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.

H.B.M.C. , I've been reading yours posts and they're very informative and well thought out. You mentioned in one of them that you could create "the most balls-to-the-wall competitive Guard list on the face of the planet if I wanted to, tell him 'Go use this to murder every opponent you face', and he could do that and win all his games."

Although, I think guard is a very interesting army, it doesn't seem as competitive as Eldar or 'nids. So I'd be really curious to get your take on an extremely competitive tournament guard list.

What would a 1700 point guard list like this look like?

Thanks.

The biggest problem with asking this question is that he is going to answer using the current (high-detail) IG Codex. This wouldn't be a bad thing per se, except that one can reasonably expect significant rebalancing of several IG units. What is good today may not be good when IG are redone.

Following the Orks, one can expect a drop in the cost of Guardsmen, and especially Chimeras. But what's not clear is whether IG will be 40 pts per squad or 50 pts, whether Chimeras will be priced like Razorbacks at 50 pts with guns, or trimmed slightly to 50 pts base.

The way GW recosts things is going to have a major impact on how IG work in the future. And with 5th Edition right around the corner, and so much IG goodness appearing (plenty of multi-packs, Baneblade, planned Stormies & Valkyrie), you have to expect IG will be redone sooner rather than later.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The biggest problem with asking this question is that he is going to answer using the current (high-detail) IG Codex.

And that means they should let their Guard armies wait and gather dust whilst we wait for GW's three month window to reveal that they're possibly comtemplating the thought of thinking about maybe starting to consider doing a new Guard Codex? John, there's always going to be a new Codex. It's the way GW works. It doesn't matter if it's coming in 3 months or in 3 years, if someone wants to know how to use the Codex now, then why should anyone deny them that?

BYE

I'd have to say that regardless of codex edition, there are basic principles that need to be considered when building a guard army.

So does this Balls-to-the-Wall Guard list exist using the current codex?

I have also invited H.B.M.C to post a 1700 pt super army, using IG, after he was so rude in disparaging a friends list in the battle reports section.

Lets see it HB....

Russell wrote:I have also invited H.B.M.C to post a 1700 pt super army, using IG, after he was so rude in disparaging a friends list in the battle reports section.

I read your battle report. I knew the outcome based solely on the IG list. Don't use that as a guide to optimize IG.

HBMC has a long history of very good IG critiques. I have no doubt he could post a pretty good list if he wanted to.

This is the place you come to have your list critiqued. It is not a place for others to build you a list. If you can't build one yourself, utilize the search function.

Wow give HBMC a break. Its not like you can press a button for the List-O-Matic and poof comes HBMC to build you your next tourney winning army.

Part of army list making is trial and error and if you dont learn from your mistakes, your bound to repeat them.

This thread has written all over it so I'll just jump in here in advance and remind everyone to keep it civil

H.B.M.C. wrote:if someone wants to know how to use the Codex now, then why should anyone deny them that?

The thing is, an highly-optimized list built using the current IG Codex has a very good chance of being heavily invalidated. You saw what happened to the optimized CSM lists, with all the crying and whining afterwards.

I believe the current IG Codex requires Doctrines for the greatest power. And as we've seen sublists largely disappear from Orks, Chaos, and Eldar. It's not like the IG Codex just came out and players will have a lot of time to play with a Doctrine-based list. So anything that depends on Doctrines would be a problematic recommendation, because the player could be very ill-served if (when) those Doctrines went away.

rryannn wrote:I'd have to say that regardless of codex edition, there are basic principles that need to be considered when building a guard army.

Sort of. For the longest time, the basic principle of SM was 10-man Tactical squads. Then 3E threw that out, and everybody switched to 6-man squads because it was optimal. Now, 4E is bringing 5/10 man squads back.

Similarly, IG were built very differently than today. If you recall the various IG lists, the IG changed a lot from a structural concept.

I think any principles are edition and Codex-dependent if one intends to make an optimized list.

If one is Fluff-oriented, then something more timeless might apply, but even then, you have changes from edition to edition.

Are you saying then that people should not build an IG force because parts of it will likely be removed with a new edition? If so, then there's no reason for anyone to build any army. History in this hobby is proof that every edition invalidates portions of every list.

The good thing with IG is that when the doctrines are taken away in the next codex, it will take away tactics, but it is highly probable that the core will remain.

These core components have been in every list since Rogue Trader:
Command squads- Company and Platoon
Infantry squads
Rough Riders
Ratlings
Ogryn

The current codex is full of doctrines and options. So many that a new player or someone unfamiliar with IG is liable to "hang" their army in the build phase.

Options that are worth takin:
Drop Troops
Mechanized
Close Order Drill
Iron Discipline
Light Infantry
Vets
Chamelioline
Heavy Weapon Squads (looking into this one myself)
Special Weapon Squads
Rough riders
Grenadiers

Everything else in the book is junk IMO.

Generally speaking, the doctrines add points to the army, but don't take cash from the pocket. An optimized Command squad with a JO and 4 Plasma gunners is going to be effective regardless of being allowed to use Drop Troops Doctrine in the future.

I wouldn't worry too much about the future of the IG or its doctrines. I have a feeling that even with many options pulled out, there will still be a way to maintain the abilities the doctrines gave.

GW still has minis to sell. Chimera (Mech), Elysians (Drop Troop), blisters w/ Special Weapons, Command squads, boxes full of heavy weapons,... The list goes on.

Every good IG army since Rogue Trader has had a strong core of infantry with heavy/ special wepons. That will not change regardless of how they rewrite IG.5.

Flagg07 wrote:Are you saying then that people should not build an IG force because parts of it will likely be removed with a new edition?

I'm saying that depending heavily on Doctrines or other special rules for an optimized force is a bad idea at this point in time. Please recall that the thread context is for "balls to the wall", which implies optimized / WAAC.

Um, John, the wording of his post suggests that he's really just curious as to what said army would look like, as he's having a hard time right now envisioning a good Guard list. I don't think he says anywhere "Just tell me what to buy and I'll do it!!!! lol" I'm a little curious too, so if you please, I don't care that it'll soon be defunct.

thehod wrote:Part of army list making is trial and error and if you dont learn from your mistakes, your bound to repeat them.

Exactly.

In truth, a good list won't win you a game, but a bad list will lose you games.

I'll get to a few options for competative Guard later. I'm planning our groups last bitz order until bitz resumes later in the year, so I have to be accurate. Don't want to forget anything this time.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Flagg07 wrote:Are you saying then that people should not build an IG force because parts of it will likely be removed with a new edition?

I'm saying that depending heavily on Doctrines or other special rules for an optimized force is a bad idea at this point in time. Please recall that the thread context is for "balls to the wall", which implies optimized / WAAC.

emphasis mine


Why is it a bad idea at this time. Are new guard due out in the next month or so? I've not heard that, thinking about it I'm not sure I've heard anything about when they'll be redone, and whilst they will eventually be redone so will orks and choas - should we not get stuff for them either? Relying on any aspect of a dex is bad come it getting redone, even basic bread and butter units can change significantly relative to anything else in the same codex.

To sort of reinforce/regurgitate Flagg07's points, most of the basics of designing a really good Imperial Guard army won't change much with a new codex unless they make REALLY radical changes, which I don't see happening.

The Infantry Squad will always be the core of a guard army due to the 8 ablative wounds the heavy and special weapons have. Wargear that amplifies existing guard advantages, like Chameleoline augmenting cover saves, will always be good. Boosting squad leadership cheaply (Officers) as opposed to expensively (Vox Casters) will remain true.

Some of the details may/will change, but will require minimal tweaks to an army. The basics will remain the same.

Not to flog a dead horse, but I have to wonder, JohnHwangDD, exactly what doctrines the invalidation of which you think people should be worried about. What are the current power doctrines? Iron Discipline? Close Order Drill? Cameoline? None of these require modelling (well, maybe cameoline if you're hardcore about it, but it's not as if that will stop them being played as normal Guardsmen should the option be removed in future). Take them all away and what you've got left is, well, a bunch of Guardsmen. I doubt those are getting invalidated any time soon.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

thehod wrote:Part of army list making is trial and error and if you dont learn from your mistakes, your bound to repeat them.

Exactly.

In truth, a good list won't win you a game, but a bad list will lose you games.

I'll get to a few options for competative Guard later. I'm planning our groups last bitz order until bitz resumes later in the year, so I have to be accurate. Don't want to forget anything this time.

BYE

I think the OP's intention was just to see what a good guard list would look like. I know when I started guard I had trouble with a lot of the standard guard pitfalls. Since people like Stelek were nice enough to post their lists I started to understand the concepts behind a good guard list. I'm not currently using Stelek's or any one else's list. It was just a really nice starting point.

OP: search for the Last Chancer Drop list posted by Stelek and the SAFH Lascannon army posted by mauleed.

There are lots of good guard armies.

Honestly, a plasmadeath army with a vehicle based fire support wrecks marine armies which is the majority you'll play.

A missile launcher/lascannon shooty army with hundreds of guardsman is another completely viable army choice.

Small guard armies that can't guarantee lots of marine deaths will just get destroyed by troop based marine armies.

Facing off against 75+ marines with this list, I wouldn't give you good odds at surviving the day. No matter what doctrines you use, guardsmen top out at T3 with a 4+ save. That means against marines, they kill you in the shooting phase and the assault phase. So you need alot of guard to make up for this basic fact. 50 guardsmen is a great start, but till you hit 100+ you really aren't playing guard the best way they can be played. You're playing a 'Battleforce' army, and those just aren't any good.