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.

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I would have thought most militaries would have been smart enough to move on to shovels like Spetnaz along with Trench Clubs like WW1 Trench Raiders. After all, those are the weapons which actually worked when modern militaries moved to actual close combat... :S

Vaktathi was referring to the rarity of close combat in modern warfare. Rarity of opportunity does not diminish the viability of a tactic that is specific in its application.

You are aware that our troops also train in unarmed fighting techniques, and yet you're not clamoring for that... :S

aka_mythos wrote:The fact that it has been used even in a limited capacity is proof of that.

The very newsworthiness of the exception proves the rule. Akin to crowing about 70-year old women giving birth to sextuplets as "normal".

aka_mythos wrote:The point of it is that an organized disciplined force working in concert together in close combat perform better than less disciplined troops,

Nobody disputes that.

aka_mythos wrote:Trench fighting was far from organized and most often the discipline and training for that sort of fight was poor.

That is totally untrue. If anything, there was *more* preparation and discipline required. Trench raiders, German storm troopers / sturmpioneeren were elites and highly disciplined and trained above the ordinary guys manning the trenches. Taking a trench too considerable effort.

aka_mythos wrote:Single handed close combat weapons like a trench club only outshine the bayonet in the trenches where its impossible to be organized in such a way as to exploit the bayonet's advantages.

OK, then which is more akin to 40k warfare: bayonet-friendly combat in the open, or close-combat in cover?

aka_mythos wrote:Your comment proves your unwillingness to seriously consider this aspect of the discussion

Correct. Because it's not possible to take any 40k discussion seriously when it contains the word "bayonet".

aka_mythos wrote:because you ignored the two main components of my response by making a puerile response.

Untrue. To be honest, I considered the rest of your response unworthy of additional discussion. And as far as ignoring goes, aren't you the one who chooses to ignore the facts of "modern" close combat (i.e. last 100 years) because they don't support your position?

aka_mythos wrote:1) That effectiveness in close combat its as much about the discipline and organization as it is the weapon
2) In a universe that is closer to fantasy than reality, where close combat is 100 times more common than a modern battlefield, basic infantry would receive training to optimize the advantage of number and organization over a less disciplined unit.

The last time close combat figured heavily in anything close to the modern era was WW1. In this time, the most effective weapons were shovels and trench clubs. Trench Raiders would leave their rifles and bayonets *behind*.

In the current era, bayonet drill is more discipline and show than anything else. Most (non-American) militaries goose-step when they march. That is discipline, not practical. Or are you next going to argue that goose-stepping has some kind of in-combat utility?

I'm back to what I'm trying to pound home. Why in a world where there are all these creatures that want to rip people up in close combat would some if not all IG not receive close combat training that brings out their numerical advantage?

If the modern military were fighting in wars where they knew they'd be engaged in close combat in every battle they'd use bayonets or equally worthwhile close combat tactics. The fact that it is rare to see that sort of close combat in a modern fight does not mean that if constantly forced into close combat with every engagement they'd just throw their hand up in the air. My point is if the modern military still sees it as being beneficial to train bayonet and close combat skill when few enemies engage in that way then when they're placed in a setting where the enemy actively tries to engage in that type of fighting they would have actively prepared for it.

Hand to hand fight, martial arts, shovels and clubs are nice and all in close combat but those are what represent the normal single attack of a guardsmen. COD is representing an extended close combat ability that accentuates numerical advantage and the superiority of the IG.

COD is the IG attempt to impose order and organization to the mad and mostly disorganized brawl that close combat would otherwise represent to the IG command.

aka_mythos wrote:Hand to hand fight, martial arts, shovels and clubs are nice and all in close combat but those are what represent the normal single attack of a guardsmen. COD is representing an extended close combat ability that accentuates numerical advantage and the superiority of the IG.

Bingo. Couldn't have put it better myself.

BYE

I'm just going to quickly point out all the logical fallacies and dishonest debating tactics that our good friend DD is guilty of here.

JohnHwangDD wrote:You are aware that our troops also train in unarmed fighting techniques, and yet you're not clamoring for that... :S

Red Herring. Boarderline Strawman.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The very newsworthiness of the exception proves the rule. Akin to crowing about 70-year old women giving birth to sextuplets as "normal".

False analogy.

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, then which is more akin to 40k warfare: bayonet-friendly combat in the open, or close-combat in cover?

Burden of proof.

Mythos is arguing what already exists within the game and the fluff. He doesn't have to prove what already exists. You have to prove otherwise DD.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Correct. Because it's not possible to take any 40k discussion seriously when it contains the word "bayonet".

*checks Guard models*

Wow! Look how many Guard models have a bayonette DD! Heaps of them!!

You fail.

Again.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Untrue. To be honest, I considered the rest of your response unworthy of additional discussion.

Ad hominem.
Changing the rules mid-argument.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And as far as ignoring goes, aren't you the one who chooses to ignore the facts of "modern" close combat (i.e. last 100 years) because they don't support your position?

Begging the question.
Strawman.

40K combat involves men armed with swords and fixed bayonette charges. Nothing DD says will change this, so he is attempting to skew things off course with meaningless nonsense.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The last time close combat figured heavily in anything close to the modern era was WW1. In this time, the most effective weapons were shovels and trench clubs. Trench Raiders would leave their rifles and bayonets *behind*.

Red Herring.

This has nothing to do with Guardsmen, who are shown to, in opposition to this, use their rifles and their bayonettes. Those not using these weapons, either have special/heavy weapons, or swords.

JohnHwangDD wrote:In the current era, bayonet drill is more discipline and show than anything else. Most (non-American) militaries goose-step when they march. That is discipline, not practical. Or are you next going to argue that goose-stepping has some kind of in-combat utility?

Red Herring.
OJ Simpson Defence (ie. post so much so quickly forcing your opponent to fight on your terms rather than you, yourself proving or disproving innocence).

And once again, none of this has anything to do with Guardsmen.

BYE

It seems to me that you can go pound sand all day long, and it still won't make any sense.

If the modern military were fighting wars with lots of close combat, they won't screw around with bayonets, that's for sure. They'll all be issued either shovels (weighted axes, really) or clubs, because those are the kinds of weapons that actually work. If the enemy is heavily-armored, they'll take a page from the middle ages and move on to pole arms or pick-axes, again, because that is what actually works.

My point is that you continue to focus on the stupid (*BAYONET* drill) part of the training, rather than the smart (bayonet *DRILL*) point of the training. The modern military sees no particular benefit in bayonet drill separate from marching *DRILL* or hand-to-hand combat *DRILL*, so it is foolish to consider it material.

Those modern militaries which actually do focus on close combat with weapons to actually kill people train in useful things like shovels (i.e. Spetsnaz). The rest of the militaries that train in Close Quarter Battles focus on things like pistols.

And even when you get around to bayonet training, they aren't practicing actually fighting that way as something like a pike square, because a modern rifle with a bayonet isn't long enough to really be useful this way (an M-16 is about 40" long; add a bayonet, and it's still less than 4' total length. Newsflash, but even a short fighting spear would be at least 6' long, and a proper pike would be far longer yet again. So really, you're better off swinging your rifle like a club...

Way back in the Napoleonic times, when troops were armed with 5' muskets and bayonets were 1.5' long, the total length is pretty comparable to things like Halberds which actually were in use.


So if you're pretending that the IG are somehow rational, when no other army in 40k is rational, then you should conclude that that IG won't waste time on close combat training because "sucking a little bit less" is still sucking. If bayonets aren't particularly useful for fighting against other lightly-armored humans, then they won't be useful for fighting against heavily-armored superhumans, giant walking fungi, space elves, or giant bugs.

And quite frankly, the very notion that IG shoudn't simply roll over and die in HtH is quite distateful to me. The typical Guardsman should be distinctly inferior in HtH, in every way, shape, and form. They're just humans, and any notion of their ability to impose "order" in HtH against distinctly superior opponents is laughable at best.

Apropos:

JohnHwangDD wrote:It seems to me that you can go pound sand all day long, and it still won't make any sense.

That's kinda what talking to you feels like DD. Were you attempting to be funny there, or are you just unintentionally ironic?

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:If the modern military were fighting wars with lots of close combat, they won't screw around with bayonets, that's for sure. They'll all be issued either shovels (weighted axes, really) or clubs, because those are the kinds of weapons that actually work. If the enemy is heavily-armored, they'll take a page from the middle ages and move on to pole arms or pick-axes, again, because that is what actually works.

The advantage of a bayonet over alternative weapons is that minimizes the dead weight. It utilizes what a soldier already has to carry without adding to it. While a pole arm would be more useful as a spear in close combat the soldier would benefit to the exclusion from close combat. Once again though anything other than a pole arm or bayonet would be covered in the basic single guardsmen attack.

Obviously the GW designer believed it to be a viable ability and tactic in the 40k universe or it wouldn't have been included.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
My point is that you continue to focus on the stupid (*BAYONET* drill) part of the training, rather than the smart (bayonet *DRILL*) point of the training. The modern military sees no particular benefit in bayonet drill separate from marching *DRILL* or hand-to-hand combat *DRILL*, so it is foolish to consider it material.

Please clarify the distinction of stupid bayonet drills and smart bayonet drills.

The reason modern militaries continue to utilize bayonets is for a number of reason:
-effectiveness as a weapon for guards to oversee and coral prisoners as well as for crowd control
-effectiveness of training in building upper body strength
-effectiveness of the bayonet as a weapon of last resort

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Those modern militaries which actually do focus on close combat with weapons to actually kill people train in useful things like shovels (i.e. Spetsnaz). The rest of the militaries that train in Close Quarter Battles focus on things like pistols.

Close Quarters Battles are not the same as close combat. Close quarter battles as a military terms implies a short ranged combat, that can occur from a short stand off range and in to hand to hand combat. In 40k terms it would be the last 6" between two units, charge into assault is not a guarantee but highly probable. The focus of CQB is to violently take down an enemy before they have the opportunity to kill you or engage in hand to hand. This is why the emphasis by western militaries is pistols and other short ranged ranged take down weapons.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And even when you get around to bayonet training, they aren't practicing actually fighting that way as something like a pike square, because a modern rifle with a bayonet isn't long enough to really be useful this way (an M-16 is about 40" long; add a bayonet, and it's still less than 4' total length. Newsflash, but even a short fighting spear would be at least 6' long, and a proper pike would be far longer yet again. So really, you're better off swinging your rifle like a club...

A lasgun based on its size relative to a guardsmen's height is 5ft long, with a bayonet its 6ft. Also COD is a squad based tactic and not a platoon wide tactic, it is only utilized on a squad to squad basis, unlike a pike square.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
So if you're pretending that the IG are somehow rational, when no other army in 40k is rational, then you should conclude that that IG won't waste time on close combat training because "sucking a little bit less" is still sucking. If bayonets aren't particularly useful for fighting against other lightly-armored humans, then they won't be useful for fighting against heavily-armored superhumans, giant walking fungi, space elves, or giant bugs.

It is not any sort of superiority of rationale; all armies in the 40k have a rationale of some sort and they excel in that area. The rationale is that IG would exploit their numbers and command organization. The bayonet is a weapon that has historically shown its worth against humans, but it is a weapon with a specific use and advantage that are of minimal consequence in modern warfare. It is the specific scenario in which those advantages excel that made it of benefit historically and it is those same situations present in the 40k universe and its close combat centric nature.

The simplicity of the rationale is this, guardsmen has big knife, guardsmen has 5ft long lasgun... hey look you put it together and throw in a couple of extra days of training while traveling through the warp and with a minimal amount of resources you've improved combat performance in area where the IG tradionally suffer.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And quite frankly, the very notion that IG shoudn't simply roll over and die in HtH is quite distateful to me. The typical Guardsman should be distinctly inferior in HtH, in every way, shape, and form. They're just humans, and any notion of their ability to impose "order" in HtH against distinctly superior opponents is laughable at best.

Humans have always attempted to impose order in close combat and the ones who impose it best are the ones who succeed. Organized melees were the focus of combat till the advent of machine guns and explosives, but in the case of the 40k universe not everyone uses those things in preference to close combat. I by no means think a guardsmen is going to just roll over and die but that same rationale of survival is why I would believe the IG would take the pragmatic approach of utilizing their provided gear and historically based tactics to exploit their advantage. It might not be a big advantage, but it can make a difference.

aka_mythos wrote:I'm not trying to nail down a true point cost in my analysis, I was making comparisons to the most similar vehicles to produce a range of costs based on relatively similar units.

Then in that case, we can ignore the Predator entirely.

aka_mythos wrote:Previously I said an AV12/12 is worth between 60 and 65pts in 5E, not an AV12/11 which I said would cost in approximately 10 points less.

And I'm saying that you're wrong, and that your points costs are much too high in both cases. And at the end, you're suggesting *exactly* 15 points less for AV12/11.

aka_mythos wrote:All arguments on comparisons to rhinos and razorbacks aside comparing your proposal for a chimera to a predator creates a unit that is only a marginal step below a predator but only 2/3rds the cost. I would love to be able to field that many predator equivalent tanks but I'd feel like dirt because it's a bit broken.

To get a Chimera, you need to spend 50+ pts on Guardsmen, because it is a Dedicated Transport. You don't get to buy a Chimera by itself, like a Predator. You must always buy Guardsmen first, like a Razorback or Rhino.

But I suppose we could equalize the Chimera points cost at 60 pts. Hell, we could even charge 70 pts for a Chimera. However, we'd have to lower the cost of Guardsmen down to around 30 pts per squad in the former, 20 pts per squad in the latter.

And the result of doing so would make Chimeras unfieldable compared to foot-slogging or Deep-Striking Guardsmen of any type. Nobody is going to pay 60 or 70 pts for a Chimera when you can buy more than another full squad of Guardsmen with full weapons upgrades. Proportionally, you take the Guard a step backwards with this kind of thinking, as today, a Guard squad is roughly comparable in cost to a Chimera.

Any rational Chimera costing needs the Chimera to cost noticeably less than the Guardsmen within, because the Guard should be about the Guardsmen, not their Transports.

So I say, 45-50 pts for the Guardsmen, and 40 pts for the Chimera. This gives an appropriate total points cost per mech unit, and doesn't unduly bias against Mech Guard compared to footsloggers or Drop Troops.

aka_mythos wrote:On a fluff level I find it hard to believe that IG officers would consider guardsmen as being worth a level of protection superior to what marines have.

Marines have AV14/14/14 Land Raiders, and nobody is suggesting that Guardsmen have that level of protection available to them.

aka_mythos wrote:I think its a bit of circular logic for you to qualify a chimera as a medium tank because you have given it AV12 on the side.

Except, in 3E and 4E, for most intents and purposes, the Chimera was effectively AV12/12 because you could control which facing the opponent shot at, so you could limit them to shooting at the AV12 front instead of the AV10 sides. Also, because Chimeras never moved forward, but simply operated as an AV12 pillbox.

All of the forward-moving activity was done by AV12/12 Hellhounds, AV14/12 Russes, or AV14/13 Demolishers. Interestingly, all of these vehicles have AV12+ sides. Imagine that.

aka_mythos wrote:The panzer was a medium tank do you really believe something akin to that would be assigned to many squads. I'm all for making the Chimera more worthwhile, but I'm not out for a steal.

Standard US Doctrine assigns a Bradley to our mech brigades for heavy combat. The combat protection of a Bradley is very high. Much higher than something like a LAV. I'd say that a Bradley is like an AV12/12 Chimera.

The Israelis take this to an even higher level, converting their older Merkava I & II MBTs into Ambulances and APCs. So when you look at infantry protection in a very hostile environment, I think the Israeli example speaks for itself.

aka_mythos wrote:With all the disadvantages of a Razorback and the advantages of your AV12/12 chimera, their is no way they can be equal. I mean if we're going to take into consideration abstract negative costs, what about the fact that a 6 man marine squad can't take any special or heavy weapons that's got to be worth a couple negative points.

Except, that's not what the Codex says. The Codex simply says they can take their choice of Rhino or Razorback. So what you should be nothing is that a 10-man Marine squad with Heavy and Special can take a Razorback, leaving the 5 guys with the Heavy to stay put and provide cover fire, while the Sergeant and Special hop a ride in the Razorback. On net, the Marines have clearly superior options, because they don't have to be exactly 10 men, and if they are, they still have access to the Razorback, and they even have Combat Squads as icing on the cake.

aka_mythos wrote:By your system marine rhino is 35pts, sisters of battle rhino 30pts?

By GW's system, SM Rhino is 35 pts, which sets the reference point for everything else in the game. But if we were doing "exact" points, and pretended that Sisters at 11 pts were as fair as Marines at 16 pts (the Sisters are actually slightly under-points relative to 16-pt Marines), then I might price the Sisters Rhino at 33 or 34 pts, or split hairs even finer at 33.5 pts. However, because the 5-pt increments on which Rhino prices are set means that you can't make a price difference here. So a Sisters Rhino is also worth the same 35 pts when you round the prices to 5-pt increments.

aka_mythos wrote:Or how about a landraider and a Grey Knight landraider, grey knight terminators are that much more powerful than standard terminators, should their landraider be 270pts instead?

Except, Grey Knight Terminators with are *not* more powerful than standard Terminators. Or rather, 46-pt GK Termies with a 60+ pt Captain are not better than 40-pt Assault Terminators with paired Lightning Claws (the Assault Terminators are better against both MEQs *and* GEQs...). And certainly not when points are considered.

aka_mythos wrote:I still say 45-50pts for AV12/11 two heavy bolters.

Um, didn't you say approximately 10 points less than 60-65?

aka_mythos wrote:Obviously the GW designer believed it to be a viable ability and tactic in the 40k universe or it wouldn't have been included.

As a random thing that only exists in IG4, with Doctrines to be phased out in the next Codex? Or as something more meaningful?

If you have the old 40k3-era WDs with the Q&A letters column, the GW designers put the kibosh on IG Bayonets being actually deserving of bonus rules. But hey, far be it for me to contradict GW's actual statements on the topic.

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
My point is that you continue to focus on the stupid (*BAYONET* drill) part of the training, rather than the smart (bayonet *DRILL*) point of the training. The modern military sees no particular benefit in bayonet drill separate from marching *DRILL* or hand-to-hand combat *DRILL*, so it is foolish to consider it material.

Please clarify the distinction of stupid bayonet drills and smart bayonet drills.

Please don't be deliberately obtuse. I believe the *EMPHASIS* above to be exceptionally clear.

aka_mythos wrote:Close Quarters Battles are not the same as close combat. Close quarter battles as a military terms implies a short ranged combat, that can occur from a short stand off range and in to hand to hand combat.

In 40k, one would assume them to be the same, based on the scale of the game.

aka_mythos wrote:A lasgun based on its size relative to a guardsmen's height is 5ft long, with a bayonet its 6ft.

A lasgun based on its side relative to a Guardsman's height is also has a cross section larger than a 4x4... I don't think you should read anything into the specific scaling of the 40k weapons on models.

aka_mythos wrote:It is not any sort of superiority of rationale; all armies in the 40k have a rationale of some sort and they excel in that area.

In the case of IG, I take that to be their pie-throwing tanks.

aka_mythos wrote: The rationale is that IG would exploit their numbers and command organization.

Then give them free Vox, instead! Something that scales with their numbers and accentuates their command in all phases of the game. :S

aka_mythos wrote:The simplicity of the rationale is this, guardsmen has big knife, guardsmen has 5ft long lasgun... hey look you put it together and throw in a couple of extra days of training while traveling through the warp and with a minimal amount of resources you've improved combat performance in area where the IG tradionally suffer.

So I take it you'd be willing to pay at least 10 pts per unit for this abilty, to the exclusion of something useful like Carapace or Cameoline? OK.

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:They're just humans, and any notion of their ability to impose "order" in HtH against distinctly superior opponents is laughable at best.

Humans have always attempted to impose order in close combat and the ones who impose it best are the ones who succeed.

And as we're talking about Guard, they're going to fail and die in the process. So why bother spending the points?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Then in that case, we can ignore the Predator entirely.

At Av12/12/10 with 2 heavy bolters the Chimera would have more in common with a Predator than a Rhino. Which is the issue I have with your proposal.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:Previously I said an AV12/12 is worth between 60 and 65pts in 5E, not an AV12/11 which I said would cost in approximately 10 points less.

And I'm saying that you're wrong, and that your points costs are much too high in both cases. And at the end, you're suggesting *exactly* 15 points less for AV12/11.

Well you misrepresented what I said and I was correcting you. You had said that my view was Av12/11 at 65 pts, when I had said AV12/11 at 50-55pts. This was a correction of a misstated fact. I stated one thing and you misstated it, so I was just correcting your misstatement.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
But I suppose we could equalize the Chimera points cost at 60 pts. Hell, we could even charge 70 pts for a Chimera. However, we'd have to lower the cost of Guardsmen down to around 30 pts per squad in the former, 20 pts per squad in the latter.

What basis is there to do that? Unit point cost are provided for individual units, unit entries for Chimeras and Guardsmen are separate and have no overlap in costing.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Any rational Chimera costing needs the Chimera to cost noticeably less than the Guardsmen within, because the Guard should be about the Guardsmen, not their Transports

While I can agree with the sentiment, I believe a unit capabilities should impact the cost first and foremost. I believe that the Chimera at AV12/11 with 2 heavy bolters is as at least as effective as 2/3rds of a Fire Support squad armed with Heavy Bolters, which is 53.3pts, if not more. Av12/11 is still better than the Rhino and at 55pts costs less than a basic IG squad.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I would love to be able to field that many predator equivalent tanks but I'd feel like dirt because it's a bit broken. On a fluff level I find it hard to believe that IG officers would consider guardsmen as being worth a level of protection superior to what marines have.

Marines have AV14/14/14 Land Raiders, and nobody is suggesting that Guardsmen have that level of protection available to them.

I guess you can't read the fact I was talking about predator levels of armor.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I think its a bit of circular logic for you to qualify a chimera as a medium tank because you have given it AV12 on the side.

Except, in 3E and 4E, for most intents and purposes, the Chimera was effectively AV12/12 because you could control which facing the opponent shot at, so you could limit them to shooting at the AV12 front instead of the AV10 sides. Also, because Chimeras never moved forward, but simply operated as an AV12 pillbox.

Your arguments for why do not diminish the circuitousness of your initial argument.

I have played several games with my mechanized guard in 5th Ed and I've never taken a shot to my side armor before turn 3, at which point my troops are where they need to go. Transport vehicles are not about being blunt instruments of war, they require finesse; my chimeras move up flanked by better vehicles, just like transport vehicles are suppose to.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:The panzer was a medium tank do you really believe something akin to that would be assigned to many squads. I'm all for making the Chimera more worthwhile, but I'm not out for a steal.

Standard US Doctrine assigns a Bradley to our mech brigades for heavy combat. The combat protection of a Bradley is very high. Much higher than something like a LAV. I'd say that a Bradley is like an AV12/12 Chimera.

The Bradley is made of the same grade and thickness of Aluminum as the M113; the only improvement over the M113 were improved armor to the underside to protect against mines and the addition of ablative and eventually reactive armor and a steel armored skirt. In the case of the added ablative and reactive armor it was only added more than a decade after the vehicles initial implementation. In game terms the ablative and reactive armor are considered "extra armor" and the armored skirt "track guards."

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I still say 45-50pts for AV12/11 two heavy bolters.

Um, didn't you say approximately 10 points less than 60-65?

Yeah... sorry about that, I appreciate the fact check. Should read 50-55pts for AV12/11 with two heavy bolters. Its easy to make little mistakes at 4:00AM.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:Obviously the GW designer believed it to be a viable ability and tactic in the 40k universe or it wouldn't have been included.

As a random thing that only exists in IG4, with Doctrines to be phased out in the next Codex? Or as something more meaningful?
If you have the old 40k3-era WDs with the Q&A letters column, the GW designers put the kibosh on IG Bayonets being actually deserving of bonus rules. But hey, far be it for me to contradict GW's actual statements on the topic.

I do sir, I have all WD from the 320s back to issue 114. I will point out different rules different edition. 3rd edition was about a refined rule set to simplify the complexity of 2nd ed. While 4th was more about adding as many options as possible to allow people to create more flavorful forces. 4th ed superseded 3rd, so anything back that far has little input as we shift from 4th to 5th edition. With 5th GW is taking a lot of those flavorful elements and integrating them directly into units, a refinement of choices.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:Close Quarters Battles are not the same as close combat. Close quarter battles as a military terms implies a short ranged combat, that can occur from a short stand off range and in to hand to hand combat.

In 40k, one would assume them to be the same, based on the scale of the game.

As I pointed out CQB is predominantly about ranged combat in close quarters, with closing enemies. In 40k you can be up to 2" away from an enemy unit and still shoot, these are the sort of ranges CQB is really dealing with. Its the fuzzy space before getting into hand to hand.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote: The rationale is that IG would exploit their numbers and command organization.

Then give them free Vox, instead! Something that scales with their numbers and accentuates their command in all phases of the game.

I already said I agreed that free Vox was a good idea. I'm not really arguing for COD as being the end all option, just that it has a validity to it being in the 4th ed codex.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:The simplicity of the rationale is this, guardsmen has big knife, guardsmen has 5ft long lasgun... hey look you put it together and throw in a couple of extra days of training while traveling through the warp and with a minimal amount of resources you've improved combat performance in area where the IG tradionally suffer.

So I take it you'd be willing to pay at least 10 pts per unit for this abilty, to the exclusion of something useful like Carapace or Cameoline? OK.

No, because it has an inherent trade off. It gives bonuses if you take a formation but you get blown up easily. Asking me to pay 10pts for this ability is like me asking you to pay 10pts for carapace armor if carapace armor also made you "move as through difficult terrain". No one would pay extra for a positive and negative effect where they at best break even.

I'm reading a lot of smoke being blown around. If we want to make an arguement of reality vs. WH40k, then assaults would barely EVER happen. The main reason these sorts of attacks went out of style after the American Civil War is because of rapid fire and increased accuracy weapons. Last time I checked the fluff and rules, WH40k has rapid fire and high accuracy weapons. So if I were a Guardsmen in the 41st millenium, and a mob of Orks was baring down on me, and I was the squad HB gunner, I'd find it a good moment to clamp down on that trigger and not let up until every greenskin was mowed down. In the books and fluff, this is usually how the IG defeat orks. Any other time, the IG gets clobbered (the phase where the Guardsmen would be banging out rapid fire is typically skipped). Yes, the lasgun is, ruleswise, woefully underpowered, but fluff-wise, is plenty powerful to engage most opponents (except for CSM and sometimes Orks and Tyranids, depending on the author).

From my experience in the military, bayonet training comes in for two reasons; discipline, and last resort. If you are in a situation where your life comes down to six-eight inches of hardened steel buckled onto the end of your empty rifle, having even just a single day's worth of training is vastly superior to having had no training at all. To my recollection, we actually spent half a week exclusively on bayonet training, and about two weeks worth of time on hand-to-hand, plus every Saterday morning at our advanced training schools.

While I don't agree that WWI style combat should be the base idea for the Imperial Guard, the fact of the matter is that Assaults are here to stay in WH40K, and if the IG don't get something to help them out, then they are going to be one of the most broken armies in the game (if they aren't already).

My wishlist for assaults in the IG would be the option to allow "Assault Platoons," which is basically just a platoon armed with laspistol and CCW. I don't think doctrines should be done platoon by platoon, as that doesn't fit with the fluff of the IG, however having specialized platoons does. Perhaps switching out the HW squads from HQ and dropping them in as a HW platoons (with a command section and at least two squads with three to five specialized/heavy weapons) would be a good way to help fill out the typically under used troops section in non-mechanized armies. Then cheapening up the Techpriest, allowing more in a unit and putting them in the HQ section and allowing them to take a transport. This makes more sense and also makes them useful. Next would be making the Veterans squads able to be a platoon with a veteran command squad. Last, cheapen up Ogryns and perhaps beef up their armor to 4+ (you'd think a big guy like an Ogryn could take the extra weight).

I do not want to IG to NOT be given the option of being a shooty army, this works well for many people (who are skilled enough to pull it off) but the option to defend themselves or even go on the assault would be great, and would definitely bring new gamers and even veteran gamers over towards the IG side more often.

Warhammer 40,000 is less of a Science Fiction game, and more of a Science Fantasy.

Those familiar with it's earliest incarnations will be familiar enough with the concepts of 'Space Dwarves, Elves and Orks' long before they garnered new, more futuristic names.

As for the Imperial Guard, it really doesn't matter what you feel it is or should be. It is established in the background that the Imperium is made up of Planets in wildly varying states of technological advancement. Some are positively Pre-Historic, others (shortly before the Adeptus Mechanicus throw a fit and flatten it) have Technology levels outstripping even Mars.

Because of this, different Regiments will have different Tactics and Strategies. There are Billions up Billions of Soldiers in the Imperial Guard, with Thousands of Home Worlds. Because of this, an individuals perception of what the Guard are/should be is at once completely correct, and utterly wrong.

The Doctrines were a nice idea, as they allowed players to tailor the Guard list to their view of how the force should work. Sadly, Hobbyists have fallen by the way side, and the second any kind of flavour is offered in a Codex, the cretinous Number Crunchers crawl out of their hiding places and immediately set about rubbishing some and lauding others, purely based on an imagine notion of efficiency. Thus, we Hobbyists who see things like 'Oooh. Warrior Weapons and that' and decide to raise a Regiment of our own design with a more primitive approach to War fall by the wayside, trampled by those purely in search of a cheap win.

I'd stop short of calling those who want effective lists as people out looking for a 'cheap win' Grotsnik. People who play this game with the aim to win are no less 'hobbyists' than you - they just like a different aspect of it.

And efficiancy is not imagined. Only cheese is imagined.

BYE

I am sorry, but why can we not have both? Why can we not have flavor, and competitiveness? That was the whole point of this thread? Would primitive world warrior weapons sqauds be cool? Absolutly. Would they be chrushed vs any other list. Yes they would. Ok so how would you balance them? What is the fair price for a guardsman with ccw and las pistol? How would you price them vs ork boys, or Space marines for that matter?

Depends entirely on what you have to sacrifice.

Orks don't get the Tanks and Artillery IG do. Or you could just accept that many items and options are there to provide some variation and fun for gamers less inclined towards Tournament and Competitive play.

foil7102 wrote:I am sorry, but why can we not have both? Why can we not have flavor, and competitiveness? That was the whole point of this thread? Would primitive world warrior weapons squads be cool? Absolutely. Would they be crushed vs any other list? Yes they would, O.K. so how would you balance them? What is the fair price for a guardsman with C.C.W and laspistol? How would you price them vs ork boys, or Space marines for that matter?

Thank you for getting this thread back on track.

To answer you question, Guards Men should be numerous, cheap, and expendable.

I refer back to my original suggestion and build a Codex based on the four core concepts of the guard army. They could be competitive and fluff. A win-win.

Four Core Concepts?

An uncaring Military Machine that is capable of winning by literally drowing the enemy in a tide of it's own Warrior's blood. A fighting force where discipline is meted out from the end of a Pistol? One based entirely on lying to the men lest they figure out just how unlikely their continued survival is?

It's a Science Fantasy game, for crying out loud. If you, or indeed anyone, is upset by an apparent lack of realism, there are wargames out there which cater to realism to the Nth degree you might get on better with.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Four Core Concepts?

An uncaring Military Machine that is capable of winning by literally drowing the enemy in a tide of it's own Warrior's blood. A fighting force where discipline is meted out from the end of a Pistol? One based entirely on lying to the men lest they figure out just how unlikely their continued survival is?

It's a Science Fantasy game, for crying out loud. If you, or indeed anyone, is upset by an apparent lack of realism, there are wargames out there which cater to realism to the Nth degree you might get on better with.

WTF, What's your problem? I don't think I ever said I wanted more realism or asked for it. I like my space opera, thank you very much.

Did you even bother to read my previous posts?

Here let me help you. This is what I posted before.

When ever I look at the IG I have always though that the concept of doctrines was neat idea if poorly handled.

A top down redesign of the guard would be nice with a focus more on themes. I have always seen IG being fielded in certian configurations.

1) Ground Infantry - IG on foot with either artillery or air support support.

2) Mechanzied Infantry - Focus on Tanks and Armored Personal Carriers

3) Airborne Infantry- Focus on Drop Troops, Drop Ships, & Gunship Deployed IG

4) Special Forces - Focus on IG Elite Units

Any IG Codex needs to be able to flexible enough to allow you to field any of the above. Which it does now but currently makes some builds hard to field or not very effective. I think you can simplify doctrines by combine then in the four above. How you would do that I am not sure.

You pick one and build your army around that theme or doctrine

Other Changes that I would like to see

1) Drop the Baskilsk, This is more suited for Apoc

2) Bring Back the Griffon Mortar.

3) Bring back the tarantula, the rapier, the thud gun, and the mole mortar.

4) Allow the option for IG to take Rhinos instead of Chimeras (I wish GW had never brought this out. the rhino was just fine)

5) Allow Dropships and Gunships for the IG

Things I can wish for but will NEVER see.

1) Proper Penal Legion

2) Human Bombs

3) IG Robots and Dreadnaughts

4) IG Bike Squads

5) IG Beastmen Regiments

@Eli :

We now have five pages of mostly good sized-large posts. I read the first couple pages and bridged through the rest. Perhaps Grotsnik was refering to others like DD or maybe even myself to a slight degree (I am not championing realism by intent, just trying to dispell how some aspects can be realistic).

I would agree with HBMC, except that there is a difference between Hobbyists and "cheap win" players. Those sorts of "cheap win" players are called "gamers." And yes, there are a lot of them in WH40K. The thing about most GW games and products is that it is a melding of gamers and hobbyists. A hobbyist is interested in making detailed and entertaining models (and/or scenarios in hte game as well), gamers are intent on winning, stream lining their armies for maximum effect. I am not saying you can not be a hobbyist and still be a gamer, there are plenty of examples of them as well. I, too, believe that an army that won't work or won't be fun to play, even if it is extremely fluffy and entertaining to think about, is not really going to be worth building for those of us who can't afford either the funds or the time to make such an army we don't feel will be fun to play on the board. This is the major discussion here.

It is already known how to help the IG increase their likelyhood of victory in the current codex, the optimum forces are already built. However, this pretty much boils down to a handfull of different strategies and army make-ups. So few in fact, they can be listed as two; Mechanized and Infantry. Either high numbers of tanks and mechanized infantry or just total out model clogging force. Sure, there are plenty of variations and some tuning here and there, but for the most part they are the same, and deviating from those lists is mostly a hinderance.

Making a better Codex will allow more flexibility in the lists, more fluff for the IG gamers, more sales of different troops for GW's hungry maw, and overall a more interesting army to play. There will be, of course, optimum forces and idealolgies, but it should be the skill of the player to be able to overcome such forces with niche units and pinache, subtlety and skill. These forces would also have their weaknesses to other tactics and force organizations, or just plain terrain and luck.

Essentially, more variety will create a better Guard. In my opinion at least.

foil7102 wrote:I am sorry, but why can we not have both? Why can we not have flavor, and competitiveness? That was the whole point of this thread? Would primitive world warrior weapons sqauds be cool? Absolutly. Would they be chrushed vs any other list. Yes they would. Ok so how would you balance them? What is the fair price for a guardsman with ccw and las pistol? How would you price them vs ork boys, or Space marines for that matter?

I am sorry for the Gigantor posts.

I agree competitiveness and flavor together would be great, and we should have our cake and eat it too. I guess its most important to to determine the flavor you want and then grounded in the reality of the setting determine the best way to portray it without going too far.

Warrior weapons are cool, and they make sense. I personally feel the fair price to be between 0 and 1 point per model. Pricing is going to be based on the relative gain the unit has over the same unit without it. Lasgun, or laspistol and close combat weapon, they're all strength 3. Unit armed standard will get 3-4 shots per model off by the time a warrior weapon model gets One. In close combat a standard guardsmen will only have One attack in close combat (no charging for rapid fire), warrior weapon guardsman would have 2 attacks (3 if he charges). You're looking at 3-4 Str 3 shots and 1 Str 3 close combat attack versus 1 Str 3 shot and 2-3 Str 3 close combat attacks. This is a pretty even trade off, strategically though most armies have better initiative and a bunch of those close combat attacks will never happen.

The trend in 5th edition is that they are taking the flavorful option of 4th edition that worked then and are building them into units directly. The other trend is the general reduction in options as a side affect of the first trend. With the Codex Space Marines they seem to be compensating for the lack of options by giving more units to choose from.

Skinnattittar wrote:It is already known how to help the IG increase their likelyhood of victory in the current codex, the optimum forces are already built. However, this pretty much boils down to a handfull of different strategies and army make-ups. So few in fact, they can be listed as two; Mechanized and Infantry. Either high numbers of tanks and mechanized infantry or just total out model clogging force. Sure, there are plenty of variations and some tuning here and there, but for the most part they are the same, and deviating from those lists is mostly a hinderance.

Making a better Codex will allow more flexibility in the lists, more fluff for the IG gamers, more sales of different troops for GW's hungry maw, and overall a more interesting army to play. There will be, of course, optimum forces and idealolgies, but it should be the skill of the player to be able to overcome such forces with niche units and pinache, subtlety and skill. These forces would also have their weaknesses to other tactics and force organizations, or just plain terrain and luck.

I agree with this sentiment. IG are rather limited to their overall army wide variations. The trick though is in what ways the IG can improve without losing their character. One of the characters of the IG is the general weakness in stats of their basic guardsmen. I play mechanized guard and armies still struggle to work through the number of models I'm fielding, which is why I have an aversion to making guardsmen cheaper. This brings us back in some way to the matter of how do improve the IG without increasing their cost or their stats too drastically. In 4th it was doctrines and the now the question is in 5th what will it be?

Actually doctrines came out in 3rd edition. Anyone who says the Guard codex was ready for 4th is a damn liar! It is true that the intent was that the IG codex would be the first ready for 4th edition. However, the number and type of changes they made from 3rd to 4th after the current IG codex was cemented and the limited amount of play testing made the IG codex woefully unprepared for 4th, leaving it in a sort of limbo or purgatory.

I think the next codex should be able to allow IG players to reduce the number of models on the field, not so much to remove the distinctive Guard feel, but to make it easier for the more active playing that is becoming more common and expected of assault driven play, as well as allowing more tactics of flank and maneuver. This would mean making higher points units more stationary (by either increasing their number of HWs or the lethality of these weapons) to take up points cost effectively while bunching units into transports (which need to be improved or given more variety) so they can move around the battlefield.

Ogryns come to mind, but their current points cost makes them too valuable to actually use, since they get diced up so easily. So either improving their armor, toughness, or making them resistant to instant death and/or rending so a single powerful hit doesn't take down your 25pt model (or worse a number of 25pt models as is usually the case). Perhaps mixing in "handlers" for the Ogryns to the squad so that they can sop up some of the wounds while moving into and during an assault. Ogryns could reduce the number of models on the field with a modile army.

Even though the IG codex came out in third most people consider the current IG codex to be 4th edition because it set a lot of the tone for 4th edition as far as codex design goes. Its the same way Chaos, Orks, Daemons are seen as being 5th ed even though they came out before.

The maneuvering thing is such a downside to IG and mob armies in general. I think the number of models the average IG army has is about right, the armies shouldn't get any larger, one reason I'm opposed to overly cheap guard. I think as it is there exist several ways to reduce the number of models on the table. Things like "Grenadiers" or taking an abundance of doctrines reduce the number of fielded models. The vehicle options are shaping up to be an interesting thing for IG, with rumors of a high number of tank options, and tank squadrons.

Ogryn I think exemplify the problem with IG overall, we have units that are suppose to be powerful relative to a guardsmen but aren't all that great overall and end up overpriced.

Chaos is not a 5th Edition Codex. Chaos isn't even a Codex...

BYE

What about this special rule for imperial guard?

Live to fight another day:
Units that leave the table either by falling back, voluntary movement, or are off the table waiting to deep strike at the end of the game do not count as destroyed when calculating kill points or VP's.

Fluff rationalization: Due to the size and nature of the imperial guard, damaged units are easily brought back up to full strenght, either through combining damaged squads, adding white shields, joining regiments, or even conscripting local PDF. As a result squads that escape the battlefield with valuable experience fighting the enemy are soon back into the fight.

Game Help: Makes putting your squads right on the table edge, and risky deep strikes a little less deadly. Automatically denies your opponent points and lets you "strategically withdraw" Heck we are humans after all, not 10 foot engineered killing machines. We can retreat from time to time. I think a good counter balace would be to really up power the commisar and make them easier to field. Make a general really think about this.

I like this rule! Though I do smell the scent that the Orks, Tyranids, and Tau at the least should be able to get this bonus as well. Orks and Tyranids expecially since there are just so many of the buugers when they go to war.

There would have to be some way of discounting this rule, since there will be missions where falling back is either not possible, or infact, lethal. What I do really like is that it allows the shooty of the guard to be utilized to more effect, without the drawbacks of having little assault defense/reprisal AND the risk of falling off the board at the drop of the hat. Perhaps an additional rally at the edge with additional leadership bonus, following the fluff that the unit knows that if they are picked back up later on, they are very likely to be facing the firing squad?

Ork's can't have this rule as Ork's are never beaten. They would always run screamin toward the fight.

Tyranids would never have it as I can not see them doing anything but attacking if it was at all possible. I can not imagine a tyranid tactical fighting retreat once the invasion of the planet has begun.

Tau can not have it as they have but few worlds and fewer resources.

I like it, foil7102 and agree completely with the rationale for it. Its almost necessary when you consider the addition of Valkyries and subsequent numbers of units they'll transport.

I would like to see something that makes the Leman Russ (most likely any varient considering the new rules) worth while taking. Either much lower points or able to move and shoot its defensive weapons... and by that I mean its heavy bolters, because that's what they really are for. Defense against infantry. Perhaps a varient with autocannon sponsons and hull mount, as well as turret... that would be pretty useful even stationary.

Unless some additional rule is made for sponson, in 5th, there is little reason beyond back up weapons to take them.

An ability like "Defensive Fire: any sponson not fired in the Shooting Phase may make its normal attack against a unit attempting to assault it; this is done after the charge movement but before any close combat attacks are resolved," would make sense, but would probably cancel out the majority of a cost down on Leman Russ tanks.