Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In reading the forums, I've seen a couple discussions of "who is the worst", and I see things like CSM, orks, sisters referenced, which I understand. But I also see IG mentioned as being pretty bad.

I'll admit, I don't see a lot of guard in my local wargaming scene, but I always thought IG were at the very least decent. Their infantry isn't great, but it's plentiful and can really put out some massive firepower. Their vehicles are plentiful, tough, and pack a punch. Wyverns sound absolutely amazing. Priests are similarly amazing. 25 points for a slotless IC, with a 4++, to give any group I want fearless, hatred, reroll wounds, etc, etc - I'd bring as many as I'd be allowed to in almost every ork list. Something like that would make boyz AMAZING. Their flyers got more expensive, but 3x twin linked lascannons on a flyer/hover mount still sounds damn good to me.

I get that they may not be the best thing around, what with eldar and necron nonsense, but I at least thought they were at least decent.

What makes them good? Or bad? Were there any major changes from their last codex?

Bear in mind this is from the perspective of an ork player, so I'm kind of looking up from the bottom and wondering what all the racket is about.

Its just a book with a lot of expensive options that hasn't kept up with power creep. No giant mega formation, very few other formations, few powerful abilities available, and lots of useless units.

The book is getting old now. Cant compare to newer dexs and vehicles die super easy.

Even when it first came out I was sweeping aside my friends AM army. I play Tau and he is a sub par player.

He can barely get a kill on me sometimes. I know the codex isn't that bad. He just sucks in how he plays the game.

He can't even beat orks or CSM by a guy who is nearly as bad as him at 40k.

Edit
If I try give the guy advice he doesn't listen to me. He is paranoid I'm trying to sabotage him and too proud to accept help. Ye too stupid to solve the issue of playing better.

If you utilize Forgeworld to get thudd guns, sabre platforms, vultures, Beast Hunter tanks, and get creative with fortifications or allies they are still competitive.

But yeah they could use a power creep for the people who just wanna go with plain AM.

They got the 7 th ed nurfhammer, when GW decided that for whatever reasons they were finally going to fix all the things that were strong in fifth (instead of fixing the things that were strong in 7th)

The pointless nerfs to Grey Knights, DE Venoms and Wytches, Ork KFFs and Killa Kanz, IG Leman Russes and Manticores, and Space Wolf Grey Hunters were all part of that great and unfathomably bizarre period. It was like stepping into a time warp, watching GW go "AT LONG LAST YOU WILL BE FREE FROM THE TYRANNY OF VENOMS" in a meta that revolves around ignores-cover serpent shields.

For all we know, we're still in that meta.

"THE POOR ELDAR !! WRAITHKNIGHTS ARE DYING LEFT AND RIGHT TO MASSIVELY POWERFUL SNIPER WEAPONRY! WE MUST SAVE THEM!"

 Gamgee wrote:
Even when it first came out I was sweeping aside my friends AM army. I play Tau and he is a sub par player.

He can barely get a kill on me sometimes. I know the codex isn't that bad. He just sucks in how he plays the game.

He can't even beat orks or CSM by a guy who is nearly as bad as him at 40k.

Edit
If I try give the guy advice he doesn't listen to me. He is paranoid I'm trying to sabotage him and too proud to accept help. Ye too stupid to solve the issue of playing better.

As if you can run his army vs the other guy's Orks/CSM a few times, and let him watch you.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
In reading the forums, I've seen a couple discussions of "who is the worst", and I see things like CSM, orks, sisters referenced, which I understand. But I also see IG mentioned as being pretty bad.

I'll admit, I don't see a lot of guard in my local wargaming scene, but I always thought IG were at the very least decent. Their infantry isn't great, but it's plentiful and can really put out some massive firepower. Their vehicles are plentiful, tough, and pack a punch.

Here's the problem. The infantry isn't great and really doesn't pack all that much of a punch relative to what other armies are now able to put out or what they're able to resist. IG heavy weapons teams are amongst the most fragile, least effective, and least cost effective heavy weapons units in the game. Basic 5pt guardsmen, while looking initially cheap on paper, really aren't even worth those 5pts anymore.

Meanwhile, most of the tanks, even many of the (recently reduced in cost) Leman Russ variants, are way too expensive. The Chimera got unnecessarily nerfed, and most of the vehicles are simply too expensive and/or easy to kill for what they cost with the "Hull Points" system introduced with 6E. For instance, ~130pts Hellhound variants, that still have to buy smoke launchers, is rather absurd. 125pts for a Basilisk with a minimum 36" indirect fire range is ridiculous. Then we've got Leman Russ tanks that don't quite function. Executioners are likely to kill themselves without any assistance from an opponent for a 6 turn game. LRBT's and Demolishers can't make use of hull and sponson weaponry due to the Heavy rule not accounting for Ordnance weapons. Vanquishers can't effectively kill tanks with such a low volume of fire weapon and the damage table largely being irrelevant next to HP kill.

There's also been a very wide and strong proliferation of weapons that just simply do not care about AV and are highly capable of destroying 3HP tanks very quickly. Gauss, Haywire, Grav, Destroyer, etc. This is on top of almost all IG vehicles effectively being auto-killed if anything but the most depleted and incapable units make it into base contact due to the way vehicles are attacked in CC.

Orders also are just too funky. They don't work with vehicles (which is really where they need to work) unlike say, Eldar Psyker support, and are really very situational and easily shut down.

What also just "works" in 7E isn't what worked in other editions. Volume of fire is king. Blasts don't really do that (especially against vehicles/monsters). IG can bring lots of blasts, but other armies really bring a whole lot more raw rate of fire. Compare the sheer volume of quality (i.e. not lasgun) fire an Eldar or Space Marine or AdMech army is able to put out relative to an IG army.

Formations are another issue. They give a huge grip of absolutely ridiculous free abilities/models/wargear/special rules/etc for zero cost. My last game against an Admech army it was my 1850 against almost 2500pts of AdMech because their formation didn't make them pay for upgrades and let them ignore Gets Hot. Didn't end well for obvious reasons. IG have very few formations and none of them really good.

Wyverns sound absolutely amazing.

Wyverns are very good...against certain targets. You catch a clumped up Ork mob with a Wyvern battery, it's gone. However, against a dispersed Marine unit or just about anything Necron, they're not going to do much. Against anything that's sporting T5 or better, or is a vehicle, they're not doing much, if anything.

Priests are similarly amazing. 25 points for a slotless IC, with a 4++, to give any group I want fearless, hatred, reroll wounds, etc, etc - I'd bring as many as I'd be allowed to in almost every ork list.

Yes, in an Ork list you would. The issue is that IG can't make as effective use of something like that. You put them in a 60pt Veteran squad and you've just increased the points cost by almost 50% but that's not increasing their actual tabletop value by 50%. The Priests are really only worth it in very large (30-50 model) blob platoon squads, in which case, yes, they're invaluable, but there's a very large number of hardcounters to large weeny infantry units and much more capability to snipe models (like Priests) out of units than in previous editions.

Their flyers got more expensive, but 3x twin linked lascannons on a flyer/hover mount still sounds damn good to me.

The Vendetta isn't bad (not great anymore either however), but the Valkyrie is very definitely overpriced for a unit that packs almost no punch and ferries around T3 5+sv (4+ at best) weeny infantry that usually cost less than the Valkyrie itself. I actually mostly stopped using Vendettas once they became Flyers, because they weren't on the board first turn anymore, greatly negating their value for that critical turn 1 alpha strike.

I get that they may not be the best thing around, what with eldar and necron nonsense, but I at least thought they were at least decent.

Relative to Orks and other early 7E books, they're not terrible. however, much like Orks, they're not terribly capable against the post-January 7E armies.

What makes them good? Or bad? Were there any major changes from their last codex?

Basically, they got a nerfing of units which were strong in 5th edition...about six weeks before 7th edition came out, without addressing any of the units that had been longstanding absolute crap (e.g. Ogryns, Heavy Weapons teams, etc) and a removal of half the characters and most of the artillery from the Codex, and never got their vehicles rebalanced to the new "Hull Points" and "skimmers are better" 6E/7E vehicle paradigm.

Then of course, starting with Necrons, GW switched design paradigms 6 months into 7E and started really ramping up power levels.

TuddFudders wrote:
If you utilize Forgeworld to get thudd guns, sabre platforms, vultures, Beast Hunter tanks, and get creative with fortifications or allies they are still competitive.

Thudd Guns aren't doing anything Wyverns aren't doing better. Sabre platforms are snapshotting against anything that isn't flying. Beast Hunter shells aren't just a generic option you can take on anything, you only get to use them on ~200/230pt+ (after kit) Vanquishers in HQ/Elites slots in an Armoured Battlegroup list.

TuddFudders wrote:
If you utilize Forgeworld to get thudd guns, sabre platforms, vultures, Beast Hunter tanks, and get creative with fortifications or allies they are still competitive.

Thudd Guns aren't doing anything Wyverns aren't doing better. Sabre platforms are snapshotting against anything that isn't flying. Beast Hunter shells aren't just a generic option you can take on anything, you only get to use them on ~200/230pt+ (after kit) Vanquishers in HQ/Elites slots in an Armoured Battlegroup list.

Thudd guns are tougher and can be given orders/spells to do some crazy stuff. Either way it is preference between wyverns and thudd guns.

Lascannon Sabre Platforms are still great for 50 points as objective holders and still hit 33% of the time on land targets with TL. They are still better then Hydras in almost every way being tougher, cheaper, and actually have interceptor.

Beast hunter shells are not hard to get cause you just ally with armored group battalion to take those same tanks you would have taken anyways. Besides you can keep them under 200 points and still get a better tank at BS4 with co-axial gun TL capabilities. When your one shotting riptides, tyranids, and still have the ability to use vanguard shells to bust tanks, it is totally worth it.

The biggest problem guard have is for anything to be effective you have to spam the ever loving heck out of it. It's hard to build a well synergized, TAACs list.

TuddFudders wrote:

TuddFudders wrote:
If you utilize Forgeworld to get thudd guns, sabre platforms, vultures, Beast Hunter tanks, and get creative with fortifications or allies they are still competitive.

Thudd Guns aren't doing anything Wyverns aren't doing better. Sabre platforms are snapshotting against anything that isn't flying. Beast Hunter shells aren't just a generic option you can take on anything, you only get to use them on ~200/230pt+ (after kit) Vanquishers in HQ/Elites slots in an Armoured Battlegroup list.

Thudd guns are tougher and can be given orders/spells to do some crazy stuff. Either way it is preference between wyverns and thudd guns.

Most of the crazy stuff you'd do with Orders and Psychic Powers, the Wyvern already inherently does (ignore cover, twin-linked). True, the Thudd Guns are more resilient to shooting if something can draw LoS or barrage them back (both are practically auto-killed in CC) but the Wyverns aren't vulnerable to Ld issues and can move if they need to.

Lascannon Sabre Platforms are still great for 50 points as objective holders and still hit 33% of the time on land targets with TL. They are still better then Hydras in almost every way being tougher, cheaper, and actually have interceptor.

True, though to be fair, after they violated the Hydra the way they did, that's not saying much anymore

Beast hunter shells are not hard to get cause you just ally with armored group battalion to take those same tanks you would have taken anyways. Besides you can keep them under 200 points and still get a better tank at BS4 with co-axial gun TL capabilities. When your one shotting riptides, tyranids, and still have the ability to use vanguard shells to bust tanks, it is totally worth it.

You can only keep it under 200 if you give up taking a hull lascannon and any BS4 sponson weapons, drastically reducing the overall firepower and flexibility of the platform, and still have to take at least one Troops unit from the battlegroup as well. I mean, the Beasthunter shell is nice, don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful thing when it works out, but for the investment you're putting in to take it even as just an allied detachment (typically ~400pts of armored battlegroup), you'd probably have similar success with other options.

As a recovering IG payer i have to say that painting and assembling 130 minis is no walk in the park.

Also general lack of infantry tactics.

IG suffer from the notion they "can't be as good as marines"... That's a fine notion if power creep didn't exist. As everything gets better, how can you make IG better without making them better than the worst SM? -With power creep you need basic guardsmen that are approaching Stormtrooper levels of capabilities with the old level of capability of guardsmen now being relegated to something lesser like penal troops or conscripts. How that should be accomplished? -I don't know.

 aka_mythos wrote:
IG suffer from the notion they "can't be as good as marines"... That's a fine notion if power creep didn't exist. As everything gets better, how can you make IG better without making them better than the worst SM? -With power creep you need basic guardsmen that are approaching Stormtrooper levels of capabilities with the old level of capability of guardsmen now being relegated to something lesser like penal troops or conscripts. How that should be accomplished? -I don't know.

Easy an STC was found that gives them all better gear. Thanks built in lore reasons for an upgrade.

The problem I find with IG is they have no mobility in a game where 11/12 of the missions in the book are solely about moving around the table and grabbing objectives. They're mobility options are either expensive (Valkyries), are fragile (Chimeras and Tauroxs), or are just bad (Rough Riders). IG have good damage but that requires them to take units that don't move in order to shoot well (like the Wyvern). Combined with power creep and the fact that they weren't that strong even when they're 7ed codex was just released it's pretty obvious why they are considered a weak codex.

Dont get me wrong, as a IG player I'm used to picking up handfuls of guardsmen but it's moved far beyond that. While in the grand history of 40k the codex is relatively new, with the current trend it's old and showing its age/edition.

I personally mitigate it with creative use of fortifications.

(and before any SOB players jump in. YES WE KNOW)

Other factions (like SM) do what the Guard do but better now thanks to codex creep. Before the new decurion-tier dexs IG was the only Imperial faction with tank squadrons, and the ability to field a massive amount of vehicles on the cheap.

Not only have vehicles been nerfed, but now SM's can take tank squadrons (even though the very idea of tank squadrons without split fire is terrible, it was still something we had over them) and they have the Battle Company to get free transports. So now SM can flood the board with armor, and have access to drop pods which...well...do drop pod things.

Yea. I'm a bitter IG player. They took out my favorite character Captain Chenkov. He made playing conscript blobs fun and even broken at times. I know that you can fearless blobs with priests now but it just isn't quite as fun.

I love tank commanders, but the point increases on nearly all good units in the dex was a huge blow considering many great units in other dexes got cheaper.

One hilarious thing I see in a lot of the IG wishlist threads these days is people clamoring for autocannon chimera turrets and for the Vulture and Vendetta to be put in the dex. I wish these people would wake up and realize that won't ever happen. We even had FW artillery units IN OUR 5TH ED CODEX REMOVED. Why would they put any of it in a new dex? They have literally no reason to do so when GW can force you spend more money on the FW books for these things. I'm just getting tired of seeing it because I know it won't happen. GW will not step on FW's toes, there is literally no money in it for them to do so.

I don't count on seeing a new IG dex until next year at the earliest. The SM dex lasted 2 years I think, and they are the poster boys. I think we're going to be waiting quite a while.

 Vaktathi wrote:
125pts for a Basilisk with a minimum 36" indirect fire range is ridiculous.

Just a quick side-note: Minimum range simply means that while the Basilisk can shoot at closer targets, it will always scatter the full distance. Yes, that sucks, but not quite as much as being unable to shoot at anything closer than 36" at all.

(Not implying you don't know, but for people reading this it could be they forgot or don't know about that tidbit.)

The AM is not actually a 7th edition codex though. It's a sixth. You'll see an update. Next year though as you said.

Tau are coming. Rumors of a Kroot Mercenaries Codex as well in January 2016 ish time. So if that is true and so far most of these have been fairly accurate then it means you have a rough idea of when to expect an update.

I don't see GW changing our mobility scheme anytime soon... I find my tanks sufficiently mobile when I decide they need to move and the army overall so with Taurox and Valks. The problem is that to get the most out of Chimeras and to optimize survivability you don't want to move them all that much. So it's not a lack of capability. IF IG can't accomplish objectives because they require IG to be more mobile then makes sense, it's either thematically appropriate based on the fictional need for marines or it's time for GW to give us objective that fit the armie's play style.

 JTFirefly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
125pts for a Basilisk with a minimum 36" indirect fire range is ridiculous.

Just a quick side-note: Minimum range simply means that while the Basilisk can shoot at closer targets, it will always scatter the full distance. Yes, that sucks, but not quite as much as being unable to shoot at anything closer than 36" at all.

(Not implying you don't know, but for people reading this it could be they forgot or don't know about that tidbit.)

That is wrong. The minimum distance is for when you fire indirectly. If you fire directly you can ignore the minimum distance (but you need LoS to the target)

I've said it ebfore, but IG are basicly as effective in an edition as tanks are. tanks are considerably easier to kill then they used to be, so IG are not as strong

IG have been alright in my experience. I've played in some tournaments with them and played a good number of 7th ed games, many with allied things like the Ground Assault Formation out of the Militarum Tempestus codex. They're a great allied army since they can make for cheap objective holders, a screen of cheap infantry for your more elite stuff, or some pretty powerful fire support. That being said, heavy weapon squads are ludicrously fragile, and a lot of the Leman Russes can't even utilize all their weapons properly. There are a good number of useless units, and there's not much in the book that really wows you.

Personally, I think the Orders system is awesome,even if it can be pretty situational. I still enjoy playing the army, and I usually do pretty well with them. That being said, I wouldn't say no to a 7th ed upgrade.

My local group is of the opinion that Astra Militarum were designed lean on allies in order to prop up their shortcomings. I can't say that I disgree with them.

How could that be?Non of the 6th ed books were writen that way, neither were any armies who got their codex later.

Makumba wrote:
How could that be?Non of the 6th ed books were writen that way, neither were any armies who got their codex later.

not true, plenty of micro 'dexes where written that way. and I imagine in 7th ed GW figured Grey Knights would likely take Inq allies.

I don't think AM where designed to NEED allies, but they certinly benifit from them, as allies is their best source of "individually potent elites"

Only GK work fine alone and the Imperial Guard codex was not a micro dex. IG do not benefit from ally more then other factions, and as we don't realy have a 1+1=2 system as far as power level go, they are actualy worse off. A GK player taking sm ally will get a lot more buffs, then an IG player taking marine ally.

In fact playing with ally offten ends with people first switching IG from main part of the list to ally, and then droping them or runing them to get wyverns.

I always scratch my head a bit when people are unhappy with guard as I am having a ton of success. AV 14 tanks with a 3 up cover save (ageis and camo netting) bubble wrapped by a 40 man infantry blob with 4 lascannon teams with Cortez attached. 30 conscripts with a priest or commissar, (I prefer commissar because I can go to ground). I use a couple of vet squads in chimera's for mobility and usually a command squad with flamers or plasma in a vendetta.

The key imo is to use your orders well (ignore cover on the lascannons are a favorite), make use of your command traits and guard can be a very good army.

cnpopo wrote:
I always scratch my head a bit when people are unhappy with guard as I am having a ton of success. AV 14 tanks with a 3 up cover save (ageis and camo netting) bubble wrapped by a 40 man infantry blob with 4 lascannon teams with Cortez attached. 30 conscripts with a priest or commissar, (I prefer commissar because I can go to ground). I use a couple of vet squads in chimera's for mobility and usually a command squad with flamers or plasma in a vendetta.

The key imo is to use your orders well (ignore cover on the lascannons are a favorite), make use of your command traits and guard can be a very good army.

There's a huge number of ways to disrupt that. There's a reason armies like this (and IG armies in general) aren't placing well (much less winning) in tournaments.

There's more Ignores Cover than ever before, and more weapons that simply do not care about high AV (e.g. Destroyer, Grav, Gauss, Hawywire, etc) and in greater quantity, than ever before. There are innumerable hardcounters to infantry screens, and typically every army can deal with such rather well, even if it's just pulling them off into a singular mass CC and opening gaps for the other stuff to get through. Necrons in particular simply eat that kind of army alive with almost no losses. A drop pod army that manuevers even halfway carefully around Coteaz can still find itself pulling off a tremendous alpha strike.

Plus, if you are hiding behind your aegis line, you may often end up in situations where LoS or range can be used against you and your firebase cannot be brought to bear on an opponent.

Even with a setup like that, and you manage to out-kill your opponent, it's so static that you leave the field to an opponent in objective based missions and make it relatively easy to bottle you up while they snag or contest everything.

cnpopo wrote:
I always scratch my head a bit when people are unhappy with guard as I am having a ton of success. AV 14 tanks with a 3 up cover save (ageis and camo netting) bubble wrapped by a 40 man infantry blob with 4 lascannon teams with Cortez attached. 30 conscripts with a priest or commissar, (I prefer commissar because I can go to ground). I use a couple of vet squads in chimera's for mobility and usually a command squad with flamers or plasma in a vendetta.

The key imo is to use your orders well (ignore cover on the lascannons are a favorite), make use of your command traits and guard can be a very good army.

Now I will ignore the fact that it is impossible to get a inquisition codex to run coteaz for me, but tell me how does you army score objectives? The blast tanks and 4 lascannons are laughable fire power compering what most other armies can do. You have 0 options to counter tyranids or demon lists that summon. Anything that can ignore cover will just slaughter your army. People don't even have to use tailored lists or anti IG stuff to destroy static blob guard.