Selym wrote: Aren't Commissars attached at the battalion or company level, rather than unit-by-unit? Just recalling reading Dead Men Walking, where a Commissar recalls getting to choose which regiment to be reassigned to after his previous job.
And I can give you an example of "Cadian Blood" where the 88th had no Commissars period.
Massed Commissars makes no sense, having more than one or two in any given engagement does seem a bit odd.
What makes even less sense is having Commissars, period, as part of the tabletop in any large capacity beyond a squad upgrade. The Commissariat, as an organization, needs to be removed from the tabletop and restricted solely to the background for anything higher than a Commissar.
They were added to establish an element of "Oooh! Grimdark! We shoot our own guys instead of letting them run!", but quite frankly?
Commissars as an actual unit are unnecessary at this juncture. Add them as an upgrade to a Squad and be done with it. No "Lord Commissars", none of this trash. Get fething rid of them.
Selym wrote: Aren't Commissars attached at the battalion or company level, rather than unit-by-unit? Just recalling reading Dead Men Walking, where a Commissar recalls getting to choose which regiment to be reassigned to after his previous job.
And I can give you an example of "Cadian Blood" where the 88th had no Commissars period.
Massed Commissars makes no sense, having more than one or two in any given engagement does seem a bit odd.
What makes even less sense is having Commissars, period, as part of the tabletop in any large capacity beyond a squad upgrade. The Commissariat, as an organization, needs to be removed from the tabletop and restricted solely to the background for anything higher than a Commissar.
They were added to establish an element of "Oooh! Grimdark! We shoot our own guys instead of letting them run!", but quite frankly?
Commissars as an actual unit are unnecessary at this juncture. Add them as an upgrade to a Squad and be done with it. No "Lord Commissars", none of this trash. Get fething rid of them.
Couldn't disagree more with all of this. Commissars have always been a huge part of the Imperial Guard background. Removing them would be like removing Chaplains from the Space Marines.
I also don't understand why you are so dead set on removing units from the codex. It's like whenever anything in the codex differs from your personal interpretation of the universe and faction then it doesn't belong. We had this same discussion in regards to Rough Riders.
Anyways Commissars are imperative to blob guard functioning properly and would be devastating to me to lose.
I play mostly CC blob guard centered around large amounts of infantry, Rougb Riders, and deep striking Scions. The last few codecies have made my armies a little worse with each edition and I'm worried a new one will further push them down.
Lord Commissars on the TT are supposed to represent the characters in stories who are Commissars, but are forced to lead their battlegroup. Unfortunately, there is an actual Lord Commissar rank, which has had its fluff transplanted into the IG codex.
Take 1 Commissar as a buffed up version of the current normal Commissar, and have him as a HQ choice, who only doesn't take a slot if another HQ choice is present.
Add a single model HQ choice like Lord Militant.
Lord Militant
A senior rank in the chain of command, a Lord Militant is a noble who has been educated in the military arts. It is his duty to lead his men on the field of battle, and to ensure the duties of his battlegroup are fulfilled.
Wargear for a Lord Militant should be something flashy, and encourage either a heroic charge, or a devastating barrage of firepower.
vipoid wrote: As a question, what 'real' HQ choices would you like to see?
Honestly curious here, as I'm far from an expert on IG fluff, so I don't know what else they could add.
I'll pick up the question, because I think it's an interesting one. This is one of the problems that commissars have always had, they were strictly limited by the number of CCS and PCS squads that you took. This prevents you from choosing between offensive order buffs and defensive morale buffs, instead you need to take CCS/PCS before you can take commissars, so rather than a tactical choice it's an extra tax/expense just to get commissars. Even if you take a Lord Commissar, your # of commissars is still strictly limited and the units they're allowed to join is also limited.
The tank commander was a good idea, but it was done halfway. Several factions in the game have HQ choices that really bring flavor to the army and open up other tactical options and IG should have the same sort of thing to reflect the vast variety of IG regiments throughout the galaxy a la the old regimental doctrines system. While IG are not known to be flexible within a particular army, they are varied throughout the galaxy.
Command Squads (traditional structure): bring orders, synergize with infantry through buffs.
Tank Commanders (armored corps/mech): enable players to take tanks and sentinels as troops and/or issue orders to vehicles
Lord Commissar (commissariat detachment): allows IC commissars, each one has aura of discipline and summary executes units within 6" that fail leadership. Make infantry much more implacable and disciplined.
Tempestor Prime Command Squad (Tempestus detachment): allow Scions as troop choices, also no ridiculously overpriced book with 5 units.
Some or all of these would really allow IG commanders to field more tactically varied armies without going to the allies table.
vipoid wrote: As a question, what 'real' HQ choices would you like to see?
Honestly curious here, as I'm far from an expert on IG fluff, so I don't know what else they could add.
Well, for one?
We could go back to having different "ranks" of Senior Officers.
Captains, Colonels, and Generals--each with their own different perks that they bring to the field.
Expanded retinue options--these guys shouldn't be traveling around with four guys. They should have at least a full 10 man squad with them at all times.
White Dwarf #306 from July 2005 had some great stuff in there regarding this. It was called "Imperial Guard High Command Headquarters Group". It consisted of a High Commander and a personal staff of 4-11 aides, chosen from a list of 5 different types.
You had Grenadier Bodyguards(Stormtroopers in all but name), 0-3 Servitor Bodyguards, Veterans, Guardsmen, and Orderlies.
Orderlies themselves consisted of 6 different types.
Staff Officers--Every squad with a Vox-Caster came with a Scanner. Additionally, if you have two Staff Officers then the result of any Barrage Scatter dice could be rerolled once per turn. If you had three--you could reroll failed Reserves rolls.
Master Astropaths--Effectively this guy brought "Mind War" for the Imperium. The Master Astropath and the Psyker attempting to use a power each rolled a D6+Leadership. If the Astropath beat the opposing model's score, then it was nullified and may not be used that turn. You could not use Psychic Hoods and the Master Astropath's ability on the same attempt to cancel out a Psyker ability.
Scribe Historicus--A single Scribe Historicus granted Counterattack to the Headquarters Group. More than one Scribe Historicus meant that all Imperial Guard units with a model within 12" of a Scribe Historicus benefited from Counterattack as the men of the Guard fight all the harder to ensure that their deeds live on in myth.
Batman--If the High Commander suffers a Wound, he may allocate the Wound to a Batman. It had to be done before any saving throws are attempted.
Sage--A single Sage granted +1 BS to the High Commander. If there was more than one Sage, you could reroll a failed roll to hit during the Shooting Phase but you had to accept the second result.
Pastor--Granted Stubborn.
4 Guardsmen could take special weapons, Veterans could have two models upgraded to a Medic and Standard Bearer, and Grenadiers brought a 10 point 4+ BS4 Hellgun to the Headquarters Group.
The High Commander himself allowed for any IG unit within 12" to use his Leadership value for Morale and Leadership tests as long as he wasn't in CC, falling back, or pinned.
He also allowed for Guard units to use his Leadership for target priority rolls(which isn't a thing anymore--but something could be put in lieu of this).
Additionally? The High Command Headquarters Group wasn't able to be taken as your "mandatory" HQ choice. It was a separate entity but could still benefit from Doctrines and Advisors.
Couldn't disagree more with all of this. Commissars have always been a huge part of the Imperial Guard background. Removing them would be like removing Chaplains from the Space Marines.
Oh please. You could remove Lord Commissars and the only people who would be upset are those who thought that Lord Commissars were the only way to represent Gaunt or Cain.
I also don't understand why you are so dead set on removing units from the codex. It's like whenever anything in the codex differs from your personal interpretation of the universe and faction then it doesn't belong. We had this same discussion in regards to Rough Riders.
No, it's when anything in the Codex is an antiquated holdout kept in to appease grognards that it "doesn't belong".
The Guard should have seen a drastic overhaul years ago. Skitarii are what the Guard should have been.
Anyways Commissars are imperative to blob guard functioning properly and would be devastating to me to lose.
Good thing my statement was:
Commissars as an actual unit are unnecessary at this juncture. Add them as an upgrade to a Squad and be done with it. No "Lord Commissars", none of this trash. Get fething rid of them.
Removing them as an HQ choice doesn't hurt your precious "blob guard". It just means that you don't get IC status for them.
I play mostly CC blob guard centered around large amounts of infantry, Rougb Riders, and deep striking Scions. The last few codecies have made my armies a little worse with each edition and I'm worried a new one will further push them down.
And I played Grenadier Guard centered around Chimeras and Kasrkin models.
What's your point?
Rough Riders have NEVER been good. That simply comes down to, as we discussed before, the fact that they're a holdout unit that should have been taken out of the book several editions ago.
Batman--If the High Commander suffers a Wound, he may allocate the Wound to a Batman. It had to be done before any saving throws are attempted.
Wow. I think Kurze just beat Alpharius at the sneaky game.
Wikipedia wrote:A batman (or batwoman) is a soldier or airman assigned to a commissioned officer as a personal servant. Before the advent of motorized transport, an officer's batman was also in charge of the officer's "bat-horse" that carried the pack saddle with his officer's kit during a campaign.
The U.K. English term is derived from the obsolete bat, meaning "pack saddle" (from French bât, from Old French bast, from Late Latin bastum), and man.
A batman's duties often include:
acting as a "runner" to convey orders from the officer to subordinates
maintaining the officer's uniform and personal equipment as a valet
driving the officer's vehicle, sometimes under combat conditions
acting as the officer's bodyguard in combat
digging the officer's foxhole in combat, giving the officer time to direct his unit[1]
other miscellaneous tasks the officer does not have time or inclination to do
The action of serving as a batman was referred to as "batting". In armies where officers typically came from the upper class, it was not unusual for a former batman to follow the officer into later civilian life as a domestic servant.
The suggestions in this thread have transcended from constructive improvements to the codex, to wish-listing/penis-envy of other factions.
Imperial Guard don't need snowflake rules that allow them to escape or avoid melee- if a guardsmen unit gets caught in melee it deserves to die; that's the price you pay for having one of the cheapest troops choices in the game.
If you don't want your important units in melee then use the tools already available in the codex to prevent that from happening- historically this means tarpitting. Ogryns, sentinels and blobs are all designed to intercept and tie-up enemy units long enough for your damage-dealers to get the job done; conscripts and sentinels do this fairly well while ogryns do not, but that isn't especially hard to fix.
Drop ogryns down to 25ppm and make them ld10 (or fearless, I'd prefer the former). 75 points of ogryns will statistically hold up 120 points of boyz or 175 points of wraiths in melee for ~a turn and a half if they counter-charge. Give bullgryns a similar points drop and add the caveat that the 5+ invuln shield turns any charge against the bullgryns into a disordered charge and you're pretty much golden. If sentinels gained a 12'' move the Guard would have some of the best screening units in the game.
If you don't want your important units in melee then use the tools already available in the codex to prevent that from happening- historically this means tarpitting. Ogryns, sentinels and blobs are all designed to intercept and tie-up enemy units long enough for your damage-dealers to get the job done; conscripts and sentinels do this fairly well while ogryns do not, but that isn't especially hard to fix.
Sentinels are NOT "designed to intercept and tie-up enemy units". They're not Dreadnoughts. Their whole schtick is to provide a mobile firing platform for heavy weapons at a reasonable points cost.
Drop ogryns down to 25ppm and make them ld10 (or fearless, I'd prefer the former). 75 points of ogryns will statistically hold up 120 points of boyz or 175 points of wraiths in melee for ~a turn and a half if they counter-charge. Give bullgryns a similar points drop and add the caveat that the 5+ invuln shield turns any charge against the bullgryns into a disordered charge and you're pretty much golden. If sentinels gained a 12'' move the Guard would have some of the best screening units in the game.
Bullgryn need to be able to Overwatch their Grenadier Gauntlets. It's stupid that they cannot do so.
If we're discussing more controversial theoretical changes, can we ditch the vendetta as it currently stands? Leave the Valk alone as a troop transport with some guns, and put the triple lascannon weaponry on the vulture as a dedicated gunboat.
Blacksails wrote: If we're discussing more controversial theoretical changes, can we ditch the vendetta as it currently stands? Leave the Valk alone as a troop transport with some guns, and put the triple lascannon weaponry on the vulture as a dedicated gunboat.
Yeah. The Vendetta is like the Stormraven (or indeed the Tactical Marine) - it does multiple things, but that works against it instead of for it.
Couldn't disagree more with all of this. Commissars have always been a huge part of the Imperial Guard background. Removing them would be like removing Chaplains from the Space Marines.
Oh please. You could remove Lord Commissars and the only people who would be upset are those who thought that Lord Commissars were the only way to represent Gaunt or Cain. And they were right. As were all the people who didn't want command squads, or had invented their own special Commissar.
I also don't understand why you are so dead set on removing units from the codex. It's like whenever anything in the codex differs from your personal interpretation of the universe and faction then it doesn't belong. We had this same discussion in regards to Rough Riders.
No, it's when anything in the Codex is an antiquated holdout kept in to appease grognards that it "doesn't belong". Except it does belong. It's hard to find a thing on the IG that rejects Commissars as a standard-issue support personnel.
The Guard should have seen a drastic overhaul years ago. Skitarii are what the Guard should have been.Skitarii are humand in the Admech. The IG are WW1/WW2 with a bit of Nuclear Age mixed in. Hence Commissars.
Anyways Commissars are imperative to blob guard functioning properly and would be devastating to me to lose.
Good thing my statement was:
Commissars as an actual unit are unnecessary at this juncture. Add them as an upgrade to a Squad and be done with it. No "Lord Commissars", none of this trash. Get fething rid of them.
Removing them as an HQ choice doesn't hurt your precious "blob guard". It just means that you don't get IC status for them. It does, as it means you cannot have both Blob Squad and Conscript Blob. And reduces the statline. And options. And forces you to take an /extra/ HQ.
I play mostly CC blob guard centered around large amounts of infantry, Rougb Riders, and deep striking Scions. The last few codecies have made my armies a little worse with each edition and I'm worried a new one will further push them down.
And I played Grenadier Guard centered around Chimeras and Kasrkin models.
What's your point?
Rough Riders have NEVER been good. That simply comes down to, as we discussed before, the fact that they're a holdout unit that should have been taken out of the book several editions ago. A unit being bad does not mean it should be removed. Decades of supporting fluff and design thematics aside, the Rough Riders just need a rules rewrite, not an entry removal. You don't see nid players arguing that Carnifexes should be removed, just because they are crap.
If you don't want your important units in melee then use the tools already available in the codex to prevent that from happening- historically this means tarpitting. Ogryns, sentinels and blobs are all designed to intercept and tie-up enemy units long enough for your damage-dealers to get the job done; conscripts and sentinels do this fairly well while ogryns do not, but that isn't especially hard to fix.
Sentinels are NOT "designed to intercept and tie-up enemy units". They're not Dreadnoughts. Their whole schtick is to provide a mobile firing platform for heavy weapons at a reasonable points cost.
That may not be their prime directive, no, but the armored sentinel is one of the most cost-effective tarpits in the game. It costs half as much as a dreadnought despite having the same front AV, which means as a walker that any melee unit lacking the capability of denting AV12 is screwed.
They're actually better at tying units up in melee then they are at fire-support, frankly. 30 points for a single BS3 weapon on an AV10 chassis is garbage.
Blacksails wrote: If we're discussing more controversial theoretical changes, can we ditch the vendetta as it currently stands? Leave the Valk alone as a troop transport with some guns, and put the triple lascannon weaponry on the vulture as a dedicated gunboat.
The funny part is the Vulture as a dedicated gunboat can't even get "triple lascannons"...
It comes standard with:
1x nose-mounted Heavy Bolter
One twin-linked multi-laser on a set of wing hardpoints
Two Hellstrike Missiles on the other set of wing hardpoints.
The twin-linked multi-laser can be replaced by twin-linked Autocannon, Missile Launchers, Lascannons, and Multiple Rocket Pods.
The Hellstrikes can be replaced by Hellfury Missiles x2, Hunter-Killer Missiles x6, Tactical Bombs x6, and a pair of Multiple Rocket Pods.
Alternatively you can replace both of those for a twin-linked Punisher Gatling Cannon at the low, low price of 50 flippin' points.
Ashiraya wrote:Yeah. The Vendetta is like the Stormraven (or indeed the Tactical Marine) - it does multiple things, but that works against it instead of for it.
Simply put, the Stormraven makes sense for the Space Marines. They need their vehicles to be able to do multiple things since they can't just call for the next wave.
The funny part is the Vulture as a dedicated gunboat can't even get "triple lascannons"...
It comes standard with:
1x nose-mounted Heavy Bolter
One twin-linked multi-laser on a set of wing hardpoints
Two Hellstrike Missiles on the other set of wing hardpoints.
The twin-linked multi-laser can be replaced by twin-linked Autocannon, Missile Launchers, Lascannons, and Multiple Rocket Pods.
The Hellstrikes can be replaced by Hellfury Missiles x2, Hunter-Killer Missiles x6, Tactical Bombs x6, and a pair of Multiple Rocket Pods.
Alternatively you can replace both of those for a twin-linked Punisher Gatling Cannon at the low, low price of 50 flippin' points.
Oh, I know, that's what I'm saying. Add in a triple TL lascannon loadout.
What's wierd is that the Valk kit doesn't even include the Lascannon bitz for a Vendetta - it's just a Transport with anti-Infantry systems. Or missiles.
Seems to me that a Vulture/Vendetta 2-in-1 gunship kit would make more sense.
Although converting a Valk into an AC-130 isn't a bad idea...
JohnHwangDD wrote: What's wierd is that the Valk kit doesn't even include the Lascannon bitz for a Vendetta - it's just a Transport with anti-Infantry systems. Or missiles.
Yup. Because the Vendetta was something FW intended to ONLY be for the Elysians---they looked at the US Airborne during Vietnam, where an uparmed Huey "Hog" would fly mixed in with the transports to provide a bit more "oomph" at the actual landing zones while the Cobras would deal with essentially 'locking down' the perimeters of the landing zones.
Seems to me that a Vulture/Vendetta 2-in-1 gunship kit would make more sense.
Honestly, at this point? It's not happening unless they drastically redesign the Vulture. The Vulture kit is more resin than plastic. It uses the wing assemblies and the pilot. Everything else is resin.
And by "drastically redesign", I mean them butchering a slick design like they did with the Manticore and to an extent the Hydra.
Although converting a Valk into an AC-130 isn't a bad idea...
"Redemption Corps" had some absurd Valkyrie "Spectre" variant that somehow had enough room in it to house an Earthshaker Cannon and several Centaur transports.
It's pretty easy to differentiate what we want from Flyers. IG needs:
- Transport
- Close air support (brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt!!)
- Air Superiority
Gunships will be too busy hunting to mess around with troop transport, the Valk and Vulture have very clear uses. It'd be nice to see the Vendetta with a clearer role rather simply sold as than "3-TL Lascannons on a flyer".
I don't have much to add except I think all the cool FW flyers (Avenger, T-bolt, Lightning) belong in the FA slot and not the HS slot.
There is nothing wrong with the Vendetta being a 3 TL Lascannon Flyer in the gunship role. Nothing at all.
Though I would be totally OK with the Thunderbolt replacing the Vendetta. Or a 3-in-1 Vulture-based kit that covers Thunderbolt / Vendetta / Vulture armament.
Kanluwen wrote: Maybe the Lightning works in Fast Attack(it's an interceptor not a ground support vehicle), but the Avenger and Thunderbolt both definitely are HS.
They are Supersonic, how much faster do you want?
I don't think FA is designated by the weapons on the unit; it's really more it's role on the battlefield.
AA like the Hydra is a lynchpin. AA like the Lightning is a knife you stick in your enemy without warning.
JohnHwangDD wrote: There is nothing wrong with the Vendetta being a 3 TL Lascannon Flyer in the gunship role. Nothing at all.
If that's the case -- let's remove the transport capacity and give it both Strafing Run and Vector Dancer. Maybe if we feel crazy we even find some way to get Tank Hunter onto it. Adjust costing to match. THAT'S a gunship.
Any value we lose as a transport, we find a way to return to the Valk. Maybe it starts at Capacity 6 and we can buy an transport upgrade.
FYI I'm talking about thematic design and intuitive use to the player. Costing and such come later.
I have no problem with the Vendetta losing Transport in favor of something more combat oriented. That's why I suggest something like the Vulture chassis.
I do have a problem with the Valk losing Transport for how HUGE it is. Valk should be Transport 12, because it's got a HUGE cargo area - bigger than the Chimera, in fact.
If the Vendetta stays on the Valk chassis, I could see it dropping to Transport 6.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I have no problem with the Vendetta losing Transport in favor of something more combat oriented. That's why I suggest something like the Vulture chassis.
The Vulture chassis is nothing like the Valkyrie chassis. I'm building one right now and I will basically have enough parts left over to build a wrecked Valkyrie as scenery.
The only parts used are the wings and tail boom assembly.
I cannot emphasize this enough. The Vulture would require its own kit--and there's nothing, currently, in the Imperial Navy line-up that matches its look.
I do have a problem with the Valk losing Transport for how HUGE it is. Valk should be Transport 12, because it's got a HUGE cargo area - bigger than the Chimera, in fact.
If the Vendetta stays on the Valk chassis, I could see it dropping to Transport 6.
Kanluwen wrote: Maybe the Lightning works in Fast Attack(it's an interceptor not a ground support vehicle), but the Avenger and Thunderbolt both definitely are HS.
They are Supersonic, how much faster do you want?
I don't think FA is designated by the weapons on the unit; it's really more it's role on the battlefield.
AA like the Hydra is a lynchpin. AA like the Lightning is a knife you stick in your enemy without warning.
What I "want" is for you to understand that the reason they're in "Heavy Support" is that the Avenger and Thunderbolt fill the role of flying tanks.
The Lightning was strictly an Interceptor, but it looks like they've retconned that in favor of making the "Strike" variant the only one that exists. In any regards, it's the speediest of the lot and fits better into Fast Attack--which is where the Vulture Gunship gets placed for the Armoured Battlegroup list.
But truly, if we're wishlisting and want to see Imperial Navy stuff make it into the main book?
Marauder and Marauder Destroyer.
"Flying Tank" is a description. Not a role. That's not an explanation at all.
Fast Attack can provide surprise and concentration of force by rapidly shifting where our focal point is on the battlefield. They tend to do their damage by using mobility to target weak points or vulnerabilities.
Heavy Support tends to provide your greatest source of both firepower and/or armour but nowhere near the mobility of a FA unit. They have the capability to smash directly through strong points with brute force. Targeting vulnerabilities is not strictly necessary.
You can want anything, but if you want to convince me of your point, you need to give me a better explanation than "Flying Tank" and considering that truth self-evident!
Yoyoyo wrote: "Flying Tank" is a description. Not a role. That's not an explanation at all.
And neither is saying "Supersonic=Fast Attack".
Fast Attack can provide surprise and concentration of force by rapidly shifting where our focal point is on the battlefield. They tend to do their damage by using mobility to target weak points or vulnerabilities.
And that fits the Lightning to a tee.
Heavy Support tends to provide your greatest source of both firepower and/or armour but nowhere near the mobility of a FA unit. They have the capability to smash directly through strong points with brute force. Targeting vulnerabilities is not strictly necessary.
Thunderbolts come standard with two twin-linked autocannon, twin-linked lascannon, and can be upgraded to carry 4x Hellstrike Missiles, 6x Tactical Bombs, or 6x Skystrike Missiles.
Avengers come with one hull-mounted Avenger Bolt Cannon, two wing-mounted Lascannon, and a Defensive Heavy Stubber. They can be upgraded with two additional wing-mounted hardpoints that can carry any one of the following options 6x Tactical Bombs, 2x Hellstrike Missiles, 2x Hellfury Missiles, 2x Missile Launchers, 2x Autocannon, or 2x Multi-Lasers
Both of these fighters come standard with Armoured Cockpits, and the Avenger has the "Strafing Run" special rule.
Do you know what the Lightning comes with?
A long-barreled Autocannon and one set of twin-linked Lascannon. It can then replace its long-barreled Autocannon with either 2x Hellstrike Missiles or 2x Tactical Bombs and the Strafing Run special rule.
You can want anything, but if you want to convince me of your point, you need to give me a better explanation than "Flying Tank" and considering that truth self-evident!
I don't "need to give a better explanation" to you. The Thunderbolt is meant to be a 40kization of the Republic P-47 "Thunderbolt" flown by the Allied forces during the Second World War. Don't believe me? Look up the P-47 and check out its usage. You'll see that it matches how FW has described the Thunderbolt almost 1:1.
If FW wanted them to be Fast Attack, they would be. They're not though--because FW doesn't think they belong there.
Fast Attack is where the VTOL stuff goes in the Armoured Battlegroup list for IA1v2.0, which means the Vulture Gunship.
Some kind of minimum capacity transport for Elites would be good but you're 100% right that the Valk model doesn't really look the part.
Ogryns are Elites, and they count double. A unit of 5 would require Transport 10, Transport 12 with a 6th Ogryn or Commissar added. I think they should have the option to ride in a Valk.
BlaxicanX wrote: That may not be their prime directive, no, but the armored sentinel is one of the most cost-effective tarpits in the game. It costs half as much as a dreadnought despite having the same front AV, which means as a walker that any melee unit lacking the capability of denting AV12 is screwed.
Are you sure you're not thinking of 5th? Because that was the last time that statement held true.
In 5th, walkers were only hit by grenades on 6s, and glancing hits did virtually nothing. So, you needed a S7+ melee weapon.
Nowadays, marines can throw Krak Grenades. They hit it on 3s, and it takes just 2 6s to destroy it (and that's assuming it was on full HPs before it entered combat).
Sorry, but this tactic just doesn't hold water these days.
I should clarify, I meant a more economical transport in addition to the Valkyrie. There's no effect on Ogryns. The idea was to make air transport for 5-6 man Scion squads less expensive.
Given you'd need an entirely new model, I don't think the idea's worth chasing until the core IG units are 100% solid.
Anyways, I am gonna think a bit about tanks assaulting objectives and come back with some ideas.
vipoid wrote: As a question, what 'real' HQ choices would you like to see?
Honestly curious here, as I'm far from an expert on IG fluff, so I don't know what else they could add.
I'll pick up the question, because I think it's an interesting one. This is one of the problems that commissars have always had, they were strictly limited by the number of CCS and PCS squads that you took. This prevents you from choosing between offensive order buffs and defensive morale buffs, instead you need to take CCS/PCS before you can take commissars, so rather than a tactical choice it's an extra tax/expense just to get commissars. Even if you take a Lord Commissar, your # of commissars is still strictly limited and the units they're allowed to join is also limited.
The tank commander was a good idea, but it was done halfway. Several factions in the game have HQ choices that really bring flavor to the army and open up other tactical options and IG should have the same sort of thing to reflect the vast variety of IG regiments throughout the galaxy a la the old regimental doctrines system. While IG are not known to be flexible within a particular army, they are varied throughout the galaxy.
Command Squads (traditional structure): bring orders, synergize with infantry through buffs.
Tank Commanders (armored corps/mech): enable players to take tanks and sentinels as troops and/or issue orders to vehicles
Lord Commissar (commissariat detachment): allows IC commissars, each one has aura of discipline and summary executes units within 6" that fail leadership. Make infantry much more implacable and disciplined.
Tempestor Prime Command Squad (Tempestus detachment): allow Scions as troop choices, also no ridiculously overpriced book with 5 units.
Some or all of these would really allow IG commanders to field more tactically varied armies without going to the allies table.
Really like these idea's for expanding the HQ's would allow for a lot of options for play styles. Sadly I doubt they'll go along this vein as they seem to be going against FOC altering characters, at best we might get it via formations such as an armoured corps. I like the idea of rolling in objective secured scions into the codex via the command squad as it makes them a little more useful by giving the guard away to grab objectives in the enemy's backfield.
It's been mentioned before but making the scions hot-shot lasguns assault 2 would go some way to making them worth their points by allowing them to put some volume of fire down if the scatter dice don't like you. I know a lot of people would be against boosting their stats as it blurs the line between them and marines but I quite like the idea of making them bully boy units by boosting them up to D-99 standards; deep strike into cover, let loose a hail of fire, hopefully next turn pick on a depleted squad to shoot, assault and hopefully snatch an objective from. They're not going to be able to beat CC orientating units and will still require some thought in their use so that they don't get wiped out immediately but would give them a purpose besides suicide melta and differentiates them more from veterans. Would probably require a points increase to balance but I think it would be fairly small as most folk seem to consider them over priced.
As an aside been considering some ideas for expanding the MT codex, one of the ideas I've had is for veterans in their elite slots that have been traumatised/shaped by their experiences which have new skill set to survive. My thinking was along to mainlines, ultra-paranoid veterans that have had their senses so sharpened and are so jacked up on adrenalin that the can respond quickly to threats, gaining interceptor and improved over watch (at BS or BS2) but wondering if maybe these could make an upgrade for a command squad as specialised "close protection" for the commander.
The other line I was thinking was that some veterans go the other way and end up ultra aggressive, the key to their survival being "be quick or be dead" gaining furious charge and (this rule is probably too much with the introduction of skyhammer and scions being so squishy so less able to tar pit) the ability to charge from deepstrike, this one probably wouldn't be us useful for a standard guard command squad, unless Straken decides to go parachuting.
Sorry I know this was more wish listing than something the guard needs but figured the close protection one was kind of relevant and flavourful n wanted to test the water for the ideas.
The transports seem a point of some contention, I do feel that using orders (mentioned earlier in thread) could go someway to making them more useful after the price hike/fire point change; but I do think that they are too similar and the Taurox lacking reasons for taking it over the chimera. How would people feel about making the chimera the slower well armoured fire support transport (along the lines of a warrior APC) keep its expensive points cost but increase the side armour to 12 to match vehicles with similar chassis and make them more bolter resistant, maybe jack them up to 70 pts (I'm not brilliant at judging points cost, focusing more on defining roles and giving everything a purpose) this would make it more expensive but more likely to get units there and provide them more fire power.
The Taurox, make it a fast vehicle for slightly more mobility and match its capacity to 12 to match the chimera. Now this goes against the change to fast a bit (the only difference being a large flat out move) but take the weapons off to drop its price to the 30-35pt range giving the guard a cheap mobile option, while I'm wish listing, give it the option for wheels and maybe allow the back to be open topped to make its look like a transport truck/half track, would look cool as feth and gives ogryn something to jump out of, Orkz may get a little jealous though.
Imperial Guard don't need snowflake rules that allow them to escape or avoid melee- if a guardsmen unit gets caught in melee it deserves to die; that's the price you pay for having one of the cheapest troops choices in the game.
If you don't want your important units in melee then use the tools already available in the codex to prevent that from happening- historically this means tarpitting. Ogryns, sentinels and blobs are all designed to intercept and tie-up enemy units long enough for your damage-dealers to get the job done; conscripts and sentinels do this fairly well while ogryns do not, but that isn't especially hard to fix.
Ogryns cost waaaaayyyyyy too much, Sentinels, even armoured ones, suffer a terminal existence failure if they get in to close combat with anything nastier than Grots and Blobs will have died LONG before you get into assault.... Or some specialist assault troops hit them and they vanish in a red mist.
Dark Angels overwatch on a 5+
Tau get supporting fire
Marines Just roflstomp Guardsmen
Orks WANT to get into CC
The same with Blood Angels
Necrons go down.... And get right back up again
Eldar? You either cant get close enough (Scat bikes) or cant hurt them (Wraithguard).
We need some form of survival, after all even the dedicated CC armies (Orks and Blood Angels) can also throw inordinate levels of firepower downrange. Hell, sometimes they can even out gun the Guard.
We need some way to make assaulting us hard to do. Overwatch and D6+3" movement AWAY from the assaulting unit(s) is fair. It gives us a chance to avoid being locked down and wiped out and makes assaulting the Guard actually difficult. It makes it risky. It means you have to move in close to be able to get in to them.
Combine this with supporting fire from nearby sections and you have an army that can compete in close quarters IF they are deployed correctly. Supporting fire would only have an 8" to 12" range, so you would have to keep sections close together and prevent HWS from providing 'Supporting Fire' from across the board.
I'm not sure about the movement idea. To me, that seems more like something Eldar/Dark Eldar should have.
I think a more powerful overwatch would be the way to go, and/or something like Tau get - where they can overwatch with nearby squads. I mean, considering we're the army that can take platoons as single troop choices, it seems reasonable that our units should be able to support one another.
vipoid wrote: I'm not sure about the movement idea. To me, that seems more like something Eldar/Dark Eldar should have.
I think a more powerful overwatch would be the way to go, and/or something like Tau get - where they can overwatch with nearby squads. I mean, considering we're the army that can take platoons as single troop choices, it seems reasonable that our units should be able to support one another.
How about an order that lets them over watch at like full BS if they dont shoot previously (like if you are in the position to shoot but they are out of RF range) call it like "on my mark"
Hmm, I think you'd be losing out with that order, tbh. I mean, let's say you have 20 men out of RF range.
If you use that order, and the enemy assaults you, then you'll have 40 shots against them.
But, if you use FRFSRF, you'll have 36 shots at full BS (no shots for the sergeants), and then a further 40 BS1 shots if they assault you. So, you're averaging more hits (~42), and also get those 36 shots regardless of what the enemy does on his turn.
What if the order let them shoot normally, and then overwatch at full BS with lasguns and laspistols?
vipoid wrote: Hmm, I think you'd be losing out with that order, tbh. I mean, let's say you have 20 men out of RF range.
If you use that order, and the enemy assaults you, then you'll have 40 shots against them.
But, if you use FRFSRF, you'll have 36 shots at full BS (no shots for the sergeants), and then a further 40 BS1 shots if they assault you. So, you're averaging more hits (~42), and also get those 36 shots regardless of what the enemy does on his turn.
What if the order let them shoot normally, and then overwatch at full BS with lasguns and laspistols?
Something like that might be cool too. Another option might be something like "Hold your ground" that is more a support order. say the unit gets a +1 to cover as well and gets to make overwatch at a + or full. but cannot move the next turn. (edited because going to ground would be kinda bad)
Makes them more objective holdy fi ya know what i mean.
Yoyoyo wrote: I should clarify, I meant a more economical transport in addition to the Valkyrie. There's no effect on Ogryns. The idea was to make air transport for 5-6 man Scion squads less expensive.
Given you'd need an entirely new model, I don't think the idea's worth chasing until the core IG units are 100% solid.
IMO, the Chimera is/should be the mass production "budget" Transport. The problem is that it's overcosted and overloaded with Amphibious and Lasgun Arrays instead of AV11+ on the sides. Respec it at AV12/11/10 Transport 10, and cut the points down and we're in business.
A "budget" Valk for non-IG Stormtroopers is a problem the Stormtrooper Codex can deal with separate from the IG Codex. I don't even believe Stormies belong in C:IG any more than we should have AdMech bundled into C:IG.
I don't think IG need more new models - they have enough already. I'd rather the stuff I own be good enough, than to have to buy more stuff on top of what I own. And I own plenty!
Yoyoyo wrote: I should clarify, I meant a more economical transport in addition to the Valkyrie. There's no effect on Ogryns. The idea was to make air transport for 5-6 man Scion squads less expensive.
Given you'd need an entirely new model, I don't think the idea's worth chasing until the core IG units are 100% solid.
IMO, the Chimera is/should be the mass production "budget" Transport. The problem is that it's overcosted and overloaded with Amphibious and Lasgun Arrays instead of AV11+ on the sides. Respec it at AV12/11/10 Transport 10, and cut the points down and we're in business.
Which is why the Chimera should come standard with the Armoured Track Guard and Anti-Grenade Mesh upgrades from the Armoured Battlegroup list.
Armoured Track Guard gives you a 4+ save against any Immobilised Results on the vehicle damage table and Anti-Grenade Mesh gives you a 5+ save against any damage inflicted by any type of grenades, including Melta Bombs.
Additionally, all Guard tanks should be a minimum of 4-5 Hull Points.
A "budget" Valk for non-IG Stormtroopers is a problem the Stormtrooper Codex can deal with separate from the IG Codex. I don't even believe Stormies belong in C:IG any more than we should have AdMech bundled into C:IG.
Stormtroopers present a quandry. You've got effectively two different types of Stormtroopers in the 40k universe. You have the Stormtroopers from the Schola Progenium, who do special missions and then you have the Grenadiers for certain planets.
Grenadiers are Stormtroopers minus the "special missions" profiles. They're trained to the same level, equipped to the same level, and motivated to the same level.
I don't think IG need more new models - they have enough already. I'd rather the stuff I own be good enough, than to have to buy more stuff on top of what I own. And I own plenty!
I own plenty as well, but it really wouldn't hurt to remove some of the chaff(Rough Riders and Ratlings) and add some new units in their place.
You know what John? I totally agree with you. It's fun to get carried away dreaming up changes but not all of them are going to fit.
Discarding ideas is a fundamental part of brainstorming solutions.
vipoid wrote: I mean, considering we're the army that can take platoons as single troop choices, it seems reasonable that our units should be able to support one another.
I actually came to this conclusion myself on page 30 and learned that reworking "Combined Squads" solves both the Overwatch and CC vulnerability issues. I won't go over old ground but here's the link if you're curious.
Yeah, RRs need to be "fixed" one way or another. Right now, they're an appendix entry for old timers back in 2E/3E, and they're terrible. Being non-core auxiliaries like Psykers, Ratlings & Ogryns, they probably should move to Elite as they're recosted (downward).
Rough riders in platoons, toughness 4 and an upgrade for CCS that makes Rough rider platoons troops. I want my mass cavalry charge. Hell just give them a price cut by 2pt so the full squad is 100pt seems fair for +1 toughness and extra mobility.
Platoon structure:
1 mounted PCC
2-5 rough rider squads
No heavy weapon squads or spec weapon squads as it doesn't fit the theme.
Also HAMMER OF WRATH AND DOUBLE INITIATIVE ON FIRST CHARGE!
The Deathless Host wrote: Rough riders in platoons, toughness 4 and an upgrade for CCS that makes Rough rider platoons troops. I want my mass cavalry charge. Hell just give them a price cut by 2pt so the full squad is 100pt seems fair for +1 toughness and extra mobility.
Platoon structure:
1 mounted PCC
2-5 rough rider squads
No heavy weapon squads or spec weapon squads as it doesn't fit the theme.
Also HAMMER OF WRATH AND DOUBLE INITIATIVE ON FIRST CHARGE!
OK, that's a RR Formation of 3+ RR squads:
- 1 squad has the Sgt upgraded to a Lt., and
- all squads gain Hammer of Wrath when charging
Note that price-wise, even at T4, they need to be cheaper than ASMs, or, if given fancy sticks, cheaper than Warp Talons (both of which are sub-par units in the SM & CSM lists)...
I'm onto Tanks for the moment. Without major threats taking precendence on the assault, RR can't slip under the enemy target priority, and as a Skirmisher/Counter-assault unit RR won't have much value advancing by themselves. Str and T buffs will help but ideally the RR are not getting shot at in the first place.
Major issues with Tanks at present:
- Limited weapons utility outside optimum role
- Squadron "overspill" from weapons that inflict >3HP
- Vulnerable rear facing at AV10 penalises midfield play
- Limits HS slots in competition with artillery and air defense if not squadroned
- Little thematic synergy with Infantry
- Too much dependence on the Pask HQ; no redundancy is a huge vulnerability
Fixes:
- Increase targeting flexibility through main gun changes (ie. Vanquisher Cannon gains Instant Death in addition to Armourbane) and improved secondary/tertiary weaponry (Hull, Pintle, Sponson)
- Create a "Combat Squads" analogue to break up tank squadrons during deployment
- Increase LR chassis to rear AV11 to normalize all tanks with the Punisher/Demolisher
- Offer bonuses acting as a force multipler to Infantry when operating in close support, and vice-versa
- Alternate methods to buff LR variants will reduce Pask's relative value
Since artillery already fills the role of long-range fire support in most cases, the idea is making Tanks the go-to option for seizing objectives and breaking up resistance so the Infantry can mop up. They can sit in the backfield if needed. It just shouldn't be optimal to do so in most cases.
I'm not getting to meta issues yet like drop pods, D-Weapons and Gauss/Grav; that's going to have to come next.
Wide-Area Control These tank's crews have been trained to operate with eachother over extended distances
These tanks may each operate as individual units, whilst only taking up one FoC slot. Any effects that affect an entire unit may only affect a single targetted vehicle in this squadron, unless specifically stated otherwise.
I don't think the basic LRBT needs AV11+ Rear - that's for the midfield, short range tanks like the Demolishers. And besides, didn't they get armor upgrades to AV13 Side?? Whether they take Sponsons or not? 14/13 is really good. I'd rather be 14/13/10 than 14/12/11.
@John. The idea of tanks is that they can operate to the front. If not, you get into the issue of duplicate roles with pure fire support like artillery.
That's the reasoning behind the AV11 change, and it's probably GW's logic as well with the Demolisher and Punisher.
we need a way to cope with all the crazy stuff that's going on at the moment...
We need something comparable to the Tau overwatch rule how about - Whenever a unit of guardsmen fire overwatch all wyverns, thud guns and mortars etc can also fire at the charging unit?
Vehicle squadron rules similar to the SM ones a points drop across the board for most things and then DOCTRINES!!! fluffy and fun, they would make our infantry shine!
Yoyoyo wrote: @John. The idea of tanks is that they can operate to the front. If not, you get into the issue of duplicate roles with pure fire support like artillery.
That's the reasoning behind the AV11 change, and it's probably GW's logic as well with the Demolisher and Punisher.
Tanks and SPGs can be exposed to enemy fire. Artillery is indirect or camoflagued.
Most tanks are relatively vulnerable to being swarmed by infantry, hence combined arms in modern doctrine. I prefer that basic, ranged Russes stay 14/13/10 because it forces combined arms and forces a vulnerability on pure armor. Heck, I would suggest the Vanquisher go back to 14/12/10 in exchange for a firepower upgrade to further distinguish roles. And the Demolisher can bump to 14/13/12 or 14/14/11 to justify its points cost.
You don't consider AV11 vulnerable to "being swarmed by infantry"?
Most basic troop types can glance AV11 to death. Examples:
- Any Imperium unit w/ Krak Grenades
- Orks with Furious Charge
- Daemonettes w/ Rending
- Tau with Pulse Rifles
- Necrons w/ Gauss
I also think there's value in a universal chassis (very easy to understand), and not penalizing any tank for acting in close support. Once a Vanquisher finishes busting all it's priority targets, why can't it help the troops assault an objective with the hull/pintle/sponson weapons? All that said -- AV10 versus AV11 is a pretty minor point.
I am going to dig through the thread for notes on the Hellhound variants, before finally getting into artillery.
Yoyoyo wrote: @John. The idea of tanks is that they can operate to the front. If not, you get into the issue of duplicate roles with pure fire support like artillery.
That's the reasoning behind the AV11 change, and it's probably GW's logic as well with the Demolisher and Punisher.
Tanks and SPGs can be exposed to enemy fire. Artillery is indirect or camoflagued.
Most tanks are relatively vulnerable to being swarmed by infantry, hence combined arms in modern doctrine. I prefer that basic, ranged Russes stay 14/13/10 because it forces combined arms and forces a vulnerability on pure armor. Heck, I would suggest the Vanquisher go back to 14/12/10 in exchange for a firepower upgrade to further distinguish roles. And the Demolisher can bump to 14/13/12 or 14/14/11 to justify its points cost.
I cannot recall Leman Russ variants ever being less than AV 14/13/10. That said I do have a kind of selective memory with that kind of thing.
Yoyoyo wrote: You don't consider AV11 vulnerable to "being swarmed by infantry"?
Most basic troop types can glance AV11 to death. Examples:
- Any Imperium unit w/ Krak Grenades
- Orks with Furious Charge
- Daemonettes w/ Rending
- Tau with Pulse Rifles
- Necrons w/ Gauss
I also think there's value in a universal chassis (very easy to understand), and not penalizing any tank for acting in close support. Once a Vanquisher finishes busting all it's priority targets, why can't it help the troops assault an objective with the hull/pintle/sponson weapons? All that said -- AV10 versus AV11 is a pretty minor point.
I am going to dig through the thread for notes on the Hellhound variants, before finally getting into artillery.
In that case, we might as well drop Russes to 14/10//9 and call it a day...
There is a huge functional difference between 10 and 11, and pretending that it doesn't exist is ludicrous.
And the shooty options for Tau Pulse Rifles, where they can only Glance vs Pen? Or Gauss which is special?
But your examples only illustrate why 11 is meaningful over 10, and reinforce my point.
Yoyoyo wrote: You don't consider AV11 vulnerable to "being swarmed by infantry"?
Most basic troop types can glance AV11 to death. Examples:
- Any Imperium unit w/ Krak Grenades
- Orks with Furious Charge
- Daemonettes w/ Rending
- Tau with Pulse Rifles
- Necrons w/ Gauss
I also think there's value in a universal chassis (very easy to understand), and not penalizing any tank for acting in close support. Once a Vanquisher finishes busting all it's priority targets, why can't it help the troops assault an objective with the hull/pintle/sponson weapons? All that said -- AV10 versus AV11 is a pretty minor point.
I am going to dig through the thread for notes on the Hellhound variants, before finally getting into artillery.
In that case, we might as well drop Russes to 14/10//9 and call it a day...
There is a huge functional difference between 10 and 11, and pretending that it doesn't exist is ludicrous.
And the shooty options for Tau Pulse Rifles, where they can only Glance vs Pen? Or Gauss which is special?
But your examples only illustrate why 11 is meaningful over 10, and reinforce my point.
Please, Rear Armour 11 would be amazing for my poor Leman Russ, and 12 on the Demolishions variants would be amazing too.
Right now they get murdered by anything that gets close.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Most tanks are relatively vulnerable to being swarmed by infantry, hence combined arms in modern doctrine. I prefer that basic, ranged Russes stay 14/13/10 because it forces combined arms and forces a vulnerability on pure armor. Heck, I would suggest the Vanquisher go back to 14/12/10 in exchange for a firepower upgrade to further distinguish roles. And the Demolisher can bump to 14/13/12 or 14/14/11 to justify its points cost.
I cannot recall Leman Russ variants ever being less than AV 14/13/10. That said I do have a kind of selective memory with that kind of thing.
Kids, today. The basic Russ was 14/12/10 from 40k3 through 2 Codices, until the 2008 Codex bumped them to 14/13/10. The last "Imperial Guard" Codex would be something of a recent high point for the Russ, gaining AV13 on the side with Lumbering Behemoth. The name change drops LB for no good reason.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Most tanks are relatively vulnerable to being swarmed by infantry, hence combined arms in modern doctrine. I prefer that basic, ranged Russes stay 14/13/10 because it forces combined arms and forces a vulnerability on pure armor. Heck, I would suggest the Vanquisher go back to 14/12/10 in exchange for a firepower upgrade to further distinguish roles. And the Demolisher can bump to 14/13/12 or 14/14/11 to justify its points cost.
I cannot recall Leman Russ variants ever being less than AV 14/13/10. That said I do have a kind of selective memory with that kind of thing.
Kids, today. The basic Russ was 14/12/10 from 40k3 through 2 Codices, until the 2008 Codex bumped them to 14/13/10. The last "Imperial Guard" Codex would be something of a recent high point for the Russ, gaining AV13 on the side with Lumbering Behemoth. The name change drops LB for no good reason.
Great, now you have me reminiscing on my 3rd/4th edition stuff. There was a reason I forgot that.
Er. The desired effect is that all LR variants are encouraged to be used in close support as your spearhead, while being vulnerable to infantry who can target the weaker rear armour. Aren't we all in agreement here?
That's what I mean by minor point. I don't care about AV10 or AV11. I care about the desired effect, as well as the design pros of having a universal chassis. We can usually definitively answer finer details like this using scenarios and statistics.
At AV10, the rear armour can simply be glanced to death by the most common weapons in the game. That's not exactly an incentive to tanks operating forward, shocking infantry off objectives or out of cover, or scoring Line Breaker and forcing a response. Meanwhile infantry can stop charges but how do they stop shooting? These are issues I'm trying to resolve with an AV11 bump.
No need to facepalm man. I think you may not have understood me, which happens a lot on the net. Address these points and I'm obviously going to listen.
Yup, sadly the Leman Russ can be killed by a section of Marines shooting its ass, something that GW have failed as of yet to fix.
At least it dosnt have to worry about most basic Infantry shooting its side like the Chimera and Taurox do....
Honestly I'd be ok with Russes going to 14/12/11. Thirteen side armor is sweet but that 10 rear armor is awful when an unstoppable marine drop pod just drops out a squad that glances it to death.
Marines have the same chances of glancing that Russ as they have for killing another marine (1/9).
Just had an idea (why is it that so many good ideas come from sitting on the toilet?)
How about an Ambush! order?
If issued then the unit may choose to fire at any point within your opponents moving phase.
This means that you can hold your ground and wait for your opponent to move within range/LOS of your big nasty shooting units whilst not having to worry about them charging forward and tearing you a new one before they even get a chance to fire.
master of ordinance wrote: How about an Ambush! order?
If issued then the unit may choose to fire at any point within your opponents moving phase.
This means that you can hold your ground and wait for your opponent to move within range/LOS of your big nasty shooting units whilst not having to worry about them charging forward and tearing you a new one before they even get a chance to fire.
So basically like a mega-buffed Interceptor? The problem is it encourages castling and doesn't reward your opponent for slick manuevers. Scions actually need something like this to compensate for their 18" weapons and 24" Salvo Volleygun. The theme fits them as elite forces, but your idea would be infuriating to play against on something like an Autocannon blob.
Can you imagine "Ignore Cover" and "Ambush" at the same time, on an army like Dark Eldar? Poor guys! There may be potential but you need to figure out how to avoid the negative effects, as above.
Going back to the LR discussion (I'm almost done, I swear) I'm going to get into the weapons. First we fix up the Ordnance issues.
LR Main Gun rule: The turret (main gun) may target independently, is not counted as firing while at combat speed, and applies special effects (like Ordnance or Gets Hot) to the vehicle in the order of which the LR's weapons are fired.
So the idea is toning down some of the penalties derived from the main guns, while making hull and sponson weapons which mismatch the main gun profile much more viable. The LR main weapons themselves are generally decent but I'd tweak two things.
Vanquisher - Instant Death and Ordnance. The Vanquisher Cannon is a big gun, we want catastrophic effects on the target and the associated fluffy drawbacks (though technically, Ordnance is a straight buff after a rules tweak).
Exterminator - Autocannons aren't very exciting, but like Depeche Mode sang, "everything counts in large amounts". So why not make it something like Heavy 6? We can basically turn it into an upgunned Punisher.
In terms of LR survivability, we discussed rear armour without getting a consensus, but I'd also like to see the Enginseer get some love. I'm rolling around an idea Enginseers can buff a LR tank to 4HP ("Overrepair") with repair, the first test coming during deployment. Though to be honest this idea is still very rough and I haven't critiqued its drawbacks.
Yoyoyo wrote: Er. The desired effect is that all LR variants are encouraged to be used in close support as your spearhead, while being vulnerable to infantry who can target the weaker rear armour. Aren't we all in agreement here?
Not really. I'd spearhead with my Thunderers (count-as Demolishers) as close support and linebreakers, and often do. For these, 14/13/11 makes a big difference over 14/13/10.
My Destroyer-style basic Russes are more fire support, and could easily play as Vanquishers (or actual Destroyers) on the back line. 14/12/10 would be acceptable, and 14/13/10 is ace. The 72" guns can play differently from 24" guns.
If I had Exterminators, 14/13/10 is fine for the 48" gun. I'm OK with Punishers and Executioners using the Demolisher 14/13/11 profile, but, as above, I wouldn't be upset to have the 24" Demolisher and Punisher at 14/13/12.
master of ordinance wrote: How about an Ambush! order?
If issued then the unit may choose to fire at any point within your opponents moving phase.
This means that you can hold your ground and wait for your opponent to move within range/LOS of your big nasty shooting units whilst not having to worry about them charging forward and tearing you a new one before they even get a chance to fire.
So basically like a mega-buffed Interceptor? The problem is it encourages castling and doesn't reward your opponent for slick manuevers. Scions actually need something like this to compensate for their 18" weapons and 24" Salvo Volleygun. The theme fits them as elite forces, but your idea would be infuriating to play against on something like an Autocannon blob.
Can you imagine "Ignore Cover" and "Ambush" at the same time, on an army like Dark Eldar? Poor guys! There may be potential but you need to figure out how to avoid the negative effects, as above.
As you can only issue one order to a section per turn there is no chance of that happening
Besides, castling is the one thing that we do really well at the moment. It also gives units like the Heavy Weapons and shorter ranged Specialist teams teams the chance to fire at enemy forces whom spring from cover, or chance to pop that tank that presents its flank as it drives by. And it really hurts the Skyhammer if you manage to get it off in time...
Besides, very few opponents bother with slick moves against the Guard these days. They dont need to usually.
You know, I'm not hot on the "Ambush" idea when presented as an Order but it definitely has merit as a Formation to match 40k's power creep.
Maybe a Formation like 3x Vet squads w/Forward Observers, who gain Stealth, Ambush and Infiltrate but deploy without a Chimera? They lose Stealth + Ambush once they open fire or are fired upon. This also means you can get cheap troops onto your objectives quickly and reliably for Maelstrom!
Beyond that, what does IG have for Interception? Why they hell aren't Hydras blowing up Drop Pods as they're coming in? Seems thematic as a meta counter and this is a unit that could use a little extra utility.
Yoyoyo wrote: You know, I'm not hot on the "Ambush" idea when presented as an Order but it definitely has merit as a Formation to match 40k's power creep.
Maybe a Formation like 3x Vet squads w/Forward Observers, who gain Stealth, Ambush and Infiltrate but deploy without a Chimera? They lose Stealth + Ambush once they open fire or are fired upon. This also means you can get cheap troops onto your objectives quickly and reliably for Maelstrom!
Beyond that, what does IG have for Interception? Why they hell aren't Hydras blowing up Drop Pods as they're coming in? Seems thematic as a meta counter and this is a unit that could use a little extra utility.
Because we are not Space Marines and thus we do not get nice things.
I quite fancy a "Company" formation similar to the Marine Demi-Company. Bonuses depend on company type.
Take 1 CCS, 3 platoons plus some extra stuff as tax (HWS/SWS/Commies etc).
Extra bonuses based on type chosen.
Something like free Chimeras for armoured fist, free carapace armour for heavy infantry, free fortifications for shield company...
Alternatively/additionally some bonus special rules...
stripeydave wrote: I quite fancy a "Company" formation similar to the Marine Demi-Company. Bonuses depend on company type.
Take 1 CCS, 3 platoons plus some extra stuff as tax (HWS/SWS/Commies etc).
Extra bonuses based on type chosen.
Something like free Chimeras for armoured fist, free carapace armour for heavy infantry, free fortifications for shield company...
Alternatively/additionally some bonus special rules...
I'd buy that for a dollar.
Free tanks for all, or free upgrades to all vehicles *drools*
Just for fun I did up that idea last night. Here's an example of an 1850pt list with all the isual OP 7th edition special rules.
Astra Militarum Battle Group Core is Infantry Company, free Chimeras and Vox for troops choices.
Infantry Company 1x LC, 1x CCS and 2x Infantry Platoon, automatically passes all orders and may add all regimental advisors to CCS free of charge.
Reconnaissance Platoon 3x Veteran sections with Camo, Snare Mines, Infiltrate, Vox, and "Ambush" special rule. Cannot take Dedicated Transport.
Armoured Platoon 3x LR tank, 1x Enginseer w/2x Servitors, squadron starts at 4HP and Enginseer automatically passes repair rolls.
Artillery Battery 2x Basilisk, may add 1x Deathstrike or Manticore. Rolls Scatter as normal for Indirect Fire.
Air Defense Squadron 2x Hydra, may add 1x Hydra. Gains Interceptor.
Tactical Aviation Detachment 2x Vendetta. No transport capacity but gains free wing bolters. Gains Strafing Run and Tank Hunters. May reroll when entering from reserves.
Yoyoyo wrote: Just for fun I did up that idea last night. Here's an example of an 1850pt list with all the isual OP 7th edition special rules.
Astra Militarum Battle Group Core is Infantry Company, free Chimeras and Vox for troops choices.
Infantry Company 1x LC, 1x CCS and 2x Infantry Platoon, automatically passes all orders and may add all regimental advisors to CCS free of charge.
Reconnaissance Platoon 3x Veteran sections with Camo, Snare Mines, Infiltrate, Vox, and "Ambush" special rule. Cannot take Dedicated Transport.
Armoured Platoon 3x LR tank, 1x Enginseer w/2x Servitors, squadron starts at 4HP and Enginseer automatically passes repair rolls.
Artillery Battery 2x Basilisk, may add 1x Deathstrike or Manticore. Rolls Scatter as normal for Indirect Fire.
Air Defense Squadron 2x Hydra, may add 1x Hydra. Gains Interceptor.
Tactical Aviation Detachment 2x Vendetta. No transport capacity but gains free wing bolters. Gains Strafing Run and Tank Hunters. May reroll when entering from reserves.
Oh boy, pleasepleasepleaseplease make this something.
Kanluwen wrote: Yeeeeeeeah...no. Don't just look at Codex: Space Marines.
Why not, they keep looking at us and wanting what we have.
And not just us - they're stealing stuff from SoB, too...
Aye, I saw.
Mind you, did you see the Rhino armour thread? Barely a page in and they where calling for buffs, two and they where wishlisting for a way to repair the HP as well as immobilised results and for an upgrade that would let them increase the armour on their tanks, capping out at 14 of course because they dont want to be OP.
And they where wanting the survivability and firepower of an MBT on an APC
Yoyoyo wrote: Er. The desired effect is that all LR variants are encouraged to be used in close support as your spearhead, while being vulnerable to infantry who can target the weaker rear armour. Aren't we all in agreement here?
Not really. I'd spearhead with my Thunderers (count-as Demolishers) as close support and linebreakers, and often do. For these, 14/13/11 makes a big difference over 14/13/10.
My Destroyer-style basic Russes are more fire support, and could easily play as Vanquishers (or actual Destroyers) on the back line. 14/12/10 would be acceptable, and 14/13/10 is ace. The 72" guns can play differently from 24" guns.
If I had Exterminators, 14/13/10 is fine for the 48" gun. I'm OK with Punishers and Executioners using the Demolisher 14/13/11 profile, but, as above, I wouldn't be upset to have the 24" Demolisher and Punisher at 14/13/12.
What about a 'send in the next wave' for tanks if taken in a full squadron?
stripeydave wrote: I quite fancy a "Company" formation similar to the Marine Demi-Company. Bonuses depend on company type. Take 1 CCS, 3 platoons plus some extra stuff as tax (HWS/SWS/Commies etc). Extra bonuses based on type chosen.
Something like free Chimeras for armoured fist, free carapace armour for heavy infantry, free fortifications for shield company...
Alternatively/additionally some bonus special rules...
I'd buy that for a dollar.
Free tanks for all, or free upgrades to all vehicles *drools*
No. Free upgrades and free models is BS and only hurts the game. Remove it from those who have it instead of adding more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
master of ordinance wrote: Mind you, did you see the Rhino armour thread? Barely a page in and they where calling for buffs, two and they where wishlisting for a way to repair the HP as well as immobilised results and for an upgrade that would let them increase the armour on their tanks, capping out at 14 of course because they dont want to be OP.
And they where wanting the survivability and firepower of an MBT on an APC
Given that everyone suggested to pay appropriate points for that upgrade, while you want free units and upgrades, I am having an extremely difficult time seeing you as the victim.
No. Free upgrades and free models is BS and only hurts the game. Remove it from those who have it instead of adding more.
email that idea to GW and see what their response is. We'll wait.
"I don't realize that this is a purely hypothetical discussion and absolutely none of the suggested changes made in this thread are likely to happen."
E-mail any of these ideas to GW and see what their response is. I'll wait.
So... it's fine for him to call BS on other people's hypothetical ideas for the next IG book, but not for me to call BS on his idea that would involve GW errataing stuff out of previous books?
It's fine to point out that adding more broken gak into the game just to fulfill a fanboy fantasy and spite another faction is stupid and if implemented would actually make the game worse. "Well that probably won't happen in real life" is a poor counter-argument when this entire thread is about suggesting things that probably won't happen in real life.
BlaxicanX wrote: It's fine to point out that adding more broken gak into the game just to fulfill a fanboy fantasy and spite another faction is stupid and if implemented would actually make the game worse. "Well that probably won't happen in real life" is a poor counter-argument when this entire thread is about suggesting things that probably won't happen in real life.
Ah, another Space Marine player appears. Whats the matter? Worried that you might actually have to think when you face the Imperial Guard? Worried that we might end up with the same tier formations and choices as you?
BlaxicanX wrote: It's fine to point out that adding more broken gak into the game just to fulfill a fanboy fantasy and spite another faction is stupid and if implemented would actually make the game worse.
So, IG should just be stuck behind everyone else in terms of power level just to satisfy all the marine fanboys who think that only they deserve to be the best?
BlaxicanX wrote: "Well that probably won't happen in real life" is a poor counter-argument when this entire thread is about suggesting things that probably won't happen in real life.
Except that it *needs* to happen in real life to make his argument reasonable. That's the whole problem.
Shall we also discuss how a meteorite hitting GW headquarters should affect the new IG book?
master of ordinance wrote: Mind you, did you see the Rhino armour thread? Barely a page in and they where calling for buffs, two and they where wishlisting for a way to repair the HP as well as immobilised results and for an upgrade that would let them increase the armour on their tanks, capping out at 14 of course because they dont want to be OP.
And they where wanting the survivability and firepower of an MBT on an APC
Given that everyone suggested to pay appropriate points for that upgrade, while you want free units and upgrades, I am having an extremely difficult time seeing you as the victim.
Appropriate points? Sure. FFS, why the hell dont you just give them Battlecannons and the like as well? You might as well, they would be faster Leman Russ at a far cheaper cost with the upgrades that your lot where proposing. The Rhino is amazing as it is. The Space Marines are not about tanks.
You have a Medium Tank, an APC and a light IFV.
Stop. Trying. To. Make. Them. All. In. To. Heavy. Tanks.
That. Is. The. Realm. Of. The. Imperial Guard.
No. Free upgrades and free models is BS and only hurts the game. Remove it from those who have it instead of adding more.
email that idea to GW and see what their response is. We'll wait.
Email absolutely any suggestion ITT to them and see what their response is. We'll wait.
Seriously, guys, arguing for removing broken gak from the game (from armies that are NOT your army, no less) instead of handing it out like candy is not trying to smack down on your faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: Except that it *needs* to happen in real life to make his argument reasonable. That's the whole problem.
Shall we also discuss how a meteorite hitting GW headquarters should affect the new IG book?
Anything in this thread needs to happen as well to make it reasonable, but in all likelihood, none of it will.
This is not a news and rumour thread. If I read my own posts correctly, I never said my solution was more likely to happen - only that it would have a better result.
master of ordinance wrote: Ah, another Space Marine player appears. Whats the matter? Worried that you might actually have to think when you face the Imperial Guard? Worried that we might end up with the same tier formations and choices as you?
Look at my signature, then feel stupid.
vipoid wrote: So, IG should just be stuck behind everyone else in terms of power level just to satisfy all the marine fanboys who think that only they deserve to be the best?
Thinking that adding more broken gak into the game is the only way to improve the IG says more about your lack of imagination than it does anything about my motives.
Except that it *needs* to happen in real life to make his argument reasonable. That's the whole problem.
And it likely won't. And none of the good suggestions made in this thread that *need* to happen will likely happen, as well.
Should this thread just not exist then, since absolutely nothing presented within it is likely to happen?
If any faction in the game should get 'free' stuff, Imperial Guard should be one of the top candidates, certainly more than Space Marines anyway. Their entire strategy revolves around throwing more men and vehicles at the enemy than they can handle.
The thing is almost every 7th Edition codex has a heap of free stuff - all those free rules you get for taking the unique Formations and Detachments. Free Transports in a Gladius Strike Force is not out of line compared to a Decurion or Mechanicus War Convocation or Craftworld Warhost. It's just the way the game is now.
And I would think free stuff would be far more fitting for the Guard as opposed to flashy formation rules. There's nothing fancy about the Imperial Guard - just an overwhelming application of brute force firepower.
Give them something like infantry squads or conscripts free, then, if they absolutely have to continue the broken train instead of fixing it. Something that it makes sense that they throw in masses at the enemy without anyone really caring.
This is 40k. Russes are expensive, soldiers are not.
BlaxicanX wrote: No faction in the game should get free stuff in a game revolving around points."Other factions have it" is a poor justification.
Agreed. GW was actually going towards the right way with the first part of the 7th ed. codices in toning things down until they did a heel-face turn and outright changed the design paradigm again with Necrons and Eldar. The idea that if "everyone is overpowered then it will be balanced" is fallacious in the extreme since they'll effectively keep one-upping one another with increasingly crazy things in order to match one another (as you can see with GW's unimaginative use of giving free stuff for Mechanicus and Marines since they lack the race/weapon mechanics of the Eldar/Crons).
Free Conscripts would be perfectly fitting (also considering Guard basically had semi-free Conscripts in the last book anyway with Chenkov).
I would not want to see free Russ's, and I'm not sure anyone was advocating that either, but possibly something like reduced cost/free Sponsons or other upgrades for Russ' when taken as part of a new formation would be cool.
Seriously, guys, arguing for removing broken gak from the game (from armies that are NOT your army, no less) instead of handing it out like candy is not trying to smack down on your faction.
Anything in this thread needs to happen as well to make it reasonable, but in all likelihood, none of it will.
I think you're missing the point.
Yes, it would be better if all the free stuff and other broken stuff was removed and nerfed, respectively. However, my point is that you can't just base a forthcoming book on that happening. There's no point making IG really weak, when all the other broken books are going to be keeping all their broken stuff. Which, let's face it, they are.
To put it another way, it would be the equivalent of saying that 40k needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, so we should base the new IG book on an entirely new 40k system.
No. Just as we need to wait for said 40k system to materialise before building books around it, so too do we need to wait for all the 7.5 books to get nerfed before building books around that happening. Besides, if all the free stuff gets removed in the future, that'll include any free stuff IG gets, so what does it matter?
BlaxicanX wrote: Thinking that adding more broken gak into the game is the only way to improve the IG says more about your lack of imagination than it does anything about my motives.
Project much?
I have never once said that adding broken stuff to IG would be the only way to improve it.
*ALL* I did was question the logic behind IG not getting similar stuff to AM, because of a pipe dream that GW will instead remove all the broken stuff from other books.
BlaxicanX wrote: No faction in the game should get free stuff in a game revolving around points."Other factions have it" is a poor justification.
Agreed. GW was actually going towards the right way with the first part of the 7th ed. codices in toning things down until they did a heel-face turn and outright changed the design paradigm again with Necrons and Eldar. The idea that if "everyone is overpowered then it will be balanced" is fallacious in the extreme since they'll effectively keep one-upping one another with increasingly crazy things in order to match one another (as you can see with GW's unimaginative use of giving free stuff for Mechanicus and Marines since they lack the race/weapon mechanics of the Eldar/Crons).
You see the thing is I agree with you here. There should be a lot less of this broken jun flying around. Boosting the power level makes the big scary thing seem normal which in turn lessens their impact. Where once a baneblade brought out an "OHGODKILLITWITHFIRE" reaction in my opponent these days it tends to be more of a "Oh, a Baneblade... Meh" kind of reaction. And as the power level rises the old dependables of the basic core troops are left behind in the dust.
The game needs toning down. Formations need removing.
But as that is never going to happen the IG need to be brought back up to the level of the SM.
I think the most important thing for the IG book is to fix the internal balance, not necessarily the external. I'd much rather have a book with a wide variety of mostly equally balanced selections that are all a little underwhelming competitively, than have a book with one or two broken combinations that can compete with the top dogs, but still suffers from having useless dead weight units.
Agreed. GW was actually going towards the right way with the first part of the 7th ed. codices in toning things down until they did a heel-face turn and outright changed the design paradigm again with Necrons and Eldar. The idea that if "everyone is overpowered then it will be balanced" is fallacious in the extreme since they'll effectively keep one-upping one another with increasingly crazy things in order to match one another (as you can see with GW's unimaginative use of giving free stuff for Mechanicus and Marines since they lack the race/weapon mechanics of the Eldar/Crons).
The problem is, whilst the overall power level of the pre-Necron books was better, the internal balance was absolutely appalling. Worse still, most of those books lost a great deal of flavour - meaning that many of them just aren't fun to play. I mean, take the DE book - it has what is quite possibly the worst HQ selection in the entire game, it has 2 troop choices and one of them is so bad as to be unusable. Hellions and Wracks are FA and Elite units (respectively), which don't even match up to most other armies' troop choices, their wargear section is the equivalent of someone drinking ink and then throwing it up on the pages. And, let's not even get into the new pfp table - which is about as exciting as watching an Archon fill out his taxes. "Aha, now that my archon has completed form 145B, my army gets FNP6+. By next turn, he'll have got it signed in triplicate, and I'll get FNP 5+!"
Anyway, my point is that even if 7.5 hadn't happened, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that the pre-Necron books were somehow the pinnacle of good design. Frankly, I think they were actually far worse overall than the 7.5 ones. Yes, they had better external balance, but they just sacrificed far too much to get it; and didn't even back it up with good internal balance. They were just a flavourless mess. The 7.5 books at least had pretty good internal balance, and kept most or all of their flavour.
It's just unfortunate that they took 40k in such a bad direction with regard to balance.
Blacksails wrote: I think the most important thing for the IG book is to fix the internal balance, not necessarily the external. I'd much rather have a book with a wide variety of mostly equally balanced selections that are all a little underwhelming competitively, than have a book with one or two broken combinations that can compete with the top dogs, but still suffers from having useless dead weight units.
The thing is though, I find that codex strength is pretty important with regard to internal balance.
A codex might be well-balanced (with units being pretty close to one another in value), but if it's weak then the differences between units gets more and more important because, when you're starting on the back-foot, every point counts.
In contrast, a stronger codex with poorer balance may still see a greater diversity of units used, simply because (outside of tournaments) there isn't the pressing need to get every last drop of value out of your points.
The thing is though, I find that codex strength is pretty important with regard to internal balance.
A codex might be well-balanced (with units being pretty close to one another in value), but if it's weak then the differences between units gets more and more important because, when you're starting on the back-foot, every point counts.
In contrast, a stronger codex with poorer balance may still see a greater diversity of units used, simply because (outside of tournaments) there isn't the pressing need to get every last drop of value out of your points.
I see what you're saying, but a codex with a handful of super strong units/formations is still just a codex with a handful of super strong units. Every unit that doesn't fall into that category is inferior, and thus only used when you don't need to play that hard, or just want to use those units because they look dope as fething hell yo.
A codex that is weaker externally but balanced internally means that the difference in the perfect ideal, optimal build isn't terribly large compared to a casual list that's more concerned with building to a specific theme or other restrictions. Outside of competitive play, a better balanced internally book also suits narrative/scenario/campaign gaming better, and as a bonus side effect, will likely endear you to other gamers, knowing that even your hardest list is well within reason to play against.
Plus, I really truly hate the idea of furthering the power creep, despite it being the simplest and easiest option.
I see what you're saying, but a codex with a handful of super strong units/formations is still just a codex with a handful of super strong units. Every unit that doesn't fall into that category is inferior, and thus only used when you don't need to play that hard, or just want to use those units because they look dope as fething hell yo.
Oh, I get what you mean. And, yeah, I'd like our codex to be internally balanced too (especially given its track record...).
My point was simply that you also need to address external balance - as weaker books tend to exaggerate the differences between units.
Incidentally, I wonder if anything can even be done at this point to salvage IG infantry armies.
I see what you're saying, but a codex with a handful of super strong units/formations is still just a codex with a handful of super strong units. Every unit that doesn't fall into that category is inferior, and thus only used when you don't need to play that hard, or just want to use those units because they look dope as fething hell yo.
Oh, I get what you mean. And, yeah, I'd like our codex to be internally balanced too (especially given its track record...).
My point was simply that you also need to address external balance - as weaker books tend to exaggerate the differences between units.
Incidentally, I wonder if anything can even be done at this point to salvage IG infantry armies.
Oh, I get what you mean. And, yeah, I'd like our codex to be internally balanced too (especially given its track record...).
My point was simply that you also need to address external balance - as weaker books tend to exaggerate the differences between units.
Incidentally, I wonder if anything can even be done at this point to salvage IG infantry armies.
Nothing can really be done short of a reset button at this point. Any change you'd make to dial something back would be met by another issue that would also have to be dialed back.
Make WYVERNS (brokenly cheap - 4!!! twin linked. shred. ignores cover. barrage. blasts per turn as well as a heavy bolter and front armour 12) more points/ model
Make the weak Scions less expensive in points - once killed a whole 600 point force with 3 veterans and one marine as the total casualties.
Scion of the Emperor wrote: Make WYVERNS (brokenly cheap - 4!!! twin linked. shred. ignores cover. barrage. blasts per turn as well as a heavy bolter and front armour 12) more points/ model
Make the weak Scions less expensive in points - once killed a whole 600 point force with 3 veterans and one marine as the total casualties.
Wyverns are not overpriced. Not compared to Wraithguard/knights, Necrons, Tau and Space Marines in general.
Well, Wyverns do outcompete most of our other anti-infantry units (though as much because our other units are crap as because of the wyverns being too strong).
It's certainly hard to call them OP - especially when they're useless/ineffective against most of the really OP units currently in the game.
But, I feel the real problem with wyverns is that they're a bad element for the game in general. It's so good at its job that it makes infantry even less desirable than they already are.
And now I'm just remembering that the thunderfire cannon also exists. Sigh.
vipoid wrote: Well, Wyverns do outcompete most of our other anti-infantry units (though as much because our other units are crap as because of the wyverns being too strong).
It's certainly hard to call them OP - especially when they're useless/ineffective against most of the really OP units currently in the game.
But, I feel the real problem with wyverns is that they're a bad element for the game in general. It's so good at its job that it makes infantry even less desirable than they already are.
And now I'm just remembering that the thunderfire cannon also exists. Sigh.
I sense another soul whom longs for the game to be reset to 4th/5th edition and reworked from there. No more Lords of War, no more Scatbike spam and certainly no more Unbound. Knights can also go and become an apocalypse only army. No more amassed units that ignore basic core rules and effects. No more D spam. No more Ignores Cover/Ignores Terrain on many many units, no more hard counters to everything. Codexes that are internally balanced and externally balanced.
I sense another soul whom longs for the game to be reset to 4th/5th edition and reworked from there. No more Lords of War, no more Scatbike spam and certainly no more Unbound. Knights can also go and become an apocalypse only army. No more amassed units that ignore basic core rules and effects. No more D spam. No more Ignores Cover/Ignores Terrain on many many units, no more hard counters to everything. Codexes that are internally balanced and externally balanced.
Yeah, that sums up my views perfectly.
I think the really telling thing for me is when I think what I'd miss from current books if they were reset back to 5th. Answer: very little. With Dark Eldar I'd maybe miss IWND on Haemonculi (simply because I love regeneration abilities). A couple of the coven artefacts were nice, I guess, and I like the Parasite's Kiss if only for amusement value. The new WWP is nice. I like the freedom in the Archon's court... even if it mostly just compensates for crap HQ choices by giving us a 10pt one.
With IG, I think I'd miss even less from the current book. The current Yarrick is pretty nice. Commissars' execution ability is better. Priests are good.
Aside from stuff like pint drops, that's about it.
BlaxicanX wrote: No faction in the game should get free stuff in a game revolving around points."Other factions have it" is a poor justification.
Agreed. GW was actually going towards the right way with the first part of the 7th ed. codices in toning things down until they did a heel-face turn and outright changed the design paradigm again with Necrons and Eldar. The idea that if "everyone is overpowered then it will be balanced" is fallacious in the extreme since they'll effectively keep one-upping one another with increasingly crazy things in order to match one another (as you can see with GW's unimaginative use of giving free stuff for Mechanicus and Marines since they lack the race/weapon mechanics of the Eldar/Crons).
The "free units" is merely a money grab. The only thing better than dropping the points costs across the board, and expecting people to keep playing games at the same points level, is giving people a bunch of "free units" for taking formations and encouraging people to buy extra models as part and parcel of Pay-To-Win-Hammer.
I sense another soul whom longs for the game to be reset to 4th/5th edition and reworked from there. No more Lords of War, no more Scatbike spam and certainly no more Unbound. Knights can also go and become an apocalypse only army. No more amassed units that ignore basic core rules and effects. No more D spam. No more Ignores Cover/Ignores Terrain on many many units, no more hard counters to everything. Codexes that are internally balanced and externally balanced.
And AGREED. 5th edition was the best edition. I honestly believe that the only people who hated 5th were simply bad at real 40k.
vipoid wrote: For me, 5th was certainly the last edition that felt 'tactical' in any way.
It hurts me to agree with this given how many problems I thought 5E had at the time, but yeah, it was the last edition where I actually think I had to generally sit and think about stuff beyond simple target priority on a regular basis.
I like some of the things 6E and 7E brought to the table, the power bloat, army construction insanity, and scale issues far overshadow them.
I think fixing up some of the core Vehicle rules would go a long way to making Imperial Guard a worthy codex again. I had some ideas over in this thread, but to copy/paste for the lazy (not all of these might be needed, but maybe a combination of some):
Overwatch: Vehicles can fire S5 or lower weapons at a target that declares Overwatch against them. Note that Line of Sight restrictions still apply to Overwatch as normal for a Shooting Attack. One of the biggest weakness of non-Walker Vehicles is their huge vulnerability to assault, and this might be a way to mitigate that. Assault units can avoid arcs of fire to lessen the impact of overwatch, rewarding good movement by the Assaulting Player. S5 restricts to mainly anti-infantry weapons, so no shooting high strength/low AP stuff in overwatch. Tau can already do this with the Point Defence Targeting Relay upgrade, and could be changed to allow their vehicles to overwatch at BS2.
Heavy: Vehicles with the Heavy type ignore the penalties for firing Ordnance weapons, so long as they remained stationary in the movement phase. This would be in addition to the current benefits of the Heavy type, and would be a way to restore some of the functionality of the Lumbering Behemoth rules for Leman Russ's. GW must have decided Lumbering Behemoth was too good, so this still keeps the downside of Ordnance if the vehicle is moving. It would also buff Monoliths.
Tank: Vehicles with the Tank type may fire 2 weapons at full BS when moving at Combat Speed. Penalties for moving at Cruising Speed apply as normal Currently, as soon as a vehicle moves up to 6", they can only fire 1 weapon at full BS and everything else as snapshots. This change would allow Tanks to fire 2 weapons at full BS so long as they only moved up to 6". This gives a nice delineation between the various vehicle types and how they can fire weapons at full BS when moving at combat/cruising speeds (non-tanks: 1/0, Tanks: 2/0, Fast: 2/2, Heavy: All/not-applicable). This would buff all Rhino variants, Predator variants, Land Raiders, Chimera Variants, Battlewagons, Looted Wagons, Hammerheads, Devilfish and Sky Rays.
Independent Gunners: Weapons of S6 or less may be fired at different 'Secondary' targets to the rest of the Vehicles weapons. All other weapons must be fired at a declared 'Primary' target. Line of Sight is still required as normal for any target. This is mainly to help Sponson weapons, especially on bulky models like Land Raiders or Russ', to fire at something rather than sit there uselessly (Land Raider Redeemer I'm looking at you...). It also helps with mismatched weapon loadouts on some vehicles. Monoliths already have something like this.
Glancing Hit: On a Glancing Hit, roll a d6. On a 1-3: Nothing Happens. 4-5: Crew Shaken. 6: Crew Stunned. No HP is lost, and AP modifiers apply as normal.
This is to prevent the excessive stripping of HPs, whilst still providing a noticeable impact on the vehicle - ie being forced to Snapshot and not move.
Honestly the easiest solution is to just give the Battle Cannon and the Demolisher cannon the Primary Weapon rule. Necrons got it on some of their regular vehicles, why can't we have it? Oh right, Imperial Guard can't have nice things...
ultimentra wrote: Honestly the easiest solution is to just give the Battle Cannon and the Demolisher cannon the Primary Weapon rule. Necrons got it on some of their regular vehicles, why can't we have it? Oh right, Imperial Guard can't have nice things...
With the new IG Codex getting Baneblades (and all of the variants), Primary Weapon is the right "fix" for the Leman Russ family of vehicles.
vipoid wrote: Well, Wyverns do outcompete most of our other anti-infantry units (though as much because our other units are crap as because of the wyverns being too strong).
It's certainly hard to call them OP - especially when they're useless/ineffective against most of the really OP units currently in the game.
But, I feel the real problem with wyverns is that they're a bad element for the game in general. It's so good at its job that it makes infantry even less desirable than they already are.
And now I'm just remembering that the thunderfire cannon also exists. Sigh.
I sense another soul whom longs for the game to be reset to 4th/5th edition and reworked from there. No more Lords of War, no more Scatbike spam and certainly no more Unbound. Knights can also go and become an apocalypse only army. No more amassed units that ignore basic core rules and effects. No more D spam. No more Ignores Cover/Ignores Terrain on many many units, no more hard counters to everything. Codexes that are internally balanced and externally balanced.
I completely agree, though I'd get rid of wound allocation shenanigans and then 5th'll be the best version of 40k.
I think fixing up some of the core Vehicle rules would go a long way to making Imperial Guard a worthy codex again. I had some ideas over in this thread, but to copy/paste for the lazy (not all of these might be needed, but maybe a combination of some):
Overwatch: Vehicles can fire S5 or lower weapons at a target that declares Overwatch against them. Note that Line of Sight restrictions still apply to Overwatch as normal for a Shooting Attack. One of the biggest weakness of non-Walker Vehicles is their huge vulnerability to assault, and this might be a way to mitigate that. Assault units can avoid arcs of fire to lessen the impact of overwatch, rewarding good movement by the Assaulting Player. S5 restricts to mainly anti-infantry weapons, so no shooting high strength/low AP stuff in overwatch. Tau can already do this with the Point Defence Targeting Relay upgrade, and could be changed to allow their vehicles to overwatch at BS2.
Heavy: Vehicles with the Heavy type ignore the penalties for firing Ordnance weapons, so long as they remained stationary in the movement phase. This would be in addition to the current benefits of the Heavy type, and would be a way to restore some of the functionality of the Lumbering Behemoth rules for Leman Russ's. GW must have decided Lumbering Behemoth was too good, so this still keeps the downside of Ordnance if the vehicle is moving. It would also buff Monoliths.
Tank: Vehicles with the Tank type may fire 2 weapons at full BS when moving at Combat Speed. Penalties for moving at Cruising Speed apply as normal Currently, as soon as a vehicle moves up to 6", they can only fire 1 weapon at full BS and everything else as snapshots. This change would allow Tanks to fire 2 weapons at full BS so long as they only moved up to 6". This gives a nice delineation between the various vehicle types and how they can fire weapons at full BS when moving at combat/cruising speeds (non-tanks: 1/0, Tanks: 2/0, Fast: 2/2, Heavy: All/not-applicable). This would buff all Rhino variants, Predator variants, Land Raiders, Chimera Variants, Battlewagons, Looted Wagons, Hammerheads, Devilfish and Sky Rays.
Independent Gunners: Weapons of S6 or less may be fired at different 'Secondary' targets to the rest of the Vehicles weapons. All other weapons must be fired at a declared 'Primary' target. Line of Sight is still required as normal for any target. This is mainly to help Sponson weapons, especially on bulky models like Land Raiders or Russ', to fire at something rather than sit there uselessly (Land Raider Redeemer I'm looking at you...). It also helps with mismatched weapon loadouts on some vehicles. Monoliths already have something like this.
Glancing Hit: On a Glancing Hit, roll a d6. On a 1-3: Nothing Happens. 4-5: Crew Shaken. 6: Crew Stunned. No HP is lost, and AP modifiers apply as normal.
This is to prevent the excessive stripping of HPs, whilst still providing a noticeable impact on the vehicle - ie being forced to Snapshot and not move.
I quite like the idea of overwatch on our tanks, they are very vulnerable nowadays so some form of defence for them would be lovely.
I think Leman Russes should just be able to fire all weapons at full BS regardless of ordnance or whether or not they've moved, giving them Primary weapon like ultimentra suggested would of course be the easiest solution.
Russes should also have 4 HP, the flimsy looking Ghost Ark, which is also a skimmer, has 4, why shouldn't the veritable mobile bunker that is the LR get it?
I have never once said that adding broken stuff to IG would be the only way to improve it.
It isn't projecting when your response to "don't add more broken gak into the game" is "so Imperial Guard should remain noncompetitive?" There is no logical way to interpret that as anything other than it being an implication that opposing broken mechanics is tacitly supporting the faction being underpowered.
*ALL* I did was question the logic behind IG not getting similar stuff to AM, because of a pipe dream that GW will instead remove all the broken stuff from other books.
Every single thing in this thread is a pipe dream. You can keep dodging this fact but I'm going to just keep pointing it out. The entire premise of this thread depends on the assumption that we somehow have control over GW's rules and can edit them at will.
Blacksails wrote: I think the most important thing for the IG book is to fix the internal balance...
I'm going to jump on this because the IG codex needs more than recosting or balance tweaks. Several units have very murky or redundant roles, or don't synergize well with the army. So on top of the other points, here's a few more radical changes for consideration.
Hellhounds (and variants) as Dedicated Transport or FA (12 models). Say hello to your new assault APC. Hellhounds have fun and fearsome weapons, but with a very limited target profile. They are an expensive unit which needs more general utility to offset that cost. In terms of board position, they want to be shocking enemy infantry off objectives or racing towards priority targets like AV14. Your more elite infantry wants to be there too (Flamer PCS, Melta Vets), so why not get more synergy on the assault by putting both together? At 12/12/10, a Hellhound is a lot tougher than a Chimera, but it's certainly not cheap enough to replace it as a transport option. Meanwhile our Vet Squads stand a better chance of getting there, and the Hellhound presents a "deeper threat" due to the infantry inside. Is it worth 60-70pts extra over a Chimera? Your call I guess!
All Sentinels gain a 12" move, MTC, Smoke/Searchlight for free, a Str - AP2 Chainsaw, and pretty much any Heavy Weapon option you want. Overgunned and underarmoured is definitely the right idea. They are skirmishers and flankers, the IG's solution to the immobility of a conventional HWS and in meta terms it's how IG abuses cover despite lacking Jink. MTC and Fast encourages bounding from cover-to-cover, and we open up some new builds with Heavy Bolters, Multimeltas, and Flakk missiles. We also give Sentinels a very cinematic Chainsaw to open up troops and light vehicles in CC, if they can make it there. AV to 11/11/11 and 10/10/10, costing to match, and Cam Netting becomes a 5pt upgrade.
Ratlings get a CC rework. 5+ Invul save in CC (rerollable against Stomp), Poison in CC (2+), Blind Grenades, Haywire Grenades. Also, Fleet. Sniper Weapons are available all over the AM codex and Ratlings can't really leverage Infiltrate, so I redesigned these guys as a Meta unit matching their theme to make them more distinctive. They will still get stomped in CC by average 40k infantry, but they are now giant killers in a pinch who can mess with a Wraithknight or IK. Their LD6 is still a real issue, at least at I4 they have a good chance of escaping. Either way, it's a start.
Veterans get new doctrines and completely replace Scions. Hear me out! It's been repeatedly argued on Dakka "why take Scions with X when you can take Vets with Y?" Right now, Scions and Vets are essentially about 2 upgrades apart, MTC and Deep Strike. MTC can become a "Commando" doctrine for Vets, who will be scattering out of Valkyries. Deep Strike becomes an "Airborne" doctrine. And now, we'll combine MTC, DS, 4+ and Krak grenades into one last "Stormtrooper" doctrine that gives you a discount if you really want to shell out the points. Scions are now completely redundant except for the AP3 Lasguns. You don't get those anymore -- too bad!!! If you wanted fancy toys, you shouldn't have joined the Guard.
FA becomes essentially Flyers and Sentinels if the Hellhound is taken as a DT. Elites becomes Rough Riders, Ogryn, Bullgryn, Ratlings, and Wyrdvanes. Still a weaker category but it's probably where Rough Riders belong as a CC solution. With new squadroning rules for the Leman Russ, it would do a lot to put more breathing room in the FOC. Though with Formations it might be an academic point.
BlaxicanX wrote: Every single thing in this thread is a pipe dream.
Yeah, got to agree with JohnHwang here, there is literally no physical way to fit any Infantry in there, the troop compartment is taken up by those massive fuel/chemical tanks.
BlaxicanX wrote: Every single thing in this thread is a pipe dream. You can keep dodging this fact but I'm going to just keep pointing it out. The entire premise of this thread depends on the assumption that we somehow have control over GW's rules and can edit them at will.
If you honestly can't see the difference between pipe dreams for what you'd like to see in a new codex, and pipe dreams for a new codex that also require GW to retroactively nerf every 7.5 codex, then I really can't help you.
Hell, why don't we just start planning the guard book based on GW releasing 8th edition first, which is a complete rewrite of 40k? It's just a pipe dream, after all.
BlaxicanX wrote: Every single thing in this thread is a pipe dream. You can keep dodging this fact but I'm going to just keep pointing it out. The entire premise of this thread depends on the assumption that we somehow have control over GW's rules and can edit them at will.
If you honestly can't see the difference between pipe dreams for what you'd like to see in a new codex, and pipe dreams for a new codex that also require GW to retroactively nerf every 7.5 codex, then I really can't help you.
Hell, why don't we just start planning the guard book based on GW releasing 8th edition first, which is a complete rewrite of 40k? It's just a pipe dream, after all.
8th edition which is 5th edition with the problems fixed and proper vehicle damage tables (Glances cant KO a tank and are limited too Stun, Shake, Immobilised and Weapon Destroyed, penetration tables which have a 50% chance to KO the vehicle)
JohnHwangDD wrote: OK, how does a Hellhound without any Transport capability become a DT?
And won't the fact that HHs are overpriced still make them worthless?
OTOH, making the FW Chimeras legal (twin-HB or Autocannon turret) would be nice.
Fluff-wise, maybe they find an STC or something? Costing is a bit misleading, it can be changed. The tougher issue is the overlap between IG units. The options I looked at:
- AV13 front (more survivability). Problems: the chassis isn't a tank, AV13 is too close to a Leman Russ, and Hellhound weapons are still highly specific for a pricey unit. It's going to end up competing with the Eradicator and Executioner.
- Lower costing (more economy). Problems: For pure weapons effects, you're still in competion with the Wyvern and other units, most importantly Sentinels who once fixed need be cheap enough for suicide flamer and melta runs. You also aren't getting much utility from the Hellhound platform, aside from the weapon or tank shock. 12/12/10 won't last long in 7th.
- Assault APC (transport). Problems: Contradicts fluff and doesn't match the model. However, we get a highly differentiated and unique role from Sentinels/LR/Chimeras/Wyverns. We're putting the Hellhound's protection and mobility 1st as a transport. The sick guns with short range now make sense, they're to support the infantry jumping out of the carrier.
Twin-HB or AC Chimeras would be a nice option and it fits well with internal balance, as a tough transport than doesn't anticipate close assault or flanking, but can use its range to support the forward forces. Keep in mind it would more or less force a revision of the Taurox. (Good!)
If you're dead set on the idea of a new transport based on the Chimera/Hellhound chassis, then do as was mentioned several pages ago. Create a second set of Hellhound variants that have longer range, non-template guns. Off the top of my head, in order of cost, TL-Autocannon turret, TL-Lascannon turret, Vanq Cannon turret. Hull weapons are the same as Hellhounds.
That "Hellhound transport" idea was an internal balance thing.
I see Sentinels eventually able to rush down targets as well as a Hellhound, using Heavy Flamers, Multi-Melta, and Plasma Cannons.
So, I was intending to give the Hellhound the chance to bring something else to the table. If not, these two units would end up doubling each other's role.
"Competitiveness" or external balance wasn't a motivation here.
Well, I mean sure, I don't really care in theory if everything is brought up to Scatterbike level or if everything is brought all the way down to Tactical Marine level. The end result is the same, though you completely dismiss the latter as 'unlikely'.
Thing is just, as a CSM player, being buffed feels about as likely as being nerfed, so I am not sure which of the above results is likely in the end...
Ashiraya wrote: Well, I mean sure, I don't really care in theory if everything is brought up to Scatterbike level or if everything is brought all the way down to Tactical Marine level. The end result is the same, though you completely dismiss the latter as 'unlikely'.
Actually, I dismiss both of those as unlikely.
Even in the context of 7.5 books, scatterbikes are regarded as absurdly OP. And, I'm not sure it's even possible for everything to be brought up to their level. The problem is, 40k has upper limits (stats cap out at 10, vehicles appear to cap out at AV14, d6s cap out at 2+ etc.). Basically, you can only increase power so much before you run out of room at the top end - so either a lot of units end up the same, or else a lot of units end up being too strong or too weak.
Whilst I'd love a lot of things to get nerfed, I see that as equally unlikely, albeit for different reasons. Firstly, GW doesn't even release faqs in a reasonable time-frame, so I seriously doubt it will start removing the broken formations from codices, nor release updated codices with those changes prior to 8th edition. Moreover, I think GW has opened a lot of cans of worms (allowing players to bring whatever they want, super-formations designed to sell models, free upgrades/vehicles designed to sell yet more models), and I don't believe they'll even want to try closing those cans again. It might be better for the game in the long-run, but GW has shown that it doesn't think like that.
What I see as likely is that IG will get a super-formation, probably similar to the marine one (if DAs is anything to go by), and probably with free stuff of some kind or other.
Thing is just, as a CSM player, being buffed feels about as likely as being nerfed, so I am not sure which of the above results is likely in the end...
Well, I can see where you're coming from in that regard - CSMs certainly haven't had a great record in terms of recent books.
As several others have mentioned, swap the vox re-roll for an unlimited range on orders, or at the very least a significant increase. It makes sense for the Company Commander to be co-coordinating the efforts of those units on the other end of the gunline. Platoon Commanders should be restricted to only issuing orders to their own platoon over the vox, it's the platoon net channel after all, but I think there should be an option for Platoon Commanders to forgoe their own order and allow Company Commanders to issue Senior Officer orders to units in that platoon indirectly through vox channels.
1) Company Commander takes a leadership to pass order down to Platoon Commander.
2)Platoon Commander then takes their own leadership test to pass said order on to the said unit.
3) Unit resolves the issued order.
That way we see a (perhaps risky) boost to the use of those juicy Senior Officer orders, and it really comes across as a proper chain of command. That way a well coordinated IG could pull off some brilliant combinations, and enemy players would have real incentive to target officers.
Yoyoyo wrote: You don't get those anymore -- too bad!!! If you wanted fancy toys, you shouldn't have joined the Guard.
I feel like I should say something in the defence of the most glorious Imperial Guard. But it's not like you're incorrect in making that statement.
Martel732 wrote: "Even in the context of 7.5 books, scatterbikes are regarded as absurdly OP."
On the power unit thread, most people ranked WKs higher.
I didn't say sactterbikes were the *most* powerful unit in the game - only that they were regarded as OP even by the standards of the new (and much stronger) 7.5 books.
In any case, I'd certainly agree with that assessment of WKs.
Seriously. Why do people want unlimited range for Orders but then still want to keep the stupid Leadership test?
If you want to keep the "random" element because you think Orders are broken/unbalanced, then do it like the Armoured Battlegroup:
Roll a D6. Consult the table for results.
1--Garbled Communication: The Order fails and no more orders may be issued by any models in the army this turn.
2-3--Could You Repeat That Sir?: The order has no effect, but both the command vehicles and the target vehicles may continue as normal.
4-5--Orders Received Sir!: The Order is successfully received and is resolved immediately.
6--Inspired Tactics: The Order is successfully received and is resolved immediately and does not count against the total limit of Orders the command vehicle may issue this turn. The command vehicle may attempt to issue another Order up to a maximum of two in each turn.
Something like that would be easy as hell to work for the infantry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: "Even in the context of 7.5 books, scatterbikes are regarded as absurdly OP."
On the power unit thread, most people ranked WKs higher.
That mostly comes down to the fact that most people believe that nobody would spend the money to go crazy with scatterbikes while at the same time believing that Eldar players had at least two Wraithknights.
vipoid wrote: If you honestly can't see the difference between pipe dreams for what you'd like to see in a new codex, and pipe dreams for a new codex that also require GW to retroactively nerf every 7.5 codex, then I really can't help you.
You admit in your own post that they're both pipe-dreams but try to be contrary anyway. Lol, keep digging that hole mate.
Seriously. Why do people want unlimited range for Orders but then still want to keep the stupid Leadership test?
If you want to keep the "random" element because you think Orders are broken/unbalanced, then do it like the Armoured Battlegroup: Roll a D6. Consult the table for results. 1--Garbled Communication: The Order fails and no more orders may be issued by any models in the army this turn.
2-3--Could You Repeat That Sir?: The order has no effect, but both the command vehicles and the target vehicles may continue as normal.
4-5--Orders Received Sir!: The Order is successfully received and is resolved immediately.
6--Inspired Tactics: The Order is successfully received and is resolved immediately and does not count against the total limit of Orders the command vehicle may issue this turn. The command vehicle may attempt to issue another Order up to a maximum of two in each turn.
Something like that would be easy as hell to work for the infantry.
I would be fine with orders being 100% reliable if you could only issue like one a turn. That the number of orders you can issue is limited only by the number of command squads you have on the field necessitates some kind of potential misfire, imo, whether it be range or a chance for the order to fail.
I would be fine with orders being 100% reliable if you could only issue like one a turn. That the number of orders you can issue is limited only by the number of command squads you have on the field necessitates some kind of potential misfire, imo, whether it be range or a chance for the order to fail.
The number of Orders you can issue is limited not only by the number of Command Squads you have on the field but also by the type of Command Squad and the number of units you have on the field.
If you have an army, for example, consisting of:
2x Company Command Squads
3x Veteran Squads
2x Valkyrie Squadrons
1x Leman Russ Tank Squadrons
You can put 4 Orders out per turn, potentially 5 if you roll a 6 and get the "Master of Command" Warlord trait.
You could just barely use all 5 of those Orders. Once a unit has been targeted for Orders, it cannot be targeted by another Order--and vehicles cannot be targeted for Orders.
So while 100% reliability with "one per turn" might sound feasible to you, it would necessitate ENTIRELY overhauling the Orders system and who could be targeted by what/how/when it comes into play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Does anyone here seriously think eldar players will voluntarily nerf themselves?
Does anyone here seriously think every Eldar/Space Marine/whatever player is TFG?
I have an opponent whom whines about orders being broken and thinks that they should be a once per game thing like Space Marine doctrines. And that the Master of ordnance should only be able to fire once per game like a Chapter Masters orbital bombardment.
He is also THAT SM opponent of mine.... How did you guess?
Back on topic I do feel that Orders need to become an automatic or a roll a D6, 2+ to get the order off thing. And Vox networks need to give an unlimited range.
master of ordinance wrote: I have an opponent whom whines about orders being broken and thinks that they should be a once per game thing like Space Marine doctrines. And that the Master of ordnance should only be able to fire once per game like a Chapter Masters orbital bombardment.
He is also THAT SM opponent of mine.... How did you guess?
Back on topic I do feel that Orders need to become an automatic or a roll a D6, 2+ to get the order off thing. And Vox networks need to give an unlimited range.
You really need to stop pretending that it is because he's a SM player and not because he's a toolbag.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hawky wrote: Chimera chassis vehicles should have acces to "Additional Armour" upgrade, adding +1AV to side armour.
Because being glanced to death by regular bolters is quite lame...
That's an issue with the glancing mechanics, not the vehicle itself.
Vehicles should have an "armor save" against Glancing Hits, to represent the fact that Glancing Hits aren't direct hits.
vipoid wrote: Hell, why don't we just start planning the guard book based on GW releasing 8th edition first, which is a complete rewrite of 40k? It's just a pipe dream, after all.
Are we assuming 40k8 to be AoS-like or more of the 6E / 6.5E "7E" stuff?
It matters, because we'd be doing Datasheets instead of unit stats.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Does anyone here seriously think eldar players will voluntarily nerf themselves?
Most of us do, when there aren't prizes on the line.
Heck, I only own the one WraithKnight, and my Wraithguard are all from before they had D weapons. I don't even own any Jetbikes (although I should get some, after I finish the various WiPs on my bench).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hawky wrote: Chimera chassis vehicles should have acces to "Additional Armour" upgrade, adding +1AV to side armour.
Because being glanced to death by regular bolters is quite lame...
If by "ugprade", you mean "FREE" side AV11, I'd be OK with that.
JohnHwangDD wrote: OK, how does a Hellhound without any Transport capability become a DT?
And won't the fact that HHs are overpriced still make them worthless?
OTOH, making the FW Chimeras legal (twin-HB or Autocannon turret) would be nice.
- Lower costing (more economy). Problems: For pure weapons effects, you're still in competion with the Wyvern and other units, most importantly Sentinels who once fixed need be cheap enough for suicide flamer and melta runs. You also aren't getting much utility from the Hellhound platform, aside from the weapon or tank shock. 12/12/10 won't last long in 7th.
Twin-HB or AC Chimeras would be a nice option and it fits well with internal balance, as a tough transport than doesn't anticipate close assault or flanking, but can use its range to support the forward forces. Keep in mind it would more or less force a revision of the Taurox. (Good!)
Lower cost. IG are a gun horde army, so let their guns be cheap.
Taurox isn't an IG vehicle, so it doesn't matter. Stormtroopers should GO AWAY. GIVE US OUR BANEBLADES!!!
I'll admit that when I wrote that, I was imagining a rewrite of 40k from the ground up (the sort of idea that pops up in most 'how to fix 40k' threads). I actually hadn't considered the possibility of it turning into something along the lines of AoS.
Personally, since I don't believe a rewrite is likely and AoS can burn in hell, I'd hold out hope for something more akin to 5th edition (as Master of ordinance suggested above).
On that note, if we went back to 5th edition, what would people miss from the current book?
Wyverns, maybe? The Gfirron would be back in the book, though it's still currently usable through IA1. The better prices on non-Ordnane Russ tanks in the 6E book are nice.
Having everyone else go back to the same version of Codex: Imperial Guard that I'm still playing means that they all get back Lumbering Behemoth and lower cost Russes, right?
JohnHwangDD wrote: Having everyone else go back to the same version of Codex: Imperial Guard that I'm still playing means that they all get back Lumbering Behemoth and lower cost Russes, right?
Yep.... Well the Vanquisher and some of the others go up in price but on the whole it is a major improvement.
Not sure if it's already been mentioned, but I've been looking at the Hail Caesar system (for historicals) and they have a quite interesting orders system.
Basically, (and this is a vast over simplification that I'm trying to put into 40k terms. I'm already aware of how inaccurate it is to the actual game) Commanders have a rating (usually 8), and each turn they roll to see how many orders they can give, which is based on how much lower than their rating they roll.
What I'm thinking is your officer takes a Ld test, and if they roll their Ld or their Ld-1, they issue 1 order, if they roll their Ld-2 or lower they can issue 2 orders, and if they roll their Ld-3 they can issue 3 orders.
Of course, this wouldn't work if most officers are running around with Ld9-10, and nerfing the officer's Ld isn't exactly the best idea...
I don't see the difference between rolling on a chart for effects vs rolling a leadership check.
The Ld stat exists and has common rules for making those checks. Might as well either make orders auto-pass, or just be a regular, plain old leadership check.
Seriously. Why do people want unlimited range for Orders but then still want to keep the stupid Leadership test?
If you want to keep the "random" element because you think Orders are broken/unbalanced, then do it like the Armoured Battlegroup:
Roll a D6. Consult the table for results.
1--Garbled Communication: The Order fails and no more orders may be issued by any models in the army this turn.
2-3--Could You Repeat That Sir?: The order has no effect, but both the command vehicles and the target vehicles may continue as normal.
4-5--Orders Received Sir!: The Order is successfully received and is resolved immediately.
6--Inspired Tactics: The Order is successfully received and is resolved immediately and does not count against the total limit of Orders the command vehicle may issue this turn. The command vehicle may attempt to issue another Order up to a maximum of two in each turn.
Something like that would be easy as hell to work for the infantry.
I would take the odds of a leadership test over a 50/50 chance any day. You've effectively doubled the chance of a complete breakdown in all orders for that turn, with no reflection on the individual officers ability to lead the troops they are commanding. If there was ever a time where taking a Leadership Test would be appropriate, actual demonstrations of leadership would be it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
master of ordinance wrote:And Vox networks need to give an unlimited range.
I'd be happy to accept increased range rather than unlimited, but more importantly only the PC should be able to give orders to the rest of their platoon. Aside from the Company Commander, no Platoon Commander has any business giving orders to a platoon different from his, it's a different channel after all. This should prevent shenanigans of one surviving squad of guardsmen from 3rd Platoon receiving FRFSRF orders from the 1st Platoon Commander on the other side of the board.
I'd suggest a Senior Officer order that allows them to transfer the command of units, or one that allows two depleted guardsman units in coherency to combine squads (like an ad-hoc combined squads before deployment). It would be well worth it to deny the enemy a KP by combing rag-tag units into strengthened ones.
A (no doubt expensive) upgrade for vehicles to benefit from orders would be appreciated as well. Would 20-25pts per vehicle in the squadron be considered a fair price? Not an auto-take but tempting enough.
Why not, in the interests of speed & simplicity, roll for the number of successful Orders at the start of the turn against the officer's own LD? You basically then say something like "ok I have 2 orders available", and those then auto-pass when given to your units.
It's not much different in execution but it's easier to plan your turn, given orders won't actually fail. You simply might have less of them.
I would take the odds of a leadership test over a 50/50 chance any day. You've effectively doubled the chance of a complete breakdown in all orders for that turn, with no reflection on the individual officers ability to lead the troops they are commanding. If there was ever a time where taking a Leadership Test would be appropriate, actual demonstrations of leadership would be it.
Testing for Orders isn't a "demonstration of leadership", it's a test to see whether someone can listen. Because remember it's not a Leadership test for the Officer but rather the ordered unit.
Might as well make it an Initiative test if that's your logic for why it should be a Leadership test.
I would take the odds of a leadership test over a 50/50 chance any day. You've effectively doubled the chance of a complete breakdown in all orders for that turn, with no reflection on the individual officers ability to lead the troops they are commanding. If there was ever a time where taking a Leadership Test would be appropriate, actual demonstrations of leadership would be it.
Testing for Orders isn't a "demonstration of leadership", it's a test to see whether someone can listen. Because remember it's not a Leadership test for the Officer but rather the ordered unit.
Might as well make it an Initiative test if that's your logic for why it should be a Leadership test.
FFFFFF...... Hell NO!
An Initiative test would be even worse than the current system.
I can maybe see the Ld test as being a measure of the squad's discipline. If they're panicking (because, say, they're humans fighting otherworldly monstrosities ), then they're more likely to ignore the order. "Who cares about bringing down the stupid bloodthirster? It's all the way over there, and those bloodletters are almost on top of us!"
So, I think it could reasonably be seen as a test of whether or not the commanding officer can get them focussed on the task at hand. But then, this would also be a reason for Ld bonuses/rerolls (like the LC's Aura of Discipline) to work on Ld for Orders as well.
That being said, I'd be open to a different system for orders - I just don't see why it needs to be incredibly unreliable. It's not as if orders or IG infantry need toning down.
That being said, I'd be open to a different system for orders - I just don't see why it needs to be incredibly unreliable. It's not as if orders or IG infantry need toning down.
How about orders are issued on the officer's leadership, with a penalty after a certain distance, which voxcasters remove?
Example: Company Commander issues an order to one squad within 12", and another beyond 12". The first one is taken on his unmodified Ld, the second at a -2 penalty.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Quite frankly, Orders should follow the Psyker rules, except that PCS Officers know all 3 Orders, and CCS Officers can cast more times.
No. We have a hard enough time as it is and other races get the same effect for free - IE Tau getting an extra shot just for having a fireblade with them.
It seems that GW has been making player-elected effects like the Psychic phase more reliable, look at the SM Conclave casting powers on a 2+. So I don't think rolling against the commanding unit's Ld is out of line, it fits where 40k is going. Speaking of which, the IG psykers could use a little tweaking. There are three units which are involved, the Primaris, Wyrdvanes, and the Commissars ("It's for your own good" rule).
So imagine this optimal setup: 1x Primaris (ML2), attached to 1x Wyrdvane squad (ML1), backed up by a nearby commissar. Ideally, now we can:
- generate a good amount of warp charge
- generate a good selection of Psychic Powers
- reliably cast those powers
- avoid the effects of perils
- survive on the board long enough to be useful.
Let's say first, Wyrdvanes get cheaper and they can buy a Wyrdvane "sergeant" upgrade that can bump them up to ML2. Second, they get synergy with an embedded Primaris. The Primaris can elect to benefit from the "Brotherhood of Psykers" rule, all powers are now known to the entire unit and wounds can be "Look Out Sir" to the Wyrdvanes. Meanwhile, the Commissar can execute periling Wyrdvanes so you don't suffer warp effects. So basically, your Wyrdvanes are now your WC batteries and the meat shield to the Primaris, while making your psychic phase more reliable in general. They'll never be super tough but perhaps all the Wyrdvanes get refractor shields and a Force weapon? Not a great CC unit but a little more survivable and capable of nastiness against the right unit with a few buffs.
They could be stronger but as usual we save all the really OP for the formations.
As we are looking at playing it.
Vox makes Commands Unlimited.
Within the Command Radius you get a Ld re-Roll.
Keeps it simple.
Works for me. Ld off of officer issuing it. All of that is fluffy, logical, and simple while also building off of older rules so as not to be terribly confusing or shocking.
As we are looking at playing it.
Vox makes Commands Unlimited.
Within the Command Radius you get a Ld re-Roll.
Keeps it simple.
Works for me. Ld off of officer issuing it. All of that is fluffy, logical, and simple while also building off of older rules so as not to be terribly confusing or shocking.
I agree, that's a good setup. I still think PCs should be restricted to ordering their own platoon though.
It would help prevent players just basing all their PCs at some corer of the board, out of line of sight, while the rest of their platoon is at the frontlines. Part of the idea of junior officers is that they at least lead from the front, it's the higher ranks that direct the movements from behind. There has to be some measure to prevent shenanigans like that.
The 'limitless' exemptions should be restricted to the CC, PC should only get an increase in range.
and makes sense either way fluffwise/in-universe logic.
Not really, speaking from experience platoon level channels are never confused with other platoons, only company wide broadcasts are exempt to this.
Plus, it adds the complication of remembering which PCS was bought for which platoon.
A good point, it would be difficult to remember which squad belonged to which platoon when the game gets underway.
Testing for Orders isn't a "demonstration of leadership", it's a test to see whether someone can listen. Because remember it's not a Leadership test for the Officer but rather the ordered unit.
Might as well make it an Initiative test if that's your logic for why it should be a Leadership test.
Following instructions under fire certainly takes a degree of level-headedness and concentration. How is that not appropriate for Leadership?
It would help prevent players just basing all their PCs at some corer of the board, out of line of sight, while the rest of their platoon is at the frontlines. Part of the idea of junior officers is that they at least lead from the front, it's the higher ranks that direct the movements from behind. There has to be some measure to prevent shenanigans like that.
The 'limitless' exemptions should be restricted to the CC, PC should only get an increase in range.
If voxes are unlimited range, then that potential 'issue' (I don't think its one, seeing as PCS can take a gak ton of good weapons that are useful) is going to exist either way. Plus, as discussed, having officers with voxes and within their normal orders radius could provide a re-roll to the order, thus granting some incentive to keep them near a platoon.
A vox network is a vox network. Don't add restrictions where they aren't necessary. The simplest, fluffiest way of doing things is to have voxes create unlimited range between all units with a vox.
Not really, speaking from experience platoon level channels are never confused with other platoons, only company wide broadcasts are exempt to this.
If they're never confused, then it doesn't matter. And real world experience doesn't matter or apply here, seeing as we're talking about a different military organization 40k years in the future. The simple fact is that absolute realism must be put behind making simple, clean, and fun rules. Having voxes create unlimited range is logical and consistent within the universe, and having anyone able to receive orders is both fluffy and logical within the universe, and is the simplest, least confusing and time consuming way of writing the rule.
A good point, it would be difficult to remember which squad belonged to which platoon when the game gets underway.
Which is why its simplest to keep it as it currently stands and allow anyone to order anyone. Currently, a PCS can order a CCS, which still makes sense. If a platoon loses their PCS, they'll likely be very receptive and maybe a little grateful that the nearest junior officer is there to provide leadership and guidance.
If they're never confused, then it doesn't matter. And real world experience doesn't matter or apply here, seeing as we're talking about a different military organization 40k years in the future.
A future military organisation so advanced that it deliberately places long-range missiles on the front lines and launches them via a roulette wheel.
"No way man, fair is fair. You landed on red, and we both know we only get to push the button when it lands on green."
"But Bob, those greenskins are getting awful close..."
"We have rules for a reason. Without them, how would know when to push the button, and more importantly, who gets to push the button. Without these rules, there'd be anarchy."
In my house rules, vox gives an extra foot for range, rerolls for the test, and lets you ignore the los and "can't give orders while embarked" restrictions. I see a LOT of vox on my guard player's units
If voxes are unlimited range, then that potential 'issue' (I don't think its one, seeing as PCS can take a gak ton of good weapons that are useful) is going to exist either way. Plus, as discussed, having officers with voxes and within their normal orders radius could provide a re-roll to the order, thus granting some incentive to keep them near a platoon.
A vox network is a vox network. Don't add restrictions where they aren't necessary. The simplest, fluffiest way of doing things is to have voxes create unlimited range between all units with a vox.
It would create an issue, absolutely. Why on earth would players deploy their PCs on the front line with the troops they command (where they should be) rather than hide them away? Much like the difference between a Platoon Standard and Regimental(Company) Standard, there should be a Platoon Vox and a Regimental Vox, the former increasing range while the latter is unlimited.
If they're never confused, then it doesn't matter. And real world experience doesn't matter or apply here, seeing as we're talking about a different military organization 40k years in the future. The simple fact is that absolute realism must be put behind making simple, clean, and fun rules. Having voxes create unlimited range is logical and consistent within the universe, and having anyone able to receive orders is both fluffy and logical within the universe, and is the simplest, least confusing and time consuming way of writing the rule.
You can't have it one way saying that the realism must be put to one side, then claim that a common vox net is both fluffy and logical in universe. It really isn't, a company simply can't operate in the heat of battle with everyone on the same channel.
If you're arguing that a common vox net should be implemented purely for the sake of simplicity then understand that, though I would still disagree.
Which is why its simplest to keep it as it currently stands and allow anyone to order anyone. Currently, a PCS can order a CCS, which still makes sense. If a platoon loses their PCS, they'll likely be very receptive and maybe a little grateful that the nearest junior officer is there to provide leadership and guidance.
No doubt, which is why a limiting on the range of a PC vox is still necessary. If we allow limitless orders at the PC level, theoretically you would only need one surviving PC squirreled away in the corner of the board to provide effective orders to units on the other side of the field. That should be the purview of the CC, the PC should be focused on the more immediate situation.
Essentially, I'm okay with PCs being able to give orders to any unit but making their orders unlimited via vox (rather than substantially increased range) is nonsensical and frankly broken.
It would create an issue, absolutely. Why on earth would players deploy their PCs on the front line with the troops they command (where they should be) rather than hide them away? Much like the difference between a Platoon Standard and Regimental(Company) Standard, there should be a Platoon Vox and a Regimental Vox, the former increasing range while the latter is unlimited.
Why? A vox is a vox, and at 40k's scale, there's no sense in getting into the nitty gritty of the model of vox issued at various levels of command and their respective ranges measured in metres. At the scale 40k operates at, it makes no sense to have one command unit have a limited range vox, and an another have a better vox unit. Not only is this confusing for all players, it takes up more space in the wargear section needlessly, and bog the game down remembering the differences and measuring ranges, when the alternative is just to have a blanket infinite range between two voxes.
You can't have it one way saying that the realism must be put to one side, then claim that a common vox net is both fluffy and logical in universe. It really isn't, a company simply can't operate in the heat of battle with everyone on the same channel.
If you're arguing that a common vox net should be implemented purely for the sake of simplicity then understand that, though I would still disagree.
You're confusing realism with in game logic. My argument is that within the logic, fluff, and example of the universe of 40k, an infinite range (or so large as to not matter at 40k's scale) makes complete and total sense. Further, who says anything about operating on the same channel. I'm no radio-ologist, but I'm 99% certain a skilled operator could handily switch to whatever channel is required at the moment, which also explains how everyone could be on the same vox-net, which in game, would be represented by every vox carrying officer could issue an order across the board to any vox equipped squad.
No doubt, which is why a limiting on the range of a PC vox is still necessary. If we allow limitless orders at the PC level, theoretically you would only need one surviving PC squirreled away in the corner of the board to provide effective orders to units on the other side of the field. That should be the purview of the CC, the PC should be focused on the more immediate situation.
It should be the purview of whatever the controlling player wants it to be. Again, your suggestion only complicates what should be an extremely simple rule that would provide a nice boost to an otherwise useless piece of wargear. And having a PCS tucked away may be perfectly fluffy for that player's regiment, or for the mission at hand, or because the PCS is busy eating a hot dog or getting wasted. If a player wants to hide their command elements and use their wargear the way they want in a perfectly acceptable and fluffy manner, then power to them. A PCS would have incentives to lead; re-rolls for being within range, and having a plethora of special and heavy weapons to support the infantry squads.
Don't force players into a certain play style or singular way of using something, especially if it is also a more complicated proposal for no real benefit, either in gameplay or fluff. Voxes should be a vox-net that everyone can use across the board. Its simple, easy to use and learn as the controlling player and as the opponent, and makes as much sense in-universe as any other justification.
Essentially, I'm okay with PCs being able to give orders to any unit but making their orders unlimited via vox (rather than substantially increased range) is nonsensical and frankly broken.
Your average 40k battlefield is about the size of a Wal-mart parking lot. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine that a Junior officer would be able to radio in a squad 200 feet away to tell them to start firing faster.
TheCustomLime wrote: Your average 40k battlefield is about the size of a Wal-mart parking lot. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine that a Junior officer would be able to radio in a squad 200 feet away to tell them to start firing faster.
Though, one might well question why they're not firing faster to begin with.
"Ok, men, it's only a Bloodthirster. Just conserve your energy and fire at a nice, leisurely pace. I'm sure none of us want tired trigger-fingers when the real challenge shows up."
This is the Imperial Guard we're talking about . They don't fire their Lascannons effectively at those same Bloodthirsters until they are explicitly told to do so.
"Sarge! We have a greater Daemon the Horizon! Shall we fire with our heavy weapons?"
"Smite them with the Emperor's Wrath, Corporal"
"Sarge! Our Lascannons aren't having much of an effect. Shall we put our monster killing training into effect?".
"Did Major Smithers tell us to do that?"
"Major Smithers is dead..."
"Then just keep firing blindly at him, Corporal! The chain of command exists for a reason! Without it the Astra Militarum would cease to exist overnight!"
remove knight commander pask
HOWEVER
give them a regimental detachment bonus that grants them no scatter blast weapons and and weapons fired with the "heavy" type count as having pinning (if you take double base detachments your orders are always successfully issued)
this right here is a huge change. yes you lose pask but it offsets the fact that basilisk squadrons have no scatter, plasmacutioners have no scatter, leman russ demolishers have no scatter, deathstrikes dont scatter. there is a lot of power in that one bonus.
and pretty much every vehicle they posess has either an HB or a multi-laser or a lascannon, and even sentinels benefit in that they all have loody f!cking pinning. combined with flawless order issuing and you have a very powerful combo.
yes the wyvern only gets more obscene and bloated with rules but its a small price to pay, heck hydra flakk batteries even become useful as a way of getting those vital pinning checks a going and pinning spam could become a very real tactic for IG to emply
id remove the tempestus outright from their codex. make it a MT's codex exclusive unit again, or if they do retain then leave the price as is and slash options, give players the incentive to experiment with double army book forces and explain that their better as a pair than they are as two seperates.
rough riders need a fix as stated perhaps grant them hit n run or a quasi furious charge if taken in the regimental detachment
formations formations formation, this army needs formations like a lonesome and bored teenage guy needs his pictures of naked people and hand rolled darts. give them lots of formations and make them interesting, grant them one unique detachment for say steel legion? or maybe one for tallarn's or maybe even give them one for vostroyans. incentivise the use of detachments and formations over the CAD if theres ever an army that can show the potential of formations competently the imperial guard are it
finally i think that ogryns and bullgryns need to be re-examined. dont treat them as a tax unit in the regimental flow chart, or as an ugly tumor sticking out of the elites section, give them purpose please
as an off-set to this move veterans to the elite section and out of troops and move conscripts to troops, with a cap of 20 men to a squad, but a formation granting you many more per squad or multiple squads that are treated as one unit. maybe also make ratlings a troops choice.
Yeah, what happened to their Volkite? No one can say for sure, it is just said that a red-robed hunch-backed brute was seen skittering off with a big bag of bulky items...
Yoyoyo wrote: Yeah! And now onto Fearless Rough Riders with Hit and Run
Still would not take them. To get the benefit from HaR they have to be alive when they reach the enemy squad.
I think Rough Riders suffer immensely from being a fragile CC unit in an army that tends to castle up and gunline. If they'd have support from Hellhound variants and Sentinels who can overwhelm enemy target priority, or help screen them on the advance, their fragility wouldn't nearly be so much of an issue. You'd have to playtest to determine this. Anyways, I think everyone agrees that Rough Riders are overcosted. More models in the squad would make them more survivable when facing anything that fires at S6+ and ignores a 4+ save. T4 and 4+ would make them shrug off small arms better. What's better? Maybe we leave it up to the player to decide. So, the "split the difference" solution is we make the basic squad cheaper and let each player tailor upgrades to suit their use. WS4, BS4 and cheap Power Mauls wouldn't their hurt performance either.
I like cinematic units. Losing half the squad getting there, and then seeing them still wreck face on the charge with lances before switching to their maces to bash heads close-up -- that appeals to me. So basically I want to figure out how to make that a reality on the tabletop, and avoid scenarios that aren't fun, like running from the tabletop instead of dying gloriously to the last man. I6 on the charge? Hell yeah, let's see them smash apart Aspect Warriors on the charge and then get cut to shreds up close afterwards, they're only puny humans after all. That's the idea!
vipoid wrote: Perhaps we could give the Punisher Rending, so that Pask isn't required to make it worth a damn.
All borderline OP boosts belong in Formations but they do work there. Say you take an entire Tank squadron of one type, you get the corresponding special rule for it's main gun.
Punisher - Rending
Vanquisher - BS+1, Tank Hunter
Demolisher - Ignores Cover
Executioner - Preferred Enemy
Exterminator - If stationary, may fire Exterminator Autocannon twice (original or different target)
Eradicator - Shred
LRBT - Pinning, Concussive
Obviously we just threw the normal CAD costing completely out of balance. That's ok, now we maintain balance through competing formations and obligatory compulsory choices.
IG Ordnance weapons should have a Sqn rule that has them remove any terrain they hit, and then resolve damage to the unit (which probably means stripping their cover saves).
Yoyoyo wrote: All borderline OP boosts belong in Formations but they do work there. Say you take an entire Tank squadron of one type, you get the corresponding special rule for it's main gun.
But that's the point - you shouldn't need a formation to make a unit usable. In the same way that you shouldn't need a SC upgrade to make it usable.
vipoid wrote: But that's the point - you shouldn't need a formation to make a unit usable. In the same way that you shouldn't need a SC upgrade to make it usable.
Usable, yes. But if 40k is theoretically balanced at points, it isn't balanced once you are including formation special rules (assuming that formations don't lack significant drawbacks).
That's something you need to take into account when you're discussing external balance.
The game almost never is balanced at points, even theoretically. If you have bubble wrapim troops units, heavy support, buffing support units like CCS and psykers, and heavy MC or Lords of War, then there is a theoretical maximization where there are x% of one, y and a percents of the others. Theoretically it would always be a waste of points to take a third or fourth librarian, or to take an excessive ratio of tanks to bubble wrap.
The other ratio that is important is the points cost of the formation vs. the points level of the game. Some units are too powerful for small games, and not powerful enough for very large games.
Yoyoyo wrote: Usable, yes. But if 40k is theoretically balanced at points, it isn't balanced once you are including formation special rules (assuming that formations don't lack significant drawbacks).
This is the flaw with just about every formation to date.
The solution isn't making units garbage without specific formations.
The solution is either modifying formations so that they cost extra (to take account of the benefits they offer), or simply removing formations altogether. The game got along fine without them in the past.
pelicaniforce wrote: The game almost never is balanced at points, even theoretically.
True enough. Keep in mind even chess isn't balanced due to first turn advantage.
We don't need perfect balance. We just need to ensure it's close enough that everyone still feels like they have a decent chance, and ends up having a good time.
We don't need perfect balance. We just need to ensure it's close enough that everyone still feels like they have a decent chance, and ends up having a good time.
GW does see it that way, but they plan releases top-down over a long schedule to coordinate their different teams. Writers, sculptors, production, sales and marketing, whatever. They don't react to player discontent at the bottom, which is why you have one codex getting dogpiled for years or problem units not getting corrections for way too long (Serpent Shield, etc). I imagine GW is more interested in efficently pushing new content than chasing their tail to support players whose units are getting dated. It's not good for competive gamers with an older codex, but we end up abusing each other by refusing to houserule obvious issues. Not saying it's right, it's just how it is.
vipoid wrote: The solution is either modifying formations so that they cost extra (to take account of the benefits they offer), or simply removing formations altogether. The game got along fine without them in the past.
Plenty of people enjoy them, even if you don't. There's nothing stopping you from playing alt format games like CAD only, or even skirmish formats with no superheavies and limited non-troop choices. That's my preference, incidentally. Now look. Most "competitive" players slavishly take their cues from GT's, who their own motivatons. They haven't banned formations but have banned Unbound. Some factions have formations, some don't. Well, that's why there are problems. There's nothing stopping anyone from playing Unbound either in their local games, but somehow this never seemed to become a big issue because TOs shot it down immediately. Know what I mean?
Regarding the Punisher, it's anti-infantry that mostly relies on weight of fire to grind through saves. Heavy 20, S5 AP-. Asking for Rending so it can hull out AV or kill MCs strikes me as stepping on the toes of the other Leman Russ variants. I don't know if that's good internal balance and it's something you need to look at statistically, It also smacks me as an ingrained habit from trying to powergame, I've seen game reports where Punisher Pask put 5HP on an Imperial Knight in one turn. No wonder IG players want Rending.
So, did you do the math, or do you just want lots of mini-Pasks running around the table? Not saying it's bad. In fact maybe a player wants to play lots of Punishers. Why punish them? But you should be looking at what's known as "second order effects", rather than just slinging around the word useless. Less hyperbole, more substance.
too ofset the fact that they can now guide an artillery shell right on top of you EVERY DAMN TIME, as well as use heavy weapons teams to lock your entire army down and keep them moving around at a snails pace if they arent inside the comfort of a nice beefy troop transport. basically what im saying is that imperial guard need to pay some kind of tax to get really good rules especially if they come in the form of formations because their the army that should do the best when marrying formations with conventional lists. and pask has for a long time been a crutch for their army much in the same way other gimmicks were for other forces. dark angels lost their sacred standards of gimmick but they picked up being a very good army with their formations and ravenwing improvements. codex marines had their weak links black templars and ravenguard even further shoved down into the mud but in exchange all their other chapter tactics are doing better than anything in recent memory (especially crimson fists if you ask me) and things will be no different.
the imperial guard will soon find out that power has a price and they will be paying for it .. again, just like last time their c odex was overhauled.
and i laugh at all those fools who keep asking to have people like marbo brought back, your going to be lucky if even one of those cut names gets mentioned at all in the codex, and at best hes going to have a paragraph of info about him. just ask brother bethor who has gone from a named character model, to a generic model, to not even being mentioned at all in the base codex.
On a more "meta" note, looking at what GW is bringing to the table these days, I have a feeling we're going to see some major changes to GW's lineup such that this may become something of a moot point in the relatively near future. I don't think the next IG codex is going to look like anything anyone really wants, GW has been rather consistent in bringing stuff to the table that nobody expected, or really asked for, over the last couple of years, and I think that's only going to accelerate. If we're just looking at ways to make the current IG codex viable, I think we've beaten those to death, and I made my suggestions way back on page 3. But I think ultimately we're going to see something very different from what many of us envisioned.
too ofset the fact that they can now guide an artillery shell right on top of you EVERY DAMN TIME, as well as use heavy weapons teams to lock your entire army down
Keep in mind that pinning is useless against half the armies in the game, and only minimally useful against most of the rest.
and pask has for a long time been a crutch for their army much in the same way other gimmicks were for other forces
He's an in-production character that made it through the last round of cuts, he's probably not going anywhere at this point. He's also nowhere near the gimmick that other armies have, and is useful largely in only a single configuration, and only marginally good at that, and even then you're talking a ~400pt unit typically that isn't bringing anywhere near what most 400pt gimmicks are bringing.
Vaktathi wrote: On a more "meta" note, looking at what GW is bringing to the table these days, I have a feeling we're going to see some major changes to GW's lineup such that this may become something of a moot point in the relatively near future. I don't think the next IG codex is going to look like anything anyone really wants, GW has been rather consistent in bringing stuff to the table that nobody expected, or really asked for, over the last couple of years, and I think that's only going to accelerate. If we're just looking at ways to make the current IG codex viable, I think we've beaten those to death, and I made my suggestions way back on page 3. But I think ultimately we're going to see something very different from what many of us envisioned.
100% agree.
Personally I find this kind of discussion useful for brainstorming homebrews and getting a feel for what people like to encounter or play. I'm at the point where I have little left to add, as well. But yeah, GW has their own ideas.
Vaktathi wrote: On a more "meta" note, looking at what GW is bringing to the table these days, I have a feeling we're going to see some major changes to GW's lineup such that this may become something of a moot point in the relatively near future. I don't think the next IG codex is going to look like anything anyone really wants, GW has been rather consistent in bringing stuff to the table that nobody expected, or really asked for, over the last couple of years, and I think that's only going to accelerate. If we're just looking at ways to make the current IG codex viable, I think we've beaten those to death, and I made my suggestions way back on page 3. But I think ultimately we're going to see something very different from what many of us envisioned.
You are far too pessimistic.
The next IG Codex will go in the direction of the recent SM and Eldar Codices:
1. add Superheavy Baneblade family of vehicles
2. restore Doctrines
3. add Formations with multi-Platoon-based super-formation
4. re-tweak points cost generally downward
5. simplify individual units somewhat
Now, which Doctrines get added, and how they're bundled, is hard to say, but I'd expect 4 or 5 flavors of IG, wrapped under Cadia, Catachan, FW's DKoK and 2-3 other "top-selling" flavors.
Vaktathi wrote: On a more "meta" note, looking at what GW is bringing to the table these days, I have a feeling we're going to see some major changes to GW's lineup such that this may become something of a moot point in the relatively near future. I don't think the next IG codex is going to look like anything anyone really wants, GW has been rather consistent in bringing stuff to the table that nobody expected, or really asked for, over the last couple of years, and I think that's only going to accelerate. If we're just looking at ways to make the current IG codex viable, I think we've beaten those to death, and I made my suggestions way back on page 3. But I think ultimately we're going to see something very different from what many of us envisioned.
You are far too pessimistic.
The next IG Codex will go in the direction of the recent SM and Eldar Codices:
1. add Superheavy Baneblade family of vehicles Unless they do what they did in the SM 'dex, which was to make a SC a LoW, rather than the available SH models. My bet is Creed.
2. restore Doctrines Probably. May be "Regimental Tactics" for Cadia, Catachan, Steel Legion etc.
3. add Formations with multi-Platoon-based super-formation Yay, free gak!
4. re-tweak points cost generally downward Probably 4ppm guardsmen, as GW wonders why people have stopped buying those fugly-ass stumpy-troopers.
5. simplify individual units somewhat Taking a leaf out of the Emperor's Champion, I suspect we'd see something like Pask having fewer buffs to give out, but using them all at once, and making the Deathstrike usable in a game.
Now, which Doctrines get added, and how they're bundled, is hard to say, but I'd expect 4 or 5 flavors of IG, wrapped under Cadia, Catachan, FW's DKoK and 2-3 other "top-selling" flavors.
GW couldn't care less about the rules. As far as they're concerned, the models are all that matter. And, remember, this is the company that thinks the hobby is 'buying our stuff'.
Yoyoyo wrote: but they plan releases top-down over a long schedule to coordinate their different teams.
This doesn't explain why there is horrendous internal balance.
Yoyoyo wrote: GW does see it that way, but they plan releases top-down over a long schedule to coordinate their different teams. Writers, sculptors, production, sales and marketing, whatever. They don't react to player discontent at the bottom, which is why you have one codex getting dogpiled for years or problem units not getting corrections for way too long (Serpent Shield, etc). I imagine GW is more interested in efficently pushing new content than chasing their tail to support players whose units are getting dated. It's not good for competive gamers with an older codex, but we end up abusing each other by refusing to houserule obvious issues. Not saying it's right, it's just how it is.
Regarding the Punisher, it's anti-infantry that mostly relies on weight of fire to grind through saves. Heavy 20, S5 AP-. Asking for Rending so it can hull out AV or kill MCs strikes me as stepping on the toes of the other Leman Russ variants. I don't know if that's good internal balance and it's something you need to look at statistically, It also smacks me as an ingrained habit from trying to powergame, I've seen game reports where Punisher Pask put 5HP on an Imperial Knight in one turn. No wonder IG players want Rending.
Something to bear in mind - the Pask Punisher has BS4, preferred enemy (from Warlord Trait), and rerolls failed armour penetration rolls.
A regular punisher is BS3 (so, it's already missing with half of its shots), and has none of the above. Even with 20 shots, it averages fewer than 2 rends.
The problem is, without Rending, it just doesn't have any useful role. It's the same reason you don't see people running to mass Heavy Bolters - S5 simply isn't useful, compared to other heavy weapons. it lacks the strength to hurt most vehicles, and lacks the AP (or strength) to be a threat to MCs. About the only thing it can hope to do is kill infantry, but it sucks even at that. 20 S5 shots amounts to 2 dead marines. Terrifying.
Yoyoyo wrote: GW does see it that way, but they plan releases top-down over a long schedule to coordinate their different teams. Writers, sculptors, production, sales and marketing, whatever. They don't react to player discontent at the bottom, which is why you have one codex getting dogpiled for years or problem units not getting corrections for way too long (Serpent Shield, etc). I imagine GW is more interested in efficently pushing new content than chasing their tail to support players whose units are getting dated. It's not good for competive gamers with an older codex, but we end up abusing each other by refusing to houserule obvious issues. Not saying it's right, it's just how it is.
So, did you do the math, or do you just want lots of mini-Pasks running around the table? Not saying it's bad. In fact maybe a player wants to play lots of Punishers. Why punish them? But you should be looking at what's known as "second order effects", rather than just slinging around the word useless. Less hyperbole, more substance.
So, is your meta dominated by non-pask punishers or something? You seem to have really elevated ideas about what they can do without pask.
Yoyoyo wrote: Plenty of people enjoy them, even if you don't.
Please don't start on the ad hominem fallacies - this is about game balance, not personal taste.
I mean, I'm sure plenty of Eldar players enjoy Wraithknights and Scatterbkes, and also enjoyed the broken-as-hell WS in 6th. Should we not fix anything that's overpowered just because some people enjoy OP stuff?
I don't see how yarrik can be justified as a low choice. Compared to other ones he would not be worth it, unless the low choice was yarrick and his pimpmobile The Fortress of Arrogance.
HANZERtank wrote: I don't see how yarrik can be justified as a low choice. Compared to other ones he would not be worth it
When you say 'others', do you mean other IGLoW choices, or the LoW choices of other races?
If the latter, then compared to Ghazghkull and the Stormlord, I think he'd fit right in.
I think he just doesn't carry an appropriate price tag and use on the battlefield. Other LoW choices are combat mosters or big shooty unkilly things. He doesn't really have a good save or remarkable traits. That's just my view on him though, I've never got good results out of him.
I think he just doesn't carry an appropriate price tag and use on the battlefield. Other LoW choices are combat mosters or big shooty unkilly things. He doesn't really have a good save or remarkable traits. That's just my view on him though, I've never got good results out of him.
I know what you mean.
Honestly, Yarrick feels like a weird case for me - in that it seems like he should be good, but he just doesn't seem to do much on the table. He's a tooled-up Lord Commissar with extra survivability and the powers of a CCS, but it just doesn't seem to pan out.
But then, perhaps it's because his abilities don't really gel that well (not to mention being rather outclassed these days). I mean, let's go through what he brings:
- Senior Orders (pretty nice)
- Ld buffs
- Draconian Discipline Warlord Trait. See, this is the first issue for me. His other traits seem to want him in a blob squad, but this trait seems more useful with multiple small squads of veterans and such.
- Power Fist So, he can do some damage in melee... but if he's doing that then he can't use those all-important Orders.
- Survivability (T4, 4++, EW, Iron Will) Seems good in theory, but starts to break down in practice. T4 iwill rarely see use, and EW makes it irrelevant for ID purposes. I guess you might get to use his T4 in a challenge, but there aren't many things you'd want to be accepting challenges with. And, whilst a 4++ is decent by IG standards, it's nothing special. Moreover, the lack of any armour save means you can't use him to soak wounds. Worse still, you don't know whether his resurrection will succeed until it's already too late.
- Shooting. There may have been a time when a storm bolter plus a S3 AP3 shot at 6" was impressive. That time is long gone.
I think he just doesn't carry an appropriate price tag and use on the battlefield. Other LoW choices are combat mosters or big shooty unkilly things. He doesn't really have a good save or remarkable traits. That's just my view on him though, I've never got good results out of him.
I know what you mean.
Honestly, Yarrick feels like a weird case for me - in that it seems like he should be good, but he just doesn't seem to do much on the table. He's a tooled-up Lord Commissar with extra survivability and the powers of a CCS, but it just doesn't seem to pan out. Give back the stubborn bubble as well.
But then, perhaps it's because his abilities don't really gel that well (not to mention being rather outclassed these days). I mean, let's go through what he brings:
- Senior Orders (pretty nice)
- Ld buffs
- Draconian Discipline Warlord Trait. See, this is the first issue for me. His other traits seem to want him in a blob squad, but this trait seems more useful with multiple small squads of veterans and such.
- Power Fist So, he can do some damage in melee... but if he's doing that then he can't use those all-important Orders.
- Survivability (T4, 4++, EW, Iron Will) Seems good in theory, but starts to break down in practice. T4 iwill rarely see use, and EW makes it irrelevant for ID purposes. I guess you might get to use his T4 in a challenge, but there aren't many things you'd want to be accepting challenges with. And, whilst a 4++ is decent by IG standards, it's nothing special. Moreover, the lack of any armour save means you can't use him to soak wounds. Worse still, you don't know whether his resurrection will succeed until it's already too late.
- Shooting. There may have been a time when a storm bolter plus a S3 AP3 shot at 6" was impressive. That time is long gone.
Yeah, he really should either just be a support character or a CC one, he can't really dual-task both of them. Anyway, here are some ideas I had for tweaks to prexsisting units, as well as some homebrewed stuff I made. Unlikely that any of this will ever see anything remotely similar in the next codex, but one can hope.
Besides that, I think everybody has already gone over what most people think is the best things that need to be changed for the codex, but a couple of other things I'd like to see to the game overall.
-We become the only faction with vehicle squadrons again. This is something that should have remained ours anyway, and who cares how many Leman Russes we can put down anyway when D-weapons, Gauss, Grav, Haywire, etc. can make them disapear in the blink of an eye.
-Either revert to fifth edition damage tables, or make it so glances roll on a table instead of stripping HP. Give Orks some decent AT weapons that they can spam so this doesn't hurt them as much.
-Give the game so form of reaction fire mechanic so that some games don't devolve into whoever goes frst winning.
-Cover modifies to-hit instead of giving a save.
-AP modifies armor save instead of ignoring all of X and above. Makes more sense this way.
Most of this is just ranting at the game in general, but a lot of this would actually benefeit us.
I disagree vehemently that Guard should be the only faction with vehicle squadrons. It's not something that requires a doctrinal shift for any other army to say "Guys, let's run more than one tank and see what happens!".
I can totally get behind vehicle platoons in the Guard book though. You could even make them an auxiliary choice if the book is decurionized.
Kanluwen wrote: I disagree vehemently that Guard should be the only faction with vehicle squadrons. It's not something that requires a doctrinal shift for any other army to say "Guys, let's run more than one tank and see what happens!".
I can totally get behind vehicle platoons in the Guard book though. You could even make them an auxiliary choice if the book is decurionized.
Ok, this instead of what I said.
vipoid wrote: Just one point - wouldn't changing cover to a to-hit modifier cripple us?
Hmm, depends on the BS of the opponent. 6's would aut-hit, so agaisnt low BS enemies like Orks, and .....Orks, it wouldn't make much of a difference. Against armies like SM let's say 4+ cover becomes a -2 to-hit modifier. Instead of hitting on 3's there now hitting on 5s, so rapid firing Bolter Tactical squad would now hit with 7, wound with 5, lose 5 models. With old cover save, it would be 14 hits, 9 wounds, save agaisnt 4-5 of them, take 4-5 wounds. However agaisnt blast weapons I see your point, it's just a pet peeve of mine for how cover works.
I was also thinking of our own shooting. With BS3, it won't take much cover before we;re missing with 5/6 shots. And, unlike Orks, we don't even have good melee to compensate.
vipoid wrote: I was also thinking of our own shooting. With BS3, it won't take much cover before we;re missing with 5/6 shots. And, unlike Orks, we don't even have good melee to compensate.
Oh, right . AP modifying armor would be nice however, that would actually help us out, and it makes sense that a Krak Missile would have some affect on Termnator Armor, or that an Autocannon would have some penetration effect versus SM.
Vaktathi wrote: On a more "meta" note, looking at what GW is bringing to the table these days, I have a feeling we're going to see some major changes to GW's lineup such that this may become something of a moot point in the relatively near future. I don't think the next IG codex is going to look like anything anyone really wants, GW has been rather consistent in bringing stuff to the table that nobody expected, or really asked for, over the last couple of years, and I think that's only going to accelerate. If we're just looking at ways to make the current IG codex viable, I think we've beaten those to death, and I made my suggestions way back on page 3. But I think ultimately we're going to see something very different from what many of us envisioned.
You are far too pessimistic.
It's not about pessimism, it's just acknowledgement of reality. GW has consistently been delivering changes that generally go a different direction from what most people really were looking for, particularly during the last 8 or 9 months or so. Look through older threads about what people want out of new codex books for say, Eldar or Necrons, and you'll see many or most of those changes never happened, something altogether different was done, along with many things nobody talked about (e.g. making Wraiths T5, making Distort weapons Destroyer).
The next IG Codex will go in the direction of the recent SM and Eldar Codices:
1. add Superheavy Baneblade family of vehicles
2. restore Doctrines
3. add Formations with multi-Platoon-based super-formation
4. re-tweak points cost generally downward
5. simplify individual units somewhat
This is assuming that GW does not change design philosophies yet again, as they have done on just about a yearly basis for the last few years. Doctrines I think are also highly suspect, as GW no longer seems interested in such differentiations outside of Space Marines. *IF* GW's design philosophy remains the same, most of the above will probably hold true in some form or fashion, but that's a big *if*.
My point largely was that, with GW's track record, whatever they do may likely be significantly different from what we were otherwise expecting or hoping for. Remember, people expected Necrons to get the treatment that IG, DW, BA, GK, Orks, and DE got, and things went haywire from there.
The next IG Codex will go in the direction of the recent SM and Eldar Codices:
1. add Superheavy Baneblade family of vehicles
2. restore Doctrines
3. add Formations with multi-Platoon-based super-formation
4. re-tweak points cost generally downward
5. simplify individual units somewhat
This is assuming that GW does not change design philosophies yet again, as they have done on just about a yearly basis for the last few years. Doctrines I think are also highly suspect, as GW no longer seems interested in such differentiations outside of Space Marines. *IF* GW's design philosophy remains the same, most of the above will probably hold true in some form or fashion, but that's a big *if*.
My point largely was that, with GW's track record, whatever they do may likely be significantly different from what we were otherwise expecting or hoping for. Remember, people expected Necrons to get the treatment that IG, DW, BA, GK, Orks, and DE got, and things went haywire from there.
Here's a question, do you think if they had stuck with the same design principle as IG, DW, BA, GK, Orks, and DE, the game would appear to be a lot more balanced than it is now?
The next IG Codex will go in the direction of the recent SM and Eldar Codices:
1. add Superheavy Baneblade family of vehicles
2. restore Doctrines
3. add Formations with multi-Platoon-based super-formation
4. re-tweak points cost generally downward
5. simplify individual units somewhat
This is assuming that GW does not change design philosophies yet again, as they have done on just about a yearly basis for the last few years. Doctrines I think are also highly suspect, as GW no longer seems interested in such differentiations outside of Space Marines. *IF* GW's design philosophy remains the same, most of the above will probably hold true in some form or fashion, but that's a big *if*.
My point largely was that, with GW's track record, whatever they do may likely be significantly different from what we were otherwise expecting or hoping for. Remember, people expected Necrons to get the treatment that IG, DW, BA, GK, Orks, and DE got, and things went haywire from there.
Here's a question, do you think if they had stuck with the same design principle as IG, DW, BA, GK, Orks, and DE, the game would appear to be a lot more balanced than it is now?
I think so. It would be far from perfect, and the IG codex (among several of those others of the same era) would still have a legion of issues (as Vipoid noted, lots of internal balance problems), but I do think the game as a whole would be notably less imbalanced than it currently is.
Given GW's production pipeline, imbalance is unavoidable until every book gets the corresponding update. The problem is they don't give players any direction on how to manage the transition period. Reference rules and balance philosophy, I have a nice quote. Source: http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/blog/post/games-news-130715/
...if your game is centred around the idea that players are trying to defeat each other, you want your rules to be as tightly balanced and well-defined as possible. Any room for disagreement is room for argument, is room for bad feeling, accusations of cheating, resentment, bitterness, toxic environments and general misery.
If your game is centred around telling stories... these games tend to work best when controlled by a neutral party who's aim is to enrich the experience, or in the hands of close friends who are willing to relax and give each other the benefit of the doubt.
The above is probably one of the rare points of consensus on dakka. The usual response from aggravated players is "I don't have any close friends to play with". And that's a problem. A lot of the issues with units are resolved if you're playing scenarios with friends, which results in cooperative list building. A Punisher is going to mow down Gaunts, Orks and Demons with Invul saves just fine. If you're playing no-holds barred netlists teeming with IKs and WKs, good luck.
GW doesn't need to write perfect rules and perfect balance. But if that's the case, they need to take responsibility for their community and show them how to contextualize their games in such a way that everything works. Like a collaborative RPG, or you know.... a scenario-based wargame. There is a killer BR on Dakka right now about Tau trying to defend an evac point, before a Tyranid Swarm overwhelms them. That's a really cool idea and there's no abuse of netlisted units. Looked like a lot of fun. However, many players are taking their cues from GTs, GW doesn't communicate or guide their playerbase, and the whole thing ends up looking quite dysfunctional.
Either start offering guidance, or change their rules, development, and production model to actually support competition. You really have to commit.
40k isn't selling models, 40k isn't selling rules, at the core it's selling an experience. Everything else is a means to that end. So when you disengage from that, whether it's competitive or narrative, as a business you end up in dangerous territory. Player experience is easy to manage when everything passes through a retail outlet. But with zero web presence in 2015, aside from a webstore? That's trouble because a lot of your customers may now spend the majority of their time there.
Sorry to get a little off topic. I found it interesting to myself at least.
vipoid wrote: I know you weren't asking me, but if they'd continued that design philosophy, I think the books would be better balanced against one another.
However, I believe the internal balance would have been much, much worse, and that the books would have been really dull.
Another good point. Asking because I'm trying to re-write the Stormtrooper (Not Scions, Stromtroopers!) Codex as something that can be run as a decent standalone army, and I was wondering which books might be better to go after. But yeah, Internal balance does suck for them, but arguable it's just as bad for a lot of the newer ones (Necrons only take Tomb Blades as a tax). What the people who write these things down need to do is ask themselves the following
1. What does this unit provide and what role does it fill?
2. Are there any other units that can fufill this role in the codex?
3. If so, what advantages does this unit have? Is it cheaper? Can it fulfill more roles than just the one the other unit does?
4. Is this unit to OP compared to those similiar units?
5. What reasons does the player have for taking this unit?
6. Is the role this unit fufills to niche for what is paid for it? If it is niche, is it a niche that this codex needs filled?
Rather simplified and probably not a complete checklist, but you get the idea. Here's a quick run-through with one of the units that I posted the links for.
Wraith
1. This unit provides cheap anti-MEQ barrage firepower that also helps with reducing cover save and giving out blind.
2. This cheap-artillery role is fufilled by Wyverns and Griffons, the Anti-MEQ by Stormtroopers and Basilisks.
3. This unit is good compared to Wyvern and Griffons at the artillery role because of the AP 3, Blind and Luminagen. It costs less than the Basilisk, and has a higher strength and better attack then the Stromtroopers.
4. No, because in terms of Artillery the Wyvern and Griffon are much more accurate, have a higher Strength, and the Wyvern is much better at tearing up GEQ and putting down a sheer number of wounds than the Wraith. It is better than the Stormtroopers and Basilisk point for point, but this is more due to them being underpowered than the Wraith being Overpowered.
5. They take it for the AP 3 artillery, access to Blind, and to reduce Cover saves.
6. it is a niche unit because of the other options for artillery in the codex, but makes up for it with Blind and Luminagen, something that Guard lacks.
Again simplified, but shows what process should be gone through for internal balance, some of it at least.
Reading my uplifting primer just now. We should better represent the fluff by making all lasguns D weapons as it's stated that one shot will stop any foe in the universe. Also flak armour confers 2+ invulnerable save as its the best armour the emperor can provide.
too ofset the fact that they can now guide an artillery shell right on top of you EVERY DAMN TIME, as well as use heavy weapons teams to lock your entire army down and keep them moving around at a snails pace if they arent inside the comfort of a nice beefy troop transport. basically what im saying is that imperial guard need to pay some kind of tax to get really good rules especially if they come in the form of formations because their the army that should do the best when marrying formations with conventional lists. and pask has for a long time been a crutch for their army much in the same way other gimmicks were for other forces. dark angels lost their sacred standards of gimmick but they picked up being a very good army with their formations and ravenwing improvements. codex marines had their weak links black templars and ravenguard even further shoved down into the mud but in exchange all their other chapter tactics are doing better than anything in recent memory (especially crimson fists if you ask me) and things will be no different.
the imperial guard will soon find out that power has a price and they will be paying for it .. again, just like last time their c odex was overhauled.
and i laugh at all those fools who keep asking to have people like marbo brought back, your going to be lucky if even one of those cut names gets mentioned at all in the codex, and at best hes going to have a paragraph of info about him. just ask brother bethor who has gone from a named character model, to a generic model, to not even being mentioned at all in the base codex.
So, we dont pay for our power now? Okay:
LRBT - 150 points for a BS3 tank with a Battlecannon and a HB and 14/13/10. Can only move 6" a turn and cant boost
Punisher - even more expensive. Suffers from being useless against most things and questionable against its intended targets.
Eradicator - very good against Scouts and dug in light infantry. Might as well not exist against everything else.
Demolisher - costs 170 points and has to survive two/three turns of travel across the board at 6" per turn to be able to use its cannon. Suffers from having to get close to the enemy, something that no vehicle wants to do. Ever.
Vanquisher - You are having a joke right?
Exterminator - actually not too bad for its points cost, provided you take squadrons of two or more. Low accuracy some what mitigated by being BS 3
Executioner - will on average kill itself over the course of a game with no input on the opponents part. Good against Infantry and MEQ's but very pricey.
Basilisk - So, tell me, would YOU pay that much for this?
Deathstrike - Costs a hell of a lot, launches randomly, is easily destroyed and is one use only.
Manticore - a little lacklustre, lacking the AP to deal with MEQ's and the Ignore Cover rule to deal with dug in infantry. Does partially make up for it by dropping D3 pieplates per turn but has a serious minimal range problem and is only 4 shot (though to be fair by the time you have fired off all 4 the enemy is within you minimal range anyway.
Armoured Sentinels - 35 points for..... What? A 12/10/10 HWT. Suffers from low BS and an acute case of being vulnerable to just about every basic weapon out there.
Scout Sentinel - CAN actually be useful. Suffers from wilting when the enemy so much as glares at it.
Chimera - I do not see other races paying 65 points for a 12/10/10 BS3 transport with questionable offensive and defensive capabilities.
Platoons - Hahahahaha, I thought you where serious there for a mi-wait, you are? With a minimal (1 PCS, 2 Infantry sections, bare bones no upgrades) platoon you are spending 135 points. HWS cost more than they are ever, ever, going to be worth. Specialists can not take transports and are wiped by just about anything. Even a fully tooled up MEQ busting platoon (PCS, 5 Infantry sections, 6 plasma guns in total) costing 375 points will only just manage to kill a single bare bones 10 man tactical squad costing only 140 points, assuming the Marines player chooses not to bother with cover, the 5 Infantry sections are blobbed together and given the FRFSRF order and are within 12" of the Marines. And they will lose two to three members due to overheating.
Tank Commanders - A great concept.... Except they have to be squadroned with at least one other vehicle and of their three orders (which can ONLY be issued to their squadron) one is a one use only order, one is a very questionable speed boost and one is in place to partially mitigate the problems of being in a squadron in the first place.
Pask costs even more (a whopping 70 points in total - remind me how much the far superior SM equivalent costs again?) and gives the tank Preferred enemy. Great, a minor buff. And Tank Hunter - useless on most Leman Russ hulls. He also gives a slight buff to the turret weapons:
The Executioner gets a big blast - not too bad, seeing as it now has a greatly reduced chance of over heating. Still not marvellous and not worth 70 points.
The Punisher gets rending. Possibly the only tank Pask is worth a damn in.
All the others get to re-roll the scatter dice. Woo.
I could go on but life calls.....
Anyway, now please try to justify your statement - how are we not already paying through the nose for what little power we have?
Also, Armoured Sentinels are 40pts per model, not 35.
I think an interesting comparison is a Razorback:
A BS3 12/10/10 2HP Armoured Sentinel with a Lascannon is 50pts.
A BS4 11/11/10 3HP Razorback with either a TL Lascannon or Lascannon and TL Plasmagun is 75pts.
So, for 25pts more you lose a point of front armour, but gain a point of side armour. Then you gain +1BS, +1HP and 6 transport capacity.
"exactly, you get Lascannons for cheaper!" - every SM player I have met thus far
I will gladly trade prices with an SM player provided they make their devastators WS 3 BS 3 S 3 T 3 W 2 I 3 A 1 LD 10 Save 5+ and my Heavy Weapons become BS4
I will gladly trade prices with an SM player provided they make their devastators WS 3 BS 3 S 3 T 3 W 2 I 3 A 1 LD 10 Save 5+ and my Heavy Weapons become BS4
If voxes are unlimited range, then that potential 'issue' (I don't think its one, seeing as PCS can take a gak ton of good weapons that are useful) is going to exist either way. Plus, as discussed, having officers with voxes and within their normal orders radius could provide a re-roll to the order, thus granting some incentive to keep them near a platoon.
A vox network is a vox network. Don't add restrictions where they aren't necessary. The simplest, fluffiest way of doing things is to have voxes create unlimited range between all units with a vox.
It would create an issue, absolutely. Why on earth would players deploy their PCs on the front line with the troops they command (where they should be) rather than hide them away? Much like the difference between a Platoon Standard and Regimental(Company) Standard, there should be a Platoon Vox and a Regimental Vox, the former increasing range while the latter is unlimited.
If they're never confused, then it doesn't matter. And real world experience doesn't matter or apply here, seeing as we're talking about a different military organization 40k years in the future. The simple fact is that absolute realism must be put behind making simple, clean, and fun rules. Having voxes create unlimited range is logical and consistent within the universe, and having anyone able to receive orders is both fluffy and logical within the universe, and is the simplest, least confusing and time consuming way of writing the rule.
You can't have it one way saying that the realism must be put to one side, then claim that a common vox net is both fluffy and logical in universe. It really isn't, a company simply can't operate in the heat of battle with everyone on the same channel.
If you're arguing that a common vox net should be implemented purely for the sake of simplicity then understand that, though I would still disagree.
Which is why its simplest to keep it as it currently stands and allow anyone to order anyone. Currently, a PCS can order a CCS, which still makes sense. If a platoon loses their PCS, they'll likely be very receptive and maybe a little grateful that the nearest junior officer is there to provide leadership and guidance.
No doubt, which is why a limiting on the range of a PC vox is still necessary. If we allow limitless orders at the PC level, theoretically you would only need one surviving PC squirreled away in the corner of the board to provide effective orders to units on the other side of the field. That should be the purview of the CC, the PC should be focused on the more immediate situation.
Essentially, I'm okay with PCs being able to give orders to any unit but making their orders unlimited via vox (rather than substantially increased range) is nonsensical and frankly broken.
In all honesty, I'm all for the unlimited range of Vox's. If we had Epic scale, it would make sense to have limited range, but we've got radio's, 38 odd thousands years into the future and yet soldiers are reduced to orders over shouting distances? Even the basic, short range radios troops had in the 70's were capable of transmitting over a few miles!
Realistically the only person in the IG infantry platoon who will have the same frequency as the CCS is the PCS. I personally think CCS should be able to issue orders to any unit, bar those in a platoon unless it goes through that platoons PCS, the result being an additional test (unless it is the PCS itself). Also Sergeant's should be capable of giving orders to their own squad with an optional point cost, say 5-8 points? Maybe all orders within 4-6 inches automatically pass or increases the chance as well?
Firstly this encourages the PCS being used in it's specific platoon while the CCS is used in it's realistic role of commanding units, then leaving it up to the unit to do it's task their own way. However you can still used the CCS's additional orders on PCS squads but with a disadvantage and giving the impression of a chain of command.
I know it may be incredibly complicated to write into rules but I think it would be fun and useful. Also encourages to use your orders in the correct manner, however more orders should be made available to junior officers.
Also anyone else think Vox's should return to also affecting normal Ld tests in some manner?
Give orders a similar thing to psychic mastery levels. Each level comes with a range, number of orders they can issue, and which orders can be issued.
Orders level 1- veteran sergeants have this. Range is the squad, number of orders is one and access to the junior officer orders.
Orders level 2- pcs level, 12" range and one order. Access to junior officer orders.
Orders level 3 - ccs basic level, 18" range and two orders. Uses all officer orders.
Order level 4 - some special characters and an optional upgrade for ccs. 3 orders at 24" and access to all orders. Some characters will have extra bonus orders they can use.
Order level 5 - creed, gets 4 orders at 24" and all officer orders plus any unique ones he might get access to.
This can all be written down on the fancy cards you would get with the tactical objectives along with cards for all the regular orders and an extra card describing how the order system work. I'd allow CCS and PCS officers to upgrade only one level with say 15-25 points.
Decided not to give orders to regular sergeants as they are indoctrinated to follow orders, where as vets are a bit more independent and given extra free reign over they're actions.
We already have the structure for orders. It works in its current form just fine. All it needs is a refinement and to boost a piece of wargear that should be beneficial to orders, but really isn't.
So, you keep the current way orders work, except you test of the issuing officer, and can issue to any unit with a vox regardless of range. No one needs to re-learn the rules for how orders works, its fluffy, logical, and versatile, and doesn't complicate things any more than it needs to be.
I feel that anything simpler loses out on the versatility of having several orders to choose from based on the situation, and anything more complicated adds no real value over the current system with some refinements. For over five years people on both ends of the table understand how orders work, and the idea of voxes being unlimited range has been floated around these forums since I joined.
Keep it simple within the framework we have. Orders as they stand work, they could just some very minor tweaks. No need to turn them into not-psychic powers or automatically give double shots.
HANZERtank wrote: Reading my uplifting primer just now. We should better represent the fluff by making all lasguns D weapons as it's stated that one shot will stop any foe in the universe. Also flak armour confers 2+ invulnerable save as its the best armour the emperor can provide.
Make IG like I was once told they were in 2ed. Every IG grunt with an underslug launcher with a vortex inside. Make flak +5 with an upgrade to +4, but add the option for priests to make the IG pray, that gives them stuff like inv save or super rending for a turn.
A volley of 120 vortex D shots on turn one followed by a +2inv with a fortification and am sure I would have more fun playing.
Blacksails wrote:We already have the structure for orders. It works in its current form just fine. All it needs is a refinement and to boost a piece of wargear that should be beneficial to orders, but really isn't.
So, you keep the current way orders work, except you test of the issuing officer, and can issue to any unit with a vox regardless of range. No one needs to re-learn the rules for how orders works, its fluffy, logical, and versatile, and doesn't complicate things any more than it needs to be.
I feel that anything simpler loses out on the versatility of having several orders to choose from based on the situation, and anything more complicated adds no real value over the current system with some refinements. For over five years people on both ends of the table understand how orders work, and the idea of voxes being unlimited range has been floated around these forums since I joined.
Keep it simple within the framework we have. Orders as they stand work, they could just some very minor tweaks. No need to turn them into not-psychic powers or automatically give double shots.
Tbh coming from a military background, I've always had a bit of annoyance that there is no reason to use platoons.... as well you know, platoons. I was more addressing that, plus the fact logically a CCS is not going to be telling an infantry squad in a platoon what to do, they would tell the Platoon commander what to do, who would in turn pass the order. It's not really anything addressed in the fluff any more than for SM or Elder (You know, the great leader rallying his troops stuff everyone has).
I do admit it may overcomplicate the rules, as so leave them as they are. But maybe giving sergeants or veteran sergeants a minor order or two, add the overall pool of orders and giving voxes unlimited range (like they used to before they were used for orders) may help improve the guard as a whole.
Also I think the whole platoon structure needs something to encourage platoons to be used as a unit, seeing it's a gripe I've had for a very long time, as there is no reason for me outside of fluffyness to do so. I'm not saying force players to do so, but give some benefit.
Selym wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote: I am of a mind that vox should grant +1 Ld and double shots with all weapon if not moving.
Simple and effective.
I'm just imagining a Guardsman being like:
"do we shoot the alien? I'm not sure..."
*carnifex charging*
"Herrmmm...."
*listens to the vox*
"Oh, alright."
*Dakkadakkadakka*
I think what we're suggesting is more like
"We're being overrun"
"You hold that damn position"
"But there's too many!"
"If you don't hold I'll kill you myself"
It works great for the narrative (which if I remember correctly is the point of this game....), and it used to be a rule until 5th. The Rules for them in late 3rd, add a bonus to orders and it makes it slightly less slightly for your troops to run when they are shot up.
I agree the whole idea a squad needs to be told to concentrate fire on the horrifying creature right infront of them is a tad silly, but fluff wise aren't guard suppose to find most opponents terrifying, but at the same time unafraid of anything? I think the point of the order is more, you know those terrifying things everywhere, well concentrate on that one terrifying thing... which admittedly doesn't really work in games outside apocalypse.
That seems more the remit of Commissars, rather than general orders.
Main difference is Commissars will actually kill you.... with most officers it's just a threat.
It's also more of a real world example of troop dynamics. It doesn't always help, but on occasions units have held due to the higher ups refusing to give them permission to fall back... with mixed results.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I am of a mind that vox should grant +1 Ld and double shots with all weapon if not moving.
Simple and effective.
I'm just imagining a Guardsman being like:
*tervigon appears in range*
*lictors still ripping Bravo team a new one*
"do we shoot the alien? and which alien? or do we redeploy - I'm not sure..."
*carnifex charging*
"Herrmmm...."
*listens to the vox*
"Oh, alright."
*Dakkadakkadakka*
Fluff-wise, there may be very good strategic reasons to shoot at the Tervigon or Lictor intstead of the Carnifex, reasons that may not be obvious to an individual IG squad. Hell, the CCS may be using them as inexpensive "bait" so they can obliterate the 'fex with another unit.
The key point is that double shots for not moving makes the IGreally good at the one thing that they are good at - lots and lots of mediocre shooting. This literally doubles down on the "quantity has a quality all its own" concept for IG, and we see this same thing with the Stormlord. HBs fire 3+3, Rapidfire 2+2 and Heavy 1+1 - it's glorious mountains of dice comparable to the sheer number of dice Orks roll in HtH, or when they Alpha Strike with loads of shooting before charging with +1A.
And more importantly, double shots are a very fast and simple rule. It replaces FRFSRF and BID, while removing the question of whether a Hotshot Lasgun is a Lasgun. It removes the Fluff question why nobody else trained on their weapon(s). It simply enhances IG in a clear and obvious way.
The +1 Ld is to replace the Reform and other Ld-related stuff, so they don't break as much in the first place.
The only question is what it should cost.
I think it should be the FREE Formation bonus for taking 3 (or more) Platoons.
I've always had a bit of annoyance that there is no reason to use platoons.... as well you know, platoons. I was more addressing that, plus the fact logically a CCS is not going to be telling an infantry squad in a platoon what to do, they would tell the Platoon commander what to do, who would in turn pass the order. It's not really anything addressed in the fluff any more than for SM or Elder (You know, the great leader rallying his troops stuff everyone has).
Platoons have plenty of uses. They could use a buff, but then again, the whole codex could use a buff if we're using Eldar or Crons or Marines as some sort of benchmark.
And why wouldn't a CCS order an infantry squad around if the PCS is dead, or otherwise busy/in the process of being horribly maimed by a fething carnifex, or just because said infantry squad stumbled drunk in front of the CCS and the company commander decided they needed to run really super fast to that objective over there.
In a perfect world, yes, the chain of command would always exist and work flawlessly top down, but there are way too many scenario in the far future of humanity where using the chain of command strictly doesn't make sense. In such scenarios and for gameplay purposes, its infinitely easier to let anyone who can issue order issue them to anyone who can receive them. Plus, I feel that your idea dances too close to the problem of having a dedicated PCS for a set of infantry squads, which becomes cumbersome remembering who belongs to who. That and you don't want the good platoon stuck with your gakky junior lieutenant Billy Bob Joe Ray.
I do admit it may overcomplicate the rules, as so leave them as they are. But maybe giving sergeants or veteran sergeants a minor order or two, add the overall pool of orders and giving voxes unlimited range (like they used to before they were used for orders) may help improve the guard as a whole.
The idea of vets having an order or two has certainly interested me, but I feel it would be too burdensome. You'd spend so much time planning, rolling for, and following through on literally dozens of orders every single turn. Plus, blob squads would be an issue, unless you limit it in some way, which only complicates things more. Its a nice thought, but I think it adds too many complications for the benefits.
As a compromise, bring back Bastonne (or better yet, create a not-Bastonne character but Mordian...for no reason...no reason at all) who can issue an order to his squad.
Also I think the whole platoon structure needs something to encourage platoons to be used as a unit, seeing it's a gripe I've had for a very long time, as there is no reason for me outside of fluffyness to do so. I'm not saying force players to do so, but give some benefit.
Yes, special and heavy weapon squads need love in some way. Oh, and put scout sentinels in platoons.
"Infantry Squads and Veteran Squads - When firing Lasguns, if this unit fires more than 10 shots then any To Hit roll of 6 causes an automatic wound. This cannot wound any target that a Lasgun could not normally wound."
This helps with getting Wounds out on targets with the humble Lasgun, since you don't have to roll To Wound every 6th shot. It's still a S3 AP- weapon, so armour saves for everyone and it still can't wound T7+ targets to help keep it in check.
"Conscripts - When removing casualties from a unit of Conscripts, you may freely choose any model in the unit to remove instead of the model the unsaved wound was allocated to. Independent Characters attached to the unit cannot benefit from this rule."
This would effectively allow you to remove casualties from the back of a Conscript blob so your blob doesn't lose ground as it charges across the battlefield.
"Infantry Squads and Veteran Squads - When firing Lasguns, if this unit fires more than 10 shots then any To Hit roll of 6 causes an automatic wound. This cannot wound any target that a Lasgun could not normally wound."
This helps with getting Wounds out on targets with the humble Lasgun, since you don't have to roll To Wound every 6th shot. It's still a S3 AP- weapon, so armour saves for everyone and it still can't wound T7+ targets to help keep it in check.
Seems like a good rule for FRFSRF. though i can see it getting wonkey with misfortune.
"Infantry Squads and Veteran Squads - When firing Lasguns, if this unit fires more than 10 shots then any To Hit roll of 6 causes an automatic wound. This cannot wound any target that a Lasgun could not normally wound."
This helps with getting Wounds out on targets with the humble Lasgun, since you don't have to roll To Wound every 6th shot. It's still a S3 AP- weapon, so armour saves for everyone and it still can't wound T7+ targets to help keep it in check.
"Conscripts - When removing casualties from a unit of Conscripts, you may freely choose any model in the unit to remove instead of the model the unsaved wound was allocated to. Independent Characters attached to the unit cannot benefit from this rule."
This would effectively allow you to remove casualties from the back of a Conscript blob so your blob doesn't lose ground as it charges across the battlefield.
Not bad, though I am not sure if it would work very well against the meta codex players..... The whining when a humble lasgun had such a rule when the Shuriken Catapult and Bolter do not...
"Infantry Squads and Veteran Squads - When firing Lasguns, if this unit fires more than 10 shots then any To Hit roll of 6 causes an automatic wound. This cannot wound any target that a Lasgun could not normally wound."
This helps with getting Wounds out on targets with the humble Lasgun, since you don't have to roll To Wound every 6th shot. It's still a S3 AP- weapon, so armour saves for everyone and it still can't wound T7+ targets to help keep it in check.
"Conscripts - When removing casualties from a unit of Conscripts, you may freely choose any model in the unit to remove instead of the model the unsaved wound was allocated to. Independent Characters attached to the unit cannot benefit from this rule."
This would effectively allow you to remove casualties from the back of a Conscript blob so your blob doesn't lose ground as it charges across the battlefield.
Not bad, though I am not sure if it would work very well against the meta codex players..... The whining when a humble lasgun had such a rule when the Shuriken Catapult and Bolter do not...
The IG codex gets more whining from SM players than the Eldar codex oftentimes. It's just our lot in life.
"Infantry Squads and Veteran Squads - When firing Lasguns, if this unit fires more than 10 shots then any To Hit roll of 6 causes an automatic wound. This cannot wound any target that a Lasgun could not normally wound."
This helps with getting Wounds out on targets with the humble Lasgun, since you don't have to roll To Wound every 6th shot. It's still a S3 AP- weapon, so armour saves for everyone and it still can't wound T7+ targets to help keep it in check.
"Conscripts - When removing casualties from a unit of Conscripts, you may freely choose any model in the unit to remove instead of the model the unsaved wound was allocated to. Independent Characters attached to the unit cannot benefit from this rule."
This would effectively allow you to remove casualties from the back of a Conscript blob so your blob doesn't lose ground as it charges across the battlefield.
Not bad, though I am not sure if it would work very well against the meta codex players..... The whining when a humble lasgun had such a rule when the Shuriken Catapult and Bolter do not...
The IG codex gets more whining from SM players than the Eldar codex oftentimes. It's just our lot in life.
All praise the Leafblower!
Ahh yes the Leafblower. Wonderful.... Except it was not pure Guard. Guard at that time where mediocre. It was allying with the Inquisition that made the Leafblower work.
I think that SM players hine because most of them are stuck in that timmy attitude and because GW makes Marines out to be unbeatable. So when you kill them or have something that is better than them.... Whooooo boy dont you know about just how OPFRFSRF is and as for that AV 14/13/10 tank with a Battlecannon.....
Just woe betide you if you should do anything other than scoop your vast piles of dead Infantry and wrecked vehicles off the table with anything other than a smile on your face or even dare to complain about just how broken that unit/formation is though or dare to not have fun removing your dead Imperial Guard. Then you are subject to the lecture of how this is the way that things go and you should expect it or told you are a whiner or a scrub.
I think that SM players hine because most of them are stuck in that timmy attitude and because GW makes Marines out to be unbeatable. So when you kill them or have something that is better than them.... Whooooo boy dont you know about just how OPFRFSRF is and as for that AV 14/13/10 tank with a Battlecannon.....
Just woe betide you if you should do anything other than scoop your vast piles of dead Infantry and wrecked vehicles off the table with anything other than a smile on your face or even dare to complain about just how broken that unit/formation is though or dare to not have fun removing your dead Imperial Guard. Then you are subject to the lecture of how this is the way that things go and you should expect it or told you are a whiner or a scrub.
I think another aspect that many people seem not to get is that defeating an opponent much weaker than you isn't really heroic. This is one of the reasons 5th edition GKs were so bloody idiotic - because they were so OP as to make demons the underdogs. But Emperor forbid SM players be required to use anything other than brute force to win battles.
So here is my Codex. Everything that is added, changed, or make up by me is in red.
Forward: This codex is intended for use in narrative campaigns and is most likely not completely balanced in traditional games of Warhammer 40k. The reason I have written this codex is to allow me to better represent the strategical and tactical doctrines of my guard regiment. The primary strategical and tactical doctrine represented by this Codex is the idea of Long Range Penetration, which is best exemplified by The Chindits, The Long Range Desert Group, Merrill’s Marauders and the 75TH Ranger Battalion. Additional strategical doctrines such as Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols, Air Calvary, and Airborne are also represented.
I think another aspect that many people seem not to get is that defeating an opponent much weaker than you isn't really heroic. This is one of the reasons 5th edition GKs were so bloody idiotic - because they were so OP as to make demons the underdogs. But Emperor forbid SM players be required to use anything other than brute force to win battles.
Exalted
To think that they may have to engage more than two braincells though.... Scary
I think another aspect that many people seem not to get is that defeating an opponent much weaker than you isn't really heroic. This is one of the reasons 5th edition GKs were so bloody idiotic - because they were so OP as to make demons the underdogs. But Emperor forbid SM players be required to use anything other than brute force to win battles.
Exalted
To think that they may have to engage more than two braincells though.... Scary
Heroes are not measured by what they have accomplished, but rather by what they have overcome. Walls prove no obstacle to a giant, but a man must climb or fight his way to the other side. If both succeed in crossing the wall, then both are equally accomplished. While having both achieved the same goal, it is the man that is more admirable.
Martel732 wrote: If anyone thinks that BA/SW are winning with brute force, I have some bad news for you. It's not BS4 or 3+ armor making vanilla marines good.
Not really what people are complaining about, it's more this attitude that some SM players have. After reading GW fluff, where the SM are protrayed as nigh-unkillable murder machines that a normal human should have no chance of beating. So when normal humans start killing their models in the TT they get upset, because in the fluff it would take several hundred guardsmen to kill a single Space Marine. Well, most people don't have several hundred models, or in my case, litle round paper circles.
Martel732 wrote:If anyone thinks that BA/SW are winning with brute force, I have some bad news for you. It's not BS4 or 3+ armor making vanilla marines good.
No, but it helps. A lot. If you do not think so then try playing with BS 3 and armour that is ignored by almost every weapon in the game. What does it take to crack through a Marines plate? AP's 1, 2 and 3. In other words dedicated AT and specialist weapons. What does it take to punch through flak armour? AP 5 and better. In other words nearly every damn weapon out there.
saithor wrote:
Not really what people are complaining about, it's more this attitude that some SM players have. After reading GW fluff, where the SM are protrayed as nigh-unkillable murder machines that a normal human should have no chance of beating. So when normal humans start killing their models in the TT they get upset, because in the fluff it would take several hundred guardsmen to kill a single Space Marine. Well, most people don't have several hundred models, or in my case, litle round paper circles.
Exactly. Whilst I know that it does not apply to all Marine players you do tend to find that the majority of them are unable to conceive that they might not just automatically win against an Imperial Guard player and they might have to think about things like 'tactics' and 'strategy'. They get pissy and throw a mini hissy fit every time 30 Guardsmen manage to down A space marine. They complain and call Imperial Guard units "OP" when a lucky shot demolishes half a squad or they realise that a Leman Russ has more armour than a Predator.
They think they should just instantly win. They are wrong. But they can not understand this.
Hey, we have this great thread that has miraculously survived for 40 pages.
Let's not throw it all to gak about comparisons to marines or your experiences with the attitudes of the players behind them.
That all said, I'd love to see arty batteries (the proper arty ones, not the SPG kind) in the codex. One unit entry with three options; Bassie, Medusa, Heavy Mortar...scratch that, four, Quad Mortar too. Then have another entry for all the SPG variants; Bassie, Medusa, Colossus, Griffon, Wyvern. And make enclosed compartment cheaper. Honestly, 15pts is way too much. No more than 10pts is much more reasonable if you're making entire batteries like that.
The current prices aren't terrible. Wyvern needs to go up in price, especially if the Griffon ever wants to see the table again (under the far fetched, hypothetical it even comes back [it won't]), but other than that, Bassie could use a cut of ~10pts. Its not bad, but its not great either and has walked the line of mediocrity for some time now.
Medusa was also reasonable, put could use a 5-10pts cut too, plus I'd love if the option for Breacher shells allowed you to pick every turn what shell you fired.
Small blast (4 of them), S5 AP5, Pinning, -1 ld check. Its arty, so T7 and W2 plus crew for sponging. Something around 50pts I believe. In the order of 48-60" range.
Good unit. Basically the spiritual father to the Wyvern.
As far as I can see we are going to get regimental doctrines what do you guys think they will be?
My personal expectations:
Cadians - reroll 1s to hit with lasguns (honestly their so generic that I don't know what to give them)
Catachans - stealth (army wide)
Steel Legion - all transports are assault craft and hatred (orks)
Valhallan Ice warriors - 6+ send in next wave (OP but I soooooooo want that back)
Tallarns - move through cover
Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote: I'm at the point where I'm going to start asking my opponents if its ok to run some of the apocalypse formations for my IG.
This.
All AM/IG apocalypse formations should be put into the codex with a bit of tweaking of the formations that require large numbers of models
The apocalypse formations seem to be a good foundation for some decuiron style love for us.
Mechanised company with a couple of free special rules (can move a bit faster plus stubborn and furious charge) near objectives seems kinda UP to me if anything - but I'll take what I can get.
I love the idea of having endless ranks on platoons and being able to muster forces back after every turn. It would actually make platoons worth taking. That and a slight points drop per guardsman and I'll be running guardsman tides.
Martel732 wrote:If anyone thinks that BA/SW are winning with brute force, I have some bad news for you. It's not BS4 or 3+ armor making vanilla marines good.
No, but it helps. A lot. If you do not think so then try playing with BS 3 and armour that is ignored by almost every weapon in the game. What does it take to crack through a Marines plate? AP's 1, 2 and 3. In other words dedicated AT and specialist weapons. What does it take to punch through flak armour? AP 5 and better. In other words nearly every damn weapon out there.
saithor wrote:
Not really what people are complaining about, it's more this attitude that some SM players have. After reading GW fluff, where the SM are protrayed as nigh-unkillable murder machines that a normal human should have no chance of beating. So when normal humans start killing their models in the TT they get upset, because in the fluff it would take several hundred guardsmen to kill a single Space Marine. Well, most people don't have several hundred models, or in my case, litle round paper circles.
Exactly. Whilst I know that it does not apply to all Marine players you do tend to find that the majority of them are unable to conceive that they might not just automatically win against an Imperial Guard player and they might have to think about things like 'tactics' and 'strategy'. They get pissy and throw a mini hissy fit every time 30 Guardsmen manage to down A space marine. They complain and call Imperial Guard units "OP" when a lucky shot demolishes half a squad or they realise that a Leman Russ has more armour than a Predator.
They think they should just instantly win. They are wrong. But they can not understand this.
Remember the days when Space Marine chapters were 'rare' and the the Imperial Gurad were the bastons of the human race. Marines were only called on for the big problems like Abbadon or Purging a Hive world. Sigh, the memories. Now chapters are a dime a dozen and every space marine is as strong and tough as 50 men. only Space Marines can keep the aliens and traitors at bay.
If you'd like to discuss marines and any of their actual or perceived failings, I'm sure there are plenty of other threads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Deathless Host wrote: As far as I can see we are going to get regimental doctrines what do you guys think they will be?
My personal expectations:
Cadians - reroll 1s to hit with lasguns (honestly their so generic that I don't know what to give them)
Catachans - stealth (army wide)
Steel Legion - all transports are assault craft and hatred (orks)
Valhallan Ice warriors - 6+ send in next wave (OP but I soooooooo want that back)
Tallarns - move through cover
I doubt we'd get doctrines, but if we did, I'd actually not go the route about having a doctrine for a specific popular/official regiment. Not all Valhallans, for example, are about piling more bodies on the enemy. Not all Tallarns are on foot (in fact, they are one of the most mechanized and talented tank regiments in the Imperium), and Cadians do a bit of everything.
If doctrines were to happen (if I was writing, for example), I'd pick a regiment style or composition. So, off the top of my head as examples, I'd have doctrines for; Light Infantry, Grenadiers, Mechanized Infantry, Armoured Company, Siege Regiment, and Airborne Regiment. I'm sure I'm missing some obvious ones, but that's neither here nor there. That way, if you want to play a Cadian army, you can run them as a Kasrkin force, or as a tank army, or as a siege company without being pigeon-holed into a singular aspect of your regiment's skill set.
Martel isnt actually too bad. Its just he fails to see things quite from our perspective.
Yeah, I get that forcing 50+ saves is effective but first you have to inflict 50+ wounds which requires 150+ hits and 300+ shots from the average Guardsman.
And at least they are getting saves, unlike the 100+ Guardsmen whom just died to amassed whatever fire.
My point is that the tanks need fixed, not the guardsmen. The guardsmen are fine at what they do. Particularly with access to "no cover" orders.
"And at least they are getting saves, unlike the 100+ Guardsmen whom just died to amassed whatever fire."
With cover, AP -, AP 6, AP 3, and AP 2 weapons, guardsmen are more efficient at soaking damage. So guardsmen are only actively poor compared to marines in the open against AP 5 and 4. Or AP 4/5 that ignores cover. Lots of players like me have ditched almost all the AP 4 out of their lists for various reasons. (It's basically useless against Eldar now, for example)
However, guard tanks are in the same cesspool that all other vehicles are right now. So I'm not sure a codex could address this issue.
add special rule: crazy hassan. at the beggining of the game roll a d6. on a 6 crazy hassasn sells you camels for cheap. count all your models as bike. in addition these arent just any cammels. these are fine quality camels and they give all models 2+ re rollable invuln saves all weapons sD sD hammer of wrath d6 hammer of wrath 7 wounds each
master of ordinance wrote: Yeah, I get that forcing 50+ saves is effective but first you have to inflict 50+ wounds which requires 150+ hits and 300+ shots from the average Guardsman.
Hence my notion that Vox allows Guardsmen to fire twice if they don't move...
Blacksails, it is impressive how far this thread has gotten, but I think at this point eveybody has said all that there can be said. We posted a lot of idas for fixes, people agreed and disagreed on them, we all admitted that it was unlikely that any of these would actually be implemented, we had a few posts on guys who thought that IG is OP, and after that my memory goes hazy. I might repost some of the ideas I had for rediscussion, I jsut need to find them first.
.
for the formations.
