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.

Just a wish list thread for the 5th edition imperial guardsman

1) If designers intend to keep the basic guardsman at 6pts per, weapons options at current costs, and Kill points as listed
2) If designers intend to keep the basic guardsman at 6pts per, weapons options at current costs, and Kill points are one per platoon
3) Flexible on points costs,but kill points as listed
4) Flexible on points costs, and kill points are one per platoon

Intent 1) Guardsmen would need to be given fortification special rule where all cover saves are +1 until unit moves. Units in the open would be granted a 6+ cover save They would also need str4 ap - lasguns, and a special rule to allow them to shoot through units with out granting enemy units a cover save.

Intent 2) Honestly, the rumored shoot through units special rule would be all that is needed to balance them. I can think of some crazy tactics to use to keep the IG fighting.

Intent 3) 4pt guardsmen...... Cost cutting on heavy weapons as well

Intent 4) Hrm, this is hard. Personally I lean to Intent 2 as the best way to balance the guardsman. But if there is no shoot through units rule, then 5pt guardsmen and a points adjustment to the heavy and special weapons.

The problem with Guard lies in the fact that they too good at what they do. What I mean by that is you can get so much out of a squad of Guardsmen (because they're so cheap) that there's little reason to spent points on toy units.

You made Guardsmen 4 points each and reduce the costs of their special/heavy weapons, and there's no reason to bring anything else. 350+/- points for a 55-man platoon. I could bring 5 such platoons to the table at 1850 and still have 100 points left for my HQ.

That's, assuming 15 point Lascannons and 8 point Plasma Guns (which is what they should be), 25 Lascannons, 25 Plasma Guns and (minimum) 280 models on the table. The army is also worth 6 Kill Points (God I hate those things...). Throw in some flamers, HBs and Autocannons instead of the Plasmas and Flamers, and you get even more points back.

You'll win just due to sheer attrition. Even Orks maxing out on Sluggaz top out at 180.

They can't be 4 points each unless they're worth 1 KP per squad and/or they have no 'platoon' ability to fire through their own guys without penalty.

BYE

So your basically saying you agree with me? If each squad is one kp, and barring any rules chaged, that each guardsman is worth 4 points and the weapons upgrades need to be reduced.

Sorry, it is always interesting to me to get in the mind of the designers. I figured they will go down one of four roads. The question is what they will do if they choose a particular path.

foil7102 wrote:So your basically saying you agree with me? If each squad is one kp, and barring any rules chaged, that each guardsman is worth 4 points and the weapons upgrades need to be reduced.

I'm saying that the compensation for having such a KP-heavy army will have to be great, or Guard will just be unworkable.

BYE

I think that Guardsmen are overpriced at 6 pts, but may be underpriced at 4 pts. I like Guardsmen at 5 pts.

I think Platoons should be 1 KP a single unit. But I'd like to see a secondary squad-to-squad cohesiveness requirement -- Platoon squads must have at least 1 model within 6" of another model, or they automatically go to ground if not falling back.

Fortifications are a horrible idea for Guard. Guard already tend to be static. Providing further benefit only makes the static play style worse.

S4 Lasguns are unnecessary. They're flashlights, not AP- Bolters. Let the Guard have their flashlights and leave it be.

Heavy & Special Weapons are priced OK. They don't need to be cheaper, as Guard are just fine as a static shooting army.

What Guard need is for their Chimeras to become a *lot* cheaper, and more available so that mobility becomes a reasonable alternative to stand-and-shoot. Right now, Chimeras are punitively priced, to the point that they are non-competitive and a huge penalty in a KP game. It would be nice to see a 1 KP Squadron-type option for Guard Chimeras.

Personally, the more I think about it, the more I think that a guard platoon needs to cost 2 kp. 1 kp for the platoon command squad, and 1kp for the remaining squads. The idea of a suicide command squad never really sat well with me, even if you could argue that the platoon LT was some hot shot trying to make a name for himself.

While I agree with you on the command squad counting towards KP, I have to say the "Suicide Command" makes plenty of sense depending on the army. Sure a Savlar chem Dog LT might be a behind the lines type of officer, but most imperial officers are supposed to be leading from the front, setting the example, ect.

I will however endorse the fortification idea. It would at max give the guard army a turn or two of semi protected firing, but would still require maneuvering and strategy to capture objectives and whatnot. A guard army is supposed to stand and shoot, thats what they do.

the four point guardsman is a little extreme imo. a five point guardsman with the fortification gives them a cost less than the 6pnt ork boy with T4 and base 2 attacks, and a little something to keep them from destroying themselves with givng the enemy cover saves.

I certainly wouldn't mind them balancing in some fortifications rules, however I would like to see some similar balancing in of mobility as well. It would be nice if you had the option to play the army one of several different ways. That's one of the beautie fo the game, so many options.

I agree that, fluff wise, the guard are a pretty static force. WWI trench warfare springs to mind as a comparison. Trenching rules to support that would be kinda cool. However, in the end, we'll see what we get. I would not be suprised to see points costs drop for the general guardsman in some shape for or fashion, simply b/c it will encourage sales (in theory).

6 pt guardsmen, but free vox caster and free close order drill. KP only on the platoon command. Making platoon command decapitation something that realistically should be avoided.

COD is free already.

Dexy wrote:COD is free already.

Yes in the current Codex it is. In the new IG codex they are getting rid of the doctrines apparently shifting to platoon upgrades. In such a case COD should come standard and for free.

With the improved templates, COD is worth less than before. But if IG can stand next to each other to become better, why not SM or CSM? Why not some army with the kind of Ld rating that this kind of thing would make some sense?

And as before, let Fortifications / Trenching be a scenario benefit, not an army rule. The last thing we need in 40k is to encourage players to play WW1 trench warfare. We had that in 2nd Edition, and bringing it back would simply be horrible.

JohnHwangDD wrote:With the improved templates, COD is worth less than before. But if IG can stand next to each other to become better, why not SM or CSM? Why not some army with the kind of Ld rating that this kind of thing would make some sense?

With the abundance of cover saves, I'd say it's about evens out. Previous edition had 4 guardsmen getting hit with no save, new edition has 8 guardsmen getting hit with a 4+. And Guardsmen don't HAVE to be in closed ranks the entire time. You can stay spread to avoid blast fire within your officer's leadership bubble and then close ranks to receive the assault on turn 2 or 3.

Again, if a fighting square works for weedy Guardsmen, it surely works better for MEQs.

Yea some defensive scenarios would be nice.

Hey if the Daemon army always gets its wierd deployment rules why not defensive rules for the IG of some sort?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Again, if a fighting square works for weedy Guardsmen, it surely works better for MEQs.

Orks... too much a rabble.
Tau... no emphasis on close combat training.
Eldar and Dark Eldar... martial arts style combat requires a little space to work.
Marines and Chaos Marines... killing machines whose fighting prowess is such that fighting in a formation would restrict there movement.
Tyranids... effectively mindless creatures working as a swarm.
Necrons... maybe

Thats why guardsmen work and others don't. My idea was that vox casters and COD would be very minor freebies to balance out a very slight IG overprice. I think IG as they are should cost 5.5 points each, so a few minor freebies were intended to bump them up to a whole number point value.

I agree, trenching rules would be contrary to what seems to have been a point of 5th ed. breaking up and ending the very static warfare.

Guardsmen have more blasts at their disposal than the average MEQ army so the lack of partials benefits them more proportionately.

Guardsmen also gain more from cover saves as they protect them from both high and low AP shots whereas MEQ only gains protection from low AP fire.

I disagree. SM & CSM are heavy infantry. The most successful close-fighting force in ancient history were the Roman Legionnaires. They fought in tight formation using tactics to obliterate phalanxes.

Therefore, by extension, SM would easily beat Guardsmen in COD.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Heavy & Special Weapons are priced OK. They don't need to be cheaper, as Guard are just fine as a static shooting army.

I know you can't read my post, so I say this for the benefit of everyone else:

What are you smoking John?

HW's are priced 'ok'? Lascannons took a major hit in 5th. You now require 12 Lascannons firing for 6 turns straight in order to kill an AV14 vehicle in cover.

They're not worth 25 points. Hell, I'd debate if they're even worth 15 at BS3...

BYE

foil7102 wrote:Personally, the more I think about it, the more I think that a guard platoon needs to cost 2 kp. 1 kp for the platoon command squad, and 1kp for the remaining squads. The idea of a suicide command squad never really sat well with me, even if you could argue that the platoon LT was some hot shot trying to make a name for himself.

I hate KP's, but that's a great idea. |

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:I disagree. SM & CSM are heavy infantry. The most successful close-fighting force in ancient history were the Roman Legionnaires. They fought in tight formation using tactics to obliterate phalanxes.

Therefore, by extension, SM would easily beat Guardsmen in COD.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Roman infantry tactics are completely irrelevant to 40k balance, and even more completely irrelevant when comparing marines with guard. It's like if I jumped into a debate on tank shock with "Elephants weigh as much as a truck. Therefore if a squiggoth is tank shocked it should be able to return a hit with a +1 as if it was a tank."

Of course space marines are going to beat guardsmen in the assault. Duh. CoD is a great doctrine because it's free, and it allows the guardsmen to kill 1 or 2 marines before they're all routed. The ability to kill something before you die is better than the nonability to kill anything before you die.

I think John's problem with COD is he wants an explanation of why IG do it and SM don't.

Simply SM fight like big pro-wrestlers, try standing shoulder to shoulder with someone and doing wrestle style body throws. A space marines size also makes it difficult to stand so closely together in that sort of formation and fight.

Roman legionaries are not a good example of heavy infantry for these purposes, better to look at medieval French knights, who often fought on foot, they didn't rank up in formations they moved as skirmishers. They moved spread out to maximize their space and lethality in individual combat.

A marine is so formidable he'd stand a better chance one on one against his average foe; guardsmen do not so they rank up forcing larger enemies to take on multiple guardsmen at once. If SM were as outclassed as IG they might try to form rank, but it would be a lot more difficult for them.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

foil7102 wrote:Personally, the more I think about it, the more I think that a guard platoon needs to cost 2 kp. 1 kp for the platoon command squad, and 1kp for the remaining squads. The idea of a suicide command squad never really sat well with me, even if you could argue that the platoon LT was some hot shot trying to make a name for himself.

I hate KP's, but that's a great idea. |

BYE

Agree. I am not sure why some armies easily have 17 KPs at 2000 points while others easily have 7. I mean I can make a competitive footslogger army with less than 10 KPs while most assaulty SMs can have upwards of 20. And I guarantee my KPs are harder to get than his are.

Kinda makes IG basically default winner for Kill point fights.

WRT COD, it seems like people are just making up Fluff to justify a rule that they like. COD is underpriced, and shouldn't be free.

Nor does it make much sense - people are saying that SM wouldn't fight smarter to crush the IG? Nonsense. Standing shoulder-to-shoulder, a SM should be able to lop off 2 or 3 heads with each swing of his power sword, so I guess that we should multiply the hits scored on COD units to balance things out... I think it might be a fair start to simply double all shooting and HtH hits scored on units using COD.

The guard doctrines flat out need work. CoD and ID are great, and probably underpriced. Hardened Fighters and Bionics are terrible, and most certainly over priced. Giving people options and trade offs is excellent and should be the baseline for all codexes. The entire purpose of the doctrine system was to give rules to represent fluff.

Space Marines standing shoulder to shoulder wouldn't even be able to swing their chain swords. Go try to hit tennis balls while standing shoulder to shoulder with 10 guys also trying to hit tennis balls. Regardless, this 'should Marines get CoD' is an entirely separate topic and should be in another thread if you feel so passionately about it.

The Doctrine system simply threw rules out there. They don't represent Fluff at all unless one backs into it. In which case, no, it doesn't represent Fluff - it represents a ret-con.

Roman Legionnaires did most of their killing up close with short stabbing blades, relying on their superior armor and discipline to allow them to get the job done.

Space Marines have similar (or greater) relative advantage in armor with ATSKNF. They can use their chainswords in similar close-in fashion.

In any case, my main point is that free doctrines like COD are stupid from a design point because there's no trade-off and no modeling representation. Also, that COD doesn't much belong unless you let everybody benefit, or that it contains an appropriate drawback like doubling hits.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The Doctrine system simply threw rules out there. They don't represent Fluff at all unless one backs into it. In which case, no, it doesn't represent Fluff - it represents a ret-con.

Roman Legionnaires did most of their killing up close with short stabbing blades, relying on their superior armor and discipline to allow them to get the job done.

Space Marines have similar (or greater) relative advantage in armor with ATSKNF. They can use their chainswords in similar close-in fashion.

In any case, my main point is that free doctrines like COD are stupid from a design point because there's no trade-off and no modeling representation. Also, that COD doesn't much belong unless you let everybody benefit, or that it contains an appropriate drawback like doubling hits.

The COD doctrine represents the combined squads implementation of IG bayonet's; no one else has bayonet's, SM don't have them anymore. Is that a good enough reason? Its true all current IG have bayonets on their belts or lasgun. The trade off is if you stand in close order formation and your blast template chow. Its a +1 ld and +1 Int, +1 ld because the tighter formation allows the sgt to better direct the troops, the +1 int is because the spear like use of their bayonets would allow them to strike at the approaching unit. COD represents a distinct fighting style common to WWII and wars previous; it is a fighting style that maximizes a weaker units strength against a stronger enemy. A marine is an example of the stronger enemy who benefits from picking off individuals by maximizing his lethality in a large striking zone.

Also your Space Marine example still fails, a chainsword is a hacking weapon with the length and function of a broad sword, broad swords existed at the time of the romans, roman cavalry would sometime use them but the legionnaires did not because a broad sword is impossible to use in a tight formation, hence the roman use of the gladius a shortsword. German greatswords and French knights both more heavily armored than Romans fought in a skirmishing configuration exactly because of the limits that being tight in brings to their fighting style, swinging a broadsword.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The Doctrine system simply threw rules out there. They don't represent Fluff at all unless one backs into it. In which case, no, it doesn't represent Fluff - it represents a ret-con.

Okay, then let me ask how you would represent fluff without some series of mechanical bonuses at an appropriate cost without a free-form system like doctrines? Doctrines has its problems, mostly due to the way things are costed, but if anything representing a broader range of fluff should be done with more doctrines, not fewer.