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.

Don't read BL if you want to read about realistic tactics, operations, or strategy. I read some of the books for what they are: fun warporn.
I've heard many people argue "But the IG fight just like the Russians, ready to lose millions but they have millions more!"
Eh, kind of. In WW1, the Russian Empire lost millions and left the war. In WW2, they lost millions because of incompetent commanders. In the latter half of the war, competent commanders were able to turn the tide. They still lost more men than the Germans, but their tactics and strategies were better than that of the Germans. (Look up each sides tactics and operations at Kursk and Operation Bagration to highlight this).

So, when I see IG, I do kind of see some of them as Soviets, but of the later WW2 variety; still taking higher casualties than the enemy, but with superior tactics, massive firepower, and most importantly of all, airpower!

^ Yet during the battle for Berlin the Russians took far more casualties than necessary because every commander's reputation and livelihood was on the line.

Think of humans as army ants - individually they may seem weak but when amassed they are a formidable adversary. Even Tyranids with their endless variety of combat organisms don't qualify because they have so many larger variants. Being 'puny' is only in the eye of the beholder.

 Flanker wrote:
Don't read BL if you want to read about realistic tactics, operations, or strategy. I read some of the books for what they are: fun warporn.
I've heard many people argue "But the IG fight just like the Russians, ready to lose millions but they have millions more!"
Eh, kind of. In WW1, the Russian Empire lost millions and left the war. In WW2, they lost millions because of incompetent commanders. In the latter half of the war, competent commanders were able to turn the tide. They still lost more men than the Germans, but their tactics and strategies were better than that of the Germans. (Look up each sides tactics and operations at Kursk and Operation Bagration to highlight this).

So, when I see IG, I do kind of see some of them as Soviets, but of the later WW2 variety; still taking higher casualties than the enemy, but with superior tactics, massive firepower, and most importantly of all, airpower!

Their strategies in some cases yes (especially at the end of the war where the German forces basically had no strategy thanks to an irrational leader), though tactics and tactical level communication was generally their failing and what led to the massive casualties. The Germans still almost broke through at Kursk in the south (though they were rather more quickly stopped in the North), quickly learning the new Russian methods, had it not been for massive operational reserves that the Red Army had been allowed to build up it's entirely possible that Kursk would have had a different ending, and that's with the operation having been delayed and repeatedly fuddled with by intervention from the top on the German side. While Bagration was very well planned out, the Red Army outnumbered the Wehrmacht's Army Group Center several times over, 5-1 in personnel, 8-1 in tanks and assault guns, nearly 10-1 in anti-tank guns and artillery, and nearly 9-1 in terms of aircraft.


That said I don't necessarily disagree with your characterization of the Imperial Guard

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Flanker wrote:
Don't read BL if you want to read about realistic tactics, operations, or strategy. I read some of the books for what they are: fun warporn.
I've heard many people argue "But the IG fight just like the Russians, ready to lose millions but they have millions more!"
Eh, kind of. In WW1, the Russian Empire lost millions and left the war. In WW2, they lost millions because of incompetent commanders. In the latter half of the war, competent commanders were able to turn the tide. They still lost more men than the Germans, but their tactics and strategies were better than that of the Germans. (Look up each sides tactics and operations at Kursk and Operation Bagration to highlight this).

So, when I see IG, I do kind of see some of them as Soviets, but of the later WW2 variety; still taking higher casualties than the enemy, but with superior tactics, massive firepower, and most importantly of all, airpower!

Their strategies in some cases yes (especially at the end of the war where the German forces basically had no strategy thanks to an irrational leader), though tactics and tactical level communication was generally their failing and what led to the massive casualties. The Germans still almost broke through at Kursk in the south (though they were rather more quickly stopped in the North), quickly learning the new Russian methods, had it not been for massive operational reserves that the Red Army had been allowed to build up it's entirely possible that Kursk would have had a different ending, and that's with the operation having been delayed and repeatedly fuddled with by intervention from the top on the German side. While Bagration was very well planned out, the Red Army outnumbered the Wehrmacht's Army Group Center several times over, 5-1 in personnel, 8-1 in tanks and assault guns, nearly 10-1 in anti-tank guns and artillery, and nearly 9-1 in terms of aircraft.


That said I don't necessarily disagree with your characterization of the Imperial Guard

I can go on and on about this subject, but I'd rather not for the sake of your boredom or fear of developing carpal tunnel. Essentially: Defense in depth was the key to fighting against the Blitzkrieg. Russians learned it the hard way! On the German side, you know you're screwed when you're in the 18th German Army going up against the 42nd, 54th, and 67th Soviet armies! That's how I like to think the enemies of the Imperial Guard feel.

MarsNZ wrote:


What are you a fan of then? Most art draws inspiration from previous works, often taking parts from various sources to create something entirely new. If you discount anything that draws inspiration from somewhere else, and isn't a completely original work, you're limiting yourself to probably <1% of all art/media.

While I haven't read any David Drake, I did find this little snippet about his work

Congratulations, you seem to have stumbled upon Sturgeon's law all by yourself. 99% of everything is crap.
I try to restrict myself to the remaining 1% that isn't.

I don't watch a lot of TV, movies or anime. I don't read comics anymore, either (mainly because it's next to impossible to get what I used to read here without pre-ordering a year's worth. With a full prepayment.). Not going to spend $200 on a single comic for a year.)


Yes, pretty much all stuff is derivative of the seven classic plots. However, I found the Snorri eddas to be a much better read than Tolkien.

Even Drake had a go at them - with one of his trilogies. It was still better written than either tolkien's camp retreads OR Blergh library.

And by giving what I don't like silly nicknames, I sound more credible! Because you did that too, you've now convinced me of your sound judgment in what constitutes good reading material! [/end horrific sarcasm her]

In all seriousness, throwing around things like "tolkien's camp retreads" and "blergh library" simply does not improve credibility. It's all opinion in these cases, but an opinion that does not essentially resort to name calling(of inanimate objects in this case) to reason itself out holds much more water.

It really depends on the guard regiment, there are some that use tactics more like today's military, and some that just throw bodies at the enemy WW1 style. Most Guard regiments are composed of the elite of the elite from a planet, hardened veterans who've volunteered for service... so in a way it's like having an entire army of Navy Seals. And yes the well trained and equipped ones are capable of taking out space marines, but it's not an easy fight by any means.

Even then compared to what they are fighting, they are still squishy and weak. But they do have big guns and numbers. It's just, what are we comparing them to? Space Marines are superhuman monstrosities, only the rarest mortals will ever come close to doing what a space marine does and never with the same strength and physical ability.... Orks are pretty much like Gorillas in terms of their physique... except harder to kill...

The only race that are actually more puny than humans are the Tau. All told, the Guard is probably the most powerful military force in the galaxy, due to numbers, except perhaps if the Orks stopped fighting each other, they would outnumber even the Guard.

The IG certainly aren't just puny humans, they are (mostly) well-trained, well-armed puny humans. Some of the better regiments are probably even capable of holding their own against against some of the fiercest enemies of the IoM... provided, of course, they outnumber that enemy 100's if not 1000's to one (which they usually do). When they don't have the numbers, or are surprised, or lack orbital/air superiority, they get stomped to varying degrees.

Now, the PDF's, on the other hand, those are real meat shields.

Sturgeon's law is NOT a "silly nickname".

It is as real as Occam's razor.

It was coined by a writer. A science fiction writer called Theodore Sturgeon. Look him up and discover that SF exists outside of 40k and a lot of it - even at its worst - is still better written than GW/BL.

You may want to be careful you're starting to sound like one of those needlessly contrarian hipster guys who subtly insinuates he's better than the helpless sheeple for disliking popular things.

 chromedog wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:


What are you a fan of then? Most art draws inspiration from previous works, often taking parts from various sources to create something entirely new. If you discount anything that draws inspiration from somewhere else, and isn't a completely original work, you're limiting yourself to probably <1% of all art/media.

While I haven't read any David Drake, I did find this little snippet about his work

Congratulations, you seem to have stumbled upon Sturgeon's law all by yourself. 99% of everything is crap.
I try to restrict myself to the remaining 1% that isn't.

I don't watch a lot of TV, movies or anime. I don't read comics anymore, either (mainly because it's next to impossible to get what I used to read here without pre-ordering a year's worth. With a full prepayment.). Not going to spend $200 on a single comic for a year.)


Yes, pretty much all stuff is derivative of the seven classic plots. However, I found the Snorri eddas to be a much better read than Tolkien.

Even Drake had a go at them - with one of his trilogies. It was still better written than either tolkien's camp retreads OR Blergh library.

Wow, insulted by a hipster. I'll let you to get back to listening to music none of us have ever heard of, and even if we have, we probably don't "get" it.

OT: IG are regarded as puny humans, because well, they're puny humans.

 chromedog wrote:
Sturgeon's law is NOT a "silly nickname".

It is as real as Occam's razor.

It was coined by a writer. A science fiction writer called Theodore Sturgeon. Look him up and discover that SF exists outside of 40k and a lot of it - even at its worst - is still better written than GW/BL.

You missed the rest of my post there bud, I wasn't referring to Sturgeon. I even clarified it, and ya still missed it. You also fail to realize I'm well aware of SF outside of 40k; your assumptions are quite silly. Each author, including each author for the BL, has a different writing style. It's a matter of realizing that instead of, as others have pointed out, trying to be a hipster.

 asimo77 wrote:
You may want to be careful you're starting to sound like one of those needlessly contrarian hipster guys who subtly insinuates he's better than the helpless sheeple for disliking popular things.

I'm TOO old to be a hipster. I'm so old I didn't like most of this stuff the LAST time it came around.
The only reason I still have a fixie is because I STILL have it from when I first bought in the 80s.
It's not out of some retro-hipster thing - I just can't be arsed to throw it out.

I'm just a contrarian grumpy old guy.

With a long 'ignore list' that gets longer by the day.

I agree IG get a lot of unfair criticism. Its true that a sinlge IG conscript is just a puny human. But the same would go for just a single ork or a single tyranid gaunt. Thats how the horde races wok right? you send unending waves of "puny infantry" that eventually overwhelm anything. This strategy seems to work well for the IG and i can definitely say its been used to defeat me and my orks on more then one occasion

 chromedog wrote:

 asimo77 wrote:
You may want to be careful you're starting to sound like one of those needlessly contrarian hipster guys who subtly insinuates he's better than the helpless sheeple for disliking popular things.

I'm TOO old to be a hipster. I'm so old I didn't like most of this stuff the LAST time it came around.
The only reason I still have a fixie is because I STILL have it from when I first bought in the 80s.
It's not out of some retro-hipster thing - I just can't be arsed to throw it out.

I'm just a contrarian grumpy old guy.

With a long 'ignore list' that gets longer by the day.

You definitely sound hip slagging off Tolkien. Nobody who knows much about Tolkien claims he was James Joyce, and his long and over flowery descriptions can be a little much, but you cant say the guy sucked.. thats just... crazy talk!

I think "Puny" is a harsh word.

One of the appeals of collecting an imperial guard army is that the soldiers don't have wussy power Armour or bionic enhancements or super strength and agility. Out of all the models one can field a guardsmen is certainly the most heroic. Fighting terrifying things with little more then a gun, a helmet and some grenades. Sure guard armies always take plenty of causalities (understatement), but that sacrifice probably isn't that large when you consider that if the guard won they may have saved a planet (thus billions of people) from a tyranid infestation etc,etc.

Anyway tell this poor ork the guardsmen are puny. Got that model sitting under my bed unpainted. Will do it soon.

 WE Drake Man wrote:
I agree IG get a lot of unfair criticism. Its true that a sinlge IG conscript is just a puny human. But the same would go for just a single ork or a single tyranid gaunt. Thats how the horde races wok right? you send unending waves of "puny infantry" that eventually overwhelm anything. This strategy seems to work well for the IG and i can definitely say its been used to defeat me and my orks on more then one occasion

A single ork boy is stronger than a single guardsman on average overall, though. Thus the guardsman is punier (on average. Single guardsmen can still win sometimes and sometimes you just find exceptional individuals, as shown by the above pic). I don't know how a single gaunt compares. I'd think a single gaunt is even punier than a single (armed, not caught off-guard) guardsman, but I could be wrong. However, I'm not sure it'd apply much since individual gaunts are even less sentient than unsentient animals and thus in most players' eyes not worth sympathizing with or really comparing a guardsman to it.

*the "exceptional individuals" thing applies to real life too. Some soldiers killed an insane amount of enemy soldiers in battle and consistently in some cases, too. So it's actually realistic to have the odd guardsman here or there capable of killing orks like that every once in a while.

That's debatable. Only if the Orks get within assault range.

What do the tabletop stats look like? I haven't done the math. One guardsman vs one ork boy, at some arbitrary amount of distance (but not right next to each other)? Say.... the max range of a lasgun? Which would have better odds of winning? (let's say each one gets "first turn" an equal amount of times and then run a best 2 out of 3 or something)

lets see.

1 Slugga Boy vs a Guardsmen with a lasgun.


Turn 1: Guardsmen is in range, the Ork is not. Its best for the ork to not shoot till he is well within assault range, better to just run.


24" apart. 1 lasgun shot. .138889 unsaved wounds.

Ork moves and runs to get closer. Now a minimum of 17" apart.

Guardsmen moves into rapidfire range. 2 shots. .277778 unsaved wounds. The ork has already take roughly .416667 unsaved wounds.

Ork boy advances, shoots, and assaults. slugga shot. .148148 unsaved wounds on the guardsmen. Overwatch. 2(1/6)(1/3)(5/6)=.092593 unsaved wounds. Combining with previous shots to a total of .509259 unsaved wounds. So a roughly 50/50 chance of the Guardsmen killing the ork before he manages to assault.

Now in melee they go simultaneously.

Guardsmen: 1(.5)(1/3)(5/6)=.13889 unsaved wounds.

Ork Boy: 4(.5)(2/3)(2/3)=.888889 unsaved wounds.


Overall, I'd say an Ork boy vs a Guardsmen on open terrain is a roughly equal chance. Either the Guardsmen manages to kill the Ork at range or he gets caught and clobbered in melee. With a possibility of them killing each other.

The guardsman hits first in assault, the Ork gets an Init of 2.

Hunh. So the guardsman has equal odds of winning or not even before the Ork has a chance whatsoever. Then still has a slight chance of winning once the Ork does get into range. Which means overall a guardsman will win more than lose.

Guess they really aren't THAT puny. At least, when you include weaponry advantages (obviously unarmed the Ork would win a lot more often)

Well, compared to everything else in the fluff, they are puny. But the courage they have, that is one thing that is not. See, space marines "know no fear", but guardsmen do know fear, and most choose to ignore it, and throw themselves in the meat grinder regardless.

And thats why I play guard.

 chromedog wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:


What are you a fan of then? Most art draws inspiration from previous works, often taking parts from various sources to create something entirely new. If you discount anything that draws inspiration from somewhere else, and isn't a completely original work, you're limiting yourself to probably <1% of all art/media.

While I haven't read any David Drake, I did find this little snippet about his work

Congratulations, you seem to have stumbled upon Sturgeon's law all by yourself. 99% of everything is crap.
I try to restrict myself to the remaining 1% that isn't.

I don't watch a lot of TV, movies or anime. I don't read comics anymore, either (mainly because it's next to impossible to get what I used to read here without pre-ordering a year's worth. With a full prepayment.). Not going to spend $200 on a single comic for a year.)


Yes, pretty much all stuff is derivative of the seven classic plots. However, I found the Snorri eddas to be a much better read than Tolkien.

Even Drake had a go at them - with one of his trilogies. It was still better written than either tolkien's camp retreads OR Blergh library.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, even if it makes you sound like a contrarian hipster. I on the other hand can't stand these "literary classic" authors and universally hate them all, from Homer to Poe. I even found Citizen Kane to be the third worst movie I have ever seen (don't get me started on oscarbait movies). Give me genre fiction any day.

And I find Drake to be a pretentious writer.

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
The guardsman hits first in assault, the Ork gets an Init of 2.

Right, forgot Furious Charge doesn't give +1I anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TiamatRoar wrote:
Hunh. So the guardsman has equal odds of winning or not even before the Ork has a chance whatsoever. Then still has a slight chance of winning once the Ork does get into range. Which means overall a guardsman will win more than lose.

Guess they really aren't THAT puny. At least, when you include weaponry advantages (obviously unarmed the Ork would win a lot more often)

No, its just that its roughly 50/50 to kill the ork before it hits melee. At which point the Ork is almost assured of killing the guardsmen.

So overall its an even fight. half the time, the ork will die before reaching melee. The other half of the time he won't.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
The guardsman hits first in assault, the Ork gets an Init of 2.

Right, forgot Furious Charge doesn't give +1I anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TiamatRoar wrote:
Hunh. So the guardsman has equal odds of winning or not even before the Ork has a chance whatsoever. Then still has a slight chance of winning once the Ork does get into range. Which means overall a guardsman will win more than lose.

Guess they really aren't THAT puny. At least, when you include weaponry advantages (obviously unarmed the Ork would win a lot more often)

No, its just that its roughly 50/50 to kill the ork before it hits melee. At which point the Ork is almost assured of killing the guardsmen.

So overall its an even fight. half the time, the ork will die before reaching melee. The other half of the time he won't.

50% chance to win before melee even starts.

10% chance to win after melee starts, if it does happen to start.

50% + 10% * (50% chance of melee happening in the first place) = 55% chance to win.

Therefore odds are slightly in the guardsman's favor.

...well, actually, 52% chance to win and 5% chance of them both dying, with Ork having a 43% chance of outright winning. Still technically guardsman's favor.

EDIT OOps, guardsman has initiative. 57% chance of guardsman winning vs 43% chance of ork winning.

Of course that completely discounts cover.

If the ork has a 5+ cover save the probability of killing the ork before combat goes down to only 33%

I find it ironic that the "puny human" has a lot more to fear from an Ork if the situation involves cover. That sounds so... unorky. You'd think it'd be the other way around (with the puny human wanting to hide behind cover)

 chromedog wrote:
I'm TOO old to be a hipster. I'm so old I didn't like most of this stuff the LAST time it came around.
The only reason I still have a fixie is because I STILL have it from when I first bought in the 80s.
It's not out of some retro-hipster thing - I just can't be arsed to throw it out.

I'm just a contrarian grumpy old guy.

With a long 'ignore list' that gets longer by the day.

So you've been hipstering about way before hipsters made it cool eh?

And also guardsman may not be geneticlly enhanced super soldiers or anything but at least they can get laid.