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.

Rending? Orgryns,?

the idea behind rending is that it shreads the target to tiny pieces

the idea behind Ogryns is that they pistol whip the target into one very dead piece

Modquisition:
Gentlemen you don't know what crazy is, so lets keep the crazy talk down. Argue the issues and points but tone it down please.
Modquisition off

"Thats not crazy talk. This is crazy talk KERBLABBLE BABBLE!"

dr vompire wrote:Rending? Orgryns,?

the idea behind rending is that it shreads the target to tiny pieces

the idea behind Ogryns is that they pistol whip the target into one very dead piece

FWIW, I don't care so much about the Fluff of shredding, just the in-game rules impact. I think Rending Ogryns would be good.

Still, if Rending = shredding, then Ripper Guns are GO!

One problem is that 40k doesn't have a Heavy CCW anymore. And I don't see them being armed with power weapons. Hence Rending to split the difference. But I guess I'd be satisfied with a S10 Power Fist on the Bonehead. That'd do just fine by me.

George Spiggott wrote:Taking a wound off Ogryns would make them better IMO. Giving then a 4+ Armour save, two wounds, FNP and two rending CCW's (Ripper gun would be 'Pistol 2' instead of 'Assault 2') along with a points decrease would cover most of their problems.

That works, too.

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:

Shep wrote:The mini-units concept is tired and lame and needs to go away. Deployment, movement phases, shooting phases, multiple units in assault... all of these things become laborious chores when fighting guard.

Could you elaborate why deployment, movement or shooting become any different when fighting Guard (and playing your regular list) than against any other opponent? Having multiple units is a tactical advantage and I see no need to make things any easier for Space Marine players if they have difficulties keeping track of the game. Assaulting multiple units is pretty easy, too. You just announce who's hitting whom, hey presto.

I can elaborate. During deployment. Each unit will be placed seperately, the delicate lattice-work of area terrain cover and screening cover needs to be built during said deployment, and many guard players (the non-droppers) belabor this phase. During the movement phase, each unit that moves through difficult terrain requires a separate roll. Each separate unit requires consideration on where to be moved. During shooting, the decisions regarding what unit shoots at what take longer, due to more units to make that decisions with. Wound allocation on complex units also takes longer, because units take multiple waves of wounds rather than a more consolidated batch.

I didn't say assaulting multiple units was too complicated. I said it takes more time. You have to allocate attacks, make more separate rolls more separate armor saves, more leadership tests, move more falling back models.

You aren't going to win an argument with the position that guard don't take more time to play as or against in a regular game setting. Please don't try.

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:

Shep wrote:
But IG armies monopolize the time in tournament settings. In 2 hours games the guard player is active in a much greater majority than their opponent.

You're welcome to take more units yourself if this is your main complaint. Or you could suggest to the developers to do away with anything that's even remotely time-consuming, and disallow horde armies. Or DSing Guard (which will probably go away with the new dex, so your point is kind of moot). Didn't you say that Guard squads are wiped out extremely easily? How come then that there's that much moving, shooting and multiple assaulting going on until turn 7 that you are this peeved? I mean you can either say they're fragile, then it should not be so hard to whittle down their numbers. Or you can say that the major factor is that you cannot properly figure out what to shoot/assault because there are so many. In this case, why take away such an advantage from an already bottom-tier list? You can however not argue that they are extremely easy to wipe out and give away KP's but take hours to move etc. all game long.

No. I can't take more units. A guard player has access to 54 force org slots. The average points cost of their units is less than 100. Most guard players maximize their units by taking 75 point veterans/JO units/infantry squads. No one else does that. No one. I do suggest that developers do away with needlessly time consuming facets of their games. All 2 hour games should average out to each player being active for about 1 hour. Thats how the game is for for both parties. I'm not making a suggestoin that takes away some "tactical" advantage for IG. First off, playing with 25 kill points is NEVER an advantage. Second, I think with better shooting and better untis in general, the guard would stand to gain more, than their gimmick being that they have a minimum of 3 independent characters and 7 required units just to get started building an army.

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:

Shep wrote:
This exactly why it should be one unit. ... Even more unworkable would be that you must kill every unit in the platoon to get a single KP. Then we have people taking naked squads and spreading them all over the table and playing squad 'shell games' with them.

You think so? What good are those naked squads in the majority of games? How do they capture objectives against even the lightest opposition? I cannot see how this approach would be very helpful especially in a tourney environment.

I think I'd buy a 30 point remnant squad, and hold it in reserve and hide it in the corner of my table for every platoon. Then I'd buy max sized up-gunned juicy guard units. And you'd never score a single KP. Then I think you'd have a problem with me... and not the rules that I was able to abuse.

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:

Shep wrote:
The only thing I'm really hot to get rid of are 5 man and 6 man guard units. The KP pinatas.

Then don't take them. Simple as that. Where's the problem?

Please show me how to not take an HQ command squad that is worth 2kp and is 5 T3 5+ save models. And please show me how I don't have to take one of those ridiculous 2kp pinatas each time I want to take a mainstay troop choice. If there were choice, there wouldn't be a problem.

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:

Shep wrote:
Ultimately, the many small units gag is only fun for the guard player, the opponent has more book-keeping to do than usual.

I'm sorry, really, with all necessary disclaimers but that's a laughable argument. I'd try to get it across in a more polite way but I cannot. On one hand, those small units are supposedly 'KP pinatas' but you haven't got the stamina to count to 15 or so for such an advantage? How are 'KP pinatas' fun for the Guard player? Did you not just point out that they make Guard completely unplayable? And what about combat squads? You don't really believe I'd be buying the argument that having 15 units compared to 10 is a major administrative affair I hope.

No need to apologize, this is the internet, I don't hold it against you...

But you make my point... how IS having kill point pinatas fun for guard players? I would think it couldn't be, but look at the multitudes of people coming out of the woodworks pleading to not lose their 25+ unit armies.

And trust me, its not that I have trouble tracking units. I'll be the guy that catches you trying to shoot your fire support squad twice. I just want to get to turn 7 if there is going to be one. And I don't really like the idea of standing at the table watching my opponent scratch his head and squint, slow-rolling me with his dearth of choices, waiting for my turn to "play".

Shep, remind me to never play you for fear of you gazing at your watch every ten seconds

I love My Guard

BrookM wrote:Shep, remind me to never play you for fear of you gazing at your watch every ten seconds

hehe...

That last sentence sure could be taken in an unflattering way.

I'm a champion sportsman, I enjoy 40k a great deal, and have a great time playing almost all games I play. I make an effort to extend that enjoyment to my opponents as well.

I'm just commenting on the state of the guard codex. I've overheard many people at tournaments complain that their games went 3 or 4 turns against guard. But i don't think any of them had a problem with their opponent per se.

My 'favorite opponent' at the Vegas GT was a guard player that was entirely infantry. It was a drop/outflank army with all of the models as cadian/skeletons. The fluff was that a radical inquisitor had found some archeo-tech allowing him to resurrect soldiers for brief amounts of time. Great guy, fun game. We would have had more fun however if he hadn't had to work so hard to deploy everything and keep track of all his reserve rolls and who was what upgrade etc.

Frazzled wrote:Modquisition:
Gentlemen you don't know what crazy is, so lets keep the crazy talk down. Argue the issues and points but tone it down please.
Modquisition off

sorry, came home from work, was in bad mood.

"Thats not crazy talk. This is crazy talk KERBLABBLE BABBLE!"

on otherhand I'm a psychiatrist, I know crazy talk.

yep that's crazy talk

and yes, ripper guns should have rending, or the old rule where they auto hit.

but have a 6" range

personally I believe an armor upgrade would be good. Id like to see AV14 all around. ALso, the melta and lance proof upgrades that are availible to armored company are good.

Why would easily destroyable tanks fit in IG fluff?

That OP sounds super fishy on a whole bunch of levels. Radically changing the structure of the Guard, especially in platoons, is really, really silly. First of all, GW rarely completely changes a list's setup like that. They prefer smaller tweaks to bring things in line with new editions, as radically changing an army isolates existing players and risks destroying what made that army what it was in the first place. Mobs of 4 point infantry, lead by a leadership-boosting commander, with no special or heavy weapons? We call them grots.

Second off, I'd field far fewer men if they were used in such formations, rather than more. Why would I use them at all, considering how weak they are without real guns? I'd take the minimum amount and load on the tanks and heavy weapons. Though truth to be told, if they really screwed the army over that much, I'd just switch back to playing Marines and leave the Guard in their platoons where they belong, even if it means not playing with them anymore.

What the OP is proposing runs totally, totally counter to the direction 5th has been heading. First off, it completely invalidates existing units and formations, not something GW does lightly, particularly to an army as popular as the Guard. Second, limits the tactical options of the army to pretty much nothing. Third, and the thing that really made me believe the OP is false, is that, if the focus is on troops, why make them useless, remove what made them unique, and make them low-rent Orks? If I was focusing on them, I'd make it about enhancing what made the Guard different, not finding ways to make them Orks with worse troops and better tanks.

I think you'll find that to make a Guard army that has lots of tanks balanced your going to have to accept a lowered Armour rating. That was one of the really big problems with the armoured comapny. 10 tanks with frontal AV 14 is a ridiculous challenge for an army not built to specifically kill tanks. Seeing as thats an amazing amount of mobile and exceedingly tough fire power most all-comers litsts don't pack enough muscle to deal. The problem that they don't score somewhat mitigates this. But I wouldn't say its all that hard to table someone when you are throwing 10 str 8 ap3 pie plates around a turn if you move! If you don't you also add in 90 odd Heavy bolter shots. Thats insane.

The 'power' of Armoured Companies was more psychological than real. Yes, having 10 AV14 tanks hurling pie-plates downrange is dangerous, but the certainly weren't very mobile (even less so now). And I think the non-scoring thing really balances it. All the AC's I've used were in 'Alpha' missions, where VP's didn't matter. They were all close games because a game with 10 AV14 tanks means I have 10 scoring units. And all the Battlecannons in the world don't help you against opposing AV14 vehicles either.

In 5th an armoured company would be impossible to kill, but with cover saves the way they are I can't see them killing a whole lot more than they did before. And with the current missions structure as it exists today, I can't see that helping them at all. In the current environment, a Guard army with, say, 6-8 tanks wouldn't be an issue. That's 6-8 units that can't score, yet are worth 1 (damnable) KP each.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The difference being that I never made mention of actually fielding non-upgraded squads, unlike you...

Which means that I don't play Guard? Nice one. I'm just going to drop this as I don't want this thread to degenerate into circular logic and insults.

I don't understand why anybody would talk about non-upgraded Guardsmen in any context other than them being W1. And the notion that BS3 lascannon / plasma not being useful / helpful is just plain wierd. IMO, the only purpose for taking regular Guardsmen at all is because you can field a lot of upgraded guns.

I assume that W1 means 1 wound? The problem isn't that they're a wound, it's that they're a T3 5+ save model with a crappy gun. Sure, replace 2 of those guys with X gun and Y heavy weapon, but the lasguns do nothing, so really it's just like a 4 point piece of crud meatshield for these weapons.
Anyway, what I'm trying to put across is that just because a Guard squad is upgraded, it doesn't mean that it's more survivable. And with doctrines going to the way of the dodo, they will become even more vulnerable. (As we both use Camo)

What I'm really trying to say is that even though they may cost less (which means more guns or whatever) they still suck, and if there's more guys on the field, this means more potential KP for the enemy.

Am I wrong? Perhaps. I don't know if I got this across the way I wanted to, but I'm really tired so I'm obviously not at my full capacity.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The difference being that I never made mention of actually fielding non-upgraded squads, unlike you...

Which means that I don't play Guard?

Yikes, no.

You led me to believe you play a very different flavor of Guard when you wrote about 10 guys with Lasguns. Sorry.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I don't understand why anybody would talk about non-upgraded Guardsmen in any context other than them being W1. And the notion that BS3 lascannon / plasma not being useful / helpful is just plain wierd. IMO, the only purpose for taking regular Guardsmen at all is because you can field a lot of upgraded guns.

I assume that W1 means 1 wound? The problem isn't that they're a wound, it's that they're a T3 5+ save model with a crappy gun. Sure, replace 2 of those guys with X gun and Y heavy weapon, but the lasguns do nothing, so really it's just like a 4 point piece of crud meatshield for these weapons.

Anyway, what I'm trying to put across is that just because a Guard squad is upgraded, it doesn't mean that it's more survivable. And with doctrines going to the way of the dodo, they will become even more vulnerable. (As we both use Camo)

What I'm really trying to say is that even though they may cost less (which means more guns or whatever) they still suck, and if there's more guys on the field, this means more potential KP for the enemy.

Am I wrong? Perhaps. I don't know if I got this across the way I wanted to, but I'm really tired so I'm obviously not at my full capacity.

Yeah, W1 is a wound, and the Lasguns are all but worthless. I generally view Guard squads as a Heavy, a Special, and 10 wounds, of which the first 8 are totally meaningless.

OK, I totally missed that you were focused on survivability, and thought you were talking about utility. As I perceive Guard utility as primarily centered around their ability to take Heavies and Specials, naturally, we had crossed signals. Yeah, the Heavy and Special have nothing to do with survival - they just give them a reason to exist. Camo is useful, and I fully expect to see options for Camo and Carapace in some way moving forward.

I now understand your point, and think it'll be good to only pay for the useful stuff. If that means I can have more Heavies and Specials, or more Tanks, that'll be great. If I can take enough of them to table my opponent, then KP don't matter.

Anyhow, I'm getting tired too. Have a good evening.

smart_alex wrote:personally I believe an armor upgrade would be good. Id like to see AV14 all around. ALso, the melta and lance proof upgrades that are availible to armored company are good.

Why would easily destroyable tanks fit in IG fluff?

Why would fluff translate directly to the tabletop? The goal of the tabletop game, from GW's perspective, is to have a fun game that incorporates all elements of various armies and have them follow their fluff-equivalent only loosely. If IG tanks were 14 all around, and given access to the upgrades you mention, they'd be really expensive (points-wise), which would limit how many an IG army could field at once, which goes against the greater goal of getting table top armies to match GW's vision of the army (lots of tanks and soldiers).

As I see it, marine stuff should be the best the imperium has to offer. Why would a land raider, for example, have the same front armor and upgrades as the standard IG tank? "Anti-lance technology" should be pretty rare, and as such wouldn't go to IG units. Exotic armor types, or just quality, would go to Space Marines first, so I'd have no problem seeing a Leman Russ go to AV 13/12/10. and maybe the demolisher, a more rare, specialty variant, staying the same.

If they're looking to speed up Guard play and reinforce the Platoon as a tactical element (not just an army purchasing element), it would be interesting to see rules for Platoons staying close together and coordinating action, not unlike Empire detachments in WFB. There's been rumors of a "Platoon Drill" rule, about squads in a platoon not blocking the fire of other squads. It might be interesting to see this rule, or a similar sort work when the whole platoon fired at the same target. You lose tactical flexibility, but gain power. It's also quicker, because you're rolling them all as one squad. This would be cool, in my opinion.

Hmm, if they were to implement any kind of platoon playble reform I would want them to play similar to the FOW platoons. They seem to know what they are doing.

*delurks*

I can't believe that The most diverse fighting force in the universe is thought to be so limited by force org structures. Big units, small units, whatever, whatever one can imagine there is probably a guard army out there, in one of the millions of planets, using it. The key to the dex should be giving the player the option to build anything and have it roughly work, while the competitive players can work out the details for power.

Here is how I see it....

1. Command Squad should be able to be made BIG. Like 5~20 men. 1kill point each. This way you can lead from the front or back....and upgrade accordingly
2. Line squad should also be variable sized from 10~20, with 0.5kill point every 10 men, rounded up. Certain unit types might add restrictions however. (eg. max 10 man for mechanized, and 12 for light infantry....etc)

3. "Platoon as one" unit is fine, especially for conscript/low price guardsmen. I don't think much tactical finesse involves untrained people with a lasgun, so they shouldn't have them. Give them some type of commissioner morale thing and it can still be a useful unit. It should actually be powerful enough to make the "lots of bodies rushing forward" workable to an extent. Hell, if there weren't restricted in weapon options, (normal 10men for heavy/special) it might result in a completely different type of guard army.

Now, armies with tons of small, cheap units probably would still suffer the kill point problem. But the player can either build armies with big units or small, killy units upgraded up the wazoo to deal with the problem.

-----
other things:
Tanks and artillery in squads in fast attack/heavy support....not as troops
More special weapons would be nice to break the sit and shoot gun line....and more demo charges for all....

George Spiggott wrote:Taking a wound off Ogryns would make them better IMO. Giving then a 4+ Armour save, two wounds, FNP and two rending CCW's (Ripper gun would be 'Pistol 2' instead of 'Assault 2') along with a points decrease would cover most of their problems.

No need to have FNP, especially because instant death doesn't let you FNP. 3 wounds, toughness 4 but treated as toughness 5 for purposes of instant death. Give the Bone 'Ead some weapon options that are CCW but not too beefy. Keep a similar price, but cast ogryns in plastic. Watch people buy them.

I think what we need for the Imperial Guard is a bit of a break from the normal FoC.

For one, a unique FoC equivalent can help somewhat with Kill Points, whilst balancing this by restricting or changing what their scoring units can be.

Plus, from a purely fluff and design point of view, it will help to paint the picture of the IG as a massive, lumbering War Machine. One so enormous that Right Tool For Right Job ceases to apply. Sooner or later, it's just going to Steamroller the problem away.

Now, having said that, I don't really have any suggestions as to quite what. But perhaps a lead from 2nd Edition? Then, each Infantry Platoon could have auxiliaries dropped in, like a Leman Russ, or Ogryns or something as support. I'm sure something like this could be arranged.

I still want some Grav-Chute troops...(sang to the Chipmunks "hula hoop" song.).

We already have grav-chute troops don't we?

Just use the drop troops doctrine...

You think that Doctrine is still going to exist this time next year? You think any Doctrines are going to exist this time next year?

Face it. You want a Drop Troop army, assuming they're not canned compeltely, you're going to need to bring an Elysian or Harkoni Special Character. Got a Jungle Fighters army? You'll be bringing that same Catachan Special Character to every battle you fight! Like Light Infantry? Guess that makes you Tanith - have fun bringing Gaunt to every game you play.

BYE

Actual models, not forgeworld...that's what I meant.

Kung Fu Jim wrote:Actual models, not forgeworld...that's what I meant.

Well, regardless of what GW does with the Guard Codex, IA3 and IA4 still exist, so if you want actual Elysian Drop Troops, the rules are there. One of the benefits of the IA books, especially IA3, is that if people don't want to play the FW rules with you, you can just smack them over the head with the book until they change their mind.

Them's things is heavy!!!

BYE

Actually, with the plastic Cadians out there as a base, and Valks coming out next year, an Elysian upgrade sprue for Wave 2 IG would make a lot of sense.

The EDT sprue could be similar to the Black Templar sprue wouldn't be difficult at all. 20 EDT helmets & backpacks would be fairly easy to produce and generate some nice, easy sales...

JohnHwangDD wrote:Actually, with the plastic Cadians out there as a base, and Valks coming out next year, an Elysian upgrade sprue for Wave 2 IG would make a lot of sense.

Never mind the cost involved in getting such a thing up and running.

GW ain't a charity John, they'd have to see a good return in their future to make a conversion kit worthwhile. They'd be better off making DKOK models (or DKOK/Steel Legion-esque models). Those things sell like crazy from FW, and I think a plastic army of them would be quite popular.

BYE

I'm doubtful IG army configurations are going to be as IC dependent as the SM codex. I think certain characters will be generally more beneficial to certain army configurations but not necessary.