will almost certainly NOT include 5-pt HBs. At this point, it is an obsolete book, and cannot be reasonably used to back-justify other points costs or structures.

And while there is some variance in option pricing, the trend for the v5 Codices is pretty clear: MEQs will pay at least 10 pts for a HB in a 10-man squad, 15 pts if in a 5-man squad.

Finally, the "rare" bit has been gone over by the studio several times: "rare" means "not every Guardsman can have one".

No, for the purposes of this discussion and argment, C: SM v.4 is NOT a valid basis for argument, because it's successor has been announced and will almost certainly NOT include 5-pt HBs. At this point, it is an obsolete book, and cannot be reasonably used to back-justify other points costs or structures.

Whether you like it or not, the v4 C: SM did, in fact, come after the 3.5 IG 'dex. And it did include 5 pt Heavy Bolters in Tac squads (where the IG paid 10 pts/per). All of this is fact.

Now, what you're suggesting (and attempting to limit discussion to - naughty!) is that GW has learned their lesson, and adopted a new pricing philosophy. And, further, that this pricing philosophy will not allow them to charge as much/more for a BS3 weapon (carried by an IG grunt), as they would for the weapon in a SM's hands.

I offered several historical examples of why I don't trust any such perception. (I'll add one more: even the *current* price of a CSM- or BA-carried HB is just equal to what the IG pay for it.)

My position, as clearly as I can state it, is this:

I firmly believe GW will attempt to limit Guard firepower through inflated pricing of the more desirable options (i.e., anything that's AP 2). I accept this as being a more desirable approach than instituting Codex-enforced limitations (e.g., no line squad can take a lascannon), though there are better approaches to addressing this "need," if it must be addressed at all. I fully expect any new Guard 'dex to price every heavy weapon (except Mortars) at the same cost as they charge SM's, or more.

I think given the fairly dramatic shift in codex design, relying on anything before Codex: Eldar is a bit dodgy for any sort of precedent. While GW has seemingly dropped the idea of seperate wargear costs for IC/Sgts, it appears that is based on the fact that 5th edition makes ICs and power weapons a bit better in general.

If you look at the Eldar codex, however, you see prices that keep in mind the inherent qualities of the unit. autarchs only pay 10pts for a power weapon, Scorp exarchs don't have 25pt fists, and Guardians and Warwalkers pay less for heavy weapons then the wraithlord. That all said, the Eldar codex is the first of the new style, and they might try to homogenize wargear costs across later codices.

Orks doesn't really offer a lot to base anything off of, although GW did price Stormboys aggresivly (keeping in mind that they have a 6+ save), and in general pay very little for any heavy weapons.

I share Janthkin's fear that GW will associate "ability to tons of guns" with "we should charge them a lot for guns." To a certain extent that's true: 8 lascannons is more then twice as good as 4 lascannons, for example. Unfortunatly, the current IG trooper is a little overcosted to take this ability into account. The fact that a current SM 6 man las/plas is only 20 pts more than a 10 man IG squad is outrageous. IG have long needed at least a minor cost drop, and I think it's been shown convincingly that SM need a price hike.

On the other hand, GW has taken steps to elminate the SAFH nature of DA and Chaos. This leads to one of two possible conclusions: GW wants to eliminate all shooty armies, particular heavy weapon dependent, long range static shooting; or GW wants to establish IG as being THE long range static shooty army. Right now, I can build a SM with a ton of heavy weapons that are more accurate and more durable than IG weapons, and while I'll be outgunned on turn 1 and 2 compared to IG, the SM guns hang around longer.

Given that Orks got a price drop instead of getting better (I'd rather have choppas then Furious Charge), I don't think GW is going to pooch the IG. DA are the only codex since Eldar to not be competitive, and it has it's supporters.

Finally, while current las/plas IG squad don't need a price hike (they could certainly stand a slight drop), plasma is currently a no brainer, and a reshuffling of points values wouldn't be totally out of line.

What I would like to see, in a perfect world, would be to keep the idea of IG squads being cheap, but not as cheap as you'd think, with access to tons of specials and heavies. For example:
50pt squad, 6pt sgts with access to 5pt power weapons and 10pt plasma pistols
10pt heavy bolter and mortar (make it heavy 2)
15pt ML and autocannon
25pt Lascannon (has to be kept high to prevent it from totally overshadowing the ML)
6pt flamer
10pt melta and grenade launcher (make it assault 2)
15pt plasma

This lowers the cost of las/plas to 90pts which will still be a good deal. However, it allows for 66pt heavy bolter/flamer squads and 60pt melta guns.

Assault 2 grenade launchers and uppriced plasma guns can lead to legitimate decisions, unlike todays "throw more plasma in" philosophy.

Finally, while current las/plas IG squad don't need a price hike (they could certainly stand a slight drop), plasma is currently a no brainer, and a reshuffling of points values wouldn't be totally out of line.

What I would like to see, in a perfect world, would be to keep the idea of IG squads being cheap, but not as cheap as you'd think, with access to tons of specials and heavies. For example:
50pt squad, 6pt sgts with access to 5pt power weapons and 10pt plasma pistols
10pt heavy bolter and mortar (make it heavy 2)
15pt ML and autocannon
25pt Lascannon (has to be kept high to prevent it from totally overshadowing the ML)
6pt flamer
10pt melta and grenade launcher (make it assault 2)
15pt plasma

This lowers the cost of las/plas to 90pts which will still be a good deal. However, it allows for 66pt heavy bolter/flamer squads and 60pt melta guns.

Assault 2 grenade launchers and uppriced plasma guns can lead to legitimate decisions, unlike todays "throw more plasma in" philosophy.

Then we'll just buy 90 pt las/plas squads. No change in status quo.

They tried the "but these other options are cheaper!" route before with the 3.5 dex. And it didn't take root, because for the metagame as it is, las/plas is simply the best possible choice.

If I'm only going to hit once per two shots, those shots have to be as effective as I can make them, which means plasma & lascannons. Anti-infantry weapons I can get on tanks in a more cost-effective manner than in troops squads (Multilaser + Heavy Bolter for 85 pts).

It's not until you get to SERIOUS economy of scale that this calculation changes - I have in mind Ed Maule's 18+ missile launcher Guard army.


If GW wants to actually change the Guard metagame, one or more things needs to occur:

1) Release fewer MEQs and 2+ save nasties. So long as these are the predominant threat, taking any weapon other than a lascannon or plasma gun is suboptimal. The only place las/plas is less effective is in facing horde orks or horde 'gaunts.

2) Introduce Guard mobility. We've talked about this to some degree above. I'd add in another option, though: a 3 special weapon squad option, even if limited to a few types of special weapons, might actually be useful...IF the weapons they've got access to are useful. Foot-slogging flamers & melta guns really aren't, and the current grenade launcher isn't, either. (One of my favorite 3rd ed counter-assault options was the CHQ w/3 flamers in a Chimera; if you score 24 hits on marines, you'll actually kill some of them.)

3) Take AP 2 weapons away from the Guard (or from Guard infantry squads). Lousy option, as it leaves players even fewer reasons to buy the many, many models needed to field a Guard army. Army design will shift to maximize whatever AP 2 firepower remains (3 Demolishers with las/plas; max command squads w/plasma or melta; whatever), and minimum numbers of IG line squads will be used to "unlock" as much useful firepower as is available.

4) Provide a new anti-2+ save HtH nasty solution. Give me a tool in the toolbox that I can use in place of all that plasma to deal with Terminators, Death Company, or monstrous creatures. And it can't cost more than taking the plasma would. Make Ogryn immune to instant death and give the Bone 'ead a powerfist, all for 25 pts/model; give Rough Riders a permanent Power Lance; let me hide a couple Commissars in squads without IC status - something along those lines.

Amen (to honest i was a big fan of ML and AC mix if i wasn't running Storm trooper guard)

Janthkin: I think you're forgetting two factors:

1) With the rise of orks, the continued popularity of Eldar, and the Tau, there are quite a few non- 2+ dependent armies. Chaos lost 2+ save monsters, and the current trend in marine armies is to move away from the 2 AC termie squad (one of the few that's top notch). With a good IG army, it's possible that 40% or even more of armies might be non-MEQ (I dream of course).

2) The impact of 5th edition screening might make rows and rows of las/plas squads obsolete. No matter how many guns you have, if you can't shooot them, they're no good. I think the new codex will have that in mind, and we don't know the impact for now. Additionally, the return of usable transports and a decent GL might bring back the vaunted GL/AC combo for anti-rhino work. If the GL had two shots and the whole thing was only 75pts, that's better then a 95pt las/plas against AV11....

I like your suggestions, but I think it's a little odd to say that the best way to imporve IG is to eliminate MEQ armies.

What I do like is your observation that IG need plasma, because there is no way to deal with high toughness or 2+ enemies in HtH. Outside of RRs (and they're really not that great against nids), there is nothing in the IG codex that can handle them. Ogryn fists would be dreamy, as would affordable Commissars or priests with hidden fists. If I could add a 2 attack fist on a priest to an IG squad for 40pts, I would (that's not that much cheaper than a SM with fist), and I'd add commissars to storm troopers, and even JOs with fists if they ever got a chance to swing.

Guard don't have to be awful at HtH any more than Orks need to be awful at shooting: it's not their forte, but it should be at least some form of option.

As to your #1: I look forward to seeing how Orks shape the metagame; they have several options which AP2 weaponry is still good for, and several builds where more shots would be crucial. But there are few enough Ork players out there, particularly as compared to the combined SM/CSM/Necron collection.

Eldar have a fair number of MEQ-like options themselves; the rest of their stuff isn't worth crippling your AP2 firepower to deal with (though I often include a token AC or two).

For Tau, you want your las/plas to shoot down their tanks and make their (T4 3+ save) suits hide, and to dump fire into broadsides.

I wish you joy of your dreams. It's important to dream....

2) We'll see how the screening rules shape up. Staggered formations and column deployments offer options for exposing your heavy weapons. If the rhino rush has truly returned, the solution is probably STILL the Chimera.



It's not necessary to eliminate Marines; it's necessary for GW to introduce some variety in stat lines. If everything I face is a tin can, they really shouldn't be surprised and dismayed when I select can openers from the army list, and don't take more corkscrews.

(Do keep in mind that my comments, and thought process, are focused on the tournament/competitive "take all comers" environment. It's where I play, and what I plan for; you can always customize your list for a particular opponent, but that's not really a good thing, IMHO.)

Personally what I'd like to see is 4-5pt Guardsmen with an across the board reduction in heavy weapons costs.

Currently, to get an IG heavy weapons team (two guys with a HW) on par with a single heavy weapon marine, they'd need to be 33% cheaper. When comapared with a Chaos marine its almost 50% cheaper if you include CC ability if charged.

Cheaper Stormtroopers would also be required, as right now they are only worth about 7pts for what they do. BS4 4+sv guardsmen just aren't worth 10pts, just as normal guardsmen aren't worth 6. Alternatively they could be buffed to be actually worth 10pts (in which case they'd need a weapon roughly equivalent to a Storm Bolter or DA Catapult). It would also be nice to have these guys as Troops, as they were available as such in 2nd Ed, the 3rd Ed black book list, and in the current list.

A Chimera with side AV 11 and costs no more than 65pts with HB/ML is desperately needed.

Most Imperial Guard vehicles could also use a reduction in cost, especially in relation to other armies units. When you compare a Fire Prism to a Leman Russ for example, they are more survivable (HF/SS) better anti-tank, roughly equal anti-MEQ (BS4 small blast vs Scatter large blast), Better anti-MC and Anti-Terminator, roughly equal anti-infantry, and the Fire Prism is faster and needn't worry about immobilzation on terrain.

Ogryns desperately need a boost, either a greater ability to damage through armor saves, or greater Toughness.

I'd like to see most of the current doctrines remain, and it wouldn't be hard to simply work them into the existing units as simple options.

Sentinels also need a points decrease, compared to every other armies Squadron vehicles they are horrifically overcosted and underperforming.

Advisors need to change, costs need to be brought down and utility increased. As is, the Priest has *NO* place in a guard army outside of Ogryns (which you'd have to take a lot of them to get to the Ogryns), the Psyker just doesn't do much, and the Commissar is primarily a hidden powerfist. The Advisors rule needs to change and such units need to provide greater value.

I voted yes But for no other reason than it would be something new to read. Dont really care if the army was crap before or becomes crapper still.

Polonius wrote:50pt squad, 6pt sgts with access to 5pt power weapons and 10pt plasma pistols
10pt heavy bolter and mortar (make it heavy 2)
15pt ML and autocannon
25pt Lascannon (has to be kept high to prevent it from totally overshadowing the ML)
6pt flamer
10pt melta and grenade launcher (make it assault 2)
15pt plasma

You think a Vet Guard Sergeant is worth 11 points?

You think the ML will ever be taken if its the same cost as the AC? It has to be 10 points, or be some sort of Guided Weapon that never hits on worse than a 3+.

You think a Grenade Launcher is worth 10? Even with 2 shots? In its current form it's worth 4-5 points.

You think 15 point Plasma is worth it on guys with BS3 and a 5+ save?

But as Janthkin said, nothing changes. We just pay more for the Las/Plas squads than we did with the last Codex, just the same as our Las/Plas squads went up with the 3.5. We take one less squad per army and life goes on without any (real) change.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Polonius wrote:50pt squad, 6pt sgts with access to 5pt power weapons and 10pt plasma pistols
10pt heavy bolter and mortar (make it heavy 2)
15pt ML and autocannon
25pt Lascannon (has to be kept high to prevent it from totally overshadowing the ML)
6pt flamer
10pt melta and grenade launcher (make it assault 2)
15pt plasma

You think a Vet Guard Sergeant is worth 11 points?

You think the ML will ever be taken if its the same cost as the AC? It has to be 10 points, or be some sort of Guided Weapon that never hits on worse than a 3+.

You think a Grenade Launcher is worth 10? Even with 2 shots? In its current form it's worth 4-5 points.

You think 15 point Plasma is worth it on guys with BS3 and a 5+ save?

But as Janthkin said, nothing changes. We just pay more for the Las/Plas squads than we did with the last Codex, just the same as our Las/Plas squads went up with the 3.5. We take one less squad per army and life goes on without any (real) change.

BYE

I was talking points off the top of my head, my point is that I think IG should be able to take two kinds of squads: las/plas squads, and anything freaking else. No matter how it has to happen.

I do think that a 2 shot GL would be worth some points. It addresses one of the big holes in the list (lack of mobile firepower) without being overpowered. You can price it at 6 if you want.

I don't think the ML will ever get taken, period. The rule of three applies: any time there are more then three options, those in excess of three will become essentially useless. Mortars and MLs fill no real need for IG right now. They only reason they are used is because people either have old metal models (hey that's me!) and because you can easily build them out of the plastic kits. I like making them twin-linked, but it involves the old "why does the IG have better stuff then Marines?" problem. I'd love them to ignore LOS, or shoot through screening, or any rule to make them viable, but that's not going to happen. Dropping them to 10pts will help, I suppose.

Asking if a model or upgrade is worth it is only useful in the context of the overall unit. Is a 90pt las/plas squad worth it? In the new, combat squad world of 5th edition? Probably. If that's the high end of what las/plas is worth, won't the other options have to be way cheaper? And how cheap would a vet have to be to be useful? Making them standard in squads seems a little odd, but certainly doable. Maybe give Vet Sarges some sort of bonus rule, like a targeter or something.

I'm not sure what people want. They seem to want change, but afraid of any. What would you like the base IG squad to look like?

Asking if a model or upgrade is worth it is only useful in the context of the overall unit. Is a 90pt las/plas squad worth it? In the new, combat squad world of 5th edition? Probably. If that's the high end of what las/plas is worth, won't the other options have to be way cheaper?

See, this is game design theory. Of a sort that GW doesn't seem to practice very often.

Polonius wrote:Unfortunatly, the current IG trooper is a little overcosted to take this ability into account. The fact that a current SM 6 man las/plas is only 20 pts more than a 10 man IG squad is outrageous. IG have long needed at least a minor cost drop, and I think it's been shown convincingly that SM need a price hike.

The 6-pt IG Trooper is overcosted by more than a point, closer to 2 points too much, while the SM is undercosted by a point or two. Also, you should compare 5 SM vs 10 IG. Points-wise, 10 SM with Las / Plas & Rhino will be around 250 pts. So 20 IG with 2 Las / Plas & 2 Chimeras coming in under 250 points isn't too unreasonable.

This leads to one of two possible conclusions: GW wants to eliminate all shooty armies, particular heavy weapon dependent, long range static shooting; or GW wants to establish IG as being THE long range static shooty army.

I'm going to vote for *both*. 5th Edition is going to nullify static shooting as a strategy. But GW will *also* establish IG as the *only* army that can do long-range static shooting.

DA are the only codex since Eldar to not be competitive, and it has it's supporters.

That is within a 4th Edition context. Within a 5th Edition context, DA are going to be fine.

50pt squad, 6pt sgts with access to 5pt power weapons and 10pt plasma pistols
10pt heavy bolter and mortar (make it heavy 2)
15pt ML and autocannon
25pt Lascannon (has to be kept high to prevent it from totally overshadowing the ML)
6pt flamer
10pt melta and grenade launcher (make it assault 2)
15pt plasma

This isn't too bad for a first cut, but...

45-pt squad w/ 5-pt VS. All IG stuff should cost on 5s to keep math simple.
5-pt Mortar w/ Starshells for Night Fighting.
10-pt ML
5-pt Flamer & GL
10-pt Plasma

Janthkin wrote:Then we'll just buy 90 pt las/plas squads. No change in status quo.

With more Orks and cheaper IG, Frag becomes more useful. ML/Plas for 65 pts vs Las/Plas for 80 pts adds up.

Polonius wrote:What I do like is your observation that IG need plasma, because there is no way to deal with high toughness or 2+ enemies in HtH.

Guard don't have to be awful at HtH any more than Orks need to be awful at shooting: it's not their forte, but it should be at least some form of option.

Ogryns need to be better to provide the HtH that they're supposed to. Or give IG Beastmen. And fighting Robots.

Janthkin wrote:It's not necessary to eliminate Marines; it's necessary for GW to introduce some variety in stat lines. If everything I face is a tin can, they really shouldn't be surprised and dismayed when I select can openers from the army list, and don't take more corkscrews.

And that is why I like MLs to be cheaper. S8 AP3 is just as good as S9 AP2 against T4 Sv3+, so the cheaper cost is advantageous. With Tanks getting worse, you won't need as many Lascannons for AV14 work.

Vaktathi wrote:Personally what I'd like to see is 4-5pt Guardsmen with an across the board reduction in heavy weapons costs.

Cheaper Stormtroopers would also be required, as right now they are only worth about 7pts for what they do.

A Chimera with side AV 11 and costs no more than 65pts with HB/ML is desperately needed.

Most Imperial Guard vehicles could also use a reduction in cost, especially in relation to other armies units.

Ogryns desperately need a boost, either a greater ability to damage through armor saves, or greater Toughness.

Sentinels also need a points decrease,

Advisors need to change, costs need to be brought down and utility increased.

Amusingly, I generally agree with pretty much everything you say here.

I'd like 4.5 pt Guardsmen with integral Vox (IG Rites of Battle FTW), but hold or cut Heavy & Special weapons costs

Storms should have Deep Strike and Infiltrate built into their costs, along with S4 AP6 guns.

Chimera *must* be AV12/11/10 and should cost 45 without Turret (10 pts).

IG tanks are slightly overpriced, but it's more important that the Troops cost come down.

Ogryns are suck but need to be better; I propose FNP and Rending CCWs.

Sentinels should gain Deep Strike, Infiltrate, and Scout rules to be super sneaky.

Advisors should be max of 35 pts and W2. I like Priest and Commissar to be (and confer) Fearless, while Psyker is a walking Psychic Hood with a Psychic attack.

Indeed, I mocked up an IG Codex following these ideas a while ago. It's not that hard to get right, so I figure Jervis has something like this already.

Polonius wrote:50pt squad, 6pt sgts with access to 5pt power weapons and 10pt I'm not sure what people want. They seem to want change, but afraid of any. What would you like the base IG squad to look like?

I'd like 4 base IG squads folded under 4 base Platoons:
- Infantry Squad (45 pts; Sv5+ & S3 AP- Lasgun, 1 Heavy, 1 Special, Chimera option)
- Stealth Squad (55 pts; Sv6+ w/ Cameoline & S3 AP- Lasgun, 1 Heavy, 1 Special, Chimera option)
- Grenadier Squad (60 pts; BS4 Sv4+ & S4 AP6 Hellgun, 2 Specials, Chimera option)
- Conscript Squad (35 pts; Sv 6+ & S3 AP- LP&CCW, 2 sub-Specials)

Would my suggestion of adding the heavy stubber to the special weapon selections change things at all?

I definitely agree the main problem is the prevelence of Meqs and the all or nothing nature of AP. If Orks rules the battlefield the grenade launcher would look a lot more appealing. Hey, what if the krak grenade was S6, AP3? Hmm?

Anyway assuming weapon stats stay the same, I see something like:

Flamer 5
Grenade Launcher 5
Melta 10
Heavy Stubber 10
Plasma 15

just pricing by utility. I'd also like to see some option for 2 specials, either storm troops as troops, a fast attack team (maybe on a salamander or even better a new jeep type vehicle) or at a premium for all squads.

Sorry guys, but Plasmas on BS3 Sv5+ guys are not worth 15. They're not even worth 10.

And raising the price, as Janthkin and I have said (and others) changes nothing. It just means we pay more for the same thing. You're not going to change what we take, only the amount in which we take it.

BYE

Ok, here's an odd idea. What if standard guard squads could not take a las cannon, but instead you could buy as a troop choice cheap Heavy Weapons Squads of 5 men/1 heavy that could take a lascannon, plasma cannon or autocannon and "entrench" instead of shooting one turn for a 4+ cover save? Sort of like DoW heavy weapons troopers, or real life machine gun nests. It sort of takes the super spam weapons out of general platoons, but still allows you to get a few if needed (this is on the assumption that infantry platoons can still take a bunch of squads per slot mind you.)

It could work pretty well if it let the lascannon live longer, but still kept the numbers down.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Sorry guys, but Plasmas on BS3 Sv5+ guys are not worth 15. They're not even worth 10.

And raising the price, as Janthkin and I have said (and others) changes nothing. It just means we pay more for the same thing. You're not going to change what we take, only the amount in which we take it.

BYE

You can't say that plasma guns aren't worth 15pts, and then say that people will buy them no matter how much they cost. I think if plasma guns cost 20 pts in the current codex, and nothing else changed, half the weapons for IG would still be plasma. This is due to two reason: Plasma is really good at dealing with MEQs and MCc, and it's also pretty good at dealing with vehicles, light infantry, and pretty much every target in the game. It's the only special with any range that's not tragically underpowered, and it's the main way IG deal with termies and other 2+ save nasties.

The fix needs to be three pronged:
1) adjust the price of plasma so it's no longer a no brainer (and to reflect it's amazing utility) while dropping the base cost for regular IG so that other squad builds (AC/GL, HB/F) can be bought in the numbers to compete.
2) Increase the ability of IG squads to perform in any other role than the sit and fire las/plas. Power Weapons, better grenade launchers, cheaper chimeras, etc.
3) Give IG the tools to deal with 2+ saves in combat: fists, rending ogryn, sentinels with power weapons, etc.

If all three of these happen, and IG las/plas are say 85pts [45+25+15], while Armored fists with double flamer and a power weapon are 65pts [45 base plue 10 for vet with PW and 12 for two flamers] plus a 60pt chimera; I think there is a viable competition. If grenade launchers are A2 and 6pts, a command section with 4 will cost 64pts and get 8 mobile S6 shots. Las/plas will always be the backbone of IG, which is why I'd lower the cost of them. Las/plas isn't just taken because it's good, everything else is laughably overcosted or underpowered.

In the long run, I think yes, Plasma is three times as good as a flamer. It simply is, and simply saying that it's not worth 15 pts on a guardsman ignores that 60pts for 10IG and a plasma would be worth it, as would 85pt las/plas squads

Alternatively, you could price IG squads at 50 and simply give them a Heavy Bolter and flamer standard. Allow a free swap to melta or Grenade launcher, and a 10ptbump to a plasma gun. Allow a free swap for mortar, 10pts for ML or AC, and 20 pts for Lascannon. Allow a Vet for 5pts (comes with shotgun, lp&ccw, and a targeter) that can take 10pt plasma pistol and 5 pt power weapon. Taking a vet allows for advisors, like a 10pt preacher (vet sarge stats) that adds some sort of combat re-roll or rage move and can take a cheap eviserator.

Polonius wrote:You can't say that plasma guns aren't worth 15pts, and then say that people will buy them no matter how much they cost.

True to a point, but it depends on context.

Something is worth whatever anyone is willing to pay for it, so if we'll pay 15 points for a Plasma Gun then yes, 15 points is worth it for a Plasma Gun. But that's artificially jacking the price up on something we were going to use anyway - the demand hasn't gone away or changed, only the price has. But from the context of comparison between the same weapon in other armies, where, say, it's worth 10 points on a BS4 Sv3+ guy (15 if it wasn't for Gets Hot!), then there's no way that the same gun can be somehow worth more on someone who hits less often and dies more easily to overheat.

Wehrkind wrote:What if standard guard squads could not take a las cannon

That would actually 'solve' the problem of people always taking Las/Plas squads because we need Las/Plas squads, but it is a GW solution - solve one problem, create 10 new ones at the same time. That and it's highly arbitrary.

BYE

yes an no. I'd say stick with the current one but add a few tweaks, the increased BS just for lasguns could be good, either that or at least a pt drop per trooper. Also add a bayonet rule, either fights first in first round of combat (extended reach) or counts as two ccws in first round. This should hopefully encourage players to advance troop platoons, or at least give the option to, rather than just digging in all the time. With a load of Commisars hanging around Guardsman would charge anything even if it was suicide.

Die chaos power armoured scum...... *ting*.....bayonet broke.....hmmmmm.....SH&£%(*")"!!!!!!




glllllllllllllllllllllllllluuuuuuuuurrrrrrg

The stubbers would be cool if they give them 18'' assault and 36'' range

I am not saying that one couldn't get a lascannon, just that perhaps it would be trickier. One could lower the points of missile launchers and what ever else to balance it out.

I think the question is really "Is las/plas bad because there is no reason to take anything else?" vs. "Is las/plas bad because it is not fluffy?" If the answer is "yes" to the first you simply have to limit the numbers you can take, or seriously lower the price/effect of other options. As you said, they seem to be needed at any price.

If the answer is yes to the second, my idea works, so long as you lower the price of other options to balance things out.

I think the question is really "Is las/plas bad because there is no reason to take anything else?" vs. "Is las/plas bad because it is not fluffy?" If the answer is "yes" to the first you simply have to limit the numbers you can take, or seriously lower the price/effect of other options. As you said, they seem to be needed at any price.

If the answer is yes to the second, my idea works, so long as you lower the price of other options to balance things out.

The solution to the first question is NOT to "simply limit the numbers you can take." The solution is to provide some other viable option.

And there's no reason why las/plas has to be unfluffy; the IG is the most diverse fighting force in the 40k universe, with primitive cultures using steam-powered tanks through the most advanced technology available in the Imperium.

True that. Again Another method is to make other items insanely cheaper.

ML's- 8

Autocannons- 6

GL's - 5 (krak grenade at AP 3)

that sort of thing. If I can have four ML's to one lascannon I'll take the 4 MLs if I can.

Yes...but don't forget the "total cost of ownership" factor.

Currently, a lascannon costs 25, and a ML costs 15, so you get 3 MLs for every 2 lascannon, right? Wrong.

You have to buy the squad carrying the thing, so you're paying 75 vs 85, so now you only get 9 ML squads vs 8 lascannon squads, and the 8 lascannon squads offer (mathematically) vastly superior performance.

You have to crank the cost of a lascannon insanely high (approaching 100% of the squad cost) before the value equation shifts enough to justify another weapons choice.

The equation changes for squads with multiple heavy weapons, of course, as the "discount" price of multiple MLs is a more substantial portion of the total cost of the squad.

all these are great ideas but I just feel like GW is gonna dumb down the codex and make the new models super powerful and nerf everything else. :(

Janthkin: Sorry, that "or" should be an "and". I had written the sentance completely differently, the rewrote a big chunk, and didn't fix that.

I am not trying to say las/plas is not fluffy. I am just saying if the issue isn't that all las/plas is over powered, but rather that one simply doesn't want everyone to use it, you need to come up with why they only use some las, and model that as a unit, cutting las from the rest.

The main problem I see is that las/plas are undercosted for what they do compared to other guns. There is a breaking point where things become REALLY good, mostly AP2 or S9+. The lascannon in particular needs to cost a fortune, but as you point out the total cost of ownership is not that much different after you account for the rest of the squad, % wise.

So how do you make the total cost of ownership of MLs significantly better than LC? You can either make the LC crazy expensive like you said, lower the price of the ablative wounds, or lower the required number of bodies per squad.

Or. perhaps allowing different numbers of weapons per squad would work out. Would you take 2 ML in a 10 man squad instead of 1 LC if the price was comparable?

It occurs to me that what is happening is that we are building the guardsmen squad around the weapon, not adding a weapon to help a squad be good at something. Since the individual IG is not much good, the balance point seems to be moved very far towards "How many guardsmen does it take to shoot a lascannon?"

So, simple fix... move heavy weapons squads to troops. Or something similar? There is nothing points wise to do with the lascannon vs. ml vs. auto cannon that will make the price more than 10-20% of the squads total, as Janthkin points out. (Excellent point by the way!)

True. of course the min/max concept reflects the view that we're talking ablative armor for most lists.

Wehrkind wrote:Janthkin: Sorry, that "or" should be an "and". I had written the sentance completely differently, the rewrote a big chunk, and didn't fix that.

I am not trying to say las/plas is not fluffy. I am just saying if the issue isn't that all las/plas is over powered, but rather that one simply doesn't want everyone to use it, you need to come up with why they only use some las, and model that as a unit, cutting las from the rest.

The main problem I see is that las/plas are undercosted for what they do compared to other guns. There is a breaking point where things become REALLY good, mostly AP2 or S9+. The lascannon in particular needs to cost a fortune, but as you point out the total cost of ownership is not that much different after you account for the rest of the squad, % wise.

So how do you make the total cost of ownership of MLs significantly better than LC? You can either make the LC crazy expensive like you said, lower the price of the ablative wounds, or lower the required number of bodies per squad.

Or. perhaps allowing different numbers of weapons per squad would work out. Would you take 2 ML in a 10 man squad instead of 1 LC if the price was comparable?

It occurs to me that what is happening is that we are building the guardsmen squad around the weapon, not adding a weapon to help a squad be good at something. Since the individual IG is not much good, the balance point seems to be moved very far towards "How many guardsmen does it take to shoot a lascannon?"

So, simple fix... move heavy weapons squads to troops. Or something similar? There is nothing points wise to do with the lascannon vs. ml vs. auto cannon that will make the price more than 10-20% of the squads total, as Janthkin points out. (Excellent point by the way!)

We went into the underlying premise behind this a few pages back: basically, can you do something to make the basic IG grunt a useful entity in and of himself? I suggested a number of things; others suggested that it was silly to do so, as the Guardsman should be the pinacle of pathetic in the 40k universe, purchased only for his ability to bring heavy weapons along. That latter viewpoint evolved the conversation in this direction.

We're going to get a new codex if we like it or not.

Jervis knows whats good for you.



Personally, I feel that the codexes could have all been combined and the crap fluffed through. To accent One regiment at the expense of Flavor of the Month does the whole concept of the " Codex" a disservice.
To give squads options shouldn't be a dirty word. Las/Plas runs most tables, but in the grand scheme of things, had they given more thought to the Gurad, we could actually have a pretty good game with a bit of an exception to the poorly written " One HQ, Two Troop" abortions that most games quickly minimax to.

No options for giving the " HQ" to someoens else besides a officer? well.... Techprists, Inquisition, PDF, Gangs, mech armies, Titans, orbital bombardment, large scale Laviathans, etc....
The IG is the old school russians types from Enemies at the Gate. Picks up the rifle from the one that falls....
More options is a better option.

Janthkin wrote:can you do something to make the basic IG grunt a useful entity in and of himself?

Yes, you can! You can have some number of indvidual Guardsmen serve as the 2nd crewman on a Heavy Weapon. Other than that, the most valuable stat of a Guardsman is W1.

Personally, I would never even consider plasma in IG, never mind model the stuff. Two reasons:

1) to me logically, a las pistol = technology availble to make a bigger version - Lascanon, fits in fluffwise. If so many guardsman can have a standard size gun then logically it's 'simple' technology, and so more readily availble in bigger options. Plasma is more specialised, and in 40K still 'experimental' (They still havn't fixed that bloody over heating!). If technology is dangerous, valuable, rare and hard to come by then surly it's reserved for more elite armies, e.g. marines. Why give it to the grunts that in reality are a flesh screen for the big guns? Just doesn't fit in my mind. Before you start screeming at me, I'm not saying IG don't have Plasma weapons, just that in a standard IG army of maybe 100 tropps, the chance that a tiny proportion of the regiments (of millions) is going to have one, never mind 3 or 4 plasma weapons is extreemly low and I think if they have a few availble they would probably be given to the 'body guard' of the regiments command, and knowing the guard this would be several miles behind the front line were the guns wont be effective anyway.

2) I hate the things! Used to always have at least one cannon and two pistols in my marine army, out of two games I'd literally get about one shot form them. There's somethingabout me, plasma weapons and 1's on dice! I've had too many commanders and sergeants die from over heating guns now and just won't risk it on marines, never mind IG that can't hit that green tide charging towards them at point blank range.

I actually feel lasconnons etc. are priced OK. I've just done up my new army list and what I wanted to include actually fitted neatly into 1500. Ity wasn't easy selecting lasconnons over the other options as that 5 pt difference over several choices (support squads, plus the options of tank upgrades) means that not taking them allows nearly enough points for another squad or tank. The only 'improvement' I would make is to make guardsmen able to deal out a bit more damage in the first round of combat, a lasgun with bayonet (still able to fire while having it atached) equates to a spear or something in fantasy, orks, nids etc. are are probably dumb enough or suicidal enough to charge a line of spears, those that arn't well, that's the players choice then.... Once the squishy troopers behind the guns are reached it's all over. I just think this would encourage more people to take far more 'standard troopers' than taking the minimum and a load of other juicy things. Yes you need the odd tank and anti tank squad, it's inevitable, but there should be a much higher troop to tank ratio than there is now, and part of the reason is that IG need big guns to do most of the work. I do understand there will be a problem against more mechanised armies as lasguns are pants, but allow support squads to take demo charges or melta bombs. You could also argue that guard would deploy a relevant detachment to deal with the threat, the players the commander, so if you know your regular opponent is Chaos marines, then it's up to the player to take lots of las canon or go for a mechanised detachment.

Sorry if that was a bit ranty, I just get a bit fed up of all the codexes being so pick and mix, I agree fluff wise armies would be boring to play with, but at the same time, I feel the game should be a bit more reflective of the fluff (or the other way around) rather than just pick what you like best and the codex is so flexile you can fit it in. Takes the challenge away from building up an army. You do get power gamers, and people that theme armies, but I bought mine at Christmas to make a themed army, boutght models I liked thinking I'll just add in bits at a later date to make it legal, but guess what...all I need is one troops squad more, all the other tasty models fit in easily with room to spare. Just seemed far to easy in my mind. There was more of a challenege (if only small) back in 2nd when it went on % rather than this curent slots option. Anyone who collects to play with a little experience know and army of just heavy support is difficult to win with and can be rather bland....they want a bit f option, not any option....

Few, that was a bit long!

Feel free to turn all I said to rubish with better arguments, just my personal tastes.....and they're not changing anytime soon, and I'll stick to them with my own force

That's why I suggested that it would be an idea to have certain hi-tech weapons require the presence of a model with the Blessing of the Omnissiah, like an Enginseer, in a Command Squad before that platoon could be equipped with them.

covenant84 wrote:If technology is dangerous, valuable, rare and hard to come by then surly it's reserved for more elite armies, e.g. marines

Wrong.

Plasma Guns are rare insofar as they cannot give one to every single Guardsman. Plasma Guns are so rare infact that they can usually only have one per squad.

That's how rare they are. They're not 'Wow! A Plasma Gun! Haven't seen one of those in years' rare. They're 'I wish we could give one to everyone rather than just one in every 10 of you' rare.

BYE

Besides - what about the 40k background would make anyone believe that the Imperium cares whether plasma guns overheat and kill their users?

Welll, I think there is fluff and background to back up a claim that plasma guns are rare (or at least operational plasma guns are rare) to the point of being far less then 1 per 10, and closer to 1 per platoon or somesuch. They are genuinely hard to get and maintain, and only higher tech regiements will field them in large numbers (according to the fluff).

On the other hand, according to the fluff, IG will mostly fight: 1) other IG, 2) Orks, and 3) Lost and the Damned. I feel bad about fielding rare tech in high numbers, but then I fight two Marine armies and a Necon army. Or i'll fight an eldar army led by Eldrad, who is not only singular (And thus very rare) but is actually dead.

I don't want to steer anyone away from creating their lists the way they want, but keep in mind that any IG regiement on a 40k tabletop represents a company being given an important and difficult mission, and thus it's perfectly acceptable that they would be loaded to the gills with the best stuff the imperium has.

Or i'll fight an eldar army led by Eldrad, who is not only singular (And thus very rare) but is actually dead.

That is probably my favorite line all week.

Nurglitch's idea of making certain subsets of weapons "Omnisiah tech" or something might not be a bad one. As much as I don't like having to take X unit to take Y other unit, usually because X blows goats for pocket change, it might make a certain amount of sense in this case.
Alternately, you could have "Standard weapons" groups and "elite" weapons groups, where the elite weapons either require an upgraded squad leader to field, or perhaps even making a new troop choice "specialist weapons squad" which is a little more expensive, but can take lascannons, plasma things and maybe... I don't know, whatever flavor of death ray seems good.

If one were going to use the current codex format of listing every option with the unit type's entry, you could perhaps have Standard Squad which could take the basic weapons (ML, AC, Flamer) and could buy options like Light Infantry or whatever. Then have another troop type Specialist Squad with the fancy weapons, and different options, maybe +1 BS, hell guns or whatever makes sense fluff wise. The specialists would cost more than the standard grunts, and can be made more "elite" in different ways, but the normal grunts could be dirt cheap and still field and effective array of weapons.

In this way, you increase the total cost of a lascannon while decreasing that of a missile launcher, and offer two different directions for the army: cheap horde of guys, elite high tech mo-fo's, or some combination. Three different directions.
After that, you could add bonuses to units for different battle field roles to further make your army special or flexible.

I must admit, I feel it would be unfair to limit IG's access to plasma and lascannon weaponry just because they are supposedly rare in the fluff. I don't see that same kind of logic in any of the other codexes. Do we charge more points per space marine because they are rare? No, in fact GW underprices them.

Points are supposed to represent battlefield effectiveness and nothing else, although I am the first to admit that GW rarely follows their own rule.

Personally, I agree with HBMC, rare means 1-2 per squad, not 1 per sector.

Like your idea Wehrkind. I'd add heavy stubber and heavy bolter to the standard weapons group.

covenant84 wrote:Personally, I would never even consider plasma in IG,

1) Plasma is more specialised, and in 40K still 'experimental' (They still havn't fixed that bloody over heating!). If technology is dangerous, valuable, rare and hard to come by then surly it's reserved for more elite armies, e.g. marines.

The only 'improvement' I would make is to make guardsmen able to deal out a bit more damage in the first round of combat, a lasgun with bayonet

No, Plasma is mass production, but wonky. Like a Ford Pinto. As GW has repeatedly said, Plasma is only "rare" from the standpoint that you can't fit an entire army with them.

The bayonet thing is utter nonsense. A meat popsicle doesn't become a threat to an Ork (or anyone ekse) by attaching a little bit of sharp metal to the end of his flashlight. In HtH, Guard get bent over *hard*. That's how it is, that's how it should be.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Plasma Guns are rare insofar as they cannot give one to every single Guardsman. Plasma Guns are so rare infact that they can usually only have one per squad.

Exactly right!

Polonius wrote:Welll, I think there is fluff and background to back up a claim that plasma guns are rare (or at least operational plasma guns are rare) to the point of being far less then 1 per 10, and closer to 1 per platoon or somesuch.

They are genuinely hard to get and maintain, and only higher tech regiements will field them in large numbers (according to the fluff).

On the other hand, according to the fluff, IG will mostly fight: 1) other IG, 2) Orks, and 3) Lost and the Damned. I feel bad about fielding rare tech in high numbers, but then I fight two Marine armies and a Necon army.

Um, where is this referenced?

Obviously, most of us are fielding higher-tech regiments.

Even against enemy IG, Orks, and Traitors, Plasma is still useful to pop Chimeras, drop Nobs, and stop big stuff.

Wehrkind wrote:Nurglitch's idea of making certain subsets of weapons "Omnisiah tech" or something might not be a bad one.

As long as the incremental cost of the (now) mandatory Omnimessiah tech is inconsequentially trivial and insignificant, I'm all for it. IOW, Command Platoon has "1+ Omnimessiah Tech (full Enginseer stats for 10 pts, no FOC impact)." If the IG are recosted properly, I'd be willing to see the cost bump up to, say 20 or 25 pts. But the idea that the IG should be penalized in any measurable way is nonsense:

IG troopers exist to carry Heavy and Special Weapons, no more, no less.

The remaining dog soldiers are merely ablative wounds to ensure that the all-important Heavy and Special Weapons continue to fire unimpeded.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Janthkin wrote:can you do something to make the basic IG grunt a useful entity in and of himself?

Yes, you can! You can have some number of indvidual Guardsmen serve as the 2nd crewman on a Heavy Weapon. Other than that, the most valuable stat of a Guardsman is W1.

If I wasn't actually forced to assemble, model and paint every one of those useless meatshields, I'd be perfectly content to accept they have no battlefield role. Maybe GW should consider just equipping each squad with a heavy weapon team and 8 "grunt markers".

I think the way this poll is worded is extremely biased and misleading and is skewing the results. For shame Kyoto! The question should have been phrased thus: "Do we want to toss the current IG codex in trash and go back to using the previous version from early 3rd edition?" Fix it posthaste!

Agamemnon2 wrote:If I wasn't actually forced to assemble, model and paint every one of those useless meatshields, I'd be perfectly content to accept they have no battlefield role. Maybe GW should consider just equipping each squad with a heavy weapon team and 8 "grunt markers".

If it makes you feel any better, my Guardsmen are in painted in fine-detailed camo, and I have well over 100 IG troopers. Of course, mine are all metals, so there's less assembly involved, but you get the idea.

Reading the Departmento Munitorium book, the idea of having to have a Techpriest around before people can use Plasma Guns doesn't make a lot of sense.

The AdMech don't control the weapons like that. The DM does, and they handle all the procurement, distribution, requisition and replacements. There's no sense of great reverence around any weapons as though they're rare. The only thing that is apparent is that weapons and equipment are regarded as more important than the lives of Guardsmen. There are actually punishments Guardsmen can undertake for saving fallen troopers over fallen equipment.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:If I wasn't actually forced to assemble, model and paint every one of those useless meatshields, I'd be perfectly content to accept they have no battlefield role. Maybe GW should consider just equipping each squad with a heavy weapon team and 8 "grunt markers".

If it makes you feel any better, my Guardsmen are in painted in fine-detailed camo, and I have well over 100 IG troopers. Of course, mine are all metals, so there's less assembly involved, but you get the idea.

Just venting, i know it's the same for every Guard army, really. Mine aren't in unified camo, at least, which makes it more fun for me, as the army represents a penal legion drawn from numerous regiments.

Looking back at it, doing detailed camo for Guard was probably a mistake simply because of the sheer numbers. But it looks pretty good, so that's OK.

The idea of assembling multi-pose Cadians or Catachans in bulk is crazy. Those IG models should be simplified radically to really make the army viable for newcomers.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

open_sketchbook wrote:Guardsmen should have BS4 when firing lasguns. Taking heavy weapons in platoon squads should require a doctrine, or simply not be an option.

Um, Guardsmen could be auto-hit with their S3 AP- Lasguns and they'd still be crap for shooting.

Ha! Right on the nail there dude.

For my 2cents yes they need a new dex - given that Orks are now reduced to 6 points Im going to go out on a limb here ( ) and suggest that Guard should be more appropriately pointed, prob similar to what the conscripts are now - 4pts per model but with an increased cost for the heavy and special weapons. This would allow silly gimps like me to then have a huge, but viable infantry army.

Current competitive lists generally favour tanks tanks and more tanks, and with the new scoring units system I believe Guard need a little boost, though a simple reduction in points will prob cut it.

As for doctrines, I like everyone else here expect them to go. And I wouldnt be surprised if the simply get binned.

These cheaper weapons sound like a good idea, but i think you guys are forgetting a fundamental thing about guard. You buy the squad THEN you buy the heavy weapons.

so while what you say is awesome it means you'd have to spend a considerable more amount on already a expensive army. Maybe including advanced training into the points be interesting like 6 point BS 4 guard?

If they get a new codex they need plasma cannon and multimelta gun platforms!!!

Here's an idea:

Instead of Veterans being assigned to their own squads, why not allow players the option to upgrade the special and heavy weapon troopers to veterans in the regular squads?

Something like this:

9 Guardsmen plus sergeant - 40 Points
May upgrade up to three guardsmen to veterans for +3 points each.

glowgos, I don't know many people who'd complain about the added expenditure. How many Ork players did you hear bemoaning the fact that their boys are now a mere 6 pts. each? Not many, I bet.

with the ork box you get eveything you need special weapons and heavys. 20 orks is £24. 20 men is £38 with a box of heavy weapons to make them "viable."

I thinks its a considerable difference. even if you do get a free heavy weapon. anyway since this is a nice chat about rules.....

maybe a upgradable veteran seargant? because they will probably get rid of skills and drills.

Marksmen: BS4 15 points
woodsman: counts as auspex and allows infiltrate 10 points.
CQB tactics: 2 special weapons. 2 points
Old criminal: furious charge 5 points

Orks only got that set with their new dex. There's no reason to think IG necessarily wouldn't get an equivalent bargain.

You're the one who raised the issue of cost as a reason for a points reduction being undesirable. I'm engaging you in kind.

It will be interesting to see which way GW goes if they make a new set. Itl be more intresting if they make greatcoat guard .

just looking at the Army lists section of dakka there seems to be more interest regarding guard. So maybe their sales are going up.

on the subject of a points drop id like to see it if their was more room to maneuver with those points, not just cramming in a few more squads.

HBMCs suggestions are excellent particularly the new platoon structure and special rules such as the medics

glowgos wrote:so while what you say is awesome it means you'd have to spend a considerable more amount on already a expensive army.

Maybe including advanced training into the points be interesting like 6 point BS 4 guard?

I own something like 4000 pts of Guard, so I wouldn't have to spend another penny. Instead I would be able to field more of the stuff that I already own. That sounds like WIN to me.

Not interested. Guard aren't worth 6 pts, and they don't need or deserve BS4. They are fodder. Dog soldiers. Faceless grunts. Meatsacks. Guard should be dirt cheap and plentiful at 4-5 pts per model.

The Guard are the Imperium's main professional military force, trained and equipped with some of the best weapons in His Galaxy.

And they're BS3.

If they weren't trained, they'd be BS2, just like conscripts are. So this is one of those times where Jonny Boy and myself will agree - Guard are so good at what they're do that they're given BS3. Only the truly 'special forces' types in the Guard (Stormies, H-Vets) gain the same level skills as Marines, who are BS4.

BYE

Hellfury wrote:@sebster:
Its funny how you mention fixing orks.
They gave them double tapping assault shootas, AND lowered the cost.

But I do agree with how IG should be made more unique. Though I am sure the counter argument to that will be from someone quoting the military disdain for unique butterflies.

Sorry for the late reply…

Yeah, that was the solution for the orks. Give their shooting units a decent amount of firepower at medium range, and allow them to run forward while doing it. The point is, people wanted fleet, or BS 3 or a range of other benefits that would make the army competitive, while ignoring the basic character of the army.

The basic character of the guard army is a wall of plain old humans. They’re simply outclassed in the insane world of 40K and anything that makes the basic trooper the equal of his enemies is missing the point. Meanwhile maintaining the current viable list, static units filled with heavy and special weapons, will only continue to make guard boring to play with and against. It sounds like quite the conundrum until you think about what’s really happening in all that 40K fluff... those troops really are outclassed but they win anyway. They win because awesome heroes do just the right thing at just the right time to swing battles.

Fix the special characters, get commissars, monks, enginseers, psykers and all the rest some really useful, game changing abilities. Abilities that allow them to turn mediocre guard units into deadly opponents, if only for the critical turn. Abilities that let a guard unit heroically auto-pass a moral check, allowing nearby units to escape and prevent the collapse of an entire flank.

That to me, is really the core of the IG, and sounds like the best way to make them a really cool army to play.

Janthkin wrote:

Yeah, but IG already got Plasma bumped for their current Codex. You can't charge the same 15 pts for Plasma on a BS3 Sv5+ model as on a BS4 Sv3+.

But you can charge 10 pts for a BS3 Heavy Bolter, and only 5 for a BS4 one?

Sure you can, depending on the squad the weapon is placed in. If it's a 50 or 60 point guard unit, 10 points is more than reasonable. If itis a (minimum) 75 point unit, and more likely to be somewhere between 90 and 150 points, then the heavy weapon that suddenly makes that squad a stationary unit should be a lot cheaper.

Ultimately, you have to look at how a whole list functions, not just compare the points cost of individual heavy weapons, or the

sebster wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Yeah, but IG already got Plasma bumped for their current Codex. You can't charge the same 15 pts for Plasma on a BS3 Sv5+ model as on a BS4 Sv3+.

But you can charge 10 pts for a BS3 Heavy Bolter, and only 5 for a BS4 one?

Sure you can, depending on the squad the weapon is placed in. If it's a 50 or 60 point guard unit, 10 points is more than reasonable. If itis a (minimum) 75 point unit, and more likely to be somewhere between 90 and 150 points, then the heavy weapon that suddenly makes that squad a stationary unit should be a lot cheaper.

Ultimately, you have to look at how a whole list functions, not just compare the points cost of individual heavy weapons, or the

Given that the troops are less accurate, more likely to flee, are just as stationary as marine units firing it, easier to kill, can't fight for crap in CC, and pass less target priority tests as well? don't forget the fact that the basic guardsmen is also univerally acknowledged as overcosted as well.

Also keep in mind that many Marine armies field just as many heavy weapons as many guard armies do. Hell, with the current vanilla marine codex you can slap in 26 heavy weapons (twelve infilitrating or tank hunting) on 80 marines with a power weapon Master to give them all Ld10.

Vaktathi wrote:Given that the troops are less accurate, more likely to flee, are just as stationary as marine units firing it, easier to kill, can't fight for crap in CC, and pass less target priority tests as well? don't forget the fact that the basic guardsmen is also univerally acknowledged as overcosted as well.

Also keep in mind that many Marine armies field just as many heavy weapons as many guard armies do. Hell, with the current vanilla marine codex you can slap in 26 heavy weapons (twelve infilitrating or tank hunting) on 80 marines with a power weapon Master to give them all Ld10.

When this conversation is in regards to a future IG codex, which will be released after a revised marine codex, the weaknesses of the current guard codex relative to the current marine codex couldn't be less relevant.

Yeah, the current IG codex is pretty weak but that has nothing to do with your question or my reply. You asked if you can charge more points for a weapon upgrade in one army than in another army with a higher BS... and the answer is yes, you can. The points cost of a weapon depends on the base price of the squad, the abilities of each squad and the abilities they're giving up to use the weapon, the role of each squad in their respective armies, the necessity of the weapon in each army and the desired proliferation of the weapon in each army.

So in terms of a new IG codex, it would depend on the base price of guardsman (if they stay at 6 points there better be a discount on heavy weapons, but if they're cut to 4 or 5 points then the heavy weapons should stay about the same).

I think we desparatly need a new codex. The current list is so weak. Everyone seems so swear by this mech army, which I think is lame. With the new rules coming out that will be nerfed horribly. There are so many units
(Advisors, ogryn, rats, RR, chimeras, HW's, storm troopers, IC) that need to be redone.

sebster wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Yeah, but IG already got Plasma bumped for their current Codex. You can't charge the same 15 pts for Plasma on a BS3 Sv5+ model as on a BS4 Sv3+.

But you can charge 10 pts for a BS3 Heavy Bolter, and only 5 for a BS4 one?

Sure you can, depending on the squad the weapon is placed in. If it's a 50 or 60 point guard unit, 10 points is more than reasonable. If itis a (minimum) 75 point unit, and more likely to be somewhere between 90 and 150 points, then the heavy weapon that suddenly makes that squad a stationary unit should be a lot cheaper.

Ultimately, you have to look at how a whole list functions, not just compare the points cost of individual heavy weapons, or the

2 things:

1) Context. Go read the post I was responding to, and see the assertion that GW would never charge 15 pts for a BS3 plasma gun, when a BS4 one for marines is only 10. My only point (excuse the pun) is that GW rarely feels constrained in pricing items by what other armies pay for them.

2) The role played by a shooty marine squad and a shooty Guard squad is identical - stand still and fire the big guns. As it happens, under the current rules, Marines are both better at the task (more hits/point) and more survivable by far while they are doing it. This is a design problem that GW should understand and address in creating a new Guard codex.

smart_alex, without going into the truth of such claims, isn't the current received wisdom that (in 4th) infantry-heavy las/plas spam is the strongest list? I don't see a whole lot of mech lists posted.

sebster wrote:The basic character of the guard army is a wall of plain old humans. They’re simply outclassed in the insane world of 40K and anything that makes the basic trooper the equal of his enemies is missing the point. Meanwhile maintaining the current viable list, static units filled with heavy and special weapons, will only continue to make guard boring to play with and against. It sounds like quite the conundrum until you think about what’s really happening in all that 40K fluff... those troops really are outclassed but they win anyway. They win because awesome heroes do just the right thing at just the right time to swing battles.

Fix the special characters, get commissars, monks, enginseers, psykers and all the rest some really useful, game changing abilities. Abilities that allow them to turn mediocre guard units into deadly opponents, if only for the critical turn. Abilities that let a guard unit heroically auto-pass a moral check, allowing nearby units to escape and prevent the collapse of an entire flank.

That to me, is really the core of the IG, and sounds like the best way to make them a really cool army to play.

This isn't a bad idea per se, but is hard to implement rules-wise. I suggest that Vox be made "FREE", and that Commissars / Priests / Standards confer Fearless. That means that the Guard will be more likely to stand and fight to the last man, no running.

But really, a static wall of Guard still won't win in the new environment of mobility and objectives. At a minimum, Guard need much cheaper and more survivable Transports - Chimeras for around 50 points with AV11+ on the sides. Supplement that with non-overpriced Valkyrie Transports providing taxi service, and the Guard might do OK. Otherwise, the Guard won't have sufficient mobility to take objectives.

Of course, Guard mobility is rather fragile, or else overpriced due to being overgunned for the role, so the other overpriced parts of the list need to come down in cost to allow for an adequate overall force.

sebster wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Yeah, but IG already got Plasma bumped for their current Codex. You can't charge the same 15 pts for Plasma on a BS3 Sv5+ model as on a BS4 Sv3+.

But you can charge 10 pts for a BS3 Heavy Bolter, and only 5 for a BS4 one?

Sure you can, depending on the squad the weapon is placed in. ...

Ultimately, you have to look at how a whole list functions, not just compare the points cost of individual heavy weapons, or the

Note that this was demonstrated to be an apples-and-oranges points cost comparison between low 4th edition SM points vs expected 5th edition IG points. If the points are to be compared fairly, 5th edition DA / BA / (pending) SM points costs must instead be used. In this case, SM always pay 15 pts for Plasma Guns, which is fair when you compare against how IG had their Plasma costs bumped to 10 pts in their most recent Codex.

Janthkin wrote:2 things:

1) Context. Go read the post I was responding to, and see the assertion that GW would never charge 15 pts for a BS3 plasma gun, when a BS4 one for marines is only 10. My only point (excuse the pun) is that GW rarely feels constrained in pricing items by what other armies pay for them.

2) The role played by a shooty marine squad and a shooty Guard squad is identical - stand still and fire the big guns. As it happens, under the current rules, Marines are both better at the task (more hits/point) and more survivable by far while they are doing it. This is a design problem that GW should understand and address in creating a new Guard codex.

Yeah, that’s right, GW doesn’t feel constrained by the pricing of upgrades in different units. Nor should they. There’s so much that goes into pricing a unit and an upgrade that direct comparisons between armies are completely useless.

And yeah, IG and marine las/plas serve the same basic purpose, but the cost structure to get there is very different. And yeah, the marines are currently the better option by a long way, but that’s got a whole lot more to do with the standard guardsman being overpriced and most of the upgrades being somewhere between marginally useful and utter drek. Looked at in the context of a new codex you have to let that assumption go, because a codex that doesn’t fix that fundamental problem isn’t worth talking about.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

sebster wrote:The basic character of the guard army is a wall of plain old humans. They’re simply outclassed in the insane world of 40K and anything that makes the basic trooper the equal of his enemies is missing the point. Meanwhile maintaining the current viable list, static units filled with heavy and special weapons, will only continue to make guard boring to play with and against. It sounds like quite the conundrum until you think about what’s really happening in all that 40K fluff... those troops really are outclassed but they win anyway. They win because awesome heroes do just the right thing at just the right time to swing battles.

Fix the special characters, get commissars, monks, enginseers, psykers and all the rest some really useful, game changing abilities. Abilities that allow them to turn mediocre guard units into deadly opponents, if only for the critical turn. Abilities that let a guard unit heroically auto-pass a moral check, allowing nearby units to escape and prevent the collapse of an entire flank.

That to me, is really the core of the IG, and sounds like the best way to make them a really cool army to play.

This isn't a bad idea per se, but is hard to implement rules-wise. I suggest that Vox be made "FREE", and that Commissars / Priests / Standards confer Fearless. That means that the Guard will be more likely to stand and fight to the last man, no running.

But really, a static wall of Guard still won't win in the new environment of mobility and objectives. At a minimum, Guard need much cheaper and more survivable Transports - Chimeras for around 50 points with AV11+ on the sides. Supplement that with non-overpriced Valkyrie Transports providing taxi service, and the Guard might do OK. Otherwise, the Guard won't have sufficient mobility to take objectives.

Of course, Guard mobility is rather fragile, or else overpriced due to being overgunned for the role, so the other overpriced parts of the list need to come down in cost to allow for an adequate overall force.

And it’s a good thing that stand and shoot guard is going the way of the dodo. It was really boring.

But the replacement army will be a tough thing to create, whether you build it around enhanced advisors, or better transport vehicles, or whatever. With my solution the risk is that you’ll produce an army of a million special rules, and create a new game based around the use of special abilities. With your suggestion there’s a risk that guard will fail to be properly differentiated from all the other mechanised armies going around.

Ultimately I think a lot needs to be done to bring the codex up to speed, and it is probably the hardest design challenge out there.

Note that this was demonstrated to be an apples-and-oranges points cost comparison between low 4th edition SM points vs expected 5th edition IG points. If the points are to be compared fairly, 5th edition DA / BA / (pending) SM points costs must instead be used. In this case, SM always pay 15 pts for Plasma Guns, which is fair when you compare against how IG had their Plasma costs bumped to 10 pts in their most recent Codex.

Point is, it doesn’t matter anyway. I don’t think there’s too much of a problem in making plasma guns more expensive in IG armies, to make them comparatively rarer than the better equipped marines. It all comes down to making IG have other advantages to make for that disadvantage.

Or not, keep them cheaper than marines and it can still work. At the end of the day I think we all agree that directly comparing the cost of a plasmagun in the vanilla marine codex to the cost in the IG codex is false.

The guard need a new codex.

Doctrines are a neat idea poorly executed, and the guard are over costed, and have been so since the first 3rd edition codex. I haven't played my guard in about a year, barring one apoc game because they are ultimately disappointing to play with.

Guard should be a max of 5 points for a basic trooper, and there is no reason that a guardsman in a basic squad with a lascannon should cost more than a marine in a tactical squad with a lascannon.

sebster wrote:And it’s a good thing that stand and shoot guard is going the way of the dodo. It was really boring.

But the replacement army will be a tough thing to create, whether you build it around enhanced advisors, or better transport vehicles, or whatever. With my solution the risk is that you’ll produce an army of a million special rules, and create a new game based around the use of special abilities. With your suggestion there’s a risk that guard will fail to be properly differentiated from all the other mechanised armies going around.

Ultimately I think a lot needs to be done to bring the codex up to speed, and it is probably the hardest design challenge out there.

Yup.

I don't see the extremes that way, but I don't want (or see) GW going towards adding lots of complex rules moving forward. Personally, if I've guessed right, Guard will still be well differentiated. Their standard mechanized squad starts at only aroud 80 pts for 10 Guardsmen and a basic Chimera. Tack on weapons, and you're only looking at around 120 pts, less if you go ghetto budget. Compare with a Marine squad which is 110+ points just for a Combat Squad and Rhino. If they want the "good" weapons (Las/Plas), they're likely pushing 250 pts. So IG will have twice as many mech squads with more armor (AV12F) and more guns. With their crappy basic Guardsmen for fodder, and emphasis on Heavy/Specials, IG will have to play differently.

Sadly, I agree that there is a lot of work needed.

sebster wrote:I think we all agree that directly comparing the cost of a plasmagun in the vanilla marine codex to the cost in the IG codex is false.

Aye!

sebster wrote: At the end of the day I think we all agree that directly comparing the cost of a plasmagun in the vanilla marine codex to the cost in the IG codex is false.

As the Terminator said

"wrong"

sebster wrote:And yeah, IG and marine las/plas serve the same basic purpose, but the cost structure to get there is very different. And yeah, the marines are currently the better option by a long way, but that’s got a whole lot more to do with the standard guardsman being overpriced and most of the upgrades being somewhere between marginally useful and utter drek. Looked at in the context of a new codex you have to let that assumption go, because a codex that doesn’t fix that fundamental problem isn’t worth talking about.

Like JohnHDD, your's must be a happy and cheerful nature. I am cynical and untrusting (I blame law school...or possibly my "Lost and the Discontinued" army) - I feel it necessary to point out (repeatedly!) the places where the current design falls short, in the (probably vain) hope that someone at GW might read and understand the concerns...BEFORE we have a new codex that doesn't fix the fundamental problem.

Janathkin, the way I see it, IG have very little room to get worse, and a lot of room to get better. The IG Codex is old enough that the problems should be obvious. Based on the direction set for 5th edition, the solutions should be straightforward. I can't see IG going anywhere but up.

I find your inability to think of ways it could be worse most unRussian

Here's how:
-Raise the points of heavy weapons further (as done in previous dex).
-Leave troop points the same (as done in previous dex).
-Remove doctrines.

After all, its always darkest before it goes completely black

something odd I noticed with the new GW site.

Apocalypse sets are kept seperate from non-apoc sets in the online store. the Baneblade used to be under IG as a "superheavy". All the formations were in a seperate part of the store as well.

Now the Baneblade is simply "Heavy Support" for Imperial Guard.

Is this indicative of something unholy?

I realize it doesn't have much basis, but it is intriguing nonetheless.

Now that would be an interesting change (and have to keep those BB sales up). Now give them the Valkyrie in the real codex and things get mighty interesting.

A Baneblade as a Heavy Support choice thats would be bad A$$ and you could say it takes up all three HS slots but with one BB there isn't room for much else in the army