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.

The right brain says "lets stay on focus guys."

The left brain says

Now back to the topic of actual IG please.

BrookM wrote:Problem with guard will most likely be that some stuff will go down in price, while the upgrades, the useful and hurty stuff, will go up in price to "balance" the issue. I've got a feeling that the days of cheap power weapons and cheap vehicle upgrades are over soon. Extra armour has already been bumped to a fapping 15 pts for marines and camo netting is going to cost 20 pts if the IA 2 document is to be believed. At least on the bright side our vehicles will get smoke launchers and search lights as standard issue now. Oh and the heavy stubber will go down a whopping two points in price, hurrah!

Then again, it is useful that the basic Guardsman goes down in price, seeing as rumours hint towards the infantry platoon being the only Troops choice in the new codex, with the removal of the AF squad and Conscript platoon. Not a biggy for large games, but smaller games where you can only field platoons could be problematic.

Well, extra armor isnt' what it used to be. It was a huge deal in 4th when any penetrating hit also stunned the vehicle. It's now only protection 1/6 of the time, so simply going without isn't a big deal. Given that Chimeras should (and hopefully will) drop to 50-60pts with Multilaser and Heavy Bolter, that's not a bad trade.

I dont' have the fear that others do about IG. I think that how they handle KPs is going to be the big issue. Aside from that, having hordes of small units with good shooting will be valuable. Add in plenty of tanks and cheaper chimeras, and the IG might be able to finally be both mobile and have a solid firebase.

What I really expect to lose is the range of IG armies. I doubt we'll see an option for all drop troops, or all infiltrating, etc. I imagine in the new codex there will be little reason to field all infantry or all mechanized. But If I can get a command squad, a static shooty squad and an armored fist squad, all for the price of a SM tactical squad(or close to it), I'll be happy.

The thing that puzzles me though is why make extra armour more expensive when it is less useful?

The "new" Chimera will cost 55 pts and have a multi-laser, heavy bolter, smoke launchers and search light as a standard. Only thing really missing from the entry are the amount of fire points, though that could be explained with the "Armoured Firebase" special rule and the option to take track guards. Though this could have something to do with that this is an Inquisitorial Chimera, not a regular Guard version.

ia2-update wrote:Special Rules:
• Amphibious
• Armoured Firebase
• Mobile Command Vehicle

Options:
• Replace multi-laser with:
- Heavy flamer or heavy bolter ..................................................................................free
- Autocannon......................................................................................................................+5 pts
- Twin-linked heavy bolter ....................................................................................+10 pts
• Replace heavy bolter with:
- Heavy flamer...........................................................................................................................free
• May take any of the following:
- Pintle-mounted storm bolter or heavy stubber............................+10 pts
- Hunter-killer missile.................................................................................................+10 pts
- Dozer blade........................................................................................................................+5 pts
- Extra armour..................................................................................................................+15 pts
- Camo netting................................................................................................................+20 pts[/quote

BrookM wrote:The thing that puzzles me though is why make extra armour more expensive when it is less useful?

Welcome to the wonderful world of GW development. I'm not a hater, as I think they do good work most of the time, but they are notorious for creating a problem, waiting four years, and then fixing it twice instead of once, so that what was once too good is now too bad. It happened with Imperial extra armor, it happened with Rhinos in 4th edition (where in one fell swoop the following all happened: they no longer counted as scoring, troops could not assault out of them if they moved, their destruction could hurt the squad inside as well as slow them down with entanglement, and escalation kept them off the board in 1/3 of missions), it happened with Las/plas space marine squads in fifth (now that they are way more expensive, lascannons just aren't as good any more).

GW has been on a consistency kick within each codex, making a plasma pistol on an assault marine the same cost as on a captain, and charging them all the same over priced value. Between codices, GW seems pretty happy to have different rules for identical items. I wouldn't be shocked to see IG keep 5pt power weapons (does anybody think they're worth more than that?) and possibly even a return of 15pt powerfists.

I think one of the key components of the new codex will be the affect of command squads upon the units under their command. Given that we are getting plastic command squads I wouldn't be too surprised if they play a bigger, possibly vital role.

"command" squads eh ....?

reds8n wrote: I think one of the key components of the new codex will be the affect of command squads upon the units under their command. Given that we are getting plastic command squads I wouldn't be too surprised if they play a bigger, possibly vital role.

"command" squads eh ....?

I think one cool rule would be to allow command squads to combine with the squads under them. Lets say you buy a platoon with a command section and two line squads. The rule would allow you, during deployment, to combine them into one giant squad (like a reverse combat squads). This would count as a single unit for all game play purposes (KPs, objective holding, etc.). It'll solve two big IG problems: lack of durable and useful squads to hold objectives, and getting boned by KP missions.

Or alternatively (forgive speculation as opposed to news/rumours but hey it's page 5) only certain units count as kill points in an IG army?

Look after those squishy command squads, kids.

the thing im looking forward to is plastic stormtroopers

Tribune wrote:Or alternatively (forgive speculation as opposed to news/rumours but hey it's page 5) only certain units count as kill points in an IG army?

Look after those squishy command squads, kids.

I doubt that'll be the case. Kill points aren't a core rule, they're a mission scenario rule. Any rule citing "Kill Points" will read like the old codices that talk about "victory points" do. Certainly an easy fix for IG would simply be to have all squads count as 1/2 a kill point, but that leaves a rule in the IG codex for what'll probably be 5 years, meaning 6th edition may or may not reference an obsolete rule. I imagine they'll simply include a few tweaks to the IG list to minimize the KP hit, and then revise the GT and RTT mission packs to further soften the blow. It's easier to change missions mid stream than it is to change codices midstream. Look at Escalation in 4th: any place that kept the rule had far different top armies than those that eliminated it in their missions.

My assumption is that they will pull a zoanthrope and have multiple designated units be a single killpoint and force org choice. The zoanthrope does this by being a single unit that ignores coherency and morale, not sure how IG would pull it off. It would be fairly easy to designate a grouping of squads as a single kill point with the right ruling language. It could also be easy to add morale boosts and HQ benefits to this larger multi part squads. It would certainly make commissars nicer when they could effect every unit in the overall group rather than his own small squad.

ShumaGorath wrote:My assumption is that they will pull a zoanthrope and have multiple designated units be a single killpoint and force org choice. The zoanthrope does this by being a single unit that ignores coherency and morale, not sure how IG would pull it off. It would be fairly easy to designate a grouping of squads as a single kill point with the right ruling language. It could also be easy to add morale boosts and HQ benefits to this larger multi part squads. It would certainly make commissars nicer when they could effect every unit in the overall group rather than his own small squad.

I thought zoeys were separate units that just take up a single FOC, like a unit and it's transport. Any rule that requires mutliple units to be destroyed to gain a single KP is going to be ripe for abuse, and I doubt GW will implement it on a wholescale level.

Polonius wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:My assumption is that they will pull a zoanthrope and have multiple designated units be a single killpoint and force org choice. The zoanthrope does this by being a single unit that ignores coherency and morale, not sure how IG would pull it off. It would be fairly easy to designate a grouping of squads as a single kill point with the right ruling language. It could also be easy to add morale boosts and HQ benefits to this larger multi part squads. It would certainly make commissars nicer when they could effect every unit in the overall group rather than his own small squad.

I thought zoeys were separate units that just take up a single FOC, like a unit and it's transport. Any rule that requires mutliple units to be destroyed to gain a single KP is going to be ripe for abuse, and I doubt GW will implement it on a wholescale level.

As per the brood ruling "You may include between 1 and 3 zoanthropes as a single heavy support choice, but only one choice may be made per army. Thus you can have a maximum of three in an army. Zoanthropes are deployed as a single unit, but do not need to be placed together and operate independently during the game".

Does that count as a single kill point for the three? It states that they are deployed as a single unit that operate independently. Has this been FAQ'd? As for IG abusing this that is quite possible. It entirely depends on the wording of the ruling I guess. I can see a few methods by which it could be made difficult to abuse, but they would likely require situation specific descriptions.

Polonius wrote:

Tribune wrote:Or alternatively (forgive speculation as opposed to news/rumours but hey it's page 5) only certain units count as kill points in an IG army?

Look after those squishy command squads, kids.

I doubt that'll be the case. Kill points aren't a core rule, they're a mission scenario rule. Any rule citing "Kill Points" will read like the old codices that talk about "victory points" do. Certainly an easy fix for IG would simply be to have all squads count as 1/2 a kill point, but that leaves a rule in the IG codex for what'll probably be 5 years, meaning 6th edition may or may not reference an obsolete rule. I imagine they'll simply include a few tweaks to the IG list to minimize the KP hit, and then revise the GT and RTT mission packs to further soften the blow. It's easier to change missions mid stream than it is to change codices midstream. Look at Escalation in 4th: any place that kept the rule had far different top armies than those that eliminated it in their missions.

I don't think I buy that logic. Telling me that GW won't put a rule in a codex that will likely look 'a bit silly' when something is potentially changed in a later edition, when there are clearly occasions when it already happens, doesn't really work. There are plenty of codices with obsolete rule references, whether you class them as 'core' or 'mission' related is irrelevant to that truth. Although I do see your point on how it could be easier to change mission rules than the main ruleset.

Anyway KP tweaks to the IG list aren't too difficult to accept as a decent/balanced approach, when there's a fair possibility you could end up playing an objective mission instead.

Your posts were intentionally insulting, either to individual posters, those posting in the thread, dakka in general or perhaps all 40k players.

Mine was a quip stating a truth (all rumors threads eventually become unrelated arguments) and a joke (dakka members are angry self hating bitter husks). You are clearly taking it more offensively then intended as is your prerogative, but it was meant as a jab at the community myself included.

We are a rather derisive and angry community of polar opposites. I don't think many will argue that we're not. If you can't take jokes for what they are then you're doing little but supporting the joke itself.

ShumaGorath wrote:We did, you were too busy inflating your ego in the BYE thread .

A). That thread's almost off the first page.
B). You're just jealous.

BYE

Yeah :( .

In regards to the 20 point camo netting...

camo netting could very well be.. "vehicle counts as obscured until it moves"

if so, I don't think 20 points would be too high a price to ask for something like that.

I like the idea that tau get obscured vehicles as long as they can play keep away, whereas guard get their cover saves while they are firmly entrenched in their battle lines. One static shooty and one mobile shooty.

Other guard considerations....

field artillery. Orks have artillery units, eldar have artillery units, space marines have artillery units... it would be an absolute travesty if guard doesn't end up getting an artillery unit. It's not very characterful for space marines and eldar to dig in and set up artillery positions. And that is such an iconic guard thing to do. I'd kill for some artillery, even if they don't sculpt vossie models to crew it.

ogryns. FNP, eternal warrior, T5. All these things have been mentioned, but I don't think they fit very well with the design concept of IG. I think for them, a DRASTIC points reduction is in order. Just for fun, what could IG do with a stubborn (with attached commissar) T4 W3 WS4 unit if you could get that whole package for 175 points?

30 T4 wounds with a floating str6 power fist. Any of the premiere CC units can still go through that, either through sheer #s or through strength 8. But they won't break it. Where a unit like this could get cool would be what they could do to a half-eaten bloodcrusher or nob biker or terminator unit. They are good enough and cheap enough to either kill off or at least seal up an 'almost dead' CC monster.

ratlings. mind war for guard?

storm troopers. like i mentioned before. im anticipating that the valkyrie = drop pod, and storm troopers = sternguard. That gets imperial guard contesting objectives in enemy territory quite well. They've never had a problem holding. They just have a problem contesting.

kill points. This one scares me most of all. I've heard rumors of a command squad box. thats a 5 man unit=2 kp. Pray they remove IC status to knock it down to 1kp. cadian plastics repackaged into 10 model $25 dollar format. That could mean 10-30 man platoon "units" or it could mean 10man units with sub-catagories. I've already stated my opinions (and been crucified) about the multi-unit FOC slot. And how untenable it is. No one has seen a single rumor to address the kill point problem. It is such a massive sticking point for guard. You have to ditch MSU entirely, or show me a really well thought out way to address the 30 kill point to 5 kill point matchup between drop guard and nob bikers.

leman russ squadrons. true squadrons, not zoanthrope style. That means everything has to shoot at the same target, that means coherency and that means close combat and multiple tank kill shots get a lot more mileage when evenly spread across a unit. It's not overpowered. But its a nice change. When i build my non-drop competitive guard, i start with the minimum troops i need to win, which doesn't cost much, i throw in the minimum HQ that is effective, and then i go for what I want... armor. I buy my 3 demolishers, and now I'm looking at less than 1000 points spent. I don't want anything else, I don't want fast attack, i DEFINITELY don't want troops. and outside of 3x75 points for my "elites" I'm stuck spending points on units I don't even want. I buy 3 hellhounds because they are almost like heavy support, and i end up with a fragle list. Its the only army book I know that I have to fatten up after I jot down my ideas rather than cut points. With the ability to spend 1k points on good tanks, I'm already feeling confident in my ability to win games.

more later...

Shep wrote:In regards to the 20 point camo netting...

camo netting could very well be.. "vehicle counts as obscured until it moves"

if so, I don't think 20 points would be too high a price to ask for something like that.

I think you're right, and I think it would be a nigh-on mandatory upgrade for Russes. That way you don't even need cover, you can be in cover in the open. Wonderfully stupid rule IMO, but it makes sense given the points cost. Now if it is obscured until you shoot, then we've got a problem. 20 points worth of problems actually.

Shep wrote:field artillery. Orks have artillery units, eldar have artillery units, space marines have artillery units... it would be an absolute travesty if guard doesn't end up getting an artillery unit. It's not very characterful for space marines and eldar to dig in and set up artillery positions. And that is such an iconic guard thing to do. I'd kill for some artillery, even if they don't sculpt vossie models to crew it.

Unlikely. We'll get a new Griffon (which is fine - I already have two and I don't want nor need any more), and it along with the Basilisk will be the artillery of Guard. We might even get a combined kit as DoubleDunce has been saying, so a Medusa/Griffon kit, which would be nice. And if we get to squadron these tanks then we don't even need field artillery.

Shep wrote:ogryns. FNP, eternal warrior, T5. All these things have been mentioned, but I don't think they fit very well with the design concept of IG.

Ogryn have been done to death in the Proposed Rules forum, so I won't go into too much detail on my views here except to say that what you've said above is true. No solution to the 'Ogryn Problem' is a good solution. The solutions either don't work the way they need to (like giving Ogryn FNP - they can still be instakilled by power fists so it solves nothing) or just don't make sense (Ogryn with Eternal Warrior? What?).

Reducing their cost doesn't work either because they, as a unit, don't work as advertised. If you advertise chainsaw and advertise it as being capable of cutting through wood and steel, and then the product doesn't even start up properly let alone cut anything, giving it away for free doesn't make it any better. Ogryn suffer that problem. You can reduce their cost but it doesn't change that they are a fragile unit that can't kill anything.

Ogryn either need to be able to completey rip apart anything they face, or be able to take a charge from just about anything and act as cliff-face to an army's wave of assaulters. I don't like the idea of them being able to tear through anything - that's the perogative of the Rough Rider - so I prefer the wall of muscle idea. And despite it being a bad solution, the only solution that achieves this goal is base T5. I hate it, but it's the best of a terrible lot and does actually achieve what needs to be done for Ogryn.

Shep wrote:leman russ squadrons. true squadrons, not zoanthrope style. That means everything has to shoot at the same target, that means coherency and that means close combat and multiple tank kill shots get a lot more mileage when evenly spread across a unit.

God no. That would utterly destroy Guard tanks. Immobilised = Destroyed in a squadron, remember? And Guard tanks don't want to move anyway. Actually having them as a squadron that must maintain coherency and fire at the same time just compounds the idiocy of all post-2nd Ed vehicle rules. I hate 5th because of its vehicle rules more than any other. This would make them worse.

BYE

Shep wrote:ogryns. FNP, eternal warrior, T5. All these things have been mentioned, but I don't think they fit very well with the design concept of IG. I think for them, a DRASTIC points reduction is in order. Just for fun, what could IG do with a stubborn (with attached commissar) T4 W3 WS4 unit if you could get that whole package for 175 points?

30 T4 wounds with a floating str6 power fist. Any of the premiere CC units can still go through that, either through sheer #s or through strength 8. But they won't break it. Where a unit like this could get cool would be what they could do to a half-eaten bloodcrusher or nob biker or terminator unit. They are good enough and cheap enough to either kill off or at least seal up an 'almost dead' CC monster.

See HBMC's remarks, above. Personally, I'd prefer "Eternal Warrior" while within a Guard Officer's command radius, over base T5. (HBMC - go back and reread Nork Dedog's fluff piece from the 2nd ed codex. I fully believe them to be too stupid to die, if ordered otherwise.)

kill points. This one scares me most of all. I've heard rumors of a command squad box. thats a 5 man unit=2 kp. Pray they remove IC status to knock it down to 1kp. cadian plastics repackaged into 10 model $25 dollar format. That could mean 10-30 man platoon "units" or it could mean 10man units with sub-catagories. I've already stated my opinions (and been crucified) about the multi-unit FOC slot. And how untenable it is. No one has seen a single rumor to address the kill point problem. It is such a massive sticking point for guard. You have to ditch MSU entirely, or show me a really well thought out way to address the 30 kill point to 5 kill point matchup between drop guard and nob bikers.

Under the current rules, I'd fix it thusly:
1) No ICs.
2) (Of platoons) Only platoon command squads yield Kill Points.
3) Platoon squads are only scoring/can only contest while their corresponding platoon commander is alive.

But if they drop Armored Fists, then this doesn't work - keeping a couple 5-man guard squads alive is impractical, if your enemy just has to kill them to prevent you from scoring.

I remember a GW rep saying that the 5th edition was all about bringing the game back to the infantry on foot and that the vehicle rules are not part of the core rules. Figures.

Tying scoring and KP's solely to command squads makes it very easy for the enemy to get their points.

Yeah making KP's (and scoring) come all down to 3-4 5-man T3 W5 squads would make the Guard even worse. Every Guard strategy would revolve around keeping their HQ units alive, and every Guard list would be geared to bringing as many Command Sections as possible without compromising the integrity of the rest of the army.

1 KP for wiping out 50% of a platoon, and a further 1 KP for wiping it out completely. Yes, it makes KP's harder to get from Guard, but considering that Guardsmen are the worst basic infantry in the game (Gretchin notwithstanding), and they're the only thing we have to score with (meaning they have to hold objectives against far scarier things that just have to contest them), I don't have a problem with them having a KP advantage. So if you bring two 45-man platoons it's 4 KP total, not 12 KP.



God KP's are such a fking God-awful addition to the game. Stupid bloody Jervis...


BYE

God KP's are such a fking God-awful addition to the game. Stupid bloody Jervis...

Agreed. Which is further amplified by stupidly good units like Nob Bikers that score.

Capt K

A well built guard codex should be in a prime position to decimate the Nob Biker army. What army can field a comparable amount of FNP denying super-pie and heavy weapons? And what army can toss ablative wounds in front of the main line as well as guard should be capable?

What other unit can streak across the board to kick the crap out of your pie throwers though?

The KP thing is so bloody stupid. What was wrong with VPs!

I guess it took too long to add up VPs or something.

Any number that uses more than the fingers on his hands makes Alessio's head hurt. That's why we have KP.

BYE

kill points would have been a great thing had they not boned guard doing it, don't riff on the idea because the implentation doesn't live up to potential.

Guys,

You've already been warned once about drifting off-topic in this thread by a moderator. If you wish to discuss personal issues between you, please use PMs and keep the discussion out of the forums.


I've nuked a whole page of back-and-forth nonsense that doesn't belong in this thread. Anyone who continues to drive this thread off-topic will likely be getting a temporary suspension.


Please stay on topic!

Kill points were likely meant as a measure to prevent minmaxing, and were probably designed to contrast with the increased focus on multiple units caused by the multiple objective scenario. Combined they both "ensure" more balanced armies of medium composition. Unfortunately too many armies are hindered or are given undue bonus by killpoints, dark angels love them and guard are given a very difficult time under kill points. I think the biggest issue is the two base mission which could have added a third vector that would further help prevent extreme builds, but instead its just tiefest. The new codexes will likely represent steps taken to even up that playing field.