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.

On the one hand that's a lot of bonuses.

On the other hand, most of those bonuses aren't amazing.

I do think it's a bit absurd if these doctrines apply to super heavy vehicles. If that was the case my knight could've used the boost.

fe40k wrote:
Ah, the codex creep is real - it was nice while it lasted; but I suppose GW realized that everyone knew that all the new traits would just be renames of the SM/CSM ones if they kept going the way they did.

The Catachan trait is obviously fantastic; it just seems a little out of place though - I thought they didn't specialize in vehicles so much? To be fair though, I don't play AM.

As AM is such a vehicle heavy army already; I'm hard pressed thinking what could possibly be better for them then the Catachan d6 rerolls; Ignoring the -1 when moving and shooting could do it, -1 to hit outside 12" might also be good enough.Outside those two, I'm not sure why you'd pick another regiment (guess we'll see as the spoilers come out).

I hope they're as generous and creative with Orks codex as they have been recently with other armies - but I always gotta keep in mind, I'm not an Imperial, I don't get the good stuff. XD

unfortunately looking like no new minis for guard but so happy about the new book and my tallarn will get some actual rules!

QQ all the kids who wasted money on piles on conscripts and mortars. On to the next WAAC lists!

I'd really like to see their conversions for Tallarn and rough riders.. my guess is empire horse gunners..
Individual blisters of just heads and misc bits could go a long way to making existing kits into alternative IG forces

Yep. Empire Pistoliers with Cadian torsos are how I made mine. Given the use of Pistoliers heads in the regiments preview I'd imagine they could have done similar.

If Rough Riders are even included, of which I'm not hopeful.

 gainsay wrote:
QQ all the kids who wasted money on piles on conscripts and mortars. On to the next WAAC lists!

Which will probably involve either guard infantry or conscripts still so I doubt anyone wasted money. Normal guard infantry are currently, without any doctrine buffs, better than anything any of the codex armies have. GW has made no mention of nerfing them in any capacity. Thus it can be safely assumed they will still be broken.

Guard infantry aren't broken? They fall over in a strong breeze...

fe40k wrote:
Ah, the codex creep is real - it was nice while it lasted; but I suppose GW realized that everyone knew that all the new traits would just be renames of the SM/CSM ones if they kept going the way they did.

The Catachan trait is obviously fantastic; it just seems a little out of place though - I thought they didn't specialize in vehicles so much? To be fair though, I don't play AM.

As AM is such a vehicle heavy army already; I'm hard pressed thinking what could possibly be better for them then the Catachan d6 rerolls; Ignoring the -1 when moving and shooting could do it, -1 to hit outside 12" might also be good enough.Outside those two, I'm not sure why you'd pick another regiment (guess we'll see as the spoilers come out).

I hope they're as generous and creative with Orks codex as they have been recently with other armies - but I always gotta keep in mind, I'm not an Imperial, I don't get the good stuff. XD

In the companion thread over in General I worked through the effect of the Catachan doctrine on different kinds of weapons. It's best for d6-shot weapons, where it's a 21% increase in output if you re-roll anything less than a 4, and then is a little less good for d3-shot or 2d6-shot weapons while being pretty unimpressive for 2d6-take-the-highest. That's good, but not remarkably so, especially given that most vehicles with d6-shot weapons will also have other weapons that don't benefit (as much). And since you don't expect to actually need to use the re-roll all that often you can get a lot of the benefit by being willing to use the re-roll stratagem instead.

Just re-rolling 1s to wound would be a significantly better offensive buff overall, I think, since it also helps your lascannons and heavy bolters and whatnot. The Salamanders' tactic would be absolutely nuts, though even moreso on infantry squads than on tanks. And defensive tactics might also be worth looking at. A super-heavy tank with the Raven Guard tactic would be very strong, since it's going to be very happy to charge you if you do get close enough to shoot it, and just in general Guard are very well-equipped to keep things more than 12" away from their valuable stuff.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Guard infantry aren't broken? They fall over in a strong breeze...

CSM armies use cultists as they are superior to plain space marines in most situations. Normal guard infantry are cultists with a better armor save. They are also flat out better than rangers/vanguard point for point as well.

Normal guard infantry may be worse than conscripts, but they are still better than anything else. They are tougher point for point than any infantry but conscripts and brimstones.

Well, at those low points everything that offers you a good enough chaff is good. A 25mm base unit with literally no offensive capabilities and no armour but with 1 wound for 1 point would be probably one of the most useful and best units in the game.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Okay, so I guess it's just Marine armies that are gonna be limited in what is affected by <> tactics. Why exactly does a Baneblade get regiment tactics but my daemon engines are left out to dry?

I expect that the reason is that, because of the way Guard keywords are set up, it's a lot easier for GW to exclude the things they want to be sure to exclude, like flyers. Note that actually lots of Guard stuff doesn't get doctrines. Here's a list of things in Imperium Index 2 that are ASTRA MILITARUM but not <REGIMENT>:

2 Commissars + 1 special character
3 abhumans + 1 special character
Officers of the Fleet and Valkyries
Tech-Priest Enginseers (which are no longer ASTRA MILITARUM in the AdMech codex)
Uriah Jacobus and Ministorum Priests
3 psykers
And then the Forgeworld flyers also lack <REGIMENT>, while Rough Riders at least get nothing from the Catachan doctrine. Forgeworld Earthshaker and Tarantula Batteries lack the VEHICLE keyword and so probably won't get anything out of most doctrines (only those that apply to all AM units without picking out types, probably).

It does seem like the Guard rule is more generous, but it remains limited in some important ways, and there are some big differences in the ways the armies are structured that seem to justify it. I think the upcoming Eldar codex will be a more interesting point of comparison, since no matter what GW does, it will look unfair to somebody. GW will definitely want to exclude their flyers, but it's hard to see what they do about Eldar vehicles. Space Marines have a huge variety of DREADNOUGHT-keyworded units compared to Eldar... Wraithlords? Maybe walkers in general which would bring in War Walkers, though there's currently no keyword which would catch only those two units. Maybe MONSTERS, which would be Wraithlords and Wraithknights, but judging from the AdMech codex GW doesn't want to give traits to Knights. This looks pretty unfair to Eldar. But what's the alternative except to give them traits on grav tanks, which I expect would annoy Marine players?

For Wraithlords I'd be looking to Craftworld Iyanden's trait and for it to be effecting keyword Spirit Host units, so Spiritseers, Wraithseer, Wraithguard/blades, Wraithlord, Wraithfighter and Wraithknight. I don't think them affecting Wraithknights will be too much of a problem given how bad they currently are, but depending on the trait Hemlock's could become even nastier.

As far as Eldar tanks go though, it'll take a lot more than Craftworld traits to make the Falcon and Fire Prism good again, they have far too little damage output for far too high a cost.

 Imateria wrote:

For Wraithlords I'd be looking to Craftworld Iyanden's trait and for it to be effecting keyword Spirit Host units, so Spiritseers, Wraithseer, Wraithguard/blades, Wraithlord, Wraithfighter and Wraithknight. I don't think them affecting Wraithknights will be too much of a problem given how bad they currently are, but depending on the trait Hemlock's could become even nastier.

As far as Eldar tanks go though, it'll take a lot more than Craftworld traits to make the Falcon and Fire Prism good again, they have far too little damage output for far too high a cost.

I mean, they could do that, but that'd be a significant break from how they've been handling all of the other codices, where every trait has the same scope across all subfactions. It's true that several of the Craftworlds are very strongly identified with particular units, but the same could be said for Chaos Legions, and both Emperor's Children and World Eaters got Legion Traits that apply broadly (their favored units become Troops rather than Elites though). The same is also true of the White Scars Chapter, but again they got a generally-useful trait (plus a bike-specific stratagem). So I think this is unlikely, and that instead Iyanden is likely to have a stratagem for this or maybe be able to take Wraithguard as Troops.

I was talking less about which units need buffs (since obviously they can and probably will adjust points for Eldar units in the codex) and more about how people would respond to the scope of the traits. The expectation after Codex: Space Marines was that you'd get traits on infantry and bikes and maybe some characteristic vehicles, but not transports and flyers and not on a lot of other big vehicles. Chaos worked basically the same way. Then AdMech got traits on everything, but of course "everything" is not that much for them -- notably, they don't have transports or flyers, and all of their vehicles are walkers. Now Guard are getting traits on a whole bunch of things including transports and super-heavy tanks, though some of their infantry is getting left out. But like I said, I think Guard are in a weird spot, keyword-wise, so it'll be interesting to see if Eldar follow the Space Marine model or whether they'll get traits on almost everything (except flyers and possibly the Knight). I think either way someone's going to feel screwed over, since Marine DREADNOUGHTS are far more varied than Eldar walkers but giving traits to grav tanks (possibly including the super-heavies from Forgeworld) is going to make Razorbacks and Predators and Land Raiders sad.

Pariah-Miniatures wrote:
I'd really like to see their conversions for Tallarn and rough riders.. my guess is empire horse gunners..
Individual blisters of just heads and misc bits could go a long way to making existing kits into alternative IG forces

Tallarn had rough rider minis. Here are some of mine.

SilverAlien wrote:

 gainsay wrote:
QQ all the kids who wasted money on piles on conscripts and mortars. On to the next WAAC lists!

Which will probably involve either guard infantry or conscripts still so I doubt anyone wasted money. Normal guard infantry are currently, without any doctrine buffs, better than anything any of the codex armies have. GW has made no mention of nerfing them in any capacity. Thus it can be safely assumed they will still be broken.

Basic guard squads broken?! You obviously do not play imperial guard my good sir. Please explain this logic.

Ok, so we got our conscript nerf (which I'm fine with) but now regular Guard are OP. How did I know this crap was coming?

Maybe we can get a list of approved IG units to use against our opponents. We won't have any troups though, cause I assume if regular squads are OP then Scions are REALLY OP.

Tempestus Scions with plasma spam are really OP, yes.

But Veterans are fine to use. They suck

 Galas wrote:
Tempestus Scions with plasma spam are really OP, yes.

But Veterans are fine to use. They suck

But they are not troups. I actually like Vets, but I don't play competitive.

Oh I know tallarn had them, it's just unlikely they would bring back any of those old models from the dead.

 gainsay wrote:

Pariah-Miniatures wrote:
I'd really like to see their conversions for Tallarn and rough riders.. my guess is empire horse gunners..
Individual blisters of just heads and misc bits could go a long way to making existing kits into alternative IG forces

Tallarn had rough rider minis. Here are some of mine.

SilverAlien wrote:

 gainsay wrote:
QQ all the kids who wasted money on piles on conscripts and mortars. On to the next WAAC lists!

Which will probably involve either guard infantry or conscripts still so I doubt anyone wasted money. Normal guard infantry are currently, without any doctrine buffs, better than anything any of the codex armies have. GW has made no mention of nerfing them in any capacity. Thus it can be safely assumed they will still be broken.

Basic guard squads broken?! You obviously do not play imperial guard my good sir. Please explain this logic.

Don't bother. Silver has an irrational hateboner for the IG. If basic Guard infantry were half as OP as he ceaselessly claims, my mostly infantry guard army's tournament record (7-9-1) would bear some resemblance to my casual game record (30-4-5). It's almost like people who actually know what they're doing are able to deal with hordes or something.

 Stus67 wrote:
Rip chenkov. From man to stratagem.

He could return with a rule like “after you activate <stratagem>, roll a dice: on a 4+, refund theCP spent” or something?

gendoikari87 wrote:
so can someone explain why the catachans get a rule that only affects vehicles with artillery? and nothing to do with stealth?

Because fluff is merely something to set on fire.


But it isn't just artillery. Every hull lascannon, heavy flamer or silly hellhound squirt cannon also benefits from this. Lascannons rule, bolters drool.
Even more better tanks for the guard range they need to force sales of. Hmm.

On the other hand, they waited 4 full books to appease the power creep gods, even if the flaws in <word> system were clear with SM.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Stus67 wrote:
Rip chenkov. From man to stratagem.

He could return with a rule like “after you activate <stratagem>, roll a dice: on a 4+, refund theCP spent” or something?

Is there a model for Chenkov you can buy? He might have gone the way of other characters like Mordrak.

Replacing him with a stratagem seems like something I would put my money on.

Voss wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
so can someone explain why the catachans get a rule that only affects vehicles with artillery? and nothing to do with stealth?

Because fluff is merely something to set on fire.


But it isn't just artillery. Every hull lascannon, heavy flamer or silly hellhound squirt cannon also benefits from this. Lascannons rule, bolters drool.
Even more better tanks for the guard range they need to force sales of. Hmm.

On the other hand, they waited 4 full books to appease the power creep gods, even if the flaws in <word> system were clear with SM.

Uhhh… which lascannon does random attacks please?

As for the rest, jungle fighters good at using flame throwers? You don’t say….

Ah, right. Got the stat blocks switched in my head. Haven't bothered much with 8th since the codexes starting hitting the floor.


But yeah, you could say it's about jungle fighters being good at using flamers, but that isn't really a transferable skill to artillery. So it comes across as jungle fighters being better at random numbers.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Why exactly does a Baneblade get regiment tactics but my daemon engines are left out to dry?

Because Guard can do all-tank armies, so they have to include a way for someone to play a Cadian tank army. It would be very strange for all a Regiment's special rules to vanish just because there are no infantry there.

But why don't Legion rules affect my Legion Daemon Engines/whatever. That's a separate, and no less valid question. They should. But they don't. Because reasons.

 BrookM wrote:
The Baneblade is crewed by the same people as the regiment.

That's unlikely.

How does the Catachan Doctrine work on lascannons? It only effects the number of shots, so you couldn't use it to reroll damage.

If we are going to claim that the Catachans are setting the meta on fire, at least be right about what they are burning.

gendoikari87 wrote:
so can someone explain why the catachans get a rule that only affects vehicles with artillery? and nothing to do with stealth?

Because writing rules is hard, and when every special rule in 8th Ed is a variation on "Get a re-roll", "Get +1/-1 to something" and "Causes Mortal Wounds", it's hard to make that square Catachan peg fit into the round 8th Ed hole.

 gainsay wrote:
Basic guard squads broken?! You obviously do not play imperial guard my good sir. Please explain this logic.

Broken now? No. But they are still the third best chaff in the game in terms of durability already, behind conscripts and brimstones. So if conscripts get a nerf but normal guard units get a buff to durability and no price increase, nothing changes besides which guard unit every imperium player takes. Compare them to termagaunts or cultists, or everything in R&H, better stats and options for the same price as said units. The fact guard players think normal infantry squads are bad yet CSM players are glad to have the strictly inferior cultists as a troop option instead of being forced to use normal CSM squads kinda gives you an idea how tactical squads fare as well. Normal guard infantry is already great, it's just overshadowed by conscripts.

As for people insulting me, remember when you insulted me for saying conscripts were broken? Funny how that turned out.

SilverAlien wrote:

 gainsay wrote:
Basic guard squads broken?! You obviously do not play imperial guard my good sir. Please explain this logic.

Broken now? No. But they are still the third best chaff in the game in terms of durability already, behind conscripts and brimstones. So if conscripts get a nerf but normal guard units get a buff to durability and no price increase, nothing changes besides which guard unit every imperium player takes. Compare them to termagaunts or cultists, or everything in R&H, better stats and options for the same price as said units. The fact guard players think normal infantry squads are bad yet CSM players are glad to have the strictly inferior cultists as a troop option instead of being forced to use normal CSM squads kinda gives you an idea how tactical squads fare as well. Normal guard infantry is already great, it's just overshadowed by conscripts.

As for people insulting me, remember when you insulted me for saying conscripts were broken? Funny how that turned out.

I don't think I've met any guard players who think infantry squads are bad, it's pretty obvious from the getgo that they are very good, it's just they're overshadowed by conscripts and stormtroopers who get flashier options and abilities. I run predominately infantry squads and do fairly well with 0 conscripts, albeit I'm in a pretty casual area. I'm sure I'd get wrecked pretty hard by an area that's actually trying.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I don't think I've met any guard players who think infantry squads are bad, it's pretty obvious from the getgo that they are very good, it's just they're overshadowed by conscripts and stormtroopers who get flashier options and abilities. I run predominately infantry squads and do fairly well with 0 conscripts, albeit I'm in a pretty casual area. I'm sure I'd get wrecked pretty hard by an area that's actually trying.

Yeah, I don't think a guard army will face roll people using normal guard squads. Or even conscripts, if their opponents is optimized. Pure guard doesn't really do great because they are missing some of the elements that work well this edition. A single character that let them reroll all misses in range would do wonders for their mostly 4+ army. So the guards cheap chaff really shine when used by any other imperial army with something dangerous enough to actually be worth protecting.

Of course, if guard do get some buffs to other areas and normal squads become strong enough to step into the gap left post conscript nerf (assuminf the nerf even really changes things) that may be a different story. But I think it's more likely guard will continue being the infantry part of all imperial soup lists, probably at the same rough effectiveness.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 gainsay wrote:
Basic guard squads broken?! You obviously do not play imperial guard my good sir. Please explain this logic.

Broken now? No. But they are still the third best chaff in the game in terms of durability already, behind conscripts and brimstones. So if conscripts get a nerf but normal guard units get a buff to durability and no price increase, nothing changes besides which guard unit every imperium player takes. Compare them to termagaunts or cultists, or everything in R&H, better stats and options for the same price as said units. The fact guard players think normal infantry squads are bad yet CSM players are glad to have the strictly inferior cultists as a troop option instead of being forced to use normal CSM squads kinda gives you an idea how tactical squads fare as well. Normal guard infantry is already great, it's just overshadowed by conscripts.

As for people insulting me, remember when you insulted me for saying conscripts were broken? Funny how that turned out.

I don't think I've met any guard players who think infantry squads are bad, it's pretty obvious from the getgo that they are very good, it's just they're overshadowed by conscripts and stormtroopers who get flashier options and abilities. I run predominately infantry squads and do fairly well with 0 conscripts, albeit I'm in a pretty casual area. I'm sure I'd get wrecked pretty hard by an area that's actually trying.

That said, regular Guard squads were VERY good, but they just weren't as good as Scions and Conscripts working in tandem because that was literally broken. I don't think people understand how durable Guard infantry became because they don't need to sit in cover now because Bolters, the weapon that SHOULD be doing heavy damage on them, doesn't do jack to their armor now. Sternguard just barely ignore the save with special Bolters! Top that off with the matter that most weapons are more point efficient towards a Tactical Marine (the Heavy Bolter being the worst offender) and you got a mess of trouble.

 Freddy Kruger wrote:
Please, PLEASE GW, make the Armageddon Steel Legion Regiment Doctrine awesome sauce...

Got to admit, those catachan doctrines are fantastic. Gives me hope the Guard will go from strength to strength!

I'm hoping we get a stratagem that allows us to disembark infantry at the end of the movement phase so we can really utilize mech vets.