Attention Troopers! It has come across my desk recently that our valiant guardsman have been dying more unceremoniously than normal. While I expect all of you to die gloriously for the Emperor it does help if you take a few enemies out on your way with a few well trained bayonet strikes. That being said....

Its very clear that Guard have not been in a good place for a VERY long time (I came in just after the halcyon days of 5th edition when guard had some teeth in them still but still reeling after . At the dawn of 8th there was some hope with conscripts and then again with Greater Good choose your own regiments. However nothing has been able to stick in a competitive scene. Which brings us this very quandary...how do we fix guard? Its a complex army that has some of the largest diversity in its builds and lists, going from all mech, all armor, all artillery, and all foot troops and everything in between. Balancing all of these factors will be quite a chore that will take planning, depth, and a strong dose of rules sensibility, which probably won't be happening ( a girl can dream can't she?). What does the guard need? Rebuilding from the ground up? A whole new kind of organization? Maybe simply point fixes? There are many ways to do it. Here are some of my ideas.

1. Platoons! Call me nostalgic but I really did enjoy these clunky monstrosities. Maybe less so at the time, but they have grown on me for sure! I think they are even more relevant now because they can give guard an opportunity to work around the constraints of the force organization chart. These should be a LT, 0-1 command squads, 2-5 Infantry squads, 0-3 conscripts, and a limit of heavy weapon squads and special weapons squads at 1 per Infantry squad (to help with balance). This would definitely free up the heavy slots and give HWS some time to shine, In all honesty due to their ease of killing they should cheap and terrible in general. Now with the more granular nature of 9th and its points this is a great time to balance out IS in general. Having a heavy weapon should not be as cheap as it is for the HWS but some special weapons should be free, ie flamers, sniper rifles, and grenade launchers, with a more premium price on melta and plasma guns. These weapons we never great so they should be cheap and ubiquitous. Orders should be standard unless they are issued by the platoon LT and then it should be applicable to all units in the platoon that are within LoS and are within 6 inches of the LT or 3 inches of another platoon unit getting an order. This way you can have a tightly packed formation that can be extremely efficient in the order department and get more bang for your buck.

2. Veterans. Veterans should go back to being troops. They will be an alternative to the platoon and pretty much be how they are now. Upgraded troops for an upgraded price and a way out of buying a platoon.

3. Cheaper is better. Guard should have garbage units for cheap, Its what they do and the prices should reflect that. Things like orders and platoons will be something that can mitigate the badness but also require careful planning and formations to maintain synergy

4. Order of Battle. There should be something like many other armies have based on turns, like necrons command protocols. In this case though it will be a battle plan you devise before the battle. If you try to stick to it you will gain bonuses. However, like guard, it is inflexible once in place and go horribly awry at a moments notice. I imagine this would be a branching choice of selections that would be available at certain turns and me require a pre-requisite order to move onto another one, letting you have some flexibility while also making paths designed for troops, armor, or artillery. Things could be like "hold the line" which would give a bonus to morale, or go to ground, which would give a bonus to ignoring AP -1 for a turn if they didn't move, which could then be followed up by Fix Bayonets, which could give a static bonus to charging or melee (and stay thematic to a counter charge). Obviously it would be very complicated but I think having an Order of Battle would really open up play styles for guard. This would also allow for something like Necrons where you can have each regiment have its "specialty" and get a bonus Order of Battle based on that, IE cadians get a leadership/orders one, catachans get a melee/stealth one, Valhallans get an infantry/artillery one, etc

5. Vehicle Orders. Vehicle orders should be expanded, its nice now that a tank commander can give orders to any vehicle but this could also be expanded to allowing a special "command chimera/taurox" which is just a point upgrade for those vehicles that give it an ability to issue an order (wishlisting a new command vehicle in general, ala a command salamander)

6. Endless Wave. Alternatively, instead of an order of battle system and endless waves system could also be enacted. This could be wholly copied from the the chaos daemon abilities where you get points each time you lose a unit or do something specific that you can cash in to return a lost unit onto your board edge (like summoning except you're summoning a guy with a lasgun and no shoes). This would of course have strict limits, ie no upgrades, but it would certainly give guard some major flexibility (lost a whole bunch of infantry? here comes a hellhound for reinforcements!) but would also be limited to you having taken massive casualties, which in itself is a very bad thing

These are my thoughts, what are yours?

Platoons are not, never will be, and never have been an answer to anything outside of "how do we game the FOC system?".

The issue is none of these actually fix the problem with guard, because guards problem dont stem from balance, or point cost, it stems form issues with the core of the rules of 8/9th.

Guards Gimmick has always been, armor, and utilizing blast weapons/spam weapons, both of which suck in 8th and 9th.
Guards tanks for example are worthless because of the removal of armor value, and the sheer volume of AP multi wound and how quickly guard profiles turn into worthlessness. When your trying to live on a T7 and even T8 and a 2+ in this edtions, that means nothing, so one of guards biggest strengths is negative by pretty much everything.
The other major issue is guard go all their strength from blast weapons, and no matter what rules you write, you can still roll a 1 with number of hits with a blast, and no matter what, it feels really bad, when you get 2 hits on a weapon that does 2d6 hits. Yes they ahve the blast rule, but its not nearly enough. In the world of scatter this was not as much of an issue as is now. Since before you would position your blast to take out the most number of models, and you off the bat had a 33% chance to score a hit with no scatter, then if you did scatter, would statistically average scatter only 4 inches, and everything under it still automatically got hit.


The two things to fix would be armor and blast and it would bring guard much better in line with where they should be.
- Armor needs to be buffed, guard and arguably pretty much all vehicles, need to have a built in rule where they ignore the AP of weapons whos Strength is not equal or greater then their toughness. or reduce it by half rounding down. GW tried to fix this by making the russ a 2+ but it still did not make them viable.
-Blast needs to be buffed more. The current blast rule was a step in the right direction but its still not enough. Blast weapons overall just need to be reworked some way to give more consistent hits. When you are guard and you spend all those points on basalisks and they roll 1s and 2s for number of hits no matter if you hit all of them, your not making your points back. I cant offer a good solution to this one because its a harder problem to fix. Something like, rolls of 1 and 2 are always doubled so that at worse you can do 4 hit if its a 2d6 weapon. Something to give them more consistency.

The problem with Guard stems from an extremely simple core issue:
They are trying to fit an entire combined arms force into one keyword and FOC while blathering on in the lore about how that's not how supposed to be how it works.

There's a secondary problem in that everyone seems to think the Valhallan or Krieg model of "expendable waves" is the default option for Guard...which is just a big ol' "NOPE".

You want to fix Guard?

Three simple steps:
-Pick your Army Type prior to writing the list. Set up a specific series of "archetypes". And no, "armoured/infantry/airborne" is not the right way to do it. The idea is to establish if it is an army composed of elements from a single world or a combined worlds army and go from there.
-Stop dicking around with "one size fits all" infantry squads. It has not nor ever should have been allowed after the introduction of aesthetics that very solidly set up a look which should have been affecting rules--as the Doctrines system actually set up.
-Conscripts get Auxilia keyword, stratagems required to give them Regimental status.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The problem with Guard stems from an extremely simple core issue:
They are trying to fit an entire combined arms force into one keyword and FOC while blathering on in the lore about how that's not how supposed to be how it works.

There's a secondary problem in that everyone seems to think the Valhallan or Krieg model of "expendable waves" is the default option for Guard...which is just a big ol' "NOPE".

You want to fix Guard?

Three simple steps:
-Pick your Army Type prior to writing the list. Set up a specific series of "archetypes". And no, "armoured/infantry/airborne" is not the right way to do it. The idea is to establish if it is an army composed of elements from a single world or a combined worlds army and go from there.
-Stop dicking around with "one size fits all" infantry squads. It has not nor ever should have been allowed after the introduction of aesthetics that very solidly set up a look which should have been affecting rules--as the Doctrines system actually set up.
-Conscripts get Auxilia keyword, stratagems required to give them Regimental status.

Unfortunately, none of these actually 'fix' guard. They're just variations on which units you pick in your army. Yes we need some kind of differentiation, just like marines have chapters, Tau have Septs, DE have covens, etc., but again, those don't 'fix' the army.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

1. Platoons!
2. Veterans.
3. Cheaper is better.
4. Order of Battle.
5. Vehicle Orders.
6. Endless Wave.

These are my thoughts, what are yours?

As I see it, there are a couple glaring issues staring us in the face
1- our output is for 8th edition, which is half (or less!) that of modern units, point-for-point
2- Our units don't have durability. With all the AP, and S5 wounding our T8 tanks on 5s, it doesn't take much to take down a LRBT
3- Our units give up too many VPs for their lack of output and lack of durability. Glass cannons are fine (it works for DE), but we can't trade our 1VP unit for a .5 VP unit.

Worst of all, in some cases 1&2 means we're down by a factor of 2-6x unit-for-unit. A squad of kroot carnivores (60 points) kills more guardsmen than a squad of guardsmen kill of kroot, while Kroot are far better in melee, and have a pre-game move. While it doesn't look like much on paper, a unit of 10xKroot between shooting and melee will pick up a squad of guardsmen with no buffs, but that squad of guardsmen can only kill ~5 kroot between melee and shooting. Again, down by half point-for-point.

I can't agree with the Endless Wave. We already give up too many VPs for our units, and this is just feeding the opponent more VPs. The units we have out there just need to be able to do their job, which they can't do because of the lack of firepower, lack of durability, and lack of orders.

I agree with the Platoons, not just for infantry, but for almost all units (LRBTs, hellhounds, arty, etc). It's not a 'fix', it's flexibility. The LT or Squadron leader provides orders and re-rolls of 1s to wound, which is HUGE. It's more orders where they need to be, and a buff to shooting and also an indirect buff to durability. Then we can have Veteran platoons and Scion platoons, without having to take separate detachments (saving CP), or sucking up valuable elite slots.

This allows us to split troops into 2(ish) groups - an 'assault' platoon with squads with special weapons designed to move up onto objectives early game, and 'fire support' platoons which have more heavy weapons to screen the backfield and provide covering fire to nearby objectives. Especially with mortars, you can cover the objectives in NML while being out of sight. LRBTs can also be split this way, with BCs and Vanquishers being 'fire support' and DCs/Punishers being 'assault' platoons. This leaves infantry to screen and kill other infantry, and tanks & HWTs to take out the big guys, and not just rely on 3-4 TCs to kill EVERYTHING.

Totally agree on more tank orders. Take Aim! and BID! could easily be tank orders, and a replacement for Markerlights and the Cadian 'Overlapping fields of fire'. Jarms48 has a great idea where tanks get 'Back Pedal', allowing a tank to fall back and shoot. If our melee doesn't get buffed, we need this capability sooooooo badly.

Personally, I'm in agreement on 'cheaper' units, but more as a way of getting around the VPs we give up. I'd love to see Chimeras, hellhounds, basilisks, etc. drop to 9 wounds so they are less cost and only 1VP each, and then they don't need to buffed as much. Then I'd buff LRBTs to 14W (agreed that the 2+ wasn't enough), and give tanks -1 To Wound when S<T. This makes tanks a lot more durable vs small arms, and makes most anti-tank weapons need that extra hit, and worth the 2VPs it gives up.

There's a lot of variation on the 'Order of Battle', I think the Necron protocols are a little outdated, but we do need something along the lines of an army-wide buff. Most folks (including myself) have split those between 'Regiment' traits (which includes regiment-specific orders) and 'Guard Doctrine'. Your idea does have a lot of merit, but I think the specifics you mentioned that's what the Orders are supposed to provide. The warlord directs the battle, the platoon commanders direct their troops. I think the LT is easy, the question is how to let the Warlord direct the battle.

I think Guard doctrine is simple: kill them with artillery, kill the next group with heavy weapons, finish what's left with the infantry. I've broken those up like this: Arty gets a bonus -1AP at 18"+ (covering the back 1/3rd of the board), Heavy Weapons (including infantry mortars) get -1AP from 9-24", and RF/Assault weapons get AP-1 within 12". This does 2 things: it makes weapons more effective at certain ranges, but also creates 'bands' of lethality boosts, which are right around the Objectives markers. Good commanders can use those band to focus fire to take and hold objectives, or the enemy units just behind those objectives.
>

I think the key to making Guard better on the table is make the rules encourage you to put the Guard in the background on the table.

Take the Infantry Squad for example. What do you see on the table?

10 models with no upgrades.

That is wrong. I want to see at least a special weapon if not also a heavy weapon team in every squad. I want to see some special weapons squads sprinkled in for additional firepower. I want to see Heavy Weapons Squads laying down the heavy firepower. I want to see some Chimeras providing mobility and fire support. But for this to work, the rules need to support it.

What could those be?

Orders rules that don't encourage you to use FRFSRF (or just eliminate that order entirely) and are aura-like as in the two Balance Dataslates

Platoon Commander rules that don't make him a worst Company Commander

Free or cheap special and heavy weapons

LOS for Special Weapon & Heavy Weapons Squads near Infantry Squads

Chimera with points values that don't break the bank

No Detachment cost rules for matching up the units, such as "If your detachment includes 2 or more Infantry Squads, you may include 1 Special Weapon Squad and 1 Heavy Weapon Squad without using a detachment slot"

That can help improve the Infantry side of the Codex. Then we can get to work on the support vehicles, tanks, and artillery.

Some fun ideas there, but probably not the way I'd go.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

1. Platoons!

I get the nostalgia factor, but platoons always struck me as a clunky bandaid on the FOC's problems. The FOC really doesn't make sense for most non-marine armies, and the guards' need for more unit slots is a good example of that. So rather than basically just letting guard get around the normal detachment rules, I'd probably rather see a fix for the problems presented by detachments/the FOC in general.

2. Veterans. Veterans should go back to being troops. They will be an alternative to the platoon and pretty much be how they are now. Upgraded troops for an upgraded price and a way out of buying a platoon.

See above. Let's fix the problem at its source rather than requiring a bunch of factions come up with workarounds for it. That said, I would like veterans to get some love. Being troops again would be fine if force org roles must continue to be a thing. Giving them access to special rules and/or stratagems would also do the trick.

3. Cheaper is better. Guard should have garbage units for cheap, Its what they do and the prices should reflect that. Things like orders and platoons will be something that can mitigate the badness but also require careful planning and formations to maintain synergy

Is that not already the case? If I'm not mistaken, guard already have troops tied with gretchin and cultists for the cheapest models in the game. If anything, GW probably ought to make basic guardsmen a bit more expensive than cultists/gretchin and then up the cost of everything else in the game a bit to account for it. That aside, do you not feel that FRFSRF and such already accomplishes what you're describing?

4. Order of Battle. There should be something like many other armies have based on turns, like necrons command protocols.

Probably will be. Kind of wish GW would take these away from everyone rather than continue to hand them out. Most of the ones we already have tend to be kind of rules-bloaty and not especially fluffy. But yeah, I'd be surprised if guard don't get something along these line sin the new 'dex.

5. Vehicle Orders. Vehicle orders should be expanded, its nice now that a tank commander can give orders to any vehicle but this could also be expanded to allowing a special "command chimera/taurox" which is just a point upgrade for those vehicles that give it an ability to issue an order (wishlisting a new command vehicle in general, ala a command salamander)

So basically just un-legends the forgeworld command vehicle option, yeah? Sounds good. I always thought that was a cool option.

6. Endless Wave. Alternatively, instead of an order of battle system and endless waves system could also be enacted.

Kind of wish GW would ditch doctrines and chapter tactics as customizable "slots" and instead allow you to pick from one of several army themes that dramatically changes how your army plays. So maybe guard would choose between the Endless Wave, Armored Company, Grizzled Vets, and whatever else themes and get a submechanic of roughly the complexity you're describing for whichever of those options they take. So something like:
Endless Wave = respawning units, especially cheap infantry.
Armored Company = obsec on vehicles who count as 10 models for scoring purposes and get a unique set of orders and vehicle upgrade wargear options.
Grizzled Vets = Give your guardsmen some genestealer cult-ish rules so that they feel like clever, tricksy, tactical Gaunt's Ghost types using their experience to stay alive and outmaneuver the enemy. And probably unlock some ye olde veteran style special rule/kit upgrades.

But my guess is that what guard actually get is probably going to look a lot like tau. Some raw power boosts on their better guns. Some raw power boosts to their orders. And probably a few too many subsystems as they try to shove war hymns, orders, a new doctrine equivalent mechanic, psychic powers, and whatever else into the same book.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Some fun ideas there, but probably not the way I'd go.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

1. Platoons!

I get the nostalgia factor, but platoons always struck me as a clunky bandaid on the FOC's problems. The FOC really doesn't make sense for most non-marine armies, and the guards' need for more unit slots is a good example of that. So rather than basically just letting guard get around the normal detachment rules, I'd probably rather see a fix for the problems presented by detachments/the FOC in general.

2. Veterans. Veterans should go back to being troops. They will be an alternative to the platoon and pretty much be how they are now. Upgraded troops for an upgraded price and a way out of buying a platoon.

See above. Let's fix the problem at its source rather than requiring a bunch of factions come up with workarounds for it. That said, I would like veterans to get some love. Being troops again would be fine if force org roles must continue to be a thing. Giving them access to special rules and/or stratagems would also do the trick.

3. Cheaper is better. Guard should have garbage units for cheap, Its what they do and the prices should reflect that. Things like orders and platoons will be something that can mitigate the badness but also require careful planning and formations to maintain synergy

Is that not already the case? If I'm not mistaken, guard already have troops tied with gretchin and cultists for the cheapest models in the game. If anything, GW probably ought to make basic guardsmen a bit more expensive than cultists/gretchin and then up the cost of everything else in the game a bit to account for it. That aside, do you not feel that FRFSRF and such already accomplishes what you're describing?

4. Order of Battle. There should be something like many other armies have based on turns, like necrons command protocols.

Probably will be. Kind of wish GW would take these away from everyone rather than continue to hand them out. Most of the ones we already have tend to be kind of rules-bloaty and not especially fluffy. But yeah, I'd be surprised if guard don't get something along these line sin the new 'dex.

5. Vehicle Orders. Vehicle orders should be expanded, its nice now that a tank commander can give orders to any vehicle but this could also be expanded to allowing a special "command chimera/taurox" which is just a point upgrade for those vehicles that give it an ability to issue an order (wishlisting a new command vehicle in general, ala a command salamander)

So basically just un-legends the forgeworld command vehicle option, yeah? Sounds good. I always thought that was a cool option.

6. Endless Wave. Alternatively, instead of an order of battle system and endless waves system could also be enacted.

Kind of wish GW would ditch doctrines and chapter tactics as customizable "slots" and instead allow you to pick from one of several army themes that dramatically changes how your army plays. So maybe guard would choose between the Endless Wave, Armored Company, Grizzled Vets, and whatever else themes and get a submechanic of roughly the complexity you're describing for whichever of those options they take. So something like:
Endless Wave = respawning units, especially cheap infantry.
Armored Company = obsec on vehicles who count as 10 models for scoring purposes and get a unique set of orders and vehicle upgrade wargear options.
Grizzled Vets = Give your guardsmen some genestealer cult-ish rules so that they feel like clever, tricksy, tactical Gaunt's Ghost types using their experience to stay alive and outmaneuver the enemy. And probably unlock some ye olde veteran style special rule/kit upgrades.

But my guess is that what guard actually get is probably going to look a lot like tau. Some raw power boosts on their better guns. Some raw power boosts to their orders. And probably a few too many subsystems as they try to shove war hymns, orders, a new doctrine equivalent mechanic, psychic powers, and whatever else into the same book.

I do quite like your idea of a "regiment specialization" which actually makes a lot of sense. Each detachment would have to be designated because Imperial Guard tend to be the XXth Artillery Regiment or the XXth Heavy Infantry and etc. I would even like it if these were also tied to detachments, (or special guard only detachments! Kinda like the realspace raid) ie a Spearhead detachment could be an artillery or tank regiment, which would give it a heavy bonus on shooting and such but also drastically reduce its ability to perform other roles like close combat, taking objectives, etc. We could still have an overarching Regiment rules for flavor but they can heavily favor one of the specific types of regiment specializations

 alextroy wrote:
Chimera with points values that don't break the bank

GW seems chronically allergic to people buying and using these. They decided they'd make them functional for one edition, well over 10 years ago, after making them literal deathtraps the edition prior, and then decided that they didn't want to sell any more again.

It has been multiple editions since I've seen someone put a Chimera on a table.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Chimera with points values that don't break the bank

GW seems chronically allergic to people buying and using these. They decided they'd make them functional for one edition, well over 10 years ago, after making them literal deathtraps the edition prior, and then decided that they didn't want to sell any more again.

It has been multiple editions since I've seen someone put a Chimera on a table.

honestly all transports should be a solid 20-30 points cheaper, they dont last long and the are often more expensive then the unit that they are transporting in the first place. They aren't giving off firepower like an immolator or razorback, why are we being charged like we do?

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Chimera with points values that don't break the bank

GW seems chronically allergic to people buying and using these. They decided they'd make them functional for one edition, well over 10 years ago, after making them literal deathtraps the edition prior, and then decided that they didn't want to sell any more again.

It has been multiple editions since I've seen someone put a Chimera on a table.

honestly all transports should be a solid 20-30 points cheaper, they dont last long and the are often more expensive then the unit that they are transporting in the first place. They aren't giving off firepower like an immolator or razorback, why are we being charged like we do?

How are you figuring Chimeras aren't putting out comparable firepower to Razorbacks? Or cost anywhere near a Razorback?
Or are you really complaining that they don't have the raw AT potential of the LC-Razorback because you want to use the wrong tool for AT work?

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Chimera with points values that don't break the bank

GW seems chronically allergic to people buying and using these. They decided they'd make them functional for one edition, well over 10 years ago, after making them literal deathtraps the edition prior, and then decided that they didn't want to sell any more again.

It has been multiple editions since I've seen someone put a Chimera on a table.

honestly all transports should be a solid 20-30 points cheaper, they dont last long and the are often more expensive then the unit that they are transporting in the first place. They aren't giving off firepower like an immolator or razorback, why are we being charged like we do?

I wonder if part of the current trouble with Chimeras/Tauroxen is one of board scale - we can fix durability, but given how little extra we're getting in mobility and that we're trading all of the squad's shooting to do so (which can reach a good section of the board T1 even with their lasguns, terrain permitting), I'm not sure that durability/cost fixes alone are going to be enough to make them worth taking. Not sure how we could make the board scale large enough to allow for meaningful differences in move speed between infantry/vehicles without also requiring hanging walkways and pusher sticks to actually reach midboard models or objects, though.

Alternatively, bring back Amphibious and make impassable water terrain mandatory on all boards

I think transports are bad because the only things you’re really going to put in there are things you already expect to die, and unless the transport lets them die in a more useful way (trukkboyz) it’s just a waste of points trying to keep them alive.

ccs wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Chimera with points values that don't break the bank

GW seems chronically allergic to people buying and using these. They decided they'd make them functional for one edition, well over 10 years ago, after making them literal deathtraps the edition prior, and then decided that they didn't want to sell any more again.

It has been multiple editions since I've seen someone put a Chimera on a table.

honestly all transports should be a solid 20-30 points cheaper, they dont last long and the are often more expensive then the unit that they are transporting in the first place. They aren't giving off firepower like an immolator or razorback, why are we being charged like we do?

How are you figuring Chimeras aren't putting out comparable firepower to Razorbacks? Or cost anywhere near a Razorback?
Or are you really complaining that they don't have the raw AT potential of the LC-Razorback because you want to use the wrong tool for AT work?

I meant it more in generalities. Most vehicles are given a premium price for being able to transport infantry, regardless of whether or not thats a good or useful thing. Stuff like Raiders seem to be able to do a lot for not too much more than a chimera with upgrades that make them quite impressive (AT, supreme close combat abilities, etc). Even if their armor is thin they still have enough tricks to mitigate incoming damage when compared to a chimera which is pretty much a slow moving and easy to kill box with less offensive firepower.

I'd kind of like to see Command Squads and Officers rolled back into one unit (still with character protection). Make the support options worth it so that they serve a purpose beyond suicide dropping special weapons units. The entire point of the command structure should be acting as force multipliers, and I'd also like to see relics/warlord traits revolve around that instead of giving Company Commanders a better melee attack or the like.

I'd also enjoy having at least 1 edition of the game where Ogryn are worth fielding.

However much I like the named regiments, I would kind of like regimental options to be denoted by type - mechanized, line infantry, heavy infantry, light infantry, etc. Mostly to keep the theme of "your guys". Say make a more balanced version of the 3.5 doctrines picks, or the Only War rpg (pick a homeworld type, regimental type, and say a specialty doctrine or two). That said, I also don't want to have "this is the tank subfaction, its tanks are objectively better than not-tank subfaction and you are actively gimping yourself if you don't do this."

Ideally, make your own Regiment rules would be a mixture of Infantry, Tank, and Artillery bonuses. I could totally get behind having a list for each with rules allowing you to pick 3, no more than two from the same list. More powerful options could count as 2 of your 3 picks.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I think transports are bad because the only things you’re really going to put in there are things you already expect to die, and unless the transport lets them die in a more useful way (trukkboyz) it’s just a waste of points trying to keep them alive.

Imo infantry needs to be slower in order to really appreciate transports. If not those grunts can still move around the board on foot on their own without having a huge disadvantage for doing so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
Ideally, make your own Regiment rules would be a mixture of Infantry, Tank, and Artillery bonuses. I could totally get behind having a list for each with rules allowing you to pick 3, no more than two from the same list. More powerful options could count as 2 of your 3 picks.

We had those rules in 4th. Just go back and burn 9th in a dumpster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kurhanik wrote:
I'd kind of like to see Command Squads and Officers rolled back into one unit (still with character protection). Make the support options worth it so that they serve a purpose beyond suicide dropping special weapons units. The entire point of the command structure should be acting as force multipliers, and I'd also like to see relics/warlord traits revolve around that instead of giving Company Commanders a better melee attack or the like.

I'd also enjoy having at least 1 edition of the game where Ogryn are worth fielding.

However much I like the named regiments, I would kind of like regimental options to be denoted by type - mechanized, line infantry, heavy infantry, light infantry, etc. Mostly to keep the theme of "your guys". Say make a more balanced version of the 3.5 doctrines picks, or the Only War rpg (pick a homeworld type, regimental type, and say a specialty doctrine or two). That said, I also don't want to have "this is the tank subfaction, its tanks are objectively better than not-tank subfaction and you are actively gimping yourself if you don't do this."

Standard Ogryns were always bad against armoured infantry. They could have at least given them a rule in hth to score a armour-breaking hit on a wound roll of 6 like Genestealers but nope.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I think transports are bad because the only things you’re really going to put in there are things you already expect to die, and unless the transport lets them die in a more useful way (trukkboyz) it’s just a waste of points trying to keep them alive.

Imo infantry needs to be slower in order to really appreciate transports. If not those grunts can still move around the board on foot on their own without having a huge disadvantage for doing so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
Ideally, make your own Regiment rules would be a mixture of Infantry, Tank, and Artillery bonuses. I could totally get behind having a list for each with rules allowing you to pick 3, no more than two from the same list. More powerful options could count as 2 of your 3 picks.

We had those rules in 4th. Just go back and burn 9th in a dumpster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kurhanik wrote:
I'd kind of like to see Command Squads and Officers rolled back into one unit (still with character protection). Make the support options worth it so that they serve a purpose beyond suicide dropping special weapons units. The entire point of the command structure should be acting as force multipliers, and I'd also like to see relics/warlord traits revolve around that instead of giving Company Commanders a better melee attack or the like.

I'd also enjoy having at least 1 edition of the game where Ogryn are worth fielding.

However much I like the named regiments, I would kind of like regimental options to be denoted by type - mechanized, line infantry, heavy infantry, light infantry, etc. Mostly to keep the theme of "your guys". Say make a more balanced version of the 3.5 doctrines picks, or the Only War rpg (pick a homeworld type, regimental type, and say a specialty doctrine or two). That said, I also don't want to have "this is the tank subfaction, its tanks are objectively better than not-tank subfaction and you are actively gimping yourself if you don't do this."

Standard Ogryns were always bad against armoured infantry. They could have at least given them a rule in hth to score a armour-breaking hit on a wound roll of 6 like Genestealers but nope.

Standard Ogryns have always been in a weird spot, they aren't a CC beast like they could be and they definitely can't shoot worth a darn. They should be more along the lines of a luck based elite, IE on a 6 you do something ridiculous as you say. I think this should also apply to their ranged weapons as well. They are carrying around light artillery pieces essentially and if they score a hit it should HURT. Bullgryn at least have their place as a big slab of meat that is hard to shift with decent close combat. Ogryns should be more focused on storming an objective and taking it long enough for more infantry to hold it. A hammer to the bullgryn anvil. Honestly its a highly characterful unit with a great model that deserves to shine.

I think part of the issue is that IG tend to be highly vulnerable to suffering from changes to other armies.

Their very concept means they're almost never in line for special boosts or new uber-weapons like Grav in 7th. So they're typically stuck with very weak basic weapons, supplemented by old classics like plasma. In essence, they rely on numbers and efficiency, rather than on weapons that are inherently strong.

Now, that's all perfectly fine.

The issue is that when other armies get boosts to toughness, wounds, saves etc., it almost always negatively impacts IG in addition to whatever other problems its aiming to solve. And so any efficiency advantage we might have gained quickly disappears. Same goes for weapons with increasing numbers of shots - being able to field more guardsmen doesn't matter if the extra bodies are effortlessly shredded.

7th provided some particularly egregious examples of this in the form of Wraiths and Thunderwolf Cavalry. Due to a combination of toughness, saves, and wounds/FNP, you were looking at an entire platoon of guardsmen to kill just one of them. Even if the point costs had been balanced (they weren't), it was completely impractical to put enough bodies on the table to actually fight such foes - to say nothing of the damage that large blasts and torrent flamers would inflict on such an army.

Whilst we might not have reached that level yet, I think we're definitely starting to see the same sorts of issues arising. And while guard are still using an 8th edition codex, guardsmen are already about as cheap as they can get (not to mention the expense and impracticality of just fielding ever more men to keep pace).

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that an army like IG is going to rely not just on good internal design but also on GW showing some actual restraint when it comes to other factions.

-First of all the obvious: Points drops (sponsoons and additional vehicle weapons in particular - looking at you 30pts for 2 heavy bolters)
-Allow Infantry squads to make 1 of each of the following slotless like Kroot do: HWS, SWS, Command Squad, Platoon Leader.
-Allow a reverse 'combat squad' option where any two of the above units can be combined before deployment (so a HWS can merge with an infantry squad, giving them a few bullet sponges). Not a stratagem.
-Give all variations of battle tanks +4W (stops them being one-shotted by new Titan weaponry on particular basic xenos tanks, plus said Xenos tank has more wounds than a Russ)
-(For Guard only) Make the blast rule of 6+ models (3 hits minimum) apply to 1+ models, if this isn't enough to fix blast for Guard also give +1 to hit on blast weapons
-Make GLs 1pt or free
-Make Laurel's of Command a point costed upgrade that can be taken by all rather than a relic but max it's additional extra orders for squads at +1 (for a max of 2 per squad)
-Won't make much of a difference but allow Sergeants and Tempestors to have a free lasgun like Vox casters get
-Give Autocannons either an extra ap or change them to Damage D2+1
-All non-auxiliary infantry gain obsec

generalchaos34 wrote:
I do quite like your idea of a "regiment specialization" which actually makes a lot of sense. Each detachment would have to be designated because Imperial Guard tend to be the XXth Artillery Regiment or the XXth Heavy Infantry and etc. I would even like it if these were also tied to detachments, (or special guard only detachments! Kinda like the realspace raid) ie a Spearhead detachment could be an artillery or tank regiment, which would give it a heavy bonus on shooting and such but also drastically reduce its ability to perform other roles like close combat, taking objectives, etc. We could still have an overarching Regiment rules for flavor but they can heavily favor one of the specific types of regiment specializations

Thanks! Glad to spark some cool ideas. I'd probably advise against being able to mix multiple such specializations in a given army though. The kind of mechanics I was pitching are hefty/complicated enough that including them all in a single game is probably a bit bloated. Imagine tracking respawning units, armored company special mechancis, and GSC style unit blips all at once. Plus, I'd argue that this risks watering down army theme and devolving into a matter of cherry picking benefits the way that chapter tactics have.

Poly Ranger wrote:
-Allow a reverse 'combat squad' option where any two of the above units can be combined before deployment (so a HWS can merge with an infantry squad, giving them a few bullet sponges). Not a stratagem.

This is interesting. You'd actually be making your normal models less durable by making them more susceptible to blasts and morale, but your special weapons/heavy weapons would be more durable by virtue of being the last to die. So your opponent might kill twice as many models as they otherwise would, but your heavy weapons team has 20+ ablative wounds before they die. I think I like it. Alternatively, maybe give special/heavy weapon and command squads a rule that lets them be screened by infantry and conscript squads? You'd end up without the above downsides but more reason to field lots of troop bodies.

-Give all variations of battle tanks +4W (stops them being one-shotted by new Titan weaponry on particular basic xenos tanks, plus said Xenos tank has more wounds than a Russ)

I'm not opposed to this and would actually be in favor of pretty much all vehicles in the game getting about 20% more wounds. That said, the haughty xenos player in me wonder if you think IG tanks shouldn't be inferior to most xenos vehicles. Like, I absolutely believe that tau, eldar, and necron vehicles should all be at least as hard to kill as a human tank, and drukhari vehicles are mostly only as fragile as they are because the dark eldar value appearances and adrenaline rushes more than safety features.

-(For Guard only) Make the blast rule of 5+ models (3 hits minimum) apply to 1+ models, if this isn't enough to fix blast for Guard also give +1 to hit on blast weapons

Eh. This feels like adding on weird rules exceptions just for the sake of powering them up. I struggle to think of a reason that a guardsman would be better at shooting a frag weapon than a marine or sister or skitarii. If the end goal is just to make them functionally BS 3+ with blast weapons, and if we're able to justify it from a fluff-perspective, maybe we're better off just changing their datasheets or weapon profiles. Give them "millitarum frag grenades" instead of normal frag grenades or whatever. But again, seems hard to justify. As skilled as they are, guardsmen are supposed to be a bit less good at hitting things than marines, et all. Giving them special rules to bypass that seems sketchy. Maybe give them a regimental doctrine that lets you add +1 to hit rolls with blast weapons if you want to represent a force that specialized in shock and awe?

-Make Laurel's of Command a point costed upgrade that can be taken by all rather than a relic but max it's additional extra orders for squads at +1 (for a max of 2 per squad)

Probably fine, but here's an alternative: Get rid of Laurels of Command, and instead allow veterans to benefit from extra orders representing their experience and their familiarity with their commander's tactics.

-Give Autocannons either an extra ap or change them to Damage D2+1

Probably fine, but I'm curious as to what the goal is here. Are autocannons exactly so bad that they're in need of buffing but perfectly fine if every other shot did 3 damage instead of 2? Sincere question from someone who hasn't played his small guard army at all this edition. Also, would you carry this change over to non-guard factions like skitarii and marines? And if not, how do you justify the guard having better autocannons than everyone else?

-All non-auxiliary infantry gain obsec

This has the same vibe as the blast weapon suggestion: feels like a gamey power boost without fluff justification. Why is a heavy weapon squad better at securing an objective than a devastator marine or a crafworld dark reaper squad or a sisters' purgation squad? Ditto a sentinel vs a war walker or invictus war suit?

Wyldhunt wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
-Give all variations of battle tanks +4W (stops them being one-shotted by new Titan weaponry on particular basic xenos tanks, plus said Xenos tank has more wounds than a Russ)

I'm not opposed to this and would actually be in favor of pretty much all vehicles in the game getting about 20% more wounds. That said, the haughty xenos player in me wonder if you think IG tanks shouldn't be inferior to most xenos vehicles. Like, I absolutely believe that tau, eldar, and necron vehicles should all be at least as hard to kill as a human tank, and drukhari vehicles are mostly only as fragile as they are because the dark eldar value appearances and adrenaline rushes more than safety features.

I suppose this would depend on the nature of the durability - I'd see Tau/Eldar/Necron vehicles as being durable due to superior technology (better base materials, better design, fancy psyker protections woven in or post-science not!magic shielding), whereas the Guard tanks would be durable because they've got an extra foot of flat plasteel because the Forge World needs to get 500 of these built by the end of the day and even if it weren't tech-heresy, they don't have time to retool all the foundries to do anything fancier. Hammer of the Emperor, remember? Blunt, brute force solutions to the same problems (ie. armored fighting vehicles worth the construction/transport/upkeep) that other races solve with finesse or magic or tech. Roughly equivalent, but not identical (and nothing that would increase the cost of the vehicle to the point that we can't take multiples).

Note: that's not to say I don't think Xenos vehicles should get a boost as well. From what I've heard, pretty much all vehicles need a boost of some kind to be viable in 9e. I just think we can find a middle ground where Xenos get a boost that befits their aesthetic and leaves them overall a little (not much, but at least a little) superior while also boosting IG tanks, and I don't know that it would be fair to try to do otherwise.

Just to reply to a few of your points there Wyldhunt and explain why I made some suggestions (Cba with quoting on a phone ):

-Blast rule needs updating for Guard because as mentioned above, Guard relied heavily on blast templates pre 8th and the current rules really don't help Guard. The rule above would represent the sheer volume of Guard bombardment and would still be less powerful than many other factions special gimmicks.

-Anything that can give us 2 orders on the same unit would be welcomed at this point to help get the Infantry anywhere near the point that they are coated (but only Infantry to prevent abuse)

-Auto cannons are truly awful compared to the heavy bolter. Due to the HBs one extra shot it is mathematically better against every single target in the game, significantly better against most (and the HB really isn't that good itself), the autocannon needs a boost, but something that just puts it on par with the HB so it doesn't negatively affect balance across the board. Hence an extra -1ap or Dd2+1 (or both if this makes very little impact).

-The non-auxillary obsec Infantry (not sentinals) is to represent the fact that Guard rely on overloading objectives with bodies. All-infantry get obsec already has precedent in newer dexes. This would only make it apply to HWSs, SWSs, Command Squads, Vet Squads and Tempestuous Command Squads who don't already have it. Since these squads all work together in a platoon, there is absolute justification behind it. This would be a minor help to Guard since it's a few extra T3 5+ bodies.

-As Waefre states above, whilst xenos tanks are known for their technological durability, Guard tanks are known to be solid bricks. This is represented through W, T and Save rather than Invulns, reduce damage, shields or special saves on wounds. An extra 4W would go well with that theme. Furthermore, the game justification behind it is that Russes always used to be tougher to deal with in previous editions than most other tanks (things like jinking wave serpents being the odd exception), this isn't the case anymore.

My perspective is definitely influenced by playing primarily infantry, but these are a few changes I would make. I however fear that those won't deal with the fundamental issues that the Guard faces because we are pretty basic, as Vipoid says. The Guard isn't known for its great and innovative weapons. It's a sledgehammer of men, artillery, and tanks. All of which use pretty standard equipment and it makes no sense to have any of their guns be superior to other armies' (except for the artillery. That's where Guard can really shine).

Fundamentally, the game has moved on quite a bit from the level where simple guardsmen and the like can keep up without it being overly silly. It's turned into a game where even space marines can't be considered to be elites anymore and they have also had a signification boost in their basic stats. For guardsmen that however is hard to justify, which means they fall ever more behind as anything but bodies. And bodies that are very easily removable as well.

> Lower the cost of infantry squads back to 50 points because they honestly can't go toe to toe against similarly priced troops except for things like gretchin who honestly are either grossly overcosted or need serious rules updates that makes them into more than just mindless hordes.

> Give infantry squads the ability to screen heavy weapons, special weapons, and command squads so these more expensive squads don't get blasted off the board first. Perhaps they all count as characters when being fired on as just a weird idea.

> Definitely bringing back some sort of platoon structure to allow the guard to actually field some proper numbers without having to go all in on a Brigade. This could also give extra slots for some basic supporting units that could perhaps become slotless instead of taking up valuable slots.

> Tanks and artillery also need a boost. For tanks, I agree that extra wounds would help a little. But perhaps to represent the nature of the guard, tanks could also get some ability to actually hold objectives. I also don't see a way to make them truly survivable on the modern 40k battlefield because just stacking on some extra wounds doesn't make a major difference. But it could very well help. And perhaps one of those -1 damage rules?

> For artillery, I would say that they should actually deliver a lot of pain. It used to be that if I got one of my Earthshaker rounds in the middle of a space marine squad they were basically gone. So perhaps something like 2D6 shots at minimum for a Basilisk, and for simplicity's sake I would upgrade them to 2 damage. Of course, there's the issue of them then becoming amazing antitank platforms, but really, I don't see a way to solve that without a rewrite of the core rules because that's an issue with all blast weapons.

An opinion without anything like a useful answer.

In short? The Imperial Guard simply aren’t that well suited to the scale of your standard 40K game.

Background wise, and in Epic scale? Awesome. Loads of units, wide choice. Lovely lovely stuff.

But in 40K? You just cannot replicate the background. It’s kind of the same issue Nids face. Both are meant to be numberless, faceless hordes. Forces not at all afraid, or even inclined, to be afraid of horrendous losses (one could argue the Imperial Guard loses more soldiers and materiel in a day than there are Eldar left in the Galaxy).

They don’t, and have never, done things by halves. Absolute, irresistible overwhelming force isn’t just the order of the day, but the order of the Millenia. It’s what they do. A remorseless meat grinder where life is cheaper but thankfully more readily available than you and yours.

And I just can’t properly conceive how one would translate that to the tabletop properly.

Yes, I am massively background driven.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
An opinion without anything like a useful answer.

In short? The Imperial Guard simply aren’t that well suited to the scale of your standard 40K game.

Background wise, and in Epic scale? Awesome. Loads of units, wide choice. Lovely lovely stuff.

But in 40K? You just cannot replicate the background. It’s kind of the same issue Nids face. Both are meant to be numberless, faceless hordes. Forces not at all afraid, or even inclined, to be afraid of horrendous losses (one could argue the Imperial Guard loses more soldiers and materiel in a day than there are Eldar left in the Galaxy).

They don’t, and have never, done things by halves. Absolute, irresistible overwhelming force isn’t just the order of the day, but the order of the Millenia. It’s what they do. A remorseless meat grinder where life is cheaper but thankfully more readily available than you and yours.

And I just can’t properly conceive how one would translate that to the tabletop properly.

Yes, I am massively background driven.

R&h had a specialisation that encouraged bigger squads, which if they were wiped had a 1/3 Chance to become active reserve.
It worked well , was only available on Standard troops but i wish they had given such a rule to IG.

Guard seems to have a lot of units that roll a lot of dice but accomplish nothing, or if they do accomplish something most tend to die before they can get their points back on average.

Some of this may be improving survivability of vehicles, but much probably comes from making lethality more expensive across the board, and making it valuable to take units that guard actually damages.

Another problem is guard is designed for larger play space where it's mobility and reach can be an advantage. On a small table, Guard can no longer kite as effectively for survivability, and the ability to drive troops up in Chimeras isn't important (and the chimeras get clogged up and instapop anyway)

Ranges may need to be revisted for smaller tables (E.g. Master of ordnance currently only offers re-rolls for enemies at the very back of the board, and so has little use in any play).

In my mind it's not just about working on guard units and rules, but part of a broader issue of the current "elite units" and "high lethality" (and in some cases nigh vulnerability to mass lasguns and other basic guard weapons) bend of the game across armies.

6’s to hit autowounding on lasguns could be nice, general boosts to their specific weaponry, more things like send in the next wave.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
6’s to hit autowounding on lasguns could be nice, general boosts to their specific weaponry, more things like send in the next wave.

As unspeakably glorious as the mountains of salt from such a rule change would be, I'm not sure giving the humble lasgun rules similar to Gauss weaponry would be a good idea (at least, pretty sure Gauss weaponry had a rule like that at some point in the past).

Could give -1Ap back to lasguns.

Voss wrote:
Could give -1Ap back to lasguns.

i don0t think adding more AP inflation to the game will resolve the issues of guard though

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
An opinion without anything like a useful answer.

In short? The Imperial Guard simply aren’t that well suited to the scale of your standard 40K game.

Sure they are!

But not with the vision that the majority of players and GW has jammed them into over the years.

We're seeing it happen again in real time with the Skitarii troop units, BTW, in AdMech. They've gone from being able to be fielded in small units while retaining large amounts of unique and interesting wargear at those numbers, with special rules making them notably different from just being meatshields...into being shoehorned into requiring large blobs to shield a few special weapons.

Background wise, and in Epic scale? Awesome. Loads of units, wide choice. Lovely lovely stuff.

But in 40K? You just cannot replicate the background. It’s kind of the same issue Nids face. Both are meant to be numberless, faceless hordes. Forces not at all afraid, or even inclined, to be afraid of horrendous losses (one could argue the Imperial Guard loses more soldiers and materiel in a day than there are Eldar left in the Galaxy).

Which is a crappy metric to use, given that humanity is pretty much everywhere, and the Guard is too.

They don’t, and have never, done things by halves. Absolute, irresistible overwhelming force isn’t just the order of the day, but the order of the Millenia. It’s what they do. A remorseless meat grinder where life is cheaper but thankfully more readily available than you and yours.

And this is where the problem lies, amplified relentlessly by Cruddace and the "vision" the books he helmed has forced on the army.


For every instance of a Valhallan Regiment with no rifles, there's supposed to be an instance of an elite regiment that relies upon training and their specialized equipment accompanying their training to come through.

And I just can’t properly conceive how one would translate that to the tabletop properly.

Extremely easily, but it requires someone at GW having the audacity to actually follow through with something that will be met with the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the outset from people who seem to think the Guard die at a 300:1 ratio when fighting things like Tyranids or bloody Gretchin.

It involves actually building around 3 core tenants:
-Guard armies can be from multiple worlds and multiple elements, brought together under one banner while retaining their own unique identities as part of an overarching campaign.
-Guard armies can be from multiple worlds, melded together into one cohesive force based upon shared experiences as survivors of a campaign.
-Guard armies can be from a single world, bringing together multiple elements with a shared world identity/trait into one joint force that operates together as part of an overarching campaign.


These are important tenants. These are what make Guard Regiments into Guard Regiments. I'm sure you remember the whole snippet about the Cadians field-stripping lasguns, right? That's the kind of thing that needs to be leaned into. Building a world identity for the subfactions first, including subfaction specific units(Kasrkin for Cadians, Catachan Devils for the Catachans, Tallarn Rough Riders, etc) and then adding a kind of "regimental pride" that is tied specifically to whatever the regimental type you're fielding is.

To throw out an example of the third bit?
-Cadians <Insert bonus here>, applying only when the army is entirely Cadian.
--Armoured Regiment: <Insert Bonus Here>, applying only when the army is made up of Vehicles or contains enough Transports for your Infantry units to be mounted in them.

This creates a reason for people not just to pick+choose the 'best' traits of a Build Your Own Regiment list and allows for a thematic list to be built from the outset.

The other concepts would necessitate actually creating a more robust command structure for the Guard...which I don't think GW has anyone up for that task unfortunately.

Yes, I am massively background driven.

Same here. Which is why I've consistently made these suggestions, only to get dumped on by people who have no real vision for Guard other than as the "human faction versions of Orks or Tyranids".

ccs wrote:
[How are you figuring Chimeras aren't putting out comparable firepower to Razorbacks? Or cost anywhere near a Razorback?

Or are you really complaining that they don't have the raw AT potential of the LC-Razorback because you want to use the wrong tool for AT work?

Uh, Chimeras are BS4+ and carry much worse cargo. Razorbacks are also just incredibly over-costed. They should be around 90 points, minimum.

Chimeras base cost isn't actually too bad. Their issue is that weapon upgrades should cost the same as the infantries and that MMM makes them pointless. I really don't understand why GW keep making vehicle heavy weapons cost 5 more. Yes, vehicles don't suffer heavy penalties and can shoot into combat but you shouldn't be taxed on every single weapon, it should have been factored into the vehicles cost in the first place.

For example: The Chimeras heavy bolter and heavy flamer turret upgrade should be reduced to 5 points. Meaning the multi-laser is worth 5 points and swapping it to something better is also 5, which equals out to 10 points the same as an infantry heavy bolter.

It also seems strange that the Chimera is also the only W10 vehicle out of all the other Chimera chassis datasheets. The Basilisk, Hydra, Wyvern, Hellhound, Deathstrike, and Manticore are all W11. Just make it W11 like the rest of them now that CA2022 changed Bring It Down to make W10 count as 2 VP.

An idea; if you want to use a 'crusade' force, by which I mean take a force that is a majority of one regiment with a smattering of others, just drop the Ld of attached forces, to denote the attached forces' lack of trust in their allied commander, or the commander's lack of understanding on how to use them most effectively.

Just -1 or -2, and you are hitting the guard in their weakest stat, their morale.

Something crossed my mind with the "never do thing by halves": perhaps they could get a rule that does something like having you allocate all your lasgun shooting and for each unit you stack up on the same target you gain some sort of bonus as you drown the target in las fire.

It's a rough idea but with mechanics like Crossfire and the new Markerlights it feels like the army could have some really interesting rules that buff its shooting through a mechanic that plays to the army's lore.

Though I have some concern that orders could become actions for the officers issuing them since we're seeing more and more action interrupts.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Voss wrote:
Could give -1Ap back to lasguns.

i don0t think adding more AP inflation to the game will resolve the issues of guard though

If they aren't going to drop their point cost (which they won't) they have to inch towards making that cost worthwhile. They don't really have all that much room to play with stats- this one at least has some grounding in the game's history and makes them slightly less bad. And its a lot less asinine then making them sometimes run at super-speed.

Jarms48 wrote:

ccs wrote:
[How are you figuring Chimeras aren't putting out comparable firepower to Razorbacks? Or cost anywhere near a Razorback?

Or are you really complaining that they don't have the raw AT potential of the LC-Razorback because you want to use the wrong tool for AT work?

Uh, Chimeras are BS4+ and carry much worse cargo.

I wasn't asking about the quality of the shots, just the quantity. And if you do have that much worse cargo embarked? Well, then you get more shots!

Jarms48 wrote:
Razorbacks are also just incredibly over-costed. They should be around 90 points, minimum.

Chimeras base cost isn't actually too bad. Their issue is that weapon upgrades should cost the same as the infantries and that MMM makes them pointless. I really don't understand why GW keep making vehicle heavy weapons cost 5 more. Yes, vehicles don't suffer heavy penalties and can shoot into combat but you shouldn't be taxed on every single weapon, it should have been factored into the vehicles cost in the first place.

For example: The Chimeras heavy bolter and heavy flamer turret upgrade should be reduced to 5 points. Meaning the multi-laser is worth 5 points and swapping it to something better is also 5, which equals out to 10 points the same as an infantry heavy bolter.

None of that, especially your opinion of "should", changes the fact that in here reality a Chimera & a Razorback do not cost anywhere near the same points

Jarms48 wrote:
It also seems strange that the Chimera is also the only W10 vehicle out of all the other Chimera chassis datasheets. The Basilisk, Hydra, Wyvern, Hellhound, Deathstrike, and Manticore are all W11. Just make it W11 like the rest of them now that CA2022 changed Bring It Down to make W10 count as 2 VP.

Random commentary....

 generalchaos34 wrote:
Attention Troopers! It has come across my desk recently that our valiant guardsman have been dying more unceremoniously than normal. While I expect all of you to die gloriously for the Emperor it does help if you take a few enemies out on your way with a few well trained bayonet strikes. That being said....

Its very clear that Guard have not been in a good place for a VERY long time (I came in just after the halcyon days of 5th edition when guard had some teeth in them still but still reeling after . At the dawn of 8th there was some hope with conscripts and then again with Greater Good choose your own regiments. However nothing has been able to stick in a competitive scene. Which brings us this very quandary...how do we fix guard? Its a complex army that has some of the largest diversity in its builds and lists, going from all mech, all armor, all artillery, and all foot troops and everything in between. Balancing all of these factors will be quite a chore that will take planning, depth, and a strong dose of rules sensibility, which probably won't be happening ( a girl can dream can't she?). What does the guard need? Rebuilding from the ground up? A whole new kind of organization? Maybe simply point fixes? There are many ways to do it. Here are some of my ideas.

1. Platoons! Call me nostalgic but I really did enjoy these clunky monstrosities. Maybe less so at the time, but they have grown on me for sure! I think they are even more relevant now because they can give guard an opportunity to work around the constraints of the force organization chart. These should be a LT, 0-1 command squads, 2-5 Infantry squads, 0-3 conscripts, and a limit of heavy weapon squads and special weapons squads at 1 per Infantry squad (to help with balance). This would definitely free up the heavy slots and give HWS some time to shine, In all honesty due to their ease of killing they should cheap and terrible in general. Now with the more granular nature of 9th and its points this is a great time to balance out IS in general. Having a heavy weapon should not be as cheap as it is for the HWS but some special weapons should be free, ie flamers, sniper rifles, and grenade launchers, with a more premium price on melta and plasma guns. These weapons we never great so they should be cheap and ubiquitous. Orders should be standard unless they are issued by the platoon LT and then it should be applicable to all units in the platoon that are within LoS and are within 6 inches of the LT or 3 inches of another platoon unit getting an order. This way you can have a tightly packed formation that can be extremely efficient in the order department and get more bang for your buck.

I'm mostly with you here - Especially as it points to an issue with the base game itself i.e. restricting ObSec to Troops choices - I'd probably work it a little differently but the basic concept works for me. Say LT, 0-1 Command Squads (or even 1-1), 2-5 Squads OR Conscripts and 0-1 Special OR Heavy per Squad/Conscripts.

2. Veterans. Veterans should go back to being troops. They will be an alternative to the platoon and pretty much be how they are now. Upgraded troops for an upgraded price and a way out of buying a platoon.

Nah leave them Elites, but they should have all the abilities of their Non-Veteran source plus their elite abilities i.e. any Elite version of a Troop should get the benefits of troops such as ObSec - truth be told I'd give ObSec to all Infantry, or all Core, or all Core Infantry.

3. Cheaper is better. Guard should have garbage units for cheap, Its what they do and the prices should reflect that. Things like orders and platoons will be something that can mitigate the badness but also require careful planning and formations to maintain synergy

Guard should not be garbage units for cheap. That's grots, cultists, and a few others - and even then, the unit shouldn't be total garbage they are by fluff - cannon fodder units and should provide a benefit when used that way. Also, that's not to say one guardsman model can't be garbage, but the UNIT shouldn't be. Infantry squads, Gants and Gaunts, Boyz, Breachers and Strikers, (Potentially) Guardians and Corsairs, should all be roughly equal in different ways i.e. the Boys bad at shooting but good at fighting,

4. Order of Battle. There should be something like many other armies have based on turns, like necrons command protocols. In this case though it will be a battle plan you devise before the battle. If you try to stick to it you will gain bonuses. However, like guard, it is inflexible once in place and go horribly awry at a moments notice. I imagine this would be a branching choice of selections that would be available at certain turns and me require a pre-requisite order to move onto another one, letting you have some flexibility while also making paths designed for troops, armor, or artillery. Things could be like "hold the line" which would give a bonus to morale, or go to ground, which would give a bonus to ignoring AP -1 for a turn if they didn't move, which could then be followed up by Fix Bayonets, which could give a static bonus to charging or melee (and stay thematic to a counter charge). Obviously it would be very complicated but I think having an Order of Battle would really open up play styles for guard. This would also allow for something like Necrons where you can have each regiment have its "specialty" and get a bonus Order of Battle based on that, IE cadians get a leadership/orders one, catachans get a melee/stealth one, Valhallans get an infantry/artillery one, etc

sounds kind of like MARTIAL KA’TAH - but I think I'd go something more similar to the Space Marine Doctrines - potentially even just copying them over.

5. Vehicle Orders. Vehicle orders should be expanded, its nice now that a tank commander can give orders to any vehicle but this could also be expanded to allowing a special "command chimera/taurox" which is just a point upgrade for those vehicles that give it an ability to issue an order (wishlisting a new command vehicle in general, ala a command salamander)

Big time. I'd even go so far as to give them an Army of Renown to be just a Tank Company or Mechanized Infantry i.e. all Infantry must have a transport. But this also means expected terrain has to change in a way that lets lots of vehicles move around the table instead of being lucky to find a place to even deploy more than one vehicle. More smaller pieces to create roadways or open fields between stands of trees. Current terrain expectations of a few gigantic pieces cutting off all LOS is the issue there. I'd also allow these new and redone Tank Orders to Super Heavies even if each tank order has two sections - If (Normal Tank) and (Titanic Tank)

6. Endless Wave. Alternatively, instead of an order of battle system and endless waves system could also be enacted. This could be wholly copied from the the chaos daemon abilities where you get points each time you lose a unit or do something specific that you can cash in to return a lost unit onto your board edge (like summoning except you're summoning a guy with a lasgun and no shoes). This would of course have strict limits, ie no upgrades, but it would certainly give guard some major flexibility (lost a whole bunch of infantry? here comes a hellhound for reinforcements!) but would also be limited to you having taken massive casualties, which in itself is a very bad thing

These are my thoughts, what are yours?

Meh. I'd rather see Guard get a boost to "defense" -i.e. not getting pushed off of where they already are - than turned into a model revolving door. I'd like to see (Infantry based) Guard have more shortcuts into No-Man's-Land and be tough to dislodge with a weakness for expanding. More infiltrate, more cover saves, more/better overwatch, the Armored Company Guard would be the flip side, tough time defending where they're already at, but easy to assault places they aren't. Then the trick to list building with Guard is finding the balance or finding a way to cover up the weakness of whichever side you lean into.

 Kanluwen wrote:
[...] a number of good comments [...]

While we disagreed a couple of times in the past I have to say from discussion to discussion you begin to convince me, Kanluwen. While I, personally and for "my dudes" like the human horde image, I think you are very right that IG is kind of... backed into a corner there. And that at least a significant part, if not the majority of regiments (fluff wise) should be more elite and professional. Especially when one compares them to Grots and the simpler Tyranid forms.
And what you describe as "World Identity" seems from what I understand from it a valid approach to achieve that. It would also seem unproblematic to implement a niche there for people like me who want to stick to hoardy guard without barring everyone else from a more professional force that might fit the background better and result into better... lets call it "performance" in winrates etc.

ClockworkZion wrote:Something crossed my mind with the "never do thing by halves": perhaps they could get a rule that does something like having you allocate all your lasgun shooting and for each unit you stack up on the same target you gain some sort of bonus as you drown the target in las fire.

that sounds pretty interesting I think. I don't know how to do this rules wise, but... interesting.

 Pyroalchi wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
[...] a number of good comments [...]

While we disagreed a couple of times in the past I have to say from discussion to discussion you begin to convince me, Kanluwen. While I, personally and for "my dudes" like the human horde image, I think you are very right that IG is kind of... backed into a corner there. And that at least a significant part, if not the majority of regiments (fluff wise) should be more elite and professional. Especially when one compares them to Grots and the simpler Tyranid forms.
And what you describe as "World Identity" seems from what I understand from it a valid approach to achieve that. It would also seem unproblematic to implement a niche there for people like me who want to stick to hoardy guard without barring everyone else from a more professional force that might fit the background better and result into better... lets call it "performance" in winrates etc.

Early on, I mean way way back in 2nd Edition - it seemed like the guardsman was their default base statline. Or perhaps it was just a generic not-guard man, and guard were a very minor upgrade to that. If I'm remembering right, the man was WS/BS 2 and Guard were WS/BS3 and another point of LD or so. I think the players shifted to MEQ. For balance and GrimDark I think the game is better when GEQ is the base.

ClockworkZion wrote:Something crossed my mind with the "never do thing by halves": perhaps they could get a rule that does something like having you allocate all your lasgun shooting and for each unit you stack up on the same target you gain some sort of bonus as you drown the target in las fire.

that sounds pretty interesting I think. I don't know how to do this rules wise, but... interesting.

Or old school Markerlight rules too. Have to be careful to not turn flashlights back into the "terminator killers" like 3rd edition. I'd do something smaller for all the lasguns in the squad or something bigger for the special and heavy if all the lasguns target the same unit kind of thing. Something along the lines of the Eradicators Total Obliteration Rule Maybe but more Guard-flavored. If it stayed stationary... or If it's in cover....

One big thing as was mentioned before is that the Guard has a lot of plinking firepower. In the current version of the game, multiwound infantry is becoming the norm and that makes lasguns an absolute waste of time and an exercise in rolling way too many dice for a slight effect. Of course, that's a general flaw with 40k where it wants to be a company scale game where the exact shape of an individual's knife still matters. I could easily see basic weapons being consolidated into a single profile per unit. With the strength/AP/Damage varying by the amount of guardsmen left. But then again, that would probably have to involve getting rid of the whole (at minimum) three step attack roll.

And please, give sergeants their lasguns back. That makes our units much easier to manage and that one extra melee attack is pretty meaningless anyways.

Instead of making infantry cheaper, I think rules like GSC have will be awesome for guard aswell. Remove a unit from the table (doesn't matter how many models are still left) and return them full strength back somewhere on the table.

- adds strategy (at what moment do you use it, opponent has to think about how much firepower they put into a unit)
- you make them cheaper without making the starting points cheaper
- it makes guard stronger as a unit of troops coming back somewhere else on the table is a great option to have
- guard should play the surviving game (hold the line!), not the destroy the enemy game

MorglumNecksnapper wrote:

- guard should play the surviving game (hold the line!), not the destroy the enemy game

That's what I was getting at. They (Infantry)should get a bonus to their "defense" more than a bonus to their offense - i.e Guard that move half distance or less have cover. Guard in Cover and shoot lasguns twice (or lasguns for guard in cover are Rapid Fire 2 is probably simpler. While the Armored Fist aspect should get more linebreaker boosts.

Maybe also something like "digging in", symbolized by Infantry squads getting light cover if they don't move/perform an action a turn and maybe (!) even counting as obscured if they do so two consecutive turns (because they are sitting in foxholes and trenches).
But I have no idea if that is to strong. Might be something though if Infantry Squads sitting on an objective could make themselves hard to remove, even if they have abysmal offense

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Maybe also something like "digging in", symbolized by Infantry squads getting light cover if they don't move/perform an action a turn and maybe (!) even counting as obscured if they do so two consecutive turns (because they are sitting in foxholes and trenches).
But I have no idea if that is to strong. Might be something though if Infantry Squads sitting on an objective could make themselves hard to remove, even if they have abysmal offense

I like that idea, but fear that before they could get that buff, they probably would get removed because they don't really have much in the way of survivability. Generally though, cover could be much more effective, especially for light infantry.

 Dolnikan wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Maybe also something like "digging in", symbolized by Infantry squads getting light cover if they don't move/perform an action a turn and maybe (!) even counting as obscured if they do so two consecutive turns (because they are sitting in foxholes and trenches).
But I have no idea if that is to strong. Might be something though if Infantry Squads sitting on an objective could make themselves hard to remove, even if they have abysmal offense

I like that idea, but fear that before they could get that buff, they probably would get removed because they don't really have much in the way of survivability. Generally though, cover could be much more effective, especially for light infantry.

It might be fun to borrow the "Defensive Stakes" rule Bretonian Bowmen had in Fantasy. They had bases of little stake models that went in front and did mean things to people who charged the bowmen. But when the bowmen moved, they left the stakes behind (well they were removed but you get what I mean). Give the guard some sandbag bases that get left behind when they move.

Order of Battle doesn't mean what will you do in a particular phase of a fight. An Order of Battle is: the units, formations, and equipment of a military force. In other words, the army list is the Order of Battle. (Retired military here, not trying to be pedantic. However, military terms should be used correctly.

Breton wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Maybe also something like "digging in", symbolized by Infantry squads getting light cover if they don't move/perform an action a turn and maybe (!) even counting as obscured if they do so two consecutive turns (because they are sitting in foxholes and trenches).
But I have no idea if that is to strong. Might be something though if Infantry Squads sitting on an objective could make themselves hard to remove, even if they have abysmal offense

I like that idea, but fear that before they could get that buff, they probably would get removed because they don't really have much in the way of survivability. Generally though, cover could be much more effective, especially for light infantry.

It might be fun to borrow the "Defensive Stakes" rule Bretonian Bowmen had in Fantasy. They had bases of little stake models that went in front and did mean things to people who charged the bowmen. But when the bowmen moved, they left the stakes behind (well they were removed but you get what I mean). Give the guard some sandbag bases that get left behind when they move.

It could actually be an interesting kind of action where a unit can dig in as one to give a bonus to cover until they move. Or it could even be integrated into a completely refreshed order structure.

Again: I don't know if that would work gameswise, I don't have experience and it would definitly feel wonky as long as Guard sprints faster than some vehicles with MMM:
Maybe something like the Space Marine boni in progressing turns that symbolized the whole force digging in. So (just roughly from the hip, don't claw at the exact execution)
Turn1: the force arrived on the battlefield, no bonus
Turn2: the first foxholes are there, the heavy weapons teams have placed some sandbags, the Snipers have found their hiding places etc. (infantry has light cover), Maybe stationary tanks have also snuggled in really deep (and profit from cover as long as they don't move)
Turn3: Voxnet established (order Range increases significantly), Spotters (non-LOS Artillery gets some kind of bonus, if another unit sees the target)
Turn4: I don't know... maybe barbed wire is laid out? (some bonus that keeps the infantry from getting charged), Camo Nets on immobile tanks (-1 to hit for enemies or something)
Turn5: Artillerybarrage/Airstrike (some off-bord damage can be called in, maybe enough to clear a contested objective on the last turn)
etc.

Reading through it, it looks a bit chaotic and almost purely defensive thingies, but I guess it's enough to get the general impression. Might be funny to simulate the Militarum modifying their battlefield and getting more and more stuck in.

 Dolnikan wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Maybe also something like "digging in", symbolized by Infantry squads getting light cover if they don't move/perform an action a turn and maybe (!) even counting as obscured if they do so two consecutive turns (because they are sitting in foxholes and trenches).
But I have no idea if that is to strong. Might be something though if Infantry Squads sitting on an objective could make themselves hard to remove, even if they have abysmal offense

I like that idea, but fear that before they could get that buff, they probably would get removed because they don't really have much in the way of survivability. Generally though, cover could be much more effective, especially for light infantry.

It might be fun to borrow the "Defensive Stakes" rule Bretonian Bowmen had in Fantasy. They had bases of little stake models that went in front and did mean things to people who charged the bowmen. But when the bowmen moved, they left the stakes behind (well they were removed but you get what I mean). Give the guard some sandbag bases that get left behind when they move.

It could actually be an interesting kind of action where a unit can dig in as one to give a bonus to cover until they move. Or it could even be integrated into a completely refreshed order structure.

It fit Catachan at least who set up defensive booby traps to slow the enemy.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

It fit Catachan at least who set up defensive booby traps to slow the enemy.

Which is a wildly different concept to the stakes, which gave a bonus when being charged.

In an ideal world?
We'd get these as a "deployable" option for some Infantry types. They're legitimately man-portable from the looks of things, and 'retract' for transportation/carrying purposes.


You can't really envision the Tanith or Tallarn or Catachans or Elysians carrying cover or sandbags around with them, or even really going heavy into defensive works. They hit hard and move back out as quickly as possible to avoid the enemy getting to grips with them.


I've gone into detail before about the different ideas of Infantry Squads, and I maintain that it makes sense for a "Line Infantry" archetype to be the one given the defensive tools like sandbags or other "dig in" mechanics to offset their lack of heavy armor and stealth/skirmishing tactics.

It is worth mentioning that we have art of Krieg Engineers and Grenadiers via the Kill-Team and Ork codex material. Might be that we'll be seeing an Engineer unit coming tied to that heavier armored bodytype, allowing for deploying minefields--something we've seen on the DKoK transfer sheet. Would allow for Cadians and Krieg to have an 'alternate build' unit from the same Kasrkin/Grenadier kits and be where token models could be placed as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And while I'm in suggestion mode:
Something I've been toying with for Guard vehicles is making them degrade less often but more drastically. Say, rather than degrading 3-4 times across brackets?

They get two brackets: "Mostly okay" and "Definitely Not Okay".

Paying X points to make them a "Veteran Crew" would allow for you to ignore certain downsides of the "Definitely Not Okay" bracket.

Biggest hope is just something to make full infantry guard viable. I think that would be done through an improved regiment creation system, being able to select the bonuses of like a 4+ armor save and some sort of bonus to lasguns to represent vostroyans would be pretty amazing. I feel like data sheet wise guard is easy to shift into a good spot of at least internal balance, nothing really steps on the toes of other things all too much, just I worry that gw will random decide one aspect of guard is to be smited into the ground so either artillery, tanks, or infantry will randomly suck.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And while I'm in suggestion mode:
Something I've been toying with for Guard vehicles is making them degrade less often but more drastically. Say, rather than degrading 3-4 times across brackets?

They get two brackets: "Mostly okay" and "Definitely Not Okay".

Paying X points to make them a "Veteran Crew" would allow for you to ignore certain downsides of the "Definitely Not Okay" bracket.

Where would you put the breakpoint for the bracketing? The trend seems to be that dedicated AT guns get high minimum or flat damage, I'd wonder if this would only really change things on paper as average shooting might still result in a non-Superheavy vehicle getting bracketed anyways (assuming no further stat/special rule changes and that "def not OK" ~= the current "lowest bracket").

You'd simply cut out the middle bracket, rolling it into the top bracket.

Caveat note:
This isn't necessarily appropriate for all Guard vehicles. But having it as a feature on some of the battle tanks or superheavies could go a long way.

Given the current boost in the Balance Dataslate, I think GW will be trying to improve Guard Infantry through use of improved Orders. That rule has an Order work over a group of Guard units that are close to each other. Sort of a Platoon Order rather than a Squad Order.

Currently that is a small boost because Orders are not particularly strong and a unit can only get one order. But imagine what a few shifts to that could do?

Stronger Orders that have bigger impact on the ordered units. Like having FRFSRF give a bonuses to the attack such as Hit, Wound, AP, Strength, or even Damage to make the impact of the Lasguns better when used under the watchful supervision of officers.

The ability to benefit from multiple orders, like one from a Platoon Commander and one from the (almost certainly one per detachment) Company Commander. Add Orders that Company Commanders have but Platoon Commanders don't. Give Veterans a niche by having them be their own Platoon Commander with an even more limited set of Orders.

Expand the units affected by support units like Priest and Commisars.

Add some defensive rules for the support infantry units like Heavy Weapon Squads and Special Weapons Squads.

In short, make even Infantry Guard a combined arms operation. It should not be just drowning your opponent in bodies. It should be increasing the effiency of mediocre troops into a devastating hammer.

You know, for the purpose of not rolling hundreds of dice for little gain, I think at this point I'd just like to see the lasgun get a sidegrade that has similar effect to current setup but without all the dice rolling. Say instead of rapid fire and FRFSRF boosting the shots even more, give it 1 shot, and then rolls of 4 = 1 hit, roll of 5 = 2, roll of 6 = 3 hits. Maybe change FRFSRF to increase all hits by 1 so that 4 = 2 hits, 5 = 3 hits, and 6 = 4 hits.

Just one of those things where you are rolling 1/2 to 1/4 of the dice but with the exploding numbers are still getting a reasonable number of hits in.

At least I'd prefer that to the solution of giving lasguns more shots and then having to roll literal buckets of dice for a single squad.

 kurhanik wrote:
You know, for the purpose of not rolling hundreds of dice for little gain, I think at this point I'd just like to see the lasgun get a sidegrade that has similar effect to current setup but without all the dice rolling. Say instead of rapid fire and FRFSRF boosting the shots even more, give it 1 shot, and then rolls of 4 = 1 hit, roll of 5 = 2, roll of 6 = 3 hits. Maybe change FRFSRF to increase all hits by 1 so that 4 = 2 hits, 5 = 3 hits, and 6 = 4 hits.

Just one of those things where you are rolling 1/2 to 1/4 of the dice but with the exploding numbers are still getting a reasonable number of hits in.

At least I'd prefer that to the solution of giving lasguns more shots and then having to roll literal buckets of dice for a single squad.

complains about rolling too many dice, and his solution? more dice, More Dice, MORE DICE!!!

Be nice to have some rules for combined arms effects.

Something like: Combined Arms (Artillery) in the shooting phase, pick an Infantry unit with a Vox caster and an Artillery* unit, they must both fire at the same target. Resolve each units firing as normal; however the enemy unit gains no bonus to their saving throws for cover against either unit. If the enemy unit is destroyed before one of these units get to fire, the shots of the other are lost - it may not pick another target and counts as having fired all its weapons this turn.

And other things that have effects when using 2 or more units of different types together. Like transports and infantry squads, getting a bonus if they stay together, infantry screening tanks, ogryns shielding their little brothers, scout sentinels spotting for tanks, and so on.

 carldooley wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
You know, for the purpose of not rolling hundreds of dice for little gain, I think at this point I'd just like to see the lasgun get a sidegrade that has similar effect to current setup but without all the dice rolling. Say instead of rapid fire and FRFSRF boosting the shots even more, give it 1 shot, and then rolls of 4 = 1 hit, roll of 5 = 2, roll of 6 = 3 hits. Maybe change FRFSRF to increase all hits by 1 so that 4 = 2 hits, 5 = 3 hits, and 6 = 4 hits.

Just one of those things where you are rolling 1/2 to 1/4 of the dice but with the exploding numbers are still getting a reasonable number of hits in.

At least I'd prefer that to the solution of giving lasguns more shots and then having to roll literal buckets of dice for a single squad.

complains about rolling too many dice, and his solution? more dice, More Dice, MORE DICE!!!

Um...I'm confused? How is rolling 10 dice for a squad of lasguns more rolling than 19 (rapid fire) or 37 (rapid fire + FRFSRF)?

 kurhanik wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
You know, for the purpose of not rolling hundreds of dice for little gain, I think at this point I'd just like to see the lasgun get a sidegrade that has similar effect to current setup but without all the dice rolling. Say instead of rapid fire and FRFSRF boosting the shots even more, give it 1 shot, and then rolls of 4 = 1 hit, roll of 5 = 2, roll of 6 = 3 hits. Maybe change FRFSRF to increase all hits by 1 so that 4 = 2 hits, 5 = 3 hits, and 6 = 4 hits.

Just one of those things where you are rolling 1/2 to 1/4 of the dice but with the exploding numbers are still getting a reasonable number of hits in.

At least I'd prefer that to the solution of giving lasguns more shots and then having to roll literal buckets of dice for a single squad.

complains about rolling too many dice, and his solution? more dice, More Dice, MORE DICE!!!

Um...I'm confused? How is rolling 10 dice for a squad of lasguns more rolling than 19 (rapid fire) or 37 (rapid fire + FRFSRF)?

Your suggestion was progressively more exploding hits on a bunch of hits. How do you resolve them? Are they auto-wounding? or would you need MORE DICE!!!?

Just had a thought as well - I wouldn't be surprised to see some "Company Command" - Think Company Commander into Creed. The others are less obvious... There's already a Comisar and Lord Comisar. I suppose we could see upgrades to the psyker and Lord Comisar.

 carldooley wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
You know, for the purpose of not rolling hundreds of dice for little gain, I think at this point I'd just like to see the lasgun get a sidegrade that has similar effect to current setup but without all the dice rolling. Say instead of rapid fire and FRFSRF boosting the shots even more, give it 1 shot, and then rolls of 4 = 1 hit, roll of 5 = 2, roll of 6 = 3 hits. Maybe change FRFSRF to increase all hits by 1 so that 4 = 2 hits, 5 = 3 hits, and 6 = 4 hits.

Just one of those things where you are rolling 1/2 to 1/4 of the dice but with the exploding numbers are still getting a reasonable number of hits in.

At least I'd prefer that to the solution of giving lasguns more shots and then having to roll literal buckets of dice for a single squad.

complains about rolling too many dice, and his solution? more dice, More Dice, MORE DICE!!!

Um...I'm confused? How is rolling 10 dice for a squad of lasguns more rolling than 19 (rapid fire) or 37 (rapid fire + FRFSRF)?

Your suggestion was progressively more exploding hits on a bunch of hits. How do you resolve them? Are they auto-wounding? or would you need MORE DICE!!!?

Um no? It was - roll 10 dice instead of however many more, then every 4 is a single successful hit, every 5 is 2 successful hits, and 6 is 3 successful hits, which you um, roll damage for as normal? It gets the idea of massed fire across without having to actually roll a ton of shots. I'm just not sure where you get progressively more hits from that statement. Its just a shortcut to save on rolling and counting quite as many dice.

So if you rolled an attack of a squad with 9 lasguns and 1 laspistol, and say got 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6. You would have 7 hits in total (or 11 with frfsrf) to resolve damage from. Like I said, just simpler than rolling and tracking 19 dice, or 37 with frfsrf.

Not even saying its a good idea. I'm just confused by the reaction that rolling between 1/2 and close to 1/4 of the dice somehow equals more dice rolling.

 kurhanik wrote:


Not even saying its a good idea. I'm just confused by the reaction that rolling between 1/2 and close to 1/4 of the dice somehow equals more dice rolling.

For one, it sounds like you're skipping rolling to wound. A quarter of the dice when you've only eliminted roughly a third on average?

Breton wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:


Not even saying its a good idea. I'm just confused by the reaction that rolling between 1/2 and close to 1/4 of the dice somehow equals more dice rolling.

For one, it sounds like you're skipping rolling to wound. A quarter of the dice when you've only eliminted roughly a third on average?

Normal sequence for shooting a squad of 10 Guardsmen in Rapid Fire with FRFSRF is...

37 shots, average of 18-19 hits (we'll call it 18)
18 more rolls for wounding
Total of 55 dice rolled.

Their suggestion is to roll 10 dice, then get hits based on the rolls. Average of 15 hits with FRFSRF. Total of 25 dice rolled, with 10 dice for the hits and 15 for the wounds.
If Rapid Fire also adds +1 hit to the 4+ results, that increases to 20 hits and 30 dice total.

So a quarter is exaggerating, but half is about right.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:


Not even saying its a good idea. I'm just confused by the reaction that rolling between 1/2 and close to 1/4 of the dice somehow equals more dice rolling.

For one, it sounds like you're skipping rolling to wound. A quarter of the dice when you've only eliminted roughly a third on average?

Normal sequence for shooting a squad of 10 Guardsmen in Rapid Fire with FRFSRF is...

37 shots, average of 18-19 hits (we'll call it 18)
18 more rolls for wounding
Total of 55 dice rolled.

Their suggestion is to roll 10 dice, then get hits based on the rolls. Average of 15 hits with FRFSRF. Total of 25 dice rolled, with 10 dice for the hits and 15 for the wounds.
If Rapid Fire also adds +1 hit to the 4+ results, that increases to 20 hits and 30 dice total.

So a quarter is exaggerating, but half is about right.

Yeah, essentially this. The 1/4 bit was in reference to rolls to hit. Auto wounding lasguns seem like they would be a bit like opening a can of worms.

Unless your dice are on fire, the wound rolls will always be fewer than the number of dice you are rolling to hit after all (without exploding hits). I mean theoretically you could currently get 37 hits and roll 37 wound dice yes, for a total of 74 dice. Unlikely but physically possible. With just rolling 10 attack dice, even if you get all 6s, its 30 hits (or 40 with frfsrf) for a total of 40/50 dice rolls - still fewer than the theoretical max of 74.

Like I said, not necessarily saying it is a fantastic idea, and obviously it would need to be hammered out. I'd just rather something like that to shorthand the effect of lots of shots to giving them even more shots.

Rather than autowounding I'd find something like giving FRFSRF exploding hits. Maybe tie it into the new orders system so the more units affected by the same order that shoot the same target the better the hits explode on (unmodified 6+ for one unit, 5+ for two units, 4+ for three or more units).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Rather than autowounding I'd find something like giving FRFSRF exploding hits. Maybe tie it into the new orders system so the more units affected by the same order that shoot the same target the better the hits explode on (unmodified 6+ for one unit, 5+ for two units, 4+ for three or more units).

The last thing the army needs is more dice. I would rejoice if stuff like orders reduced dice rolls. So FRFSRF instead of doubling shots now auto hits. Burn Them Out! means you do max hits. Bring it down does an extra auto wounding hit on a 6. Etc. Just imagine if the army got quicker to play...

I think if you aren't going for a radical overhaul or abilities like GSC (for example doing 'suppression*' in some form rather than crossfire and so on) you have to buff the firepower but in a humdrum way. For me that would be including basic heavy and special weapons into a squad price, and sponson and secondary weapons into vehicle prices. While keeping those prices low. Cutting down the options should also help min maxing be ironed out a bit. So similar number of bodies but an increase in firepower.

Hell given free reign I would go further. Start combining entries. For example...
Heavy weapon, special weapon and infantry squad replaced with...
Imperial Guard Squad - 50 points
Fluff, many and varied, outfitted number of tasks etc etc
Sarge - pistol and sword or lasgun
Comms - Lasgun wielding guardsmen with Vox
5 Guardsmen with lasguns
1 Guardsman with sniper rifle (+5 points to change for other special weapon)
2 Guardsmen with special weapons (flamer or grenade, +5 points each to change to melta, plasma or Hve flamer)
Options
Replace up to 3 special weapons with heavy weapons. Each team replaces 1 special weapon and 1 las gun. +5/+10 (las/missile) each

Conscripts get regular guard stats, come in 20-30 man blobs, can take up to 3 flamers/grenade launchers for +5 points each. 80/110 points per squad

Veterans/Command squad merged similar ideas as above.

Running theme is making there be a lot of decent weapons sprinkled in, without significantly reducing numbers.


*If i got to bring a suppression mechanic into the game I would go wild with a variety of ideas...

I'm against auto-hits being an order. My thought was replacing extra shooting attacks with auto hits. Under the system I mentioned a single unit on rapid fire range would, on average, get 20 shots, hit 10 times, gain 3 bonus hits and then roll to wound. Two units in rapid fire would 20 times, gain 8 bonus hits. Three units would get 60 shots, 30 would hit and they'd gain 30 auto hits.

Basically the whole point is a compounding bonus the more you commit against a single target which fits the Guard MO.

Plus it's not hitting as much as wounding where the lasgun falls short the most thanks to only being S3.

In the guard, the last thing I want is explosive auto-wounding, or armor rending mechanics for the humble laser guns. This does not feel right, and would not save much time compared to FRFSRF, because they involve tedious dice selection and separate resolution. However, seeing the significant boosts to basic trooper weapons from recent codexes, I think GW should do something for our line infantrymen. Skitarii, Aeldari guardians, Tau firewarriors, Kroots have now quite potent rifles. The laser gun is very lackluster in comparison, and for 55 points a squad, I expect more from it. In comparison with other armies, it is sad that we need to rely on the FRFSRF order to make our troop worth something in shooting. Many times, the situation on the board dictates that we use another order, or we have no officer on the right spot for a specific squad. The most simple buff I see would be to make lasguns straight "rapid fire : 2" weapons. Yes, it would imply intensive dice rolling, but I woult take such a change happily. We would then rely on orders for more tactical moves rather than micro-managing numbers of shots. Get back to the fight, rerolls, advance and shoot, improved advances, doing an action then shooting normally, would all be quite nice if we had garanteed 2 or 4 shots from a lasgun.

Here's a question - if we assume a standard Infantry squad, without upgrades (and, unfortunately, without a lasgun on the Sergeant), what should the expected return for a turn of firing be these days?

I feel like, and correct me if im wrong here. I feel like a lot of people seem to be of the mindset that guard infantry is meant to be good.
I have always viewed guard infantry as the tax you take in order to take the better things. Guard infantry is really just there to be bubble wrap, objective holding, and speed bumps for the enemy while their actual power units.IE their artillery, tanks, elite units, and supporting craft do the emperors work for them.

Whihc goes back to my point on, i think the way you fix guard is you need to fix their vehicles to be appealing and viable agian. Right now, they are not at all because vehicles suck in 9th ed.

Guard need to have their artillery getting the blast rule on units of 5 or more, not 10 or more. Or need to make it so they double 1's and 2s when they are rolling for number of shots. Recall that back in the days of templates, you did not roll to hit like you do now. So back in the day, you only had 2 rolls to determine the damage you did, you had your scatter roll which would determine the number of things you hit by template, anything under it hit then you rolled for wounds.
Vs now
Roll for number of hits, roll to hit, then roll to wound, that removes a lot of dice from the pool with that one extra roll.

The other thing they need to do is give guard vehicles more defensives with bein able to ignore rending of weapons that are not equal or greater then their toughness value, or have them ignore profiling

The issue too with guard vehicles is that you dont need to kill them, you just need to profile them. A russ hitting on 5s is not a big threat, a rull hitting on a 6 is even less of a threat that can just be ignored.

I think people focusing on infantry is the wrong thing.

To Dysartes, i would answer your question this way, I expect nothing from infantry firing, i gauge them on how much firing they can take for their point cost.

I get the desire to want the infantry to be good.
I was wanting to start an Imperial Guard army for a long time, years and years.
I always dreamed of mechanised infantry driving up in Chimeras, Veterans jumping out to give 'em what-for with shotguns. That sort of thing.

But recently I realised - that isn't possible anymore. Imperial Guard are still locked into the same old T3 with S3 lasguns. But the game has just left that so far in the dirt it's not even funny. It started with 2W Astartes, then we've got T5 Orks, not to mention Custodes and whatever else.
I realised IG infantry can be nothing but speed bumps, so I went to play a different army (Tau) that let me do that (albeit perhaps a little too well now...)

There's some stuff you can do to lean into and improve that though.
Either add back platoons, or at least the blobbing up part. Or give Heavy/Special Weapons Teams some sort of protection. Right now they suck because they just evaporate, but make them useful.

Infantry should be a valid playstyle, but that doesn't necessarily mean the lasgun needs to be useful.

I'm not even sure what fancy shenanigans you can give IG vehicle. They're always survived by just brute-forcing their way through problems. T8/2+ was one example of how they brute force their way through survivability problems. They don't really have any gubbinz to ignore vehicle profiling like Tau AI or Eldar Spirit Stones or whatever.

I don't even know what they can do with the guns - a Demolisher Cannon already exists on the SM Vindicator which would appear to hard-lock how much firepower that gun can have, and by extension the rest of the turret guns.
Unless they add an "Leman Russ Demolisher" variant which is inexplicably better, granted they've done it before.

IG are in a real predicament with 9th edition. I genuinely don't know what they can do - I dislike all the options.

Again, my opinion, the only option is to make their vehicles good and buff them further. T8/2+ means jack all in 9th ed when you can be profiled by a single weapon and be useless the entire game.

Their big guns that were template based in past ed need to be buffed to be able to hit more targets base. In a world where 10 man or less sized squads are common place, rolling anything less then 5 hits on a basilisks feels really really bad when you also have to hit on 4s before modifiers.
God forbid you roll a 1 on your battle canon and are already profiled. Feels really bad fielding a nice tank to have it earn exactly zero of its points back.

One wild idea I once had for the vehicles with multiple weapons (just a wild idea, it's not completely thought through): If one says Xenos, SM etc. have better stats, Inv., -1 damage and the like because they have more advanced tech, space magic, whatever you could as well say: every gun on a baneblade has a guy behind it targeting it with the most basic targeting equipment (hence the BS 4+), so even if the Baneblade turret gets evaporated... that should not really reduce the performance of the gunner in sponson turret #4.

I don't know how exactly to implement it but just for the sake of the argument: imagine the Baneblade brackes not be BS4+/BS5+/BS6+ but instead: you have 1. the turret/Casemat main weapon 2. the twin Bolter/Demolisher Hull weapon 3. the optional first sponson pair 4. the optional second sponson pair. For each bracket, one of those gets disabled. That would for example mean a Shadowsword with two pairs of sponsons could fire at full BS until it's last wound by "sacrificing" the sponsons when it gets bracketed.

Simultanously for the Leman Russ: 1. Turret, 2. Hull weapon 3. Sponsons. Each bracket sacrifices one of those. In a variation you could also "sacrifice" your engine, so when bracketed you can choose to let the vehicle count as immobilized but still firing at full efficiency.
It would just mean that while a serious hit at... lets say a Hammerhead does such a mess with its electrics that the whole vehicle degrades (but still uses all its weapons and motorization at reduced efficiency) guard vehicle is so "low tech", that a hit in the engine deck just destroyes that without really affecting the dude ramming ammo into the breach of the main gun and aiming it per hand.



@ Infantry performance: I personally (but as you know, I have no gaming perspective, so that's purely theoretical wishing) don't expect much firepower from them. But I would love to see mechanics that leaves a serious chance to have some dudes around in the later turns without the nessecity to start with 200 because they just get mowed down. So if some kind of defense boost/recycling mechanic/suppression/digging in can be done: I would love this much more than better lasguns.

Well, good news Kiro, even with a s3 lasgun, guardsmen are just as effective against t5 orks as t4 orks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For infantry I’d like to see a sort of reserve thing that’s been brought up, but just for conscripts. Just let you respawn em once the squad dies at board edge or something, would make them like 2.5 points in effect.
Maybe also if I’m being very very hopeful, some sort of way to run em as melee troops. Combat blades or something like in HH militia and cults would be fun.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

The last thing the army needs is more dice. I would rejoice if stuff like orders reduced dice rolls. So FRFSRF instead of doubling shots now auto hits. Burn Them Out! means you do max hits. Bring it down does an extra auto wounding hit on a 6. Etc. Just imagine if the army got quicker to play...

This. Any competitive players know there's no point rolling for lasguns. It's a waste of time on the clock.

Personally I'd make FRFSRF autowound on 6's to hit. Basically make lasgun radium weapons when under that order. Reduces rolling significantly.

I wouldn't mind something like Warmachine's Combined Ranged Attack. Fewer shots at higher strength. Trading rate of fire for finding weak points, essentially.

 Dysartes wrote:
Here's a question - if we assume a standard Infantry squad, without upgrades (and, unfortunately, without a lasgun on the Sergeant), what should the expected return for a turn of firing be these days?

Death by a thousand cuts. The plastic embodiment of the phrase Quantity Has A Quality All Its Own.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
In the guard, the last thing I want is explosive auto-wounding, or armor rending mechanics for the humble laser guns. This does not feel right, and would not save much time compared to FRFSRF, because they involve tedious dice selection and separate resolution. However, seeing the significant boosts to basic trooper weapons from recent codexes, I think GW should do something for our line infantrymen. Skitarii, Aeldari guardians, Tau firewarriors, Kroots have now quite potent rifles. The laser gun is very lackluster in comparison, and for 55 points a squad, I expect more from it. In comparison with other armies, it is sad that we need to rely on the FRFSRF order to make our troop worth something in shooting. Many times, the situation on the board dictates that we use another order, or we have no officer on the right spot for a specific squad. The most simple buff I see would be to make lasguns straight "rapid fire : 2" weapons. Yes, it would imply intensive dice rolling, but I woult take such a change happily. We would then rely on orders for more tactical moves rather than micro-managing numbers of shots. Get back to the fight, rerolls, advance and shoot, improved advances, doing an action then shooting normally, would all be quite nice if we had garanteed 2 or 4 shots from a lasgun.

The last thing we need is even more meaningless dice rolls for Lasguns. What we need is actually meaningful rules for Orders to lift Lasguns from baseline flashlights to effective weapons against the increase defenses of enemy units.

If I was writing the rules, I would go back to the more impactful Order rules from 5th Edition Codex for inspiration:

Some Orders are for Company Commanders (aka Senior Officer) only, while others are shared with the Platoon Commanders (Officers) and Veteran Squads

Company Commanders are 1 per detachment, but Platoon Commanders are 2 per HQ Slot

Units can be under the effects of two orders at a time, but only one of them must have issued by a Senior Officer

Orders given by Officers affect the targeted unit and all <Regiment> Core Infantry units within 3" of that unit

Officers may issue an order to a unit within 6", while Senior Officers may order units within 12". Additionally, an Officer within 3" of a Vox Caster may order any unit with a Vox Caster. Veteran Squads issue orders to themselves only.

Orders are given in the Command Phase of the turn of the player's turn.

Bring It Down (Senior Officers only): Select an enemy unit the Senior Officer can see. The ordered unit has a +1 to Wound the selected unit until the end of the next Shooting Phase.

Fire On My Target (Senior Officers only): Select an enemy unit the Senior Officer can see. The ordered unit has a +1 to Hit the selected unit until the end of the next Shooting Phase.

Get Back in the Fight (Senior Officers only): Until the end of the turn, the ordered unit may Fall Back and then either Shoot in the Shooting phase or Charge in the Charge phase. It may not do both.

First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!: Lasguns in the ordered unit count the target unit as being within 1/2 range and are AP -1 until the end of the shooting phase.

Fix Bayonets: Models in the ordered unit armed with Lasguns or melee weapons gain an additional attack when they fight until the end of the turn.

Move! Move! Move!: When the ordered unit make its move during the Movement phase, if it Advances it rolls 3d6 for it's Advance roll and takes the highest die. If the unit Falls Back, it may add 1d6 to its Move characters for its Fall Back move.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
One wild idea I once had for the vehicles with multiple weapons (just a wild idea, it's not completely thought through): If one says Xenos, SM etc. have better stats, Inv., -1 damage and the like because they have more advanced tech, space magic, whatever you could as well say: every gun on a baneblade has a guy behind it targeting it with the most basic targeting equipment (hence the BS 4+), so even if the Baneblade turret gets evaporated... that should not really reduce the performance of the gunner in sponson turret #4.

I don't know how exactly to implement it but just for the sake of the argument: imagine the Baneblade brackes not be BS4+/BS5+/BS6+ but instead: you have 1. the turret/Casemat main weapon 2. the twin Bolter/Demolisher Hull weapon 3. the optional first sponson pair 4. the optional second sponson pair. For each bracket, one of those gets disabled. That would for example mean a Shadowsword with two pairs of sponsons could fire at full BS until it's last wound by "sacrificing" the sponsons when it gets bracketed.

Simultanously for the Leman Russ: 1. Turret, 2. Hull weapon 3. Sponsons. Each bracket sacrifices one of those. In a variation you could also "sacrifice" your engine, so when bracketed you can choose to let the vehicle count as immobilized but still firing at full efficiency.
It would just mean that while a serious hit at... lets say a Hammerhead does such a mess with its electrics that the whole vehicle degrades (but still uses all its weapons and motorization at reduced efficiency) guard vehicle is so "low tech", that a hit in the engine deck just destroyes that without really affecting the dude ramming ammo into the breach of the main gun and aiming it per hand.

I've pitched a couple ideas along these lines in the past.

A.) The first idea was that, instead of keeping track of degrading statlines, a vehicle that hits a certain wound threshold (basically the thresholds where damage brackets are now) would suffer one of the following:
1. Weapon destroyed. A weapon of the attacking player's choice is out of commission for the rest of the game. (Various repair/healing abilities could undo this.)
2. Immobilized. The vehicle is Movement 0 for the rest of the game. (Various repair/healing abilities could undo this.)
3. Stunned. The vehicle can't do anything during its next turn.
Not sure if it would be better to let the controlling player choose which of those 3 kicks in or have players roll for it. The idea was to capture a bit of the cinematic nature of damage from past editions while reducing the number of statlines players have to remember.

B.) The second idea was to give some models (specifically superheavies) targetable "weak points." When a model shoots at a unit with weak points, they can choose to target a weak point instead of attacking normally. Targeting a weak point imposes a -1 to hit. Attacks made against weak points use the Toughness, Wounds, Save, etc. of the weak point rather than the vehicle's main statline. Damage done to weak points is tracked independently from damage done normally. Reducing a weak point to 0 wounds imposes some kind of debuff on the vehicle. So for instance, an imperial knight might have the following weak points:
* Legs: When destroyed, it loses its stomp attack and reduces its movement by half.
* Shield Generator: At the end of the phase in which this is destroyed, the knight loses its invuln save for the rest of the game.
* Secondary Weapon: Loses access to the weapon in the "secondary weapon" slot. (Losing the primary weapon is probably too punishing on such an expensive model).

So instead of just throwing all your shots at the superheavy and hoping you bracket or kill it, you can target specific systems. This means you're not making progress towards actually killing it, but you can take steps to reduce its damage output in the short term or strip away defenses for when you hit it on the following turn. A bit more book keeping, but theoretically adds a lot of interesting decision making when a vanilla list faces a skew list (such as a knight army). Note that the exact weak spots would vary from datasheet to datasheet. Obviously a baneblade doesn't have an invul save to turn off, but maybe you could attack its Advanced Auspex to lower its BS or something.

 alextroy wrote:

Move! Move! Move!: When the ordered unit make its move during the Movement phase, if it Advances it rolls 3d6 for it's Advance roll and takes the highest die. If the unit Falls Back, it may add 1d6 to its Move characters for its Fall Back move.

I'd add some version of "And must follow any rules for Advancing if it has any ability to ignore the rules for Falling Back".

A question that I hope might spark some additional thoughts:

What would happen if Guard got a rule that made everything (infantry, tank, flier, etc) of theirs obsec and it was based on wound count (so vehicles/*gryn would count for more than a single model)?

Obviously, this does nothing if the unit is shot off in a single round, but it's a thought I had and I'm curious what impact y'all think it might have (if any at all).

(Also, getting back into 40k after last playing around the time guard got their 5th ed codex has been a jarring experience... I miss my pie plates and the chaos of scatter dice lol...also I swear terrain wasn't anywhere near this complicated heh)

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
A question that I hope might spark some additional thoughts:

What would happen if Guard got a rule that made everything (infantry, tank, flier, etc) of theirs obsec and it was based on wound count (so vehicles/*gryn would count for more than a single model)?

Obviously, this does nothing if the unit is shot off in a single round, but it's a thought I had and I'm curious what impact y'all think it might have (if any at all).

(Also, getting back into 40k after last playing around the time guard got their 5th ed codex has been a jarring experience... I miss my pie plates and the chaos of scatter dice lol...also I swear terrain wasn't anywhere near this complicated heh)

I'm for all Infantry getting ObSec no matter which slot. Fliers (by which I'm guessing you mean Aircraft) should never get it.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
A question that I hope might spark some additional thoughts:

What would happen if Guard got a rule that made everything (infantry, tank, flier, etc) of theirs obsec and it was based on wound count (so vehicles/*gryn would count for more than a single model)?

Obviously, this does nothing if the unit is shot off in a single round, but it's a thought I had and I'm curious what impact y'all think it might have (if any at all).

(Also, getting back into 40k after last playing around the time guard got their 5th ed codex has been a jarring experience... I miss my pie plates and the chaos of scatter dice lol...also I swear terrain wasn't anywhere near this complicated heh)

Terrain wasn't this complicated, no. It also mattered a lot more.
Can't say I'll ever miss scatter and templates, however.

ObSec for infantry would work for me. Tanks... not so much, and flyers no, never. Aircraft and ground objectives can't ever be rationalized. Boots on the ground count when taking ground.

One of the things we have to do is drop FRFSRF. FRFSRF is a 100% boost in output, while most +1TH/TW/AP is just a 16% boost. So FRFSRF makes all other orders pointless. It also hides how underpowered the guard infantry are, when FRFSRF is the only offensive order worth giving, and lasguns still aren't worth shooting (even at that 100% boost).

I fundamentally disagree that Guard infantry should do nothing. No other army in the game is required to take 6 squads (330 points or more) of models that do absolutely nothing. Ya, they are supposed to screen, but without durability, guard infantry can't even do that. All recent 9th codexes can clear a 10-man squad of guard and then charge what's behind it with no problem. And taking 330 points of models that don't do anything means guard is taking 1700 points to a 2k game, which is a major contributor to the 35% win rate. Then, only being able to take 6 squads means in any hold 2/3/more game, we can only play the first 3 turns before out screens (assuming they worked perfectly) before our tanks get touched and we're out of the game (we're getting tabled turn 3 by Custodes and Tau right now).

I agree that individually, lasguns should suck. But taken in volume, lasguns should do some work. Admech rangers and Tau Breachers do about 2W per 50 points before buffs (haven't had time to do the math yet on Eldar). Having Guard do the same seems entirely reasonable. (Oh noes... guard infantry killed ONE marine! Oh the horror...).

Furthermore, having guard infantry do nothing means the tanks have to do even more, but our tanks already under powered. LRBTs are 1) low durability 2) half the firepower of equivalent 9th edition units, and 3) overcosted for their T8 (which is the breakpoint for S4 Intercessor bolters). So having infantry do nothing means tanks have to be undercosted and overpowered to balance a 2K list. With tanks then being undercosted & OP, that leads to skew lists, which almost nobody wants.

Edit: One of the fixes I would do is make Forwards, for the Emperor! allow a unit to advance and either 1 - shoot or 2 - perform an action (but not both). I also think Scions should be able to perform an action and shoot without orders, or advance, shoot and perform an action under FftE!.

brainpsyk wrote:

I agree that individually, lasguns should suck. But taken in volume, lasguns should do some work. Admech rangers and Tau Breachers do about 2W per 50 points before buffs (haven't had time to do the math yet on Eldar). Having Guard do the same seems entirely reasonable. (Oh noes... guard infantry killed ONE marine! Oh the horror...).

Real-talk, but using Rangers as a default metric is a bit misleading. Remember that Rangers are sitting on a Heavy 2 weapon, requiring a stratagem to be Rapid Fire 2...and burning that stratagem is basically as much of an "autotake" as FRFSRF. Their gun's statline is a relic of them having Precision Shots on it.


One of the things that could 100% be utilized for Guard is actually adding an 'overcharge' to the Lasgun. Remember that lasguns have variable slides on most patterns, allowing for you to fire most of a power pack in a few shots if you so chose.
Want to hit like Skitarii Rangers? Ditch the RF for Heavy, and fire "Overcharged" at the expense of being unable to perform Actions for the turn.
"Standard" fire is the normal fire mode. Nothing to write home about but also nothing awful.

Another thing that I'm kinda hopeful for and 100% prepared to not see, because GW's designers are cowards when it comes to rocking the boat, is the ability to field different patterns of las weaponry. Remember that "lasguns" aren't the only kind of laser weapons the Guard are supposed to have! There's lasfusils, laslocks, things that are basically laser shotguns, lascarbines which are designed for assault/mechanized/airborne troops, and the "heavy lasguns" which are effectively lasguns with strengthened barrels and twin power-packs installed.

Have said before and will say again that the solution to Orders isn't to do nonsense like locking them to the Command Phase.

It's to redefine them entirely, and have some of them used as an overall force modifier called by the army's Warlord(EX: "Move! Move! Move!" becomes a single turn auto-highest possible advance for Infantry keyworded units if they use it to claim an Objective) while others are locked to a squad leader utilizing them(FRFSRF becoming a "staggered" fire for the unit, with half firing immediately and the other half firing after the initial shots are fully resolved and casualties removed but both instances not interrupting usage of an action).
Add a few smaller orders here and there on the non-Warlord Officers and you get some interesting usage potentials.

What would be the point in FRFSRF literally making you roll the attack sequence twice, other than doubling the already-too-long amount of time it takes to deal piss all damage?

If FRFSRF is to stay it should be "any hit inflicts two hits". No need to roll a bucket of dice, no need to pick out individual dice values, just quick and easy.
An "overcharge lasguns" order, giving AP1 or something, would be nice. It's already in Killteam, so seems entirely plausible.

The problem with different types of lasguns is the game just isn't granular enough for that level of distinction.
Then again, we have like 15 arbitrarily different sorts of bolt weapon so what do I know.

brainpsyk wrote:
...I fundamentally disagree that Guard infantry should do nothing. No other army in the game is required to take 6 squads (330 points or more) of models that do absolutely nothing. Ya, they are supposed to screen, but without durability, guard infantry can't even do that. All recent 9th codexes can clear a 10-man squad of guard and then charge what's behind it with no problem. And taking 330 points of models that don't do anything means guard is taking 1700 points to a 2k game, which is a major contributor to the 35% win rate. Then, only being able to take 6 squads means in any hold 2/3/more game, we can only play the first 3 turns before out screens (assuming they worked perfectly) before our tanks get touched and we're out of the game (we're getting tabled turn 3 by Custodes and Tau right now)...

Could not agree more with this - we already have Conscripts for "lol ablative wounds", we don't need both of the two <Regiments> Troop choices we have to function as unnecessarily granular damage math before the Special/Heavy Weapon goes away.

As for what to do with lasguns to make them useful...I'm not entirely sure. I kind of like the though of giving lasguns a choice of power setting due to that being a longstanding part of lore (something like, say, "Rapid Fire 2 @ S3 AP- D1" vs "Rapid Fire 1 @ S4 AP- D1"). I'm not sure how exactly that would play out, but the basic idea would be that the lasguns have a choice of being good vs light infantry or heavy infantry, with the end goal of making it so that the lasguns are actually something you want to take and use and which your opponent has to take into account.

Edit: gak, probably shoulda read Kanluwen's post before making my own General agreement there too. Also, IIRC the new Ghosts units comes with Lascarbines that are, what, Assault 3 or something? With some luck, that might pull over to the main 'dex as another option.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
What would be the point in FRFSRF literally making you roll the attack sequence twice, other than doubling the already-too-long amount of time it takes to deal piss all damage?

It literally, as I said, is to split the attacks of the unit and to allow for you to perform an Action without interrupting it.

If FRFSRF is to stay it should be "any hit inflicts two hits". No need to roll a bucket of dice, no need to pick out individual dice values, just quick and easy.

Then ditch it, because it shouldn't be anything remotely like that. FRFSRF is timed fire patterns, not just everyone firing wildly like it's a GI Joe battle sequence.

An "overcharge lasguns" order, giving AP1 or something, would be nice. It's already in Killteam, so seems entirely plausible.

Or just put it on the bloody Lasguns from the outset. It doesn't need to give them a crazy boost--just bump the Strength and AP for that shooting sequence while turning it Heavy and making it so they cannot perform actions until the next turn.

The problem with different types of lasguns is the game just isn't granular enough for that level of distinction.
Then again, we have like 15 arbitrarily different sorts of bolt weapon so what do I know.

It absolutely is "granular enough" when the distinction has to do with ranges, weapon strength, numbers of shots, or anything of that nature.

I'm not calling for Kantrael-pattern Lasguns to do something different to Mars or Lucius patterns. I'm calling for opening up the bloody toolbox and starting to add some different weapons.

 Kanluwen wrote:

An "overcharge lasguns" order, giving AP1 or something, would be nice. It's already in Killteam, so seems entirely plausible.

Or just put it on the bloody Lasguns from the outset. It doesn't need to give them a crazy boost--just bump the Strength and AP for that shooting sequence while turning it Heavy and making it so they cannot perform actions until the next turn.

The problem with different types of lasguns is the game just isn't granular enough for that level of distinction.
Then again, we have like 15 arbitrarily different sorts of bolt weapon so what do I know.

It absolutely is "granular enough" when the distinction has to do with ranges, weapon strength, numbers of shots, or anything of that nature.

I'm not calling for Kantrael-pattern Lasguns to do something different to Mars or Lucius patterns. I'm calling for opening up the bloody toolbox and starting to add some different weapons.

I agree with Kanluwen here. If you have an overcharge setting on a S3 AP0 weapon, when would you not overcharge? Really, the answer is only if you're firing at a T2/AV- model. It would be better to up the base profile. J/K, if you over charged to S4 against a T2 model, you'd go to wounding on 2s....

 Kanluwen wrote:

Real-talk, but using Rangers as a default metric is a bit misleading. Remember that Rangers are sitting on a Heavy 2 weapon, requiring a stratagem to be Rapid Fire 2...and burning that stratagem is basically as much of an "autotake" as FRFSRF. Their gun's statline is a relic of them having Precision Shots on it.

While not perfect, it is a fair & reasonable comparison. The Rangers can do 2W at 30", with a 4+/6++ before strats. Having Lasguns do 2W at 12" for the same points cost without the 6++ isn't an unreasonable ask (if anything, it's too low). Rangers do that damage thru better weapons and accuracy, Guard do it thru volume. Guard would still have far more variability, and still be lacking a doctrina/imperative type bonus, and still have worse strats. However, Guard have orders to reduce the variability and more mobility with FftE! & MMM!. And that only brings Guard firepower to just below a unit that isn't even Meta anymore.

That's why I want Platoons back. The Lt provides re-rolls to wound & upping the orders. That gives us 7-18 squads of guardsmen to screen our tanks without costing us CP for additional detachments. Individual, unbuffed lasguns would still suck. But in volume, With AP bonus, re-rolls to wound and TA! or BID!, Lasguns would just about get the job done. But it would also take good commanders to get those units into range with buffs where they are needed. But with the latest codexes, Guard would probably still be underpowered.

If you want more than 6 Infantry Squads without spending CP for a second detachment, isn't the Brigade still an option?

OK, I'm saying that without crunching whether all the compulsory stuff in other slots fits OK, but this is the Guard we're talking about - we're cheap, son...

For me I’d just make the infantry squads cheaper, I got around 180 guardsmen, and anything besides s3 ap 0 doesn’t make sense.

 Dysartes wrote:
If you want more than 6 Infantry Squads without spending CP for a second detachment, isn't the Brigade still an option?

OK, I'm saying that without crunching whether all the compulsory stuff in other slots fits OK, but this is the Guard we're talking about - we're cheap, son...

It's been a hot minute since I whipped up a list like that, but last I checked a Brigade it was really something you could only really do over ~1250pts (I was building under a "Bring Platoons Back!" paradigm of also including Platoon Commanders plus Command Squads etc., and IIRC 1250 was juuuust too low to include extras like medkits or special weapons on the Infantry Squads - cut out some of the fat I had and 1250 would probably be about enough, though damn near everyone is going to be stock/min-sized/the cheapest possible option for the slot, and not getting the extra points to spend on upgrades might cripple the list).

Edit: Grossly misremembered, barebones minimum Brigade is ~700 pts if Battlescribe is to be believed, so wanting to run 7+ squads at low points level games is actually pretty doable.

If people don't want to better the Lasgun, what about making the Heavy/Special Weapons Squads cheaper and easier to get and protect?

What about a reverse ability to the Space Marines' Combat Squad ability, where, instead of splitting Squads, you can attach an Infantry Squad to a Special Weapons or Heavy Weapons Squad. This is balanced by them going over 10 models for the purposes of Blast Weapons, but allows us to better protect the Special Weapons. Combine that with making the Heavy Weapons Squad 15 points cheaper overall and the Special Weapons Squad 5 points cheaper (upping the Special Weapons price to that of the Infantry Squad).

Veterans can be moved as is to troops and can be a cheaper alternative to the above for less bodies, but maybe with an ability that gives light (or dense) cover when within 3" of an Objective or terrain piece.

Merge Command Squads with Company and Platoon Commanders and give them the character keyword. Bring the price up to 75 points (Company) and 60 points (Platoon), but give the entire Squad the Character keyword and make the Medkit, Banner, Vox, and the lesser special weapons (Sniper, Flamer, Grenade Launcher) free. (Vox should be a free upgrade overall IMO)

 Dysartes wrote:
If you want more than 6 Infantry Squads without spending CP for a second detachment, isn't the Brigade still an option?

OK, I'm saying that without crunching whether all the compulsory stuff in other slots fits OK, but this is the Guard we're talking about - we're cheap, son...

The problem with a brigade is the FA slot. If you want to run pure infantry guard, there are no Fast Attack options you can put into a brigade. You get Sentinels or Hellhounds only.

 necrontyrOG wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
If you want more than 6 Infantry Squads without spending CP for a second detachment, isn't the Brigade still an option?

OK, I'm saying that without crunching whether all the compulsory stuff in other slots fits OK, but this is the Guard we're talking about - we're cheap, son...

The problem with a brigade is the FA slot. If you want to run pure infantry guard, there are no Fast Attack options you can put into a brigade. You get Sentinels or Hellhounds only.

sentinels with flamers don't seem that bad, and anyway, theyre cheap enough where it doesnt really matter, your opponent shooting them means theyre not shooting at your better stuff.

Oh and 40k at 1k pts breaks no matter what you bring.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
For me I’d just make the infantry squads cheaper, I got around 180 guardsmen, and anything besides s3 ap 0 doesn’t make sense.

Feck no. This game doesn't need a another race to the bottom. I'd argue we should be seeing more stuff get more expensive relative to the Guard than the Guard get cheaper.

Or we stop using the bloody Infantry Squad as the baseline metric for cheapest unit in the game and instead use units that are supposed to be simply meatshields like Cultists, Gretchin, etc for that metric?

Sound good?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 necrontyrOG wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
If you want more than 6 Infantry Squads without spending CP for a second detachment, isn't the Brigade still an option?

OK, I'm saying that without crunching whether all the compulsory stuff in other slots fits OK, but this is the Guard we're talking about - we're cheap, son...

The problem with a brigade is the FA slot. If you want to run pure infantry guard, there are no Fast Attack options you can put into a brigade. You get Sentinels or Hellhounds only.

sentinels with flamers don't seem that bad, and anyway, theyre cheap enough where it doesnt really matter, your opponent shooting them means theyre not shooting at your better stuff.

Oh and 40k at 1k pts breaks no matter what you bring.

The issue there isn’t quality, it’s theme.

Sentinels aren’t infantry.

Infantry Squads in particular are already nearly the highest they've ever been on a PPM basis (and the extra .5 PPM still just feels a bit petulant, at least to me - if GW can't justify 5 PPM Guard in the current paradigm, I'd figure that's a call to rethink the apparent 5 PPM floor they've decided on, not a call to make Guard more expensive). Unless they do make everything else more expensive to match (spoiler: that's even less likely than GW rethinking the 5 PPM floor), I'd say that our current performance would be reasonable rationale to make Guardsmen cheaper.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 necrontyrOG wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
If you want more than 6 Infantry Squads without spending CP for a second detachment, isn't the Brigade still an option?

OK, I'm saying that without crunching whether all the compulsory stuff in other slots fits OK, but this is the Guard we're talking about - we're cheap, son...

The problem with a brigade is the FA slot. If you want to run pure infantry guard, there are no Fast Attack options you can put into a brigade. You get Sentinels or Hellhounds only.

sentinels with flamers don't seem that bad, and anyway, theyre cheap enough where it doesnt really matter, your opponent shooting them means theyre not shooting at your better stuff.

Oh and 40k at 1k pts breaks no matter what you bring.

The issue there isn’t quality, it’s theme.

Sentinels aren’t infantry.

Ok? So because you cant fill a brigade of your skew list, its an issue?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 necrontyrOG wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
If you want more than 6 Infantry Squads without spending CP for a second detachment, isn't the Brigade still an option?

OK, I'm saying that without crunching whether all the compulsory stuff in other slots fits OK, but this is the Guard we're talking about - we're cheap, son...

The problem with a brigade is the FA slot. If you want to run pure infantry guard, there are no Fast Attack options you can put into a brigade. You get Sentinels or Hellhounds only.

sentinels with flamers don't seem that bad, and anyway, theyre cheap enough where it doesnt really matter, your opponent shooting them means theyre not shooting at your better stuff.

Oh and 40k at 1k pts breaks no matter what you bring.

The issue there isn’t quality, it’s theme.

Sentinels aren’t infantry.

Would you accept an infantry and cavalry force? Not mechanized or air cav, but actual cavalry? As in rough riders. Glorious horse cavalry.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue there isn’t quality, it’s theme.

Sentinels aren’t infantry.

Neither are Rough Riders or Armoured Fist Squads or Tauros or any of the other popular suggestions.

Sentinels fit in fairly well, being essentially more mobile versions of a Heavy Weapons Team.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or we stop using the bloody Infantry Squad as the baseline metric for cheapest unit in the game and instead use units that are supposed to be simply meatshields like Cultists, Gretchin, etc for that metric?

Sound good?

I am not against that. Point was they shouldn't go down further in points.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 necrontyrOG wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
If you want more than 6 Infantry Squads without spending CP for a second detachment, isn't the Brigade still an option?

OK, I'm saying that without crunching whether all the compulsory stuff in other slots fits OK, but this is the Guard we're talking about - we're cheap, son...

The problem with a brigade is the FA slot. If you want to run pure infantry guard, there are no Fast Attack options you can put into a brigade. You get Sentinels or Hellhounds only.

sentinels with flamers don't seem that bad, and anyway, theyre cheap enough where it doesnt really matter, your opponent shooting them means theyre not shooting at your better stuff.

Oh and 40k at 1k pts breaks no matter what you bring.

The issue there isn’t quality, it’s theme.

Sentinels aren’t infantry.

The person I was replying to was talking about wanting to take more than six Infantry Squads in a detachment in order to screen tanks - which would imply that this particular theme bit isn't actually an issue...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or we stop using the bloody Infantry Squad as the baseline metric for cheapest unit in the game and instead use units that are supposed to be simply meatshields like Cultists, Gretchin, etc for that metric?

Sound good?

I am not against that. Point was they shouldn't go down further in points.

Truthfully, the real point is that Infantry Squads are a horribly dated concept that need to be reviewed.

There is ZERO reason for Catachans to have the same armor save as Cadians. There is ZERO reason for Tallarn to have the same armor save as Vostroyans. There is ZERO reason for there to be one singular "Infantry Squad" given the doctrinal and equipment differences that are supposed to exist between the various regiments.

This book could have been fixed decades ago, if it had been someone who did not simply tow the company line.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or we stop using the bloody Infantry Squad as the baseline metric for cheapest unit in the game and instead use units that are supposed to be simply meatshields like Cultists, Gretchin, etc for that metric?

Sound good?

I am not against that. Point was they shouldn't go down further in points.

Truthfully, the real point is that Infantry Squads are a horribly dated concept that need to be reviewed.

There is ZERO reason for Catachans to have the same armor save as Cadians. There is ZERO reason for Tallarn to have the same armor save as Vostroyans. There is ZERO reason for there to be one singular "Infantry Squad" given the doctrinal and equipment differences that are supposed to exist between the various regiments.

This book could have been fixed decades ago, if it had been someone who did not simply tow the company line.

So, 3 Additional datasheets per regiment? Possibly each regiment getting their own Codex Suppliment? Is that what you're going for?

I'm still of the opinion they should just let Infantry Squads combine with Heavy and Special Weapons Squads pre-game, and reduce the price of the latter two.

Arcanis161 wrote:

So, 3 Additional datasheets per regiment? Possibly each regiment getting their own Codex Supplement? Is that what you're going for?

No. I'm going for making the stupid visual aesthetics matter like they used to with the much touted 3.5 Doctrines book. Every upgrade was SUPPOSED to be modeled.

Light Infantry Squad--No tripod mounted HW, limited specials, lascarbines and a lighter 5+ armor save with a bonus to moving across terrain features.
"Regular" Infantry Squad--Tripod HWs, normal specials, lasguns, 4+ save with no native bonuses.
"Heavy" Infantry Squad--No tripod HWs, expanded specials options, lasguns OR "heavy"/"shotgun" lasguns mentioned elsewhere in the lore. 3+ armor saves; stupid expensive points-wise.

Conscripts--5+ armor save, autoguns or autopistol/ccws as standard, upgradeable to Lasguns. No specials, no heavies.

I'm still of the opinion they should just let Infantry Squads combine with Heavy and Special Weapons Squads pre-game, and reduce the price of the latter two.

Why? Why would you EVER want that?

If anything, Heavy and Special Weapon Squads need to be treated like vehicle squadrons: bought as X numbers within the unit then deployed separately with a pseudo-character protection layered onto them and given a few other perks that actually make them more appealing than just loading up Command or Infantry Squads with the same options.

Arcanis161 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or we stop using the bloody Infantry Squad as the baseline metric for cheapest unit in the game and instead use units that are supposed to be simply meatshields like Cultists, Gretchin, etc for that metric?

Sound good?

I am not against that. Point was they shouldn't go down further in points.

Truthfully, the real point is that Infantry Squads are a horribly dated concept that need to be reviewed.

There is ZERO reason for Catachans to have the same armor save as Cadians. There is ZERO reason for Tallarn to have the same armor save as Vostroyans. There is ZERO reason for there to be one singular "Infantry Squad" given the doctrinal and equipment differences that are supposed to exist between the various regiments.

This book could have been fixed decades ago, if it had been someone who did not simply tow the company line.

So, 3 Additional datasheets per regiment? Possibly each regiment getting their own Codex Suppliment? Is that what you're going for?

I'm still of the opinion they should just let Infantry Squads combine with Heavy and Special Weapons Squads pre-game, and reduce the price of the latter two.

Book is too far away *glares 2 meters to right where it is sitting*, but the 3.5 book did a fun job of differentiating the regiments while using the exact same datasheets. One regiment might have a 6+ save but get bonus to cover saves and access to heavy flamers, while another had all infantry in deep strike, yet another had a 4+ armor save, and then a fourth one could have stormtroopers/scions as troops. Most of these alterations had point costs attached to them as well, so yes they *were* guardsman +1, but they also paid to get that.

Mind you, the book had several severe balance issues, such as the fact that you were sacrificing the use of 10 mediocre units to customize and make better the rest, and internally some of them were very overpriced. Camo cloaks for bonus to cover save was 10 points per squad, while 4+ armor or a 6+ invuln were 20 points I believe. It also let you build the world's worst regiment by using your 5 buy points to purchase back 5 of the 10 units you lost if you really wanted to. I still scratch my head at why that is technically a thing you could do and why it wasn't simply 1 point spent on buying back units unlocking 2 units.

Bringing back something like that with a more fine tuned cost list could go a long way in revitalizing guard. "Jungle fighters" with 6+ save but getting better cover saves and better at shooting into cover Heavy infantry that gives their squads a 4+ save for 1 or 2ppm (or a flat number per squad if that ends up too little/too much). None of that really requires a datasheet, so long as it is printed clear and simple somewhere so you can show your opponent what is up right from the get go.

Nah. It absolutely requires a datasheet at this point. Otherwise it just becomes proxyhammer.

I have zero interest in playing the "let's pretend!" game with someone on this crap at this stage in my life. Buy the right kit to represent what you're fielding or take the initiative and convert things.


Additionally, a datasheet means that you can actually do something interesting with it beyond just everything being a "skin". It opens up Regimental Restrictions(IE: Catachans can't have "Heavy Infantry Squads" while Vostroyans can't have "Light Infantry Squads") and allows for some dual-kitting to happen too.

Light Infantry Squads being used as the basis for a proto-Tanith styled infantry unit that also can build a unit of Scouts for a FA choice? Jazzy!
Heavy Infantry Squads being able to be used for a dedicated bodyguard unit under Elites? Aces!

And then there's also what looks to be GW wanting to do some Regimental exclusive units. There is art of new Grenadiers/Engineers for the Death Korps. There is art of new Death Riders. There is art of a new Marshal look. And then there's the now confirmed-ish Kasrkin...

Just need Catachan Devils and the Big 3 archetypes have even gotten a cool signature unit!

 Kanluwen wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:

So, 3 Additional datasheets per regiment? Possibly each regiment getting their own Codex Supplement? Is that what you're going for?

No. I'm going for making the stupid visual aesthetics matter like they used to with the much touted 3.5 Doctrines book. Every upgrade was SUPPOSED to be modeled.

So three humongous datasheets to include every minor detail change on the model. Right.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm still of the opinion they should just let Infantry Squads combine with Heavy and Special Weapons Squads pre-game, and reduce the price of the latter two.

Why? Why would you EVER want that?
Seriously.

"Let's make a big ol' giant blob to shoot at! Woo!"

Wow, looks like I struck a nerve. You want some fries to go along with your salty attitude? Let me rewrite that for you:

All that will accomplish will be creating a big blob for an enemy to shoot at

It will be a blob for an enemy to shoot at. Here's my train of thought:

-Our vehicles, including the Leman Russes, are bad right now. We lose at minimum 2 vehicles per turn even with 12 wounds and a 2+ save. Giving something like an invuln save, while effective, makes little sense lore-wise as invulnerable saves are "supposed" to be rare things. While we could toss the lore entirely, players of other factions will cry endlessly asking for invulnerable saves on their own vehicles. The arms race continues.

-I agree with other posters here on the Lasgun: it should remain s3 Ap-0 D1. The point of the lasgun is that it alone can't compete with anything any other race can bring. This weakness is made up for with sheer volume fire. I could see improving orders to get more wounds in, but that alone won't boost us enough.

-I also agree that we're already throwing enough dice as is at any given round. GW has been trying to streamline the individual phases (and I'm clarifying, individual phases, not rules) to make game play faster if possible. While I'm content rolling 720 dice per round, my opponents won't be.

With all of this in mind, how can we improve performance without just simply cutting points to ridiculous levels?

What we do have is several Infantry units that have been neglected for a long time, if my understanding is correct, ever since we lost the use of Platoons: Heavy Weapons Squads and Special Weapons Squads. They're competing for slots that are better used for other units and never bring enough firepower to justify their low survivability.

So, my idea is increase the survivability. Allow an Infantry Squad to attach to each, and pair that with some points adjustments to keep this pair around 100 points, even with maximum upgrades.

Does this make them more vulnerable to Blast Weapons? Yes. But 10-15 of these running around the field that I doubt would be taken out in 2-3 turns.

And, if you're that concerned about Blast Weapons, then consider this alternative: if your Warlord is a Company Commander*, for every Infantry Squad within the Detachment, you may bring either a Special Weapons Squad or Heavy Weapons Squad without utilizing an Elites or Heavy Support slot respectively. Still similar result, but now Blast can't get them (though they still remain very, very squishy).

*still want the Company Commander to merge with the Command Squad again.

I like how you automatically assume that the datasheets would have to be "humongous". I've shown these things in the past for my ideas. They ain't huge. You don't need pages upon pages of special rules. Most of it comes down to stats.


My dislike for "blob squadding" zero to do with Blast. Blast is a garbage mechanism anyways, arbitrarily set at the stupidest numbers imaginable. It has everything to do with gameplay and lore.

What's the point of having a stew "unit" for the game? It isn't interesting. It does nothing for the army, it does nothing for the units involved outside of wound allocation nonsense, and it does nothing but look bad on the battlefield overall...not to mention it really doesn't match anything outside of Valhallans(and then the HWS/SWS wouldn't be in there either since their big huge blobs are supposed to be Conscripts).

There is zero reason why HWS or SWS should be free either. If anything is to happen with them, it's to take the methodology established in the D-99 list and expand upon it.

You want snipers? Cool, you can take a sniper squad! 3 sets of 2 Guardsmen, a spotter+sniper each. Give 'em Infiltrate and put them in FA.
Want to spam Plasma? Cool, that's an Elite choice. 3 sets of 2 Guardsmen, as a "light" vehicle/monster hunting team.

Mortar Squad as a dedicated Heavy Support option, a "Fire Support Squad" of Autocannon/Heavy Bolters as another one, and a "Tank Hunter Squad" as a final one with Lascannons and Meltaguns.

Give each option something to add some flavor to them(snipers+spotter teams can interact with Mortars or vehicles that have the Artillery keyword by giving them rerolls or allowing them to extend their range further or hell outright just making the spotter teams a requirement for Indirect Fire to be an option, Fire Support Teams getting to engage in "suppressive fire" and lock a targeted unit out of actions while not dealing damage, etc), rework the Infantry Squads and see what all shakes out.

Also, I fully expect something to be done for Leman Russes with regards to survivability.

The thing is, GW would keep up the only stats low on special rules for maybe 3-4 books, and then they would drop something extremly heavy on special rules and the army would be dominating everything. Plus they don't really get feedback from different types of normal players. they have their own studio people, who seem to play the game like some sort of wierd comp historical kind of a game, and they have the top end tournament playtesters. Other media have the same problems too. Some video games , like WoW, are practically made by a bunch of people who don't play it with systems that are suppose to please and engage people taking part in the world first race, which is probably like 1000 people. While the rest of the people are having very little fun.
I would love to hear from someone high in the DT explain what a new player, who bought 2000pts of stuff he likes is suppose to do, if they aka GW and the DT team wrote the rules in such a way that his new army is borderline unfun to play or if his army is border line unfun to play for his friends. And I have a feeling the the anwser to the question would be take 1000-1200$ and buy more models.

One thing we can be sure of is GW isn't going to give us rules options that don't have models. There will be no light/normal/heavy infantry because there are no such models. There will be no different types of lasguns because there is no such models.

That's why my thoughts concentrate on upgrading the humble lasgun via orders. If you go back to my thought experiment rules, you get the following firing 9 lasguns at Space Marines beyond 12":

9 Lasguns, no orders: 9 shots WS 4+, Wound on 5+, Save on 3+, for a result of 0.5 Wounds

9 Lasguns, FRFSRF (2 shots at max range and AP-1): 18 shots WS 4+, Wound on 5+, Save on 4+, for a result of 1.5 Wounds

9 Lasguns, FRFSRF & Bring It Down(+1 Wound): 18 shots WS 4+, Wound on 4+, Save on 4+, for a result of 2.5 Wounds

Two orders layering to give you 5x the damage out put, although still modest, to the Lasguns. Added benefit is that Bring It Down works on non-Lasguns, so whatever the Sargent is caring is impacted as is the Special and/or Heavy Weapons. Might be a spicy rules improvement to have FRFSRF do something to the Special and Heavy Weapons in the squad also.

I'm not saying my idea is perfect, but I hope GW has a way of making Guard Infantry viable other than making the base Lasgun stats better. You certainly can't make the AP -1 without every bolter in the game going "What about me!"

 alextroy wrote:
One thing we can be sure of is GW isn't going to give us rules options that don't have models. There will be no light/normal/heavy infantry because there are no such models. There will be no different types of lasguns because there is no such models.

We literally have rules for Lascarbines right now. They came with Gaunt's Ghosts(Corbec has one). Larkin's got rules for the Long-Las as well.

The one thing we can be sure of right now is that we cannot be sure of anything.

 alextroy wrote:

I'm not saying my idea is perfect, but I hope GW has a way of making Guard Infantry viable other than making the base Lasgun stats better. You certainly can't make the AP -1 without every bolter in the game going "What about me!"

Shuriken catapults and fleshborers wave energetically.
'Oh baby bolter, you'll catch up one day.'

From Goonhammer on Norsehammer Open 2022 40k (https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-9th-godzilla-mode/):

The fully loaded airburst team can do a prepostorous amount of damage to the Drukhari, doing so as early as turn one if the Homing Beacon goes off, and with over a hundred (on average) indirect shots each round

Looks like the gloves need to come off on the ideas, as that kind of firepower will clear our infantry in 2 turns.
* -1 to Wound on our vehicles. All of them. * Drop Chimeras chassis to 9W. with -1 to wound, that's equivalent to 10.4W, but the number of T4/5/6 shots it takes to take down a chimera just doubled. (Going from 5s to 6s), but is now only 1VP * Boost LRBTs to 14W, w/ -1TW, that's ~16.2W, but the number of T5/6/7 shots needed to take down a LRBT just doubled. * Chimeras get ObSec if they have an ObSec unit embarked, and (if they are a dedicated tranport to a unit in a platoon) get the orders from that platoon. * HWTs get Look Our Sir! (then we can put them in the open, but near a hidden Manticore/Wyvern/Basilisk). * As suggested above, orders from higher-ups need to stack * I like Lasguns going to Assault3, or RF2, or my idea of D3 auto-hits (this one is past discussion time, it is what it is). * If you have platoons, then for each infantry, conscript or veteran squad you can take a single HWT or Special Weapon squad. If the SWS is entirely equipped with sniper rifles, then the squad may infiltrate. For each veteran infantry squad, 1 HWT or 1 SWS can be upgraded to veterans. An IS/VIS can either 1) have 2 models replace their lasguns with special weapons or 2) form a HWT. (if they have a HWT they get LOS!). * Tanks get 6" Unit Coherency (but immune to morale, Chimeras in the same infantry platoon count as being in the same squadron), allowing us to put the wounds on any tank in the squadron, but a tank can leave coherency at any time. LRBTs count as Bodyguards for TCs. 1 LRBT in a squadron can give orders, and then the TC orders stack. Put the Lt in the middle, the cheap tank in the back, and put all the wounds on the cheap tank in the back while the Demo Cannon up front goes to work. * ACs on vehicles are 2d3 shots, 3D. Infantry ACs are still 2 shots 3D, but cheaper. Let Chimera's have turret ACs again. * Drop LRBT grinding advance entirely. Demo Cannons & Earthshakers are flat 2d6 shots, d3+3 damage. Change Manticores & BCs to 3d6 shots, flat D2, allocated 1 point at a time (so they have play into 1W models, and anything with -1D). Wyverns could be 6d6 shots, still S4 -1AP. (still less hits than a 120 points dakkajet, at a weaker strength). Punishers are 40 shots at AP-1, 6s explode against T2/3 models. (better against guardsman than a BC, worse against T4 AV3). Vanquishers could be flat 4 shots at D6+d3, ignoring invulnerables. Emergency Plasma Vents when taken on an Executioner would make it so Plasma sponsons don't overheat, while the Executioner cannon itself goes to D2/D3 * Orders are now 6" auras. With vox casters (since it's a bullhorn and not a radio) order range is extended to 18". (note, this allows senior officers to take a command squad w/Vox, and have a very large aura bubble). Command Squads & Ogryns get Bodyguard. * Hydras are BS3 against anything with the FLY, FLYER and/or JUMP PACK keyword, with a strat to fire in the opponent's movement phase. * Fix "Fire on my Position", and make it so it can be used if the unit is prevented from falling back. * "Optimum Range Bracket". Bonus -1AP depending on range. Artillery bonus against targets 18"+. Heavy weapons vs targets 9-36". RF/Assault weapons from 0-12" (this gets Lasguns their -1AP at close range). * Baneblade chassis go to BS3, and count as a TC.
Yep, that means we abuse the bodyguard rules to no end. We make it so their indirect targets the stuff we want, on the tank we want. If they want to get to our infantry, they have to get thru our tanks. At the same time, our infantry can start doing some work.

Individually, these are decent buffs (except the -1TW on tanks, which is unholy). But when you see how things start to stack, it's quite potent. For example, with SMOKESCREEN, LRBTs are -1 to hit, -1 to wound, 2+ Sv, and in a squadron we're putting the wounds on the tank in the back. Take Hydras in squadrons with a Master of the Fleet to give orders, and they can be firing at flyers with BS2, 8d3 3D shots, re-rolling 1s to wound during your opponent's movement phase. With Take Aim! being +1 to hit, a LRBT would be hitting on 3s, TCs on 2s, with potential -1AP bonus (DCs@-4AP, BC@-3AP, Punisher@-2AP), re-rolling 1s to wound from the squadron commander 6-12" behind him, and either Advancing and shooting or +1 to wound from a nearby (6", 12" or more!) Tank Commander.

As funny as it is, the points costs for our units wouldn't change much, and would probably go down. Our output is brought up to 9th, we boost our durability considerably.

No thanks. I'll just bin the army if any of those suggestions remotely come close to what they do.

They already fethed over Skitarii, a supposedly elite fighting force, by allowing you to do 20 model squads and mandating a 1:10 for each special rather than letting you specialize.

I'm not wasting my time going forward playing Guard in a manner that is not actually what Guard are supposed to be.

 Dysartes wrote:
If you want more than 6 Infantry Squads without spending CP for a second detachment, isn't the Brigade still an option?

OK, I'm saying that without crunching whether all the compulsory stuff in other slots fits OK, but this is the Guard we're talking about - we're cheap, son...

Brigades should be representative of multiple companies from different regiments working together in combined arms. Like a tank company and infantry company working together. A battalion should be a single company with smaller support elements from other forces, so an infantry company supported by a tank squad loaned from another regiment.

Basically, the idea should be platoons let you save CP from not having to take other detachments and also save you points from not needing to take more mandatory units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
For me I’d just make the infantry squads cheaper, I got around 180 guardsmen, and anything besides s3 ap 0 doesn’t make sense.

Infantry Squads can’t get much cheaper sadly. GW are adamant that 5 points per model is the floor. So, you could maybe see a return of 50 point Infantry Squads. Maybe we could get a free Sniper Rifle and then reduced special weapon costs, like how SWS’s come with Sniper Rifles and then only pay 3 points for a plasma or melta gun. Vox-casters could become free as well and just work like Datatethers. That’s about all you can do though.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
sentinels with flamers don't seem that bad, and anyway, theyre cheap enough where it doesnt really matter, your opponent shooting them means theyre not shooting at your better stuff.

Barebone sentinels are one of our most durable units at the moment. As Cadians and given the Obsec stratagem one of our most competitive units. Any weapon upgrades just ruin them though. They’re all too expensive for what they do. Each of those weapon upgrades should be at least 5 points cheaper to be viable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Light Infantry Squad--No tripod mounted HW, limited specials, lascarbines and a lighter 5+ armor save with a bonus to moving across terrain features.
"Regular" Infantry Squad--Tripod HWs, normal specials, lasguns, 4+ save with no native bonuses.
"Heavy" Infantry Squad--No tripod HWs, expanded specials options, lasguns OR "heavy"/"shotgun" lasguns mentioned elsewhere in the lore. 3+ armor saves; stupid expensive points-wise.

Conscripts--5+ armor save, autoguns or autopistol/ccws as standard, upgradeable to Lasguns. No specials, no heavies

There’s no need for any of this with the <Regiment> bonuses.

Light Infantry could be done by being able to ignore difficult ground, getting additional save bonuses in cover, a pre-game move, etc.

Heavy Infantry will be represented by the new Kasrkin. Scion statlines and equipment, but get <Regiment> bonuses instead of <Tempestus Regiment> ones.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Light Infantry Squad--No tripod mounted HW, limited specials, lascarbines and a lighter 5+ armor save with a bonus to moving across terrain features.
"Regular" Infantry Squad--Tripod HWs, normal specials, lasguns, 4+ save with no native bonuses.
"Heavy" Infantry Squad--No tripod HWs, expanded specials options, lasguns OR "heavy"/"shotgun" lasguns mentioned elsewhere in the lore. 3+ armor saves; stupid expensive points-wise.

Conscripts--5+ armor save, autoguns or autopistol/ccws as standard, upgradeable to Lasguns. No specials, no heavies

There’s no need for any of this with the <Regiment> bonuses.

Nah. There's a need. The need is to expand the options for the Guard beyond "Scion, Infantry Squad, and Conscript". The need is to ACTUALLY PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE IN PLAYSTYLE.

Light Infantry could be done by being able to ignore difficult ground, getting additional save bonuses in cover, a pre-game move, etc.

Nope. Needs to be tied specifically to models and statlines. Needs to have different loadouts. Otherwise, there's too much potential for metanobbery.

Heavy Infantry will be represented by the new Kasrkin. Scion statlines and equipment, but get <Regiment> bonuses instead of <Tempestus Regiment> ones.

Might be represented by the new Kasrkin. You don't know for certain, nor do I.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Light Infantry Squad--No tripod mounted HW, limited specials, lascarbines and a lighter 5+ armor save with a bonus to moving across terrain features.
"Regular" Infantry Squad--Tripod HWs, normal specials, lasguns, 4+ save with no native bonuses.
"Heavy" Infantry Squad--No tripod HWs, expanded specials options, lasguns OR "heavy"/"shotgun" lasguns mentioned elsewhere in the lore. 3+ armor saves; stupid expensive points-wise.

Conscripts--5+ armor save, autoguns or autopistol/ccws as standard, upgradeable to Lasguns. No specials, no heavies

These are just plain bad on so many fronts

* fails to address the basic guard needs of improved output
* with all the AP in 9th, this makes changes that have zero impact in the game, so it fails to address durability
* breaks basic lore (lasguns everywhere, which are better than autoguns)
* our units can still be targeted with 100 indirect shots, meaning our infantry just gets picked up without firing a shot in return
* Fails to even understand the basic lethality of 9th, where it's a trading game. This would pump points into useless units.
* Fails to bring guard up to the original 9th edition marine codex, which is ~18 months old and already surpassed by every codex released since.
* Fails to even begin to accomplish its goal of meaningful choices, much less being able to play the game

With this, there's no point in even getting a new codex, as then everybody except the most rabid fanboys would bin the army.

Kanluwen wrote:No thanks. I'll just bin the army if any of those suggestions remotely come close to what they do..

We could only hope, as that would be the best of both worlds.

Imperial Guard using autoguns is definitely a thing in the lore, although normally listed as an exception rather than a rule.
Autoguns tend to float at about the same overall quality as a lasgun though, which specific differences that are irrelevant to the 40k scale (ammunition supply, rate of fire, accuracy, etc).

So I agree there is no point having separate stats for autoguns. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest it's better not to to let people choose how to model their units.

I do like the idea of better differentiating Guard squads though in general. I would like a system similar to the old doctrines.

brainpsyk wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Light Infantry Squad--No tripod mounted HW, limited specials, lascarbines and a lighter 5+ armor save with a bonus to moving across terrain features.
"Regular" Infantry Squad--Tripod HWs, normal specials, lasguns, 4+ save with no native bonuses.
"Heavy" Infantry Squad--No tripod HWs, expanded specials options, lasguns OR "heavy"/"shotgun" lasguns mentioned elsewhere in the lore. 3+ armor saves; stupid expensive points-wise.

Conscripts--5+ armor save, autoguns or autopistol/ccws as standard, upgradeable to Lasguns. No specials, no heavies

These are just plain bad on so many fronts

* fails to address the basic guard needs of improved output

As opposed to "BLOB ALL THE THINGS TOGETHER!" making "improved output"?

* with all the AP in 9th, this makes changes that have zero impact in the game, so it fails to address durability

Uh, going to a 4+ save base for the regular Infantry Squad has a fairly hefty change. As does putting Conscripts in their proper place of the rockbottom points-cost bracket with little to offer outside of bodies.

* breaks basic lore (lasguns everywhere, which are better than autoguns)

Conscripts aren't necessarily Guardsmen, you know that right?

* our units can still be targeted with 100 indirect shots, meaning our infantry just gets picked up without firing a shot in return

lol, okay yes. because that's not a problem for any army in the game except Guard?

* Fails to even understand the basic lethality of 9th, where it's a trading game. This would pump points into useless units.
* Fails to bring guard up to the original 9th edition marine codex, which is ~18 months old and already surpassed by every codex released since.
* Fails to even begin to accomplish its goal of meaningful choices, much less being able to play the game

With this, there's no point in even getting a new codex, as then everybody except the most rabid fanboys would bin the army.

If it gets rid of the mathhammer crowd from one of my favorite armies, I'll take having a crummy book for awhile.

Kanluwen wrote:No thanks. I'll just bin the army if any of those suggestions remotely come close to what they do..

We could only hope, as that would be the best of both worlds.

Same to you, chuckles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Imperial Guard using autoguns is definitely a thing in the lore, although normally listed as an exception rather than a rule.
Autoguns tend to float at about the same overall quality as a lasgun though, which specific differences that are irrelevant to the 40k scale (ammunition supply, rate of fire, accuracy, etc).

So I agree there is no point having separate stats for autoguns. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest it's better not to to let people choose how to model their units.

There's already separate stats for autoguns. Genestealer Cultists have them on their Neophytes. Sisters of Battle have them on the Novitiates. CSM have them on Cultists.

The WHOLE POINT is to allow for a differentiation between "Conscripts"(IE: the Hive Scum given a gun and pressed into service) and Conscripts (IE: the Cadian Whiteshields). Have Conscripts be Auxilia, with the addition of the Lasgun also granting the <Regiment> trait and it makes a difference as to what you're seeing.

I do like the idea of better differentiating Guard squads though in general. I would like a system similar to the old doctrines.

Stop just saying "old doctrines". Are you talking about the 3.5 book, which required meaningful sacrifices for the different traits or are you talking about the watered down blandhammerfest that was Cruddace's book where "doctrines" only existed on Veteran Squads?

 Kanluwen wrote:

There's already separate stats for autoguns. Genestealer Cultists have them on their Neophytes. Sisters of Battle have them on the Novitiates. CSM have them on Cultists.

Remind me what the stats on an autogun are again?
Oh that's right, 24", Rapidfire 1, S3, AP0, D1.
It's the same stats, just with a different name for theme.

If all you want to do is add <Regiment> you don't need to piss about with changing the name of their gun for the sake of it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Stop just saying "old doctrines".

I say "doctrines" because I'm not talking about copy+pasting any specific interation of them.
I mean the concept which should be applied in whatever way is best for 9th.
There's no point channeling how much you hate Cruddance into this new book, it's about coming up with what works for 9th, not championing how much you hated something from years ago.

We already kinda have the groundwork. "command bonuses" or whatever you want to call them - points upgrades for specific things. Mostly they're for characters, but I believe Dark Angel's version is Inner Circle which can also be applied to a few units?

Since 9th operates in "equivalent abilities" for armies, take that and apply it to Guard.
You can buy Grenadiers, Recon, Jungle Fighters, Mechanised, Armoured, whatever, upgrades.

 Kanluwen wrote:


If anything, Heavy and Special Weapon Squads need to be treated like vehicle squadrons: bought as X numbers within the unit then deployed separately with a pseudo-character protection layered onto them and given a few other perks that actually make them more appealing than just loading up Command or Infantry Squads with the same options.

waitwaitwaitwaitwait you want heavy weapons squads to be untargetable? yeah, i'm gonna dismiss everything you propose lol.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


If anything, Heavy and Special Weapon Squads need to be treated like vehicle squadrons: bought as X numbers within the unit then deployed separately with a pseudo-character protection layered onto them and given a few other perks that actually make them more appealing than just loading up Command or Infantry Squads with the same options.

waitwaitwaitwaitwait you want heavy weapons squads to be untargetable? yeah, i'm gonna dismiss everything you propose lol.

As is tradition when it comes to Kanluwen's posts about game mechanics.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

There's already separate stats for autoguns. Genestealer Cultists have them on their Neophytes. Sisters of Battle have them on the Novitiates. CSM have them on Cultists.

Remind me what the stats on an autogun are again?
Oh that's right, 24", Rapidfire 1, S3, AP0, D1.
It's the same stats, just with a different name for theme.

And for interactions with keywords, abilities, etc...which is the whole point of putting them onto Conscripts.

If all you want to do is add <Regiment> you don't need to piss about with changing the name of their gun for the sake of it.

They already have bloody <Regiment>. They shouldn't because Conscripts do not necessarily equal Guardsmen or even Guard related elements.

They've never been established as Guardsmen proper. It's always been made clear that they're either in training to become Guardsmen, pressed into service locals to serve as expendable elements, etc.
Hive Gangers pressed into service? They aren't Armageddon Steel Legion. Whiteshields? They aren't Cadian Shock Troops.

Conscripts on well-off worlds might have lasguns and PDFs on those same worlds might have lasguns...but that isn't necessarily the standard thing across the entirety of the Imperium. Remember that Guardsmen get lasguns to cut down on the necessity of supply trains.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Stop just saying "old doctrines".

I say "doctrines" because I'm not talking about copy+pasting any specific interation of them.
I mean the concept which should be applied in whatever way is best for 9th.
There's no point channeling how much you hate Cruddance into this new book, it's about coming up with what works for 9th, not championing how much you hated something from years ago.

We already kinda have the groundwork. "command bonuses" or whatever you want to call them - points upgrades for specific things. Mostly they're for characters, but I believe Dark Angel's version is Inner Circle which can also be applied to a few units?

Since 9th operates in "equivalent abilities" for armies, take that and apply it to Guard.
You can buy Grenadiers, Recon, Jungle Fighters, Mechanised, Armoured, whatever, upgrades.

The problem is that when you say "doctrines", you're referring to two wildly different things and might not even be realizing it. The 3.5 book(the only thing really worth mentioning with "Doctrines") was a monster when it comes to what you could do with it. You actually gave up unit choices in order to alter the dynamics of your army, and certain things did not stack at all(No carapace with Jungle Fighters or Light Infantry for example)
The Cruddace book has zero reason to even be discussed in the same breath as "Doctrines". They were exclusive to Veteran Squads and didn't really do anything meaningful beyond "This unit gets a 4+ save!" or "This unit gets Snare Mines and Camo Capes". They were effectively "Veteran Skills" and nothing more, given the name "Doctrines" for some unknown reason.



Real-talk, but you cannot discuss "fixing Guard" without acknowledging that one of three things needs to happen:
1) Guard Infantry Squads get branched out into different categories, with different options, and different Regiments give bonuses to those specific types of Infantry Squads over others.
2) <Regiment> becomes a fixed keyword for specific "Big Names" and they effectively become "Legendary Elements" in the Guard list.
3) The "Big Name" regiments lose their current flavor and looks to become genericized into what's in plastic now.


Bluntly it's why one of my hopes for the post-Dark Imperium world was Guilliman bullying the High Lords into recreating the "Imperial Army" as a thing, but Guillimaning it up more: standard uniform, standard armor, standard everything. If we're not going to have meaningful differences in the way things are portrayed on the tabletop then what's the bloody point of doing it in the lore? Might as well just have "Guardsmen", "Sneaky Guardsmen", and "Heavy Guardsmen" all with their own kits then and a shared aesthetic to boot.

 waefre_1 wrote:
Infantry Squads in particular are already nearly the highest they've ever been on a PPM basis (and the extra .5 PPM still just feels a bit petulant, at least to me - if GW can't justify 5 PPM Guard in the current paradigm, I'd figure that's a call to rethink the apparent 5 PPM floor they've decided on, not a call to make Guard more expensive). Unless they do make everything else more expensive to match (spoiler: that's even less likely than GW rethinking the 5 PPM floor), I'd say that our current performance would be reasonable rationale to make Guardsmen cheaper.

I agree the squad price shouldn't drop, but I think they should get more effective. That means for me as a minimum that the vox rules are built into the squad, they get a special weapon for free (can add a second), and if they add a heavy weapon you add an entire heavy weapon team (for the same cost as a current heavy weapon), not convert 2 guardsmen into one.

That is in effect a points drop, but while making the squad matter more at the same low cost.
So before - Sarge (also, I would let him take a lasgun...), 5 men, Vox, Plasma, Hve Bolter - 75 points
After - Sarge, 7 men, Vox, Plasma, Heavy Bolter - 65 points and 2 more wounds

Also get the bonus of having more effective squads rather than the bare bones common sight now (which I think should be for conscripts...)

(And please gods have orders make things happen automatically, not give more dice rolls - for example
FRFSRF - lasgun auto hits (speeds things up, gives a counter to armies with lots of -1's and means you actually use the weapons rather than skip them to save time)
Take Aim - 6 to hit negates all saves
Bring it down - 6 to hit auto wounds)

The way 40k is set up presently you can't really get the first weapon free.
Either you pay for every weapon, or you get them free.

Personally, I think your individual Guardsman should be worth more than your individual GSC. This is a trained, professional, army - it should be better than an untrained rabble.

Unfortunately they don't have any real room to better on their stat card, but IMO orders should be very important and very effective. This will also encourage leading your men with officers in a realistic way.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


If anything, Heavy and Special Weapon Squads need to be treated like vehicle squadrons: bought as X numbers within the unit then deployed separately with a pseudo-character protection layered onto them and given a few other perks that actually make them more appealing than just loading up Command or Infantry Squads with the same options.

waitwaitwaitwaitwait you want heavy weapons squads to be untargetable? yeah, i'm gonna dismiss everything you propose lol.

Not what I said, but okay.

The general idea would be to address the supposed "squishiness" of HWTs if they are moved from being a blob which dies quick (a relatively common criticism of Heavy Weapon Squads from what I've seen) to individual HWTs that are harder to target without proper tools being employed. A points bump would be needed for the initial "body", but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Especially if they're done up as multiple "types" of HWS/SWS and specialized a bit.

What would be the benefit of having HWT as separate units rather than part of the squad?

It would open them up to being abused by having an infantry team hiding behind a building, with HWTs sat besides and behind them blasting away, invulnerable to enemy fire.

That's not normally a huge problem for characters because characters to either be aura points (in which case they could just as easily hide themselves), beatsticks (in which case hiding and sniping isn't doing them much good), or just generally bring a very limited amount of firepower for their points.

None of the above would apply a HWT.

Granted it has the benefits that they wouldn't suffer morale from Guardsmen dying and could be left behind whilst Guardsmen advance.

I think the bullshittery of them being "characters" outweighs the benefits.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Real-talk, but you cannot discuss "fixing Guard" without acknowledging that one of three things needs to happen:
1) Guard Infantry Squads get branched out into different categories, with different options, and different Regiments give bonuses to those specific types of Infantry Squads over others.

Why? Seriously, why? Why is this needed to fix Guard? What does this actually bring to address the current big time threats like Custodes and Tau? Or even middle of the pack factions like Necrons and Death Guard? Please be specific here.

2) <Regiment> becomes a fixed keyword for specific "Big Names" and they effectively become "Legendary Elements" in the Guard list.
3) The "Big Name" regiments lose their current flavor and looks to become genericized into what's in plastic now.

Weren't you the one who said:

I'm not wasting my time going forward playing Guard in a manner that is not actually what Guard are supposed to be.

So, you want to change how the Guard are supposed to be, but don't want to play Guard I'd they change what they’re supposed to be?

Also, same question as above on how this helps us address current top tier and middle tier factions, with specific examples.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The way 40k is set up presently you can't really get the first weapon free.
Either you pay for every weapon, or you get them free.

Sure you can. You just explicitly note it in the datasheet.

Personally, I think your individual Guardsman should be worth more than your individual GSC. This is a trained, professional, army - it should be better than an untrained rabble.

Unfortunately they don't have any real room to better on their stat card

Say it with me here:
4
PLUS
SAVE
BASE
REGULAR
INFANTRY
SQUAD

Seriously. This crap isn't hard. Carapace is undervalued right now, and we've seen a big shift with the Aeldari book. If Aeldari Guardians are 4+ saves now, then why can't Cadians be? Why can't Scions or Kasrkin be a 3+ save?
If GSC are getting 5+ saves from wearing jumpsuits, why can't DKoK get the same from a long coat, shoulderpads, and a helmet?

but IMO orders should be very important and very effective.

Or they should be tied to the Sergeant, not the Officer who isn't always there.

This will also encourage leading your men with officers in a realistic way.

No, it really won't. Because "in a realistic way", the officer's way in the back monitoring the communications while orchestrating the different elements of their force.

They're getting reports from scouting elements, redirecting fire support missions and escalating requests from their own forces upwards as necessary.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Imperial Guard using autoguns is definitely a thing in the lore, although normally listed as an exception rather than a rule.
Autoguns tend to float at about the same overall quality as a lasgun though, which specific differences that are irrelevant to the 40k scale (ammunition supply, rate of fire, accuracy, etc).

So I agree there is no point having separate stats for autoguns. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest it's better not to to let people choose how to model their units.

I do like the idea of better differentiating Guard squads though in general. I would like a system similar to the old doctrines.

Well originally autoguns were range 32". then in 2nd ed lasguns were -1 sv and autoguns were -. They will never change them now, but given power over reality I would make...
Autoguns 32", Str 3, -, RF
Lasguns 24", Str 3, -1, RF

I think the guard squads could get a lot more attention as part of the 'big' regiments. Wouldn't be that difficult. Hell in wildest dreams I would have a codex with generic rules and then mini dex's for the named ones with different unit choices and rules.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
What would be the benefit of having HWT as separate units rather than part of the squad?

What's the benefit of having Heavy Weapon SQUADS be a single unit right now?
They don't have Voxes, so can't benefit from Orders issued at range.
The only thing they do is be a Heavy Support slot.

It would open them up to being abused by having an infantry team hiding behind a building, with HWTs sat besides and behind them blasting away, invulnerable to enemy fire.

The prefix pseudo- (from Greek ψευδής, pseudes, "lying, false") is used to mark something that superficially appears to be (or behaves like) one thing, but is something else. Subject to context, pseudo may connote coincidence, imitation, intentional deception, or a combination thereof.

Sorry I used such big words for y'all. It's "pretend character protections", not all the exploity trash that you lot never seem to say anything about when it exists for characters but constantly use as a negative here.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The way 40k is set up presently you can't really get the first weapon free.
Either you pay for every weapon, or you get them free.

Personally, I think your individual Guardsman should be worth more than your individual GSC. This is a trained, professional, army - it should be better than an untrained rabble.

Unfortunately they don't have any real room to better on their stat card, but IMO orders should be very important and very effective. This will also encourage leading your men with officers in a realistic way.

Have you seen some of the datafax's...
As it is its childs play. Just change the Infantry squad list to 1 Sergeant, 1 guardsman with a grenade launcher, 8 guardsmen with lasguns.
Have Vox Caster as a keyword/special rule
Say for options
Sarge stuff
Replace grenade launcher with any special weapon
Add special weapon X points
Add heavy weapons team and heavy weapon for x points


(Oh and I would add heavy stubber as a special weapon and twin heavy stubber as heavy weapon, because I am using those reality warping powers)

But you get them looking like a better option than a bunch of cultists with better saves/heavier firepower/etc. I would go for heavier firepower to represent training and organisation.

 Kanluwen wrote:

What's the benefit of having Heavy Weapon SQUADS be a single unit right now?
They don't have Voxes, so can't benefit from Orders issued at range.
The only thing they do is be a Heavy Support slot.

You're the one that ones the HWT to split off and be there own squad.
The rest of us want them to be a part of the squad.
Do you want them to benefit from voxes or not? Or do you just want to arbitrarily split them off then add in a whole host more special rules to let them count as part of the squad?

Sorry I used such big words for y'all. It's "pretend character protections", not all the exploity trash that you lot never seem to say anything about when it exists for characters but constantly use as a negative here.

Well what the bloody hell do you mean by "pseudo character protection" if not Look Out Sir (just without the CHARACTER keyword themselves)? Because that's literally all there is to character protection.
You need to be specific and cut out the pretentious bollocks.

Arcanis161 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Real-talk, but you cannot discuss "fixing Guard" without acknowledging that one of three things needs to happen:
1) Guard Infantry Squads get branched out into different categories, with different options, and different Regiments give bonuses to those specific types of Infantry Squads over others.

Why? Seriously, why? Why is this needed to fix Guard? What does this actually bring to address the current big time threats like Custodes and Tau? Or even middle of the pack factions like Necrons and Death Guard? Please be specific here.

Please be specific as to what the point of designing a faction based upon an everchanging meta is.

Go play Infinity if you want rock paper scissors garbage. They're catering more towards your "BUT I WANNA TOURNAMENT" mindset anyways.

2) <Regiment> becomes a fixed keyword for specific "Big Names" and they effectively become "Legendary Elements" in the Guard list.
3) The "Big Name" regiments lose their current flavor and looks to become genericized into what's in plastic now.

Weren't you the one who said:

I'm not wasting my time going forward playing Guard in a manner that is not actually what Guard are supposed to be.

So, you want to change how the Guard are supposed to be, but don't want to play Guard I'd they change what they’re supposed to be?

So, you don't know actual Guard fluff and want to try to use my words against me? Coolcoolcool.

The first bit actually is more in line with the lore than the current nonsense is.
The second bit involves nothing more than retconning. It's not like Tallarn, Steel Legion, Vostroyans, Valhallans, or Mordians have models for sale right now anyways.

Also, same question as above on how this helps us address current top tier and middle tier factions, with specific examples.

I'll let you figure it out. But you won't. Because you don't seem to grasp that not everyone cares about number-crunched Paint by Number Armylists.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The way 40k is set up presently you can't really get the first weapon free.
Either you pay for every weapon, or you get them free.

Personally, I think your individual Guardsman should be worth more than your individual GSC. This is a trained, professional, army - it should be better than an untrained rabble.

Unfortunately they don't have any real room to better on their stat card, but IMO orders should be very important and very effective. This will also encourage leading your men with officers in a realistic way.

Have you seen some of the datafax's...
As it is its childs play. Just change the Infantry squad list to 1 Sergeant, 1 guardsman with a grenade launcher, 8 guardsmen with lasguns.
Have Vox Caster as a keyword/special rule
Say for options
Sarge stuff
Replace grenade launcher with any special weapon
Add special weapon X points
Add heavy weapons team and heavy weapon for x points


(Oh and I would add heavy stubber as a special weapon and twin heavy stubber as heavy weapon, because I am using those reality warping powers)

If you can take a grenade launcher as a weapon option, that means the grenade launcher will have a points value. That means you pay those points for the first grenade launcher as well.
40k points aren't structured like that anymore - that's the point.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Go play Infinity if you want rock paper scissors garbage. They're catering more towards your "BUT I WANNA TOURNAMENT" mindset anyways.

??????????

yeah, infinity is totally rock scissor paper lmao. get off your high horse

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

What's the benefit of having Heavy Weapon SQUADS be a single unit right now?
They don't have Voxes, so can't benefit from Orders issued at range.
The only thing they do is be a Heavy Support slot.

You're the one that ones the HWT to split off and be there own squad.

Do you not know that there's literally a thing called "Heavy Weapon Squad"? It's the Heavy Support slot option, giving you 3x Heavy Weapon Teams as a single unit.

That's literally the one I'm referring to in my post. Not the one from Infantry Squads.

The rest of us want them to be a part of the squad.
Do you want them to benefit from voxes or not? Or do you just want to arbitrarily split them off then add in a whole host more special rules to let them count as part of the squad?

How are they going to benefit from voxes if they can't take them?

 Kanluwen wrote:

How are they going to benefit from voxes if they can't take them?

by changing voxes?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

How are they going to benefit from voxes if they can't take them?

by changing voxes?

Sorry, can't do that. It's not in the kit.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

How are they going to benefit from voxes if they can't take them?

by changing voxes?

Sorry, can't do that. It's not in the kit.

man, you're a gem.

Obviously making it so vox act like auras so you can relay orders to nearby units isnt possible because its not in the kit -.-

 Kanluwen wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Real-talk, but you cannot discuss "fixing Guard" without acknowledging that one of three things needs to happen:
1) Guard Infantry Squads get branched out into different categories, with different options, and different Regiments give bonuses to those specific types of Infantry Squads over others.

Why? Seriously, why? Why is this needed to fix Guard? What does this actually bring to address the current big time threats like Custodes and Tau? Or even middle of the pack factions like Necrons and Death Guard? Please be specific here.

Please be specific as to what the point of designing a faction based upon an everchanging meta is.

Go play Infinity if you want rock paper scissors garbage. They're catering more towards your "BUT I WANNA TOURNAMENT" mindset anyways.
I'll let you figure it out. But you won't. Because you don't seem to grasp that not everyone cares about number-crunched Paint by Number Armylists.

We're on Dakka Dakka. Of the threads in the General chat that deal with game play, the majority of them relate to competitive play.

Speaking of:

However nothing has been able to stick in a competitive scene. Which brings us this very quandary...how do we fix guard?

This was the entire point of this thread.

This isn't about fixing Guard fluff.

This isn't about fixing how Guard plays in Narrative play or Crusades.

This thread is about fixing how Guard plays in a competitive scene.

But it's clear you just want to push your "fix" with the exclusion of any other ideas rather than engage and have an actual discussion. If you're not willing to participate in an actual discussion, I see no reason why I should try.

Moving on.

I can attest to having free special weapons, Vox, and Heavy Weapons in Infantry Squads. I've been playing a crusade and maxed out my Squads with each, and my Infantry Squads actually feel like they're doing their worth, and it's even not all that much. 3 Squads with Plasma, Autocannon, and taking the Take Aim order took out 6 of a 10 man Marine Squad in a turn, and that seems to feel just about right to me.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

How are they going to benefit from voxes if they can't take them?

by changing voxes?

Sorry, can't do that. It's not in the kit.

man, you're a gem.

Sorry not sorry. I've had people constantly throwing that trash at me for months now over the Skitarii weapon changeup which invalidated my triple Arquebus Ranger Squads overnight.

Said before, saying again though:
GW didn't repack the Heavy Weapon Team into the reissued Cadian Squad. There's a reason for that, from what the rumormongers are saying, and it's not because the Cadians are going away.

Obviously making it so vox act like auras so you can relay orders to nearby units isnt possible because its not in the kit -.-

Sorry, but why is a Guard radio acting like an aura while being an imitation of the Mechanicus' far superior data-tether or the Tempestus' Clarion Vox and neither of which do so?

Also, there's another answer that actually fits better:
Vox Network as an "overall superfaction rule" ala Doctrina Imperatives and Data-Tethers. All Guardsmen have Vox-Beads(whether headsets, earbuds+throat mics, or big bulky helmet apparatus) allowing them to get Orders relayed to them, while Vox-casters add a layer of an additional benefit to the Orders because of clarity.

If I'm shouting a whole spiel at you and you're using a headset while being fired at--you might not get all the details. The Vox-Caster clarifying the reception and rebroadcasting it lets you get the whole spiel instead of you just getting the gist of it.

Bonus!
It lets you bring back the concept of "Inspired Tactics" in a new way: more than one Order being applied to the target units.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Also, there's another answer that actually fits better:
Vox Network as an "overall superfaction rule" ala Doctrina Imperatives and Data-Tethers. All Guardsmen have Vox-Beads(whether headsets, earbuds+throat mics, or big bulky helmet apparatus) allowing them to get Orders relayed to them, while Vox-casters add a layer of an additional benefit to the Orders because of clarity.

but you can't do that because they don't have models!!!!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

What's the benefit of having Heavy Weapon SQUADS be a single unit right now?
They don't have Voxes, so can't benefit from Orders issued at range.
The only thing they do is be a Heavy Support slot.

You're the one that ones the HWT to split off and be there own squad.

Do you not know that there's literally a thing called "Heavy Weapon Squad"? It's the Heavy Support slot option, giving you 3x Heavy Weapon Teams as a single unit.

That's literally the one I'm referring to in my post. Not the one from Infantry Squads.

The rest of us want them to be a part of the squad.
Do you want them to benefit from voxes or not? Or do you just want to arbitrarily split them off then add in a whole host more special rules to let them count as part of the squad?

How are they going to benefit from voxes if they can't take them?

I don't even know what you're talking about frankly.

I know damn well what a heavy weapon squad is, and I'm saying they should be blended into Infantry squads.
You're saying you want them to get some sort of character protection that's totally different to regular character protection?
what do you want?
Of course I know heavy weapon squads can't take voxes, that's why I'm saying let them merge with infantry teams who do. You're the one saying you want them to be separate squads... meaning they wouldn't get voxes.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

I don't even know what you're talking about frankly.

That's obvious.

I know damn well what a heavy weapon squad is,

Sure didn't seem that way.

and I'm saying they should be blended into Infantry squads.

Why? Why the actual hell would you want to do that? Seriously. What would be the point of even having Heavy Weapon Squads at that point? Just make it a big unit called "Whatever" and do a Heavy Weapon Team per 10 models. Give them a 6+ save though, because "balance".

You're saying you want them to get some sort of character protection that's totally different to regular character protection?
what do you want?

I want Guard to be able to flood the board with targets, mandating people actually have to target prioritize. People seem to be laser-focused on the idea that "Horde" needs to mean "Huge Squads".

Of course I know heavy weapon squads can't take voxes, that's why I'm saying let them merge with infantry teams who do.

Or you could, y'know, give the Chimera the "Vox" keyword if you're so desperate to tie things explicitly to voxes.

You're the one saying you want them to be separate squads... meaning they wouldn't get voxes.

They're ALREADY separate squads who can't get voxes.

I'm the one saying that I want Heavy Weapon Squads(which already exist) to be divided into Mortar, Fire Support, and Tank Hunter Squads--each of which would then be made up of 3 Heavy Weapon Teams with selected weapons that are then split out and deployed separately with a series of rules giving each squad a notable role within the army at large and Weapon Teams to be given a measure of protection that is not as robust as a LOS but also is not immediately counterable with regular weapon profiles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Also, there's another answer that actually fits better:
Vox Network as an "overall superfaction rule" ala Doctrina Imperatives and Data-Tethers. All Guardsmen have Vox-Beads(whether headsets, earbuds+throat mics, or big bulky helmet apparatus) allowing them to get Orders relayed to them, while Vox-casters add a layer of an additional benefit to the Orders because of clarity.

but you can't do that because they don't have models!!!!

Hey, we're already pretending that Catachans(who had a 6+ save, per the Jungle Fighter rules) are really a 5+ save. We at least have lore that says the vox-beads are in the helmet padding.

Oh I forgot you wanted every individual 2 man base to be a separate unit. I thought you were saying take the squads in like groups of 9 then split them into 3s!
Bollocks to that, that's ridiculous. It was obnoxious when Tau drones did it and it'll be obnoxious when Guard HWTs do it.

You still haven't explained what this magical character protection that isn't character protection is though.
I think that's an important part of your master plan.

The point of integrating heavy weapon squads into larger infantry squads is that it prevents the heavy weapons from all being immediately killed, without needing to resort to easily exploitable character protection.
It also allows them to benefit from voxes and more easily get orders.
It'll be like the old platoon structure that allowed you to combine everything together, although I suggest on a smaller scale.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

If you can take a grenade launcher as a weapon option, that means the grenade launcher will have a points value. That means you pay those points for the first grenade launcher as well.
40k points aren't structured like that anymore - that's the point.

Ignoring the fact I am sure I can find a datafax that does give you stuff in a squad then lets you get more for extra points, this would be why you couldn't give a sergeant a lasgun then because you would have to buy 9 more?

Well a lasgun would just be 0pts so would be redundant.
If you can find something that breaks this rule, be my guest.
Only possible exception is Tau - they have increasing costs per repeat weapon. But they still pay points for the default weapon as if it were a "new" weapon anyway.

What's even the significance of it being free?
If you want a Guard squad to be 55pts and have to take at least one special weapon for those points, just make them 50pts (assuming the cheapest special weapon is 5pts) with a special weapon already on their datasheet.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Oh I forgot you wanted every individual 2 man base to be a separate unit. I thought you were saying take the squads in like groups of 9 then split them into 3s!
Bollocks to that, that's ridiculous. It was obnoxious when Tau drones did it and it'll be obnoxious when Guard HWTs do it.

It's the only reasonable thing to do, frankly. And it was "obnoxious" with Drones because so bloody much of the army could take them. And if someone decided to be cheeky? You couldn't necessarily tell which were "wargear" drones that separated out or squads of drones.

You still haven't explained what this magical character protection that isn't character protection is though.
I think that's an important part of your master plan.

Sure I have. You just didn't pay attention to it any of the times you've chosen to talk down at me over this concept in a multitude of threads.

Anyways, there's a ton of different character protections in the game at this point. Whether it's making them untargetable in terrain, reducing the amount of wounds they can take per turn, etc.

The point of integrating heavy weapon squads into larger infantry squads is that it prevents the heavy weapons from all being immediately killed, without needing to resort to easily exploitable character protection.

Sorry, but given the "obscene amount of firepower evaporating our infantry squads" per other posters--there's no fix that is a real fix without redesigning everything from the ground up.

After all, didn't you hear? Someone made 116 shots in one turn with a Crisis Suit Squad or something at a tourney!

It also allows them to benefit from voxes and more easily get orders.

Know what else would do that?
Giving them voxes. Or putting the "Vox" keyword on Chimeras.

It'll be like the old platoon structure that allowed you to combine everything together, although I suggest on a smaller scale.

No, it wouldn't "be like the old platoon structure". You could not combine those things together outside of just from the FOC bit. Infantry Squads were the only thing that could actually be combined into a single unit. It was right there in the rules for "Combined Squad".


Anyways as a random fun historical fact there were also, in the Doctrines book, rules for "Remnant Squads". For every 2 full 10 model Infantry Squad you had? You could take a smaller squad that did not have a Heavy Weapons Team as an option.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Sorry, but why is a Guard radio acting like an aura while being an imitation of the Mechanicus' far superior data-tether or the Tempestus' Clarion Vox and neither of which do so?

Well, the Storm Trooper vox would be in the same book as the Imperial Guard vox, so in theory would end up equivalent to it at worst - and given that when you compare the vox-caster to the Glory Boy Clarion Vox in the 7th edition Codex they're doing completely different things (order reliability vs. Ld bubble on 3 types of tests, two of which don't exist any more), I'm not entirely sure you can say one was strictly better than the other...

I don't know where it started, but could we somehow find our way back to a less confrontative tone while discussing ideas? I think there are enough interesting ones from multiple posters, but if they are paired with "your idea of Guard is just plain wrong!!1!" It's a bit difficult to engage in a productive exchange of thoughts.


On one very specific point that turned up quite some pages ago, but that stuck in my mind. Someone mentioned that certain "Doctrines" like heavy infantry etc. should be only available to guardsmen modeled as such and that you "just have to put a bit of effort into at least Basic conversion". That's something I would find hard to accept. It takes a lot of time and money to get a build and painted Guard army and I would find it pretty unfun to get frack for trying my Tallarn looking dudes with a heavy infantry doctrine because I want to try it out.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I don't know where it started, but could we somehow find our way back to a less confrontative tone while discussing ideas? I think there are enough interesting ones from multiple posters, but if they are paired with "your idea of Guard is just plain wrong!!1!" It's a bit difficult to engage in a productive exchange of thoughts.


On one very specific point that turned up quite some pages ago, but that stuck in my mind. Someone mentioned that certain "Doctrines" like heavy infantry etc. should be only available to guardsmen modeled as such and that you "just have to put a bit of effort into at least Basic conversion". That's something I would find hard to accept. It takes a lot of time and money to get a build and painted Guard army and I would find it pretty unfun to get frack for trying my Tallarn looking dudes with a heavy infantry doctrine because I want to try it out.

It started when Kanluwen joined the conversation and refused anyone's opinions that didnt align with theirs.

Personally i think guard needs to roll less dice, i don't know how they would change it but as it stands, shooting with infantry squads mostly feels like wasting time.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I have zero interest in playing the "let's pretend!" game with someone on this crap at this stage in my life. Buy the right kit to represent what you're fielding or take the initiative and convert things.

Because Warhammer 40k it TOTALLY REAL and not fantastical at all, right?

You do seem to be down to play "let's pretend" when it comes to claiming that a 175 person tournament is small/irrelevant lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I don't know where it started, but could we somehow find our way back to a less confrontative tone while discussing ideas? I think there are enough interesting ones from multiple posters, but if they are paired with "your idea of Guard is just plain wrong!!1!" It's a bit difficult to engage in a productive exchange of thoughts.

Until the mods tell Kanluwen to can it, they're going to keep being obnoxious.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I don't know where it started, but could we somehow find our way back to a less confrontative tone while discussing ideas? I think there are enough interesting ones from multiple posters, but if they are paired with "your idea of Guard is just plain wrong!!1!" It's a bit difficult to engage in a productive exchange of thoughts.

It's hard to do that when people don't acknowledge little things, yes.

Like the existence of differently equipped regiments. Like the existence of differently equipped squads. Like the existence of lascarbines. Or a million little stupid things that people chose to try to gak all over me on for this discussion.

On one very specific point that turned up quite some pages ago, but that stuck in my mind. Someone mentioned that certain "Doctrines" like heavy infantry etc. should be only available to guardsmen modeled as such and that you "just have to put a bit of effort into at least Basic conversion".

So we're clear, I suggested that certain squads be generally unavailable to certain regiments. Tallarn isn't known for its heavily armored infantry squads and the Valhallans aren't known for their airborne units.

That's something I would find hard to accept. It takes a lot of time and money to get a build and painted Guard army and I would find it pretty unfun to get frack for trying my Tallarn looking dudes with a heavy infantry doctrine because I want to try it out.

Proxying is a thing. If you're seriously wanting to "try it out", that's a you+your opponent thing--not something that should be affecting rules development.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Sorry, but why is a Guard radio acting like an aura while being an imitation of the Mechanicus' far superior data-tether or the Tempestus' Clarion Vox and neither of which do so?

Well, the Storm Trooper vox would be in the same book as the Imperial Guard vox, so in theory would end up equivalent to it at worst - and given that when you compare the vox-caster to the Glory Boy Clarion Vox in the 7th edition Codex they're doing completely different things (order reliability vs. Ld bubble on 3 types of tests, two of which don't exist any more), I'm not entirely sure you can say one was strictly better than the other...

Clarion Vox was a special rule tied to the Tempestor Prime, Dysartes. It was "in addition to" Vox-Casters in general.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Sorry, but why is a Guard radio acting like an aura while being an imitation of the Mechanicus' far superior data-tether or the Tempestus' Clarion Vox and neither of which do so?

Well, the Storm Trooper vox would be in the same book as the Imperial Guard vox, so in theory would end up equivalent to it at worst - and given that when you compare the vox-caster to the Glory Boy Clarion Vox in the 7th edition Codex they're doing completely different things (order reliability vs. Ld bubble on 3 types of tests, two of which don't exist any more), I'm not entirely sure you can say one was strictly better than the other...

Clarion Vox was a special rule tied to the Tempestor Prime, Dysartes. It was "in addition to" Vox-Casters in general.

OK, missed that when I was looking up the rules - did Codex: Big Toy Soldiers give any information on what this Clario doo-hickey was meant to be, as the Storm Trooper Offier page in the IG 'dex doesn't describe it, just mentions it as a rule.

 Dysartes wrote:

OK, missed that when I was looking up the rules - did Codex: Big Toy Soldiers give any information on what this Clario doo-hickey was meant to be, as the Storm Trooper Offier page in the IG 'dex doesn't describe it, just mentions it as a rule.

Militarum Tempestus p9 wrote:
The cumbersome vox arrays of the Astra Militarum are often known as 'ghost boxes', for with the white noise and interference patterns of battle raging all around it is difficult to coax more than a whisper from their speakers. Not so the clarion vox array of the Militarum Tempestus, a triumph of audio-military hardware that overrides its designated airwaves with the crystal clear and perfectly enunciated commands of the Tempestors leading each detachment.

The TLDR?

Standard voxes are kinda trash. They're basically like the white noise generators used by paranormal groups for white noise machines, constantly hopping frequencies.

Clarions are frequency locked.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The way 40k is set up presently you can't really get the first weapon free.

How so? That's exactly how Special Weapon Squads work now.

They have the Sniper Rifle as a "free" option, as its inbuilt in their unit cost. Then can upgrade to grenade launchers, flamers, plasma, or melta for 3 points instead of 5. Just do that for Infantry Squads.

 Pyroalchi wrote:

Personally i think guard needs to roll less dice, i don't know how they would change it but as it stands, shooting with infantry squads mostly feels like wasting time.

It's not that we need to roll less dice, it's that the dice we roll needs to be more effective. The fundamental problem there is our BS4. Compare to 4 dice at BS2 with re-rolls, we'd need to roll 10 dice to be roughly comparable. Given our variance on the to-hit, the way we would compensate is to make our wounding & AP better. If you look at most of the guard heavy weapons, that's what they're intended to do, have lots of shots that miss, but those that do hit are strong enough to wound and punch thru the armor.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I don't know where it started, but could we somehow find our way back to a less confrontative tone while discussing ideas? I think there are enough interesting ones from multiple posters, but if they are paired with "your idea of Guard is just plain wrong!!1!" It's a bit difficult to engage in a productive exchange of thoughts.

It's hard to do that when people don't acknowledge little things, yes.

Like the existence of differently equipped regiments. Like the existence of differently equipped squads. Like the existence of lascarbines. Or a million little stupid things that people chose to try to gak all over me on for this discussion.

It depends on if the post is constructive. Just saying "idea X sucks" is not constructive.

Having regiments not being able to take certain units doesn't do anything, unless there is something special to replace them (like SW Grey Hunters and BCs vs. Tac/Assault Marines). Just let the players pick which unit(s) they want. It's not that Valhallans don't have Valkyies, they just don't use them as often. Same for AV6 on Catachans. I agree it's fluffy but not meaningful. To make it meaningful, it would have to be a trade-off for something valuable. So for Catachans, what do I get for being AV6? If Valhallans can't take Valkyries, what do they get in return? Cheaper Chimeras? A new transport that holds 30 conscripts?

Having Lascarbines is definitely an option, but in-an-of-itself doesn't solve the guard infantry output problem (it's still mean 1.5W for 27 dice). We're still over-paying and under-performing unless it goes to Assault4. Having differently equipped squads doesn't solve the output or durability problem either. Anything visible in 9th just dies (especially infantry), so unless the unit can do something, you make it as cheap as possible (meaning no special/heavy weapons) so it doesn't trade down. Right now, a guard squad is trading 55 points for 10 points. Adding 2 special weapons for 20 points doesn't help it from being picked up by 100 Airburst Frag rounds, so we would still make the squad as cheap as possible (meaning no SWs/HWs).

I agree with you that just adding bodies to HWTs and HWSs doesn't accomplish the goal. It add wounds, but make the teams more vulnerable to blast, which really isn't an improvement, it's just a side-grade with additional complexity. With all the BS2, indirect, bikes, and blast weapons, unless we stop them from being targeted (better T, W and AV are beyond our reach), they'll just get picked up like they are today. It's the next escalation past everything getting an invulnerable save. That's why I proposed LOS! for HWTs. Then the HWTs stay in the back providing covering fire, while being harder to target.

brainpsyk wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I don't know where it started, but could we somehow find our way back to a less confrontative tone while discussing ideas? I think there are enough interesting ones from multiple posters, but if they are paired with "your idea of Guard is just plain wrong!!1!" It's a bit difficult to engage in a productive exchange of thoughts.

It's hard to do that when people don't acknowledge little things, yes.

Like the existence of differently equipped regiments. Like the existence of differently equipped squads. Like the existence of lascarbines. Or a million little stupid things that people chose to try to gak all over me on for this discussion.

It depends on if the post is constructive. Just saying "idea X sucks" is not constructive.

That's fair, but frankly there is only so many times that you can really not feel like you've banged your head against a wall over this topic being broached over and over and over and over again. Even before 8E, it should have been abundantly clear to people that something needed to change and simply screwing with points would not be enough.

Having regiments not being able to take certain units doesn't do anything, unless there is something special to replace them (like SW Grey Hunters and BCs vs. Tac/Assault Marines). Just let the players pick which unit(s) they want. It's not that Valhallans don't have Valkyies, they just don't use them as often. Same for AV6 on Catachans. I agree it's fluffy but not meaningful. To make it meaningful, it would have to be a trade-off for something valuable. So for Catachans, what do I get for being AV6?

Always counting in cover, even in the open, and getting to impose a negative hit modifier while within cover.

Additionally, Catachan Devil units, Harker, and Straken?

If Valhallans can't take Valkyries, what do they get in return? Cheaper Chimeras? A new transport that holds 30 conscripts?

They get recycling Conscripts, or Conscripts that can take Orders. There's never been anything about them not having Valkyries--I used the example of Drop Troops because that's a specific regimental and doctrinal setup that is more or less implied to be out of their wheelhouse due to the nature of their world. Lots of caves and ice would make air drops not great as an operational doctrine.

Having Lascarbines is definitely an option, but in-an-of-itself doesn't solve the guard infantry output problem (it's still mean 1.5W for 27 dice). We're still over-paying and under-performing unless it goes to Assault4. Having differently equipped squads doesn't solve the output or durability problem either. Anything visible in 9th just dies (especially infantry), so unless the unit can do something, you make it as cheap as possible (meaning no special/heavy weapons) so it doesn't trade down. Right now, a guard squad is trading 55 points for 10 points. Adding 2 special weapons for 20 points doesn't help it from being picked up by 100 Airburst Frag rounds, so we would still make the squad as cheap as possible (meaning no SWs/HWs).

Bluntly, balancing off of the gimmicky garbage played in tournaments is pointless. GW has yet to learn that, and with the current crop of playtesters they have? They won't be learning it anytime soon.

I agree with you that just adding bodies to HWTs and HWSs doesn't accomplish the goal. It add wounds, but make the teams more vulnerable to blast, which really isn't an improvement, it's just a side-grade with additional complexity. With all the BS2, indirect, bikes, and blast weapons, unless we stop them from being targeted (better T, W and AV are beyond our reach), they'll just get picked up like they are today. It's the next escalation past everything getting an invulnerable save. That's why I proposed LOS! for HWTs. Then the HWTs stay in the back providing covering fire, while being harder to target.

Problem, IMO, is that LOS is going to be wildly subject to change. Hence why I've suggested something else.

Frankly the easiest solution is likely to require a bit more "oomph" in the form of an "Engineer Squad" that can deploy fortifications or bolster terrain for our units to take advantage of.

brainpsyk wrote:
It's not that we need to roll less dice, it's that the dice we roll needs to be more effective. The fundamental problem there is our BS4. Compare to 4 dice at BS2 with re-rolls, we'd need to roll 10 dice to be roughly comparable. Given our variance on the to-hit, the way we would compensate is to make our wounding & AP better. If you look at most of the guard heavy weapons, that's what they're intended to do, have lots of shots that miss, but those that do hit are strong enough to wound and punch thru the armor.

Our infantry need both. Our vehicles only need to be more effective.

That's why I'm saying FRFSRF should be altered to work just like Radium weapons. As in:

"Each time an attack is made with this weapon against an enemy unit (excluding VEHICLE units), an unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically wounds the target."

For example: A single Infantry Squad with FRFSRF will currently kill 1 marine. With the suggested change to FRFSRF you'd get 18 shots instead of 36, but immediately you'd get 3 wounds and 2 more from rolling the rest of your hits, for a total of 0.833 dead marines. You've already saved half the time from rolling attacks, then another 16.67% of your time rolling to wound. Multiplied across 18 infantry squads that's a lot of time off the clock saved, making it actually viable to try for chip damage.

It's slightly worse mathematically while taking significantly less time to roll. It's also more resilient against -1 to Hit and benefits more from RR to Hit.

Kanluwen wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
One thing we can be sure of is GW isn't going to give us rules options that don't have models. There will be no light/normal/heavy infantry because there are no such models. There will be no different types of lasguns because there is no such models.

We literally have rules for Lascarbines right now. They came with Gaunt's Ghosts(Corbec has one). Larkin's got rules for the Long-Las as well.

The one thing we can be sure of right now is that we cannot be sure of anything.

I'm pretty sure there are no other models outside of this squad armed with either of those weapons. Might as well be asking for all Space Marine Captains to have the Gauntlets of Ultramar as standard issue.... well, they can have just one gauntlet if they wear Gravis Armor.

Voss wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

I'm not saying my idea is perfect, but I hope GW has a way of making Guard Infantry viable other than making the base Lasgun stats better. You certainly can't make the AP -1 without every bolter in the game going "What about me!"

Shuriken catapults and fleshborers wave energetically.
'Oh baby bolter, you'll catch up one day.'

At least those were only Bolter equivalent weapons during the dark ages of 3rd to 7th

Canonically aren't snipers normally armed with long las?

 alextroy wrote:

Voss wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

I'm not saying my idea is perfect, but I hope GW has a way of making Guard Infantry viable other than making the base Lasgun stats better. You certainly can't make the AP -1 without every bolter in the game going "What about me!"

Shuriken catapults and fleshborers wave energetically.
'Oh baby bolter, you'll catch up one day.'

At least those were only Bolter equivalent weapons during the dark ages of 3rd to 7th

Er... they weren't. The catapult never recovered from the nerfing into a shotgun equivalent, and the fleshborer was a bolt pistol. That they're suddenly better than bolters is actually a good sign for lasguns getting an upgrade into 'vaguely useful' territory.
But we're all going to pay for the upgrades when the next Marine book comes around (well, the loyalist one, anyway).

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bluntly, balancing off of the gimmicky garbage played in tournaments is pointless.

This doesn't even seem specious, this is flat-out wrong.

You guys are thinking too small. Here is my fix: PRIMARIS GUARD!

The fluff doesn't matter. SomethingsomethingGulliman, somethingsomethingAdMech. But now there are Guardsmen who are totally better equipped and more awesome than the normal ones. Maybe a full-blown expansion of the Scions line? You get the idea, new but familiar aesthetics, new but familiar weapons, and a new but familiar faction design.

Primaris Guardsmen would be armed with three-barrelled lasguns, so their weapons are obviously Salvo 3 (but stay R24", S3 and AP0). They have more awesome special weapons like Turbosun Plasma Rifles (R30", Assault 3), Melta Crucifiers (D8, causes D6 Mortal Wounds at half range), and Übergrenade Launchers (dunno, +1S and better Blast?). There is also the El Johnson tank that is totally better than the Leman Russ and has 6 different awesome guns and stuff. Again, you get the idea, why bother with reinventing old stuff when you can make up new stuff that is totally more awesome? And you have to, like, re-buy your entire army, so everyone wins: you get more awesome models and GW gets more money!

So yeah, that's my idea. And I'm only half-sarcastic here.

 AtoMaki wrote:
but stay R24", S3 and AP0

Don't forget the originals would go to S3, AP +1 - the originals have to be 1AP worse than the new ones.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Canonically aren't snipers normally armed with long las?

IIRC yes, with the usual caveat of "millions of worlds with millions of doctrines and millions of tech levels" (which leads to some being armed with exotic needle rifles, some getting solid projectiles, some getting fancy crossbows, etc etc - the old "as long as it's obviously a sniper weapon, model it however you want").

 AtoMaki wrote:
You guys are thinking too small. Here is my fix: PRIMARIS GUARD!

The fluff doesn't matter. SomethingsomethingGulliman, somethingsomethingAdMech. But now there are Guardsmen who are totally better equipped and more awesome than the normal ones. Maybe a full-blown expansion of the Scions line? You get the idea, new but familiar aesthetics, new but familiar weapons, and a new but familiar faction design.

Primaris Guardsmen would be armed with three-barrelled lasguns, so their weapons are obviously Salvo 3 (but stay R24", S3 and AP0). They have more awesome special weapons like Turbosun Plasma Rifles (R30", Assault 3), Melta Crucifiers (D8, causes D6 Mortal Wounds at half range), and Übergrenade Launchers (dunno, +1S and better Blast?). There is also the El Johnson tank that is totally better than the Leman Russ and has 6 different awesome guns and stuff. Again, you get the idea, why bother with reinventing old stuff when you can make up new stuff that is totally more awesome? And you have to, like, re-buy your entire army, so everyone wins: you get more awesome models and GW gets more money!

So yeah, that's my idea. And I'm only half-sarcastic here.

All for it. And Catachans should be armed with miniguns: https://youtu.be/ylnZ22mJuBw?t=21

 AtoMaki wrote:
There is also the El Johnson tank that is totally better than the Leman Russ and has 6 different awesome guns and stuff.

Don't forget it has heavy stubbers all over it, too.

Preemptive request. Stop/don't take things away offer more sprues (or on-demand 3d prints from GW) on the side to model things that aren't in the main kit rather than just delete. GW should gear up to 3d print however many elysian bits i want to order and throw it in a flat rate box rather than delete to simplify production/inventory.

When marines are getting a new captain or lieutenant every year guard shouldn't have things pushed into legends

I don't really know about 'fixing' guard, but I'd like to see more synergies between units - make Guard the human Combined Arms faction.

Something like: Vox-caster units spot for artillery giving them a bonus. Officers can use Vox-casters to call in artillery strikes (the MoO doing it betterer of course). Ogryns/Bullgryns being bodyguards for their 'little brothers'. Transports being allowed to fire overwatch with a unit that disembarked from them.

Or whatever - the point being each individual unit is not very good on its own, but when combined with other units of different types supporting them, they are greater than the sum of their parts. We already sort of have that in Orders, it's just only Infantry squads get better when an officer is around.

 Kcalehc wrote:
I don't really know about 'fixing' guard, but I'd like to see more synergies between units - make Guard the human Combined Arms faction.

Something like: Vox-caster units spot for artillery giving them a bonus. Officers can use Vox-casters to call in artillery strikes (the MoO doing it betterer of course). Ogryns/Bullgryns being bodyguards for their 'little brothers'. Transports being allowed to fire overwatch with a unit that disembarked from them.

Or whatever - the point being each individual unit is not very good on its own, but when combined with other units of different types supporting them, they are greater than the sum of their parts. We already sort of have that in Orders, it's just only Infantry squads get better when an officer is around.

I kind of like this idea. It feels like it would help differentiate guard from other armies more.

Some other ideas that have been rattling around in my brain pan (not sure if they'd be good, bad, or game breaking):

1) Non-sponson/non-hull vehicle-based blast weapons spill over damage to other models in the unit. Sure there's the argument of "why don't other imperial vehicles get this" to which I reply, "maybe in SM 2.0" . On a more serious note though, I would expect this would amp up the killing power of our tanks/artillery. Then make the vanquisher cannon the ignore invuln weapon (probably still won't be worth taking, sadly)

2) Either increase the range for vox-casters or just give them range over the entire battlefield for simplicity (and give vehicles an equal-costed upgrade that does the same thing). For everyone, not just the Cadians.

3) Give custom regiments a third trait and add even more options to the list or make the existing options stronger (to make up for them losing out on regiment locked relics and orders). Maybe add a list of orders that you can pick one of for your custom regiment. Personally, I'm not a fan of taking the name-brand regiments myself. I don't care if someone else takes them and I really like that they exist, but I love creating fluff for my regiment from the ground up (my current regiment is raised on an arid Mars-like mining and trade world where the equatorial seas evaporated long ago and the resulting salt plains are now used for weapons testing by techpriests from a forge world within the same system: gunnery experts and spotter details fluffed into slightly upgraded weaponry works better than standard issue). Maybe this is just my personal bias, but I wish the custom regiments were as strong as the name-brand regiments. Either way, guard come from countless planets and being able to represent that without completely losing out on all the nice stuff would give me the warm fuzzies . (On a related note, custom storm trooper regiments as well, please?)

5) Give us back "Incoming!" (In 5th, when I last played, it was a platoon commander order that gave a +2 cover save at the cost of not be able to act normally until the end of the player's next turn), let it break the +1/-1 modifier rule. Alternatively, make this a guard-specific version of the Take Cover strategem. The idea behind this is to make it harder to force us off of objectives at range. Let Guardsmen hold the line like the God-Emperor intended. Generally speaking, I'd like to see a lot of defensive buffs to guard (not necessarily in the stat lines, but that's certainly one way to do it). [edit: +2 cover save is apparently fine...still getting to grips with the details of the 9th ed rules it would seem heh]

6) Give us more ways to recoup CP as a representation of the massive logistical support that the guard have.

Again, I'm not sure if these are good, bad, or game breaking, but I think they'd help Guard be stronger and more guard-y

Note that the max of +1/-1 for modifiers is Hit Rolls and Wound Rolls only.

It does NOT apply to save rolls.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Note that the max of +1/-1 for modifiers is Hit Rolls and Wound Rolls only.

It does NOT apply to save rolls.

Thanks for the correction. For some reason I was thinking it was hit and save rather than hit and wound heh.

Thought crossed my mind: what if guard got the Drukari option where they can take up to three foc charts as a single army, each with different faction rules at no penalty. Like a patrol, vanguard, spearhead, outrider or super heavy detachment in any combination (with 0-1 of each you take) at no CP cost or penalty for tournament play.

It'd fit the guard very well, but regimenting it to be a minimum of 3 would also reflect the regidity of the guard as you'd be forced to take a tax in each detachment for the benefit of mixing regiments as you see fit.

 Kcalehc wrote:
I don't really know about 'fixing' guard, but I'd like to see more synergies between units - make Guard the human Combined Arms faction.

Something like: Vox-caster units spot for artillery giving them a bonus. Officers can use Vox-casters to call in artillery strikes (the MoO doing it betterer of course). Ogryns/Bullgryns being bodyguards for their 'little brothers'. Transports being allowed to fire overwatch with a unit that disembarked from them.

Or whatever - the point being each individual unit is not very good on its own, but when combined with other units of different types supporting them, they are greater than the sum of their parts. We already sort of have that in Orders, it's just only Infantry squads get better when an officer is around.

I would LOVE something like this.
* infantry get cover/Ld when near tanks
* some kind of bonus when 2 or more units fire at the same target
* as you stated, a 'spotter' bonus, just for having a vox caster and LOS to a target for artillery, or even a mortar pit. Or even with Gunships, so the gunships are targeting the priorities for the boots on the ground, instead of just picking targets of opportunity.

 alextroy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
One thing we can be sure of is GW isn't going to give us rules options that don't have models. There will be no light/normal/heavy infantry because there are no such models. There will be no different types of lasguns because there is no such models.

We literally have rules for Lascarbines right now. They came with Gaunt's Ghosts(Corbec has one). Larkin's got rules for the Long-Las as well.

The one thing we can be sure of right now is that we cannot be sure of anything.

I'm pretty sure there are no other models outside of this squad armed with either of those weapons. Might as well be asking for all Space Marine Captains to have the Gauntlets of Ultramar as standard issue.... well, they can have just one gauntlet if they wear Gravis Armor.

Yes, there are no other models outside of this squad armed with either of those weapons...because we haven't really actually seen any meaningful releases.

We saw the Death Korps infantry squad(who, additionally, are known for using a nasty heavy Lasgun pattern to start with) and Tanith, plus two Catachan models that were to be Store Opening(Ripper Jackson) and Store Anniversary(Catachan Colonel; see spoiler) models

Do you know what I'm not holding my breath for? GW releasing AM Infantry Squad kits with 3 types of lasguns. These are not Space Marine we are talking about here! We already have a pretty good idea of what to expect from Infantry Squad kits from DKOK. Models that cover the current rules options plus cool bits and bobs for Kill Team.

So I'm going to save my wishlisting for something within the realm of possibilities

Cool, then I hope you're not expecting Heavy Weapon Teams.

Additionally, I'm not expecting all 3 types to be in a single set. I don't expect us to see a heavier variant in a stealther squad, for example.

 alextroy wrote:
Do you know what I'm not holding my breath for? GW releasing AM Infantry Squad kits with 3 types of lasguns. These are not Space Marine we are talking about here! We already have a pretty good idea of what to expect from Infantry Squad kits from DKOK. Models that cover the current rules options plus cool bits and bobs for Kill Team.

So I'm going to save my wishlisting for something within the realm of possibilities

But this technically exists already. Nearly every different regiment model in plastic, metal, or resin has a different lasgun pattern. We just need rules associated to them. HH actually has more rules for lasguns than it does for bolters.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

brainpsyk wrote:
* some kind of bonus when 2 or more units fire at the same target

I could see Guard getting the Crossfire ability GSC have. It's very thematic for us.

GW could just remove Overlapping Fields of Fire as a Stratagem and then use it as the name for our own Crossfire ability. Then just replace the unique Cadian stratagem with Vengeance for Cadia. It always seemed weird that potentially some foreign regiment on the other side of the galaxy would have such strong emotions for Cadia.

 alextroy wrote:
Do you know what I'm not holding my breath for? GW releasing AM Infantry Squad kits with 3 types of lasguns.

A few years ago, if someone had told me that tacticool infiltrator space marines wearing Crysis-inspired nanosuit power armor would become a thing I would have laughed into their faces. Or SM tanks mounting friggin' heavy stubbers. That's just ridiculous. Yet here we are...

Space Marines aren't wearing Crisis suits though. Phobos armour is based on Scout Carapace armour.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Space Marines aren't wearing Crisis suits though. Phobos armour is based on Scout Carapace armour.

Totally.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Space Marines aren't wearing Crisis suits though. Phobos armour is based on Scout Carapace armour.

Totally.

Ah yes, because Phobos armour looks more like this:


And not this:


And as a reminder, Reivers since they were the OG Phobos unit and have the most open poses:


Like the only point of comparison is maybe the abs, but looking at the recent animation that's just the underlying skinsuit that they wear that acts as a secondary layer of muscle as well as a vaccum seal.

They look more like power-armour-gone-Crysis than they do Scouts

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Space Marines aren't wearing Crisis suits though. Phobos armour is based on Scout Carapace armour.

Phobos Armour is one of the several different "modules" of Mark X Tacitus.

It isn't based on one thing or another, outside of the idea of having a modular armour system.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Space Marines aren't wearing Crisis suits though. Phobos armour is based on Scout Carapace armour.

Phobos Armour is one of the several different "modules" of Mark X Tacitus.

It isn't based on one thing or another, outside of the idea of having a modular armour system.

GW repeats visual designs a lot though, like the smaller shoulder pads, unarmored abdominal section, pouches strapped to the chests, and the similar boot design and how the Incursors have the same mono-visor of the scouts too.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Like the only point of comparison is maybe the abs

They are literally the exact same abs that were ridiculed in Crysis too:

Again, if somebody had told me that this would become a thing, I would have laughed. It ain't so funny now. If GW thinks that each Infantry Squad box should have 9 different types of lasguns because they can sell more plastic for more money or whatever then they will fit 9 lasguns into the Infantry Squad box. In fact, they will likely make up the Intermentor Squad that is 10 times more awesome than the Infantry Squad and it has those 9 lasguns, each better than the standard one the Infantry Squad gets, making the Infantry Squad utterly irrelevant. And Intermentor Guardsmen will have S4 and T4 because they are that awesome. Now that's what I call "realistic".

 AtoMaki wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Like the only point of comparison is maybe the abs

They are literally the exact same abs that were ridiculed in Crysis too:

Spoiler:

Nah, the 40k ones look more like a tire.

For me, the future of the Guard is mediocrity.

It was once the gun line army, then Tau took that place.

It was once considered the "spam loads of troops" army but then Tyranids, Orks and Tau also made that viable.

It was once considered the mechanised army but then Drukhari, Tau, Space Marines all got in on the action.

So what is left? It's the historical army. It's that WW2 army you wanted to play but everyone else wanted to use super soldiers. Its the army that doesn't get the support of Space Marines, doesn't get the cool toys like [Insert whichever opponent there is in the main box set] and the army that has some of the oldest set of models that isn't worth the redesign.

It's the army that's easiest to copy and proxy, and the hardest to change to avoid that.

Yes I know, a sceptical approach from an old guard player but sadly a true one. So what would fix it? Tanks!

The guard are most synonymous with tanks. These tanks are stupidly overpriced in today's game and as such, I think Guard need only 2 changes to fix things:

Lower the points costs of the tanks (by a lot)
Improve the BS to 3+ (all of them)

I don't see GW doing either of those.

I could see them pulling -1 damage for all tanks because 'lower tech = reliable' according to the fluff in their heads.

I like the idea of going back to the Platoons - if not doing exactly that, making PL's a "non-Force-Org slot" unit like Kroot Shapers or Company vets. 1 per platoon, basically. Company commanders would still have to be 1 per detachment, I guess, but allow HQ squads the same.

On the tanks, the Demolisher and Vanquisher cannons really need fixing. Maybe the Autocannon version too. Making Demo cannons D3 wounds +1 mortal on a successful wound roll would make them better vs infantry. The Vanquisher is going to need some kind of fix almost like what the railgun got - 2 shots, D3+3 damage or something. Add a new mechanic that scales AP with wound roll? So flat -2 AP, but on a 4 it's -3, 5 it's -4, 6 it's -5? I'm just spitballing here. The autocannon version of the Leman Russ needs the Predator improvement - you can leave it heavy 4, S7, AP-1, but damage has to go up or price has to go down.
Defensively, the Leman Russes having a 2+ save is good, and I'd give them an "Iron Behemoth" rule that reduces damage by 1, just like Spehss Muhreen Dreads.

Transports are... well. They're free "Bring it down" points for the opponent in this edition. And they cost too many points for what they do. Either make them faster, give them the "Assault vehicle" rule, or make them cheaper.

I want to see the Baneblade (and all its variants) get a 2+ save and a "Blessed by the Emperor" rule (or whatever, you make up a name if you're so smart) that reduces incoming damage by 1, reduces AP by 1, and something else. Maybe a 5+ save vs Mortal wounds or something. Just because they're special. They should still be 4+ BS though It doesn't have to make sense anymore, I don't think.

I have more thoughts, but these are the only ones I can pull out through my fingertips at the moment.

They could be the faction that can actually use fortifications, imagine if you could set up an extra ~12 inches up the board putting in defensive bunkers/sandbags with guardsmen. I think that would be pretty useful, especially if defensive turrets on those came back that could like overwatch units charging into those fortifications.

Voss wrote:
I don't see GW doing either of those.

I could see them pulling -1 damage for all tanks because 'lower tech = reliable' according to the fluff in their heads.

I mean, it kind of makes sense?

Less intricate and sensitive parts gives a level of reliability over stupidly complex and finnicky in Real Life(tm).

For my part, narratively, I need a second in command HQ.

The current dex uses Platoon Commanders as elites.

This was hard in our campaign, because there were nine IG territories, and each one needed a detachment to defend it.

Nine company level commanders did not make a bit of narrative sense, but they were the only option, because Platoon commanders weren't actually HQ.

The same problem used to exist for sisters, but the 9th dex brought Palatines back.

I'm hoping the IG dex gives us a lesser HQ,