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.

aka_mythos wrote:

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,

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.

The fact that IG are WS3 S3 I3 in CC can be attributed to their having bayonets in the first place. If not, they'd be WS2 S2 I2, and be butchered even more quickly than they currently are. Tacking on additional bonuses make no sense when they already *have* the effect of using a bayonet. In any case, granting the bonus, but not taking any penalty or having any cost is weak design.

The way I see it, a chainsword is typically modeled with the length of a longsword, and may arguably be counted as similar to a claymore. But then again, if you look at how a bolt "pistol" is modeled, the whole thing starts to fall apart... Claiming it's a broadsword equivalent is you forcing fluff because you want a certain result, not what the Fluff actually says.

German greatswords weren't necessarily in heavy plate armor - Landsknecht are often pictured in only light armor.

In any case, if you want IG to have a COD benefit, then you must necessarily create a fairly severe "enveloping" and/or "flanking" penalty for skirmishing forces who wrap around them. If you're pretending to have historical justification, then that COD unit needs to roll up just like any other historical formation.

sourclams wrote: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.

Define which "Fluff" you think needs to be represented. I'm pretty sure that we are going to disagree very strongly on what needs to be represented.

In my case, I think I only need the following Troops:
- Infantry Platoons as we currently have (e.g. Cadian, Krieg)
- Mechanized Platoons as a standard full-platoon option (e.g. Armageddon)
- Light Infantry Platoons in Cameoline (e.g. Tallarn, Catachan, & Tanith)
- Grenadier Platoons in Carapace with 2 Specials (e.g. Stormtroopers, Vostroyans)
- Conscript Platoons with LP&CCW standard (e.g. OOP Beastmen)
and (maybe) Drop Platoons that Deep Strike (e.g. FW Elysians).

I don't need or want COD, Sharpshooters, or ID. Nor Chem-Inhalers. Or distinction between Jungle Fighters and Light Infantry and Cameoline. Just stuff that is easily represented on the model, with clear and simple in-game effects.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:

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,

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.

The fact that IG are WS3 S3 I3 in CC can be attributed to their having bayonets in the first place. If not, they'd be WS2 S2 I2, and be butchered even more quickly than they currently are. Tacking on additional bonuses make no sense when they already *have* the effect of using a bayonet. In any case, granting the bonus, but not taking any penalty or having any cost is weak design.

Actual WS and BS are attributed to basic training. Conscripts and untrained IG have been represented with a WS and BS 2. S3 and I3 are an average humans strength and initiatives not S 2 or I 2. Thus why they get the bonuses for additional training. COD adds +1 Ld for a Sgt being able to better coordinate and +1 Int because using a bayonet allows them
to engage in close combat slightly sooner than an IG just using knife. I'm talking about adding this as standard for IG because they are slightly over costed and something should be added to justify the slight over cost. Its not that it has no cost, its just the cost is so marginal it can't be given a numerical value.

"And they shall Know No Fear"... thats a Marine ability thats granted with absolutely no cost. Chaos space marines are identical in every way, they don't have that rule and have exactly the same cost. So don't think slight gains can't be tacked on for "free".

JohnHwangDD wrote: The way I see it, a chainsword is typically modeled with the length of a longsword, and may arguably be counted as similar to a claymore. But then again, if you look at how a bolt "pistol" is modeled, the whole thing starts to fall apart... Claiming it's a broadsword equivalent is you forcing fluff because you want a certain result, not what the Fluff actually says.

No a claymore is a two handed weapon, chainsword clearly one handed. From the 4th ed Codex space marines, the great weapon represented a two handed close combat weapon, a claymore by adding +1 to Str. You're missing the point that you can't use that type of weapon in a tight formation, just try and someone looses an eye.

JohnHwangDD wrote: German greatswords weren't necessarily in heavy plate armor - Landsknecht are often pictured in only light armor.

In any case, if you want IG to have a COD benefit, then you must necessarily create a fairly severe "enveloping" and/or "flanking" penalty for skirmishing forces who wrap around them. If you're pretending to have historical justification, then that COD unit needs to roll up just like any other historical formation.

Yes I know about German great swords, who even with just a solid steel breast plate were more heavily armored than the romans like I said. You clearly missed the point: that you can't form up into ranks with a hacking weapon longer than your forearm. Physically Impossible.

This is 40k not a historical reenactment, GW developers decided that the level of detail of 40k incorporate such things as flanks more generally and more abstractly. 40k takes the approach of representing such things in a more general way, but if you must know the penalty for being flanked in 40k is not all your models being within 2" and thus not all getting to attack in the assault phase.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

sourclams wrote: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.

Define which "Fluff" you think needs to be represented. I'm pretty sure that we are going to disagree very strongly on what needs to be represented.

In my case, I think I only need the following Troops:
- Infantry Platoons as we currently have (e.g. Cadian, Krieg)
- Mechanized Platoons as a standard full-platoon option (e.g. Armageddon)
- Light Infantry Platoons in Cameoline (e.g. Tallarn, Catachan, & Tanith)
- Grenadier Platoons in Carapace with 2 Specials (e.g. Stormtroopers, Vostroyans)
- Conscript Platoons with LP&CCW standard (e.g. OOP Beastmen)
and (maybe) Drop Platoons that Deep Strike (e.g. FW Elysians).

I don't need or want COD, Sharpshooters, or ID. Nor Chem-Inhalers. Or distinction between Jungle Fighters and Light Infantry and Cameoline. Just stuff that is easily represented on the model, with clear and simple in-game effects.

Well this system was established so players could come up with their own fluff and assign attributes appropriately. Many of those things you'd leave out are based on the fluff first and then were made by GW. GW designed it as a way to allow more distinctive and fluff based IG armies, to represent things that had been drawn or talked about in fluff but never had an effect and just because it doesn't match your sense of reality you think it should be thrown out. Jungle fighter were established in their own codex and "Light Infantry" is based off the units in the Gaunts Ghosts stories making them both distinctly different (jungle fighters don't rely on snipers like light infantry). You just choose to ignore what you deem the less convenient fluff.

You want the doctrines to represent the army or the platoons organization. The creator wanted it to do more, representing different specialized training and equipment.

Space Marines are so proficient at close combat they gain the benefit of close order drill even when not in base to base contact. This bonus is already included in their profile.

Just a random thought - what about bumping them to seven and a half points apeice, +1 LD, +1 I (basically COD built in) and generate NO kill points?

Well COD represents a particular use of IG in a specific way. The +1 LD is because the Sgt. can better coordinate in a close formation and the +1 I is because of the combined affect of IG with bayonets working in a tight formation to stave off incoming close combat assaults, which isn't always the case with IG receiving assaults.

No kill points I think would be too drastic a rule and would throw the balance so overly in favor of IG; the cries of cheese would be heard around the world.

There seem to be two main issues that you bring up:

Imperial Guard have too many doctrines

I don't need or want COD, Sharpshooters, or ID. Nor Chem-Inhalers. Or distinction between Jungle Fighters and Light Infantry and Cameoline. Just stuff that is easily represented on the model, with clear and simple in-game effects.

Well I do. Let me rephrase this question:

Do you have any valid argument for a force that, based on established background material, employs specific tactics and wargear beyond simple organizational patterns to achieve specific effects to not be properly reflected within the rules other than 'it's not clear and simple' enough?

Space Marines should be able to utilize CoD if Guardsmen can

And again, you can't swing chainswords in closed ranks. If you still think you can, get nine of your buddies and try playing tennis shoulder to shoulder.

I think there should be a flexibel weapon 'slots' for each IG standard platoon, like 4 slots for 10 soldiers.
All heavy weapons, plasma gun and melta use up 2 slots each, flamer and grenade launchers use 1 slot.

This would give the possibility to form specialized special weapon standard platoons:
So, like a flamer squad with 10 men and 4 flamers at the front and a supporting squad with 4 grenade launchers.
On the other hand, you could have 2 heavy weapons, like a heavy bolter and a las cannon, if you wish.

Drop Troopers should get heavy stubbers as heavy weapons. same profile like stated in the codex; crew of 2

Chimera and all leman russ variants should be cheaper.

Leman russ vanquisher and exterminator must have a come-back in the new codex

Sentinels should get their assault cannons back and the possibility to add plasma cannons as an alternative

Special weapon teams should get 2 demo charges

Eisenkeil wrote:I think there should be a flexibel weapon 'slots' for each IG standard platoon, like 4 slots for 10 soldiers.
All heavy weapons, plasma gun and melta use up 2 slots each, flamer and grenade launchers use 1 slot.

Why would plasma and meltas take up two slots?

Don't put arbitrary restrictions in. It just makes for bad Codex writing.

BYE

Is there any other kind?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Eisenkeil wrote:I think there should be a flexibel weapon 'slots' for each IG standard platoon, like 4 slots for 10 soldiers.
All heavy weapons, plasma gun and melta use up 2 slots each, flamer and grenade launchers use 1 slot.

Why would plasma and meltas take up two slots?

Don't put arbitrary restrictions in. It just makes for bad Codex writing.

BYE

just for background reasons ... plasma guns (and meltas) are valuable and therefore not available to the unexperienced soldiers en masses.
for vets only 1 slot point

Eisenkeil wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Eisenkeil wrote:I think there should be a flexibel weapon 'slots' for each IG standard platoon, like 4 slots for 10 soldiers.
All heavy weapons, plasma gun and melta use up 2 slots each, flamer and grenade launchers use 1 slot.

Why would plasma and meltas take up two slots?

Don't put arbitrary restrictions in. It just makes for bad Codex writing.

BYE

just for background reasons ... plasma guns (and meltas) are valuable and therefore not available to the unexperienced soldiers en masses.
for vets only 1 slot point

Why not just have them be completely separated altogether?

Special Weapons: Up to two guardsmen not equipped with a special weapon or operating a heavy weapon may take a flamer at +6 points or a grenade launcher at +8 points. Up to one guardsmen not equipped with a special weapon or operating a heavy weapon may take a plasma gun or a meltagun at +10 points.

So a guard squad can have up to three special weapons, only one of which may be a plasma or a melta gun.

Or why not just allow one heavy and one special, as has been part of the Guard organisation for longer than I can remember.

Look, the fluff supports only one plasma gun per squad (they're rare so they can't give them to whole squads, only one per squad), but they're no different to any other special weapon. They wouldn't take up more 'slots' or whatever other imaginary and arbitrary constructs you want to create to limit special weapons.

The current system already works, and there's nothing wrong with it, so why bother attempting to fix it when there are far greater issues affecting the Guard as a whole, like the fact that Kill Points make the army worthless, that Lascannons are 10+ points overcosted in 5th, how the Doctrine system is a complete joke, or that lots of the 'toy' units in Guard armies are complete junk.

BYE

I'd like to have a possibility to mass up grenade launchers and flamethrowers, without creating an inflation on plasma guns.
I see you don't agree in this point.

I'd love to see some kind of doctrine, skill, upgrade, etc that would allow lasguns to fire "hotshots" at S4 but they become "Gets Hot!" for that round.

I think the defining aspect of the Imperial Guard needs to be how it handles troops.

What I personally would like to see is the whole Infantry Platoon system flushed down the toilet. Because of the mandatory nature of it makes most Guard Armies stick to two troop choices because of the massive points commitment that is. The Fifth Edition philosophy tends to design codexes in a way to encourage certain play styles than enforce restrictions to create play styles.

So instead of making Guard Players take massed troops with the current system, why not just make the basic Infantry platoon good? Or at least good enough that players would be willing to fill 6 troops slots with them.

Also, I think there are way to many command squads on the table. Do Guardsmen really need that much leadership? Think about it, you have a sergent in each Infantry Squad, a mandatory commander per two squads, and a mandatory HQ. In the current list you literally have a 2 to 3 ratio of command to squads as your mandatory choices. Way to much in my opinion.

So here is my optimal Guard List to reflect how you can create a fluffy unique army that encourages rather then restricts:

HQ
*all of these are independent characters*

Supreme Commander - Essentially a Lord Macharius-type. Has a higher points cost and access to many wargear Items. He will be tempting because he will be the only Leadership ten commander that can spread that to his troops.

Commander (JO or whatever you want to call him) - He will be a standard cheaper commander option, limited wargear and leadership 9.

Lord Commissar - Will have all the benefits of being a commissar (see below), and leadership nine. Has access to limited wargear.

Command Platoon - Is a squad like the current codex and can be purchased as a retinue for the three choices above or any special characters. Does not allow you to purchase support squads anymore (see below).

Support HQ
*You may purchase these for each command squad or Infantry squad purchased, they count as an Independent character and do not take up a FOC slot similar to DA techmarines*

Commissar - Leadership 9, his shoot a squad member rule basically becomes the same as an Ork Boss poll. Can have Power Weapons, fist, etc.

Santioned Psyker - Can actually choose his power or has them built in. His power will be more deadly but a lot less predictable, things like a powerful shot that is he rols a 1 to hit, it is resolved against him sort of thing. He will have a rule called "Mind in pain - Any enemy Psyker within 24" of a Santioned Psyker takes all there psychic tests at a -2 leadership"

Preacher - Comes with Evisorater standard. Confers Furious Charge, Fleet, and Rage to any unit he joins.

Elites

Veterans - Stay the same but slightly cheaper points cost and weapons cost.

Ogryns - Gains toughness 5 base. Squad leader has access to a power weapon or power fist. Same points cost.

Rest of the elites stay the same.

Troops

Infantry Platoons - 50 points a squad with cheaper heavy weapons. Loose the requirement to take a command squad. 2 per troop choice with options to add 2 more, a support squad, and/or a heavy weapon squad similar to Ravenwing squadrons where each unit purchased counts as the same troop choice. Each squad can purchase a Chimera at 50 points a piece. Leadership 7 standard.

Conscript Squad - 40 points a piece, has option to take LP/CCW instead of Lasguns. Same Stats.

Storm Troopers - Same points cost but gets Deep Strike and Infiltrate Free. Guns become Str. 4.

Fast Attack

Sentinels - Same as now but cheaper.

Hell hounds - stay exactly the same.

Rough Riders - Stay the same but comes with Scout standard.

*Rest of the Fast attack stays the same*

Heavy Support

Leman Russ - Becomes one entry with the option to upgrade the battle cannon to multiple varients.

Basilisk - Minimum Indirect fire range reduced to 24". Becomes a 3 in 1 FOC choice.

Heavy Weapon Teams are replaced with Artillery Teams similar to the Forgeworld Version. Becomes a 3 in 1 choice.

Griffons become availible again, but doesn't have infernus shells or at least has a downgraded version of them.

JohnHwangDD wrote: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.

I think this is the issue that has plagued IG for 4 editions. Whatever special item IG have will be immediately grabbed by the SPZ MARINESS HURR! crowd as saying they should have as well.

Actually COD is supported by guard fluff, not marine fluff. Its a nifty little rule for guardsmen, which should be the key concern, nice but not overpowered.

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The fact that IG are WS3 S3 I3 in CC can be attributed to their having bayonets in the first place. If not, they'd be WS2 S2 I2, and be butchered even more quickly than they currently are.

In any case, granting the bonus, but not taking any penalty or having any cost is weak design.

Actual WS and BS are attributed to basic training.

I disagree. And you're still not addressing the fact that standing shoulder-to-shoulder has liabilities, even in HtH.

aka_mythos wrote:"And they shall Know No Fear"... thats a Marine ability thats granted with absolutely no cost. Chaos space marines are identical in every way, they don't have that rule and have exactly the same cost. So don't think slight gains can't be tacked on for "free".

No, there's a cost, it's just very low. Chaos Marines have BP&CCW standard, which grants them an extra attack in HtH. CSM also have access to Marks and variable squad size of 5-20. So at a high level, CSM and SM are balanced.

aka_mythos wrote:No a claymore is a two handed weapon, chainsword clearly one handed. From the 4th ed Codex space marines, the great weapon represented a two handed close combat weapon, a claymore by adding +1 to Str. You're missing the point that you can't use that type of weapon in a tight formation, just try and someone looses an eye.

You're missing the basic point that the occasional inclusion of a weapons bit, or particular modeling choice, isn't a strong basis for rules. And you seem to have ignored that Chainswords as modeled have the length of a longsword (or greater).

But that is a good catch - if the Chainsword has that kind of length, then the added length is worth +1S. So SM should be S5 vs IG.

And given that SM Fluff says they spend their non-sleeping/praying time in drill, I think it's safe to say that SM might practice to fight in close quarters with their weapons. You should be aware that skill and practice allow people to use large objects effectively in surprisingly small spaces.

aka_mythos wrote:Yes I know about German great swords, who even with just a solid steel breast plate were more heavily armored than the romans like I said. You clearly missed the point: that you can't form up into ranks with a hacking weapon longer than your forearm. Physically Impossible.

How convenient then that the standard SM Combat Knife can be attached to a Bolter like a bayonet...

aka_mythos wrote:Well this system was established so players could come up with their own fluff and assign attributes appropriately.

You want the doctrines to represent the army or the platoons organization. The creator wanted it to do more, representing different specialized training and equipment.

That doesn't mean that it was a good system, or that it should perpetuate past the single Codex. Look at Traits - isn't that essentially similar? And won't it be going away? So why should Guard be "special"?

Do you have a link to an explanation from the creator of Doctrines?

If not, then your interpretation is no more definitive than mine.

And that's really what this is, a disagreement of opinion.

And furthermore, GW has the right to change their mind. They did so with Craftworlds and Legions, and are expected to do so with Traits. So I don't know why you complain so much.

sourclams wrote:There seem to be two main issues that you bring up:
Imperial Guard have too many doctrines

I don't need or want COD, Sharpshooters, or ID. Nor Chem-Inhalers. Or distinction between Jungle Fighters and Light Infantry and Cameoline. Just stuff that is easily represented on the model, with clear and simple in-game effects.

Do you have any valid argument for a force that, based on established background material, employs specific tactics and wargear beyond simple organizational patterns to achieve specific effects to not be properly reflected within the rules other than 'it's not clear and simple' enough?

Do you have any valid argument that those minor deviations are actually worthy of "special rules" that would be sufficiently utilized, well-balanced, and clear to one's opponent that the would warrant inclusion into a Codex?

Most Doctrines were poorly thought out, and rarely used. Focusing on Doctrines when the basic Platoon needs work, along with the Chimera is a poor idea.

IMO, the first priority should be getting the basic Platoon fixed. That means, getting Guardsmen down to around 50 pts per squad, with more rational and reasonable weapons costs, along with an appropriately inexpensive Chimera.

Getting worked up on insisting on Doctrines of dubious value is not helpful.

sourclams wrote:
Space Marines should be able to utilize CoD if Guardsmen can

And again, you can't swing chainswords in closed ranks. If you still think you can, get nine of your buddies and try playing tennis shoulder to shoulder.

If we were superhuman Space Marines who drilled all day, every day of our lives, I think we would do just fine.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The fact that IG are WS3 S3 I3 in CC can be attributed to their having bayonets in the first place. If not, they'd be WS2 S2 I2, and be butchered even more quickly than they currently are.

In any case, granting the bonus, but not taking any penalty or having any cost is weak design.

Actual WS and BS are attributed to basic training.

I disagree. And you're still not addressing the fact that standing shoulder-to-shoulder has liabilities, even in HtH.

aka_mythos wrote:"And they shall Know No Fear"... thats a Marine ability thats granted with absolutely no cost. Chaos space marines are identical in every way, they don't have that rule and have exactly the same cost. So don't think slight gains can't be tacked on for "free".

No, there's a cost, it's just very low. Chaos Marines have BP&CCW standard, which grants them an extra attack in HtH. CSM also have access to Marks and variable squad size of 5-20. So at a high level, CSM and SM are balanced.

It really is easy for you to argue when you exclude points critical to my point. In the context of what I said I pointed out that COD should be effectively the same sort of thing as ATSKNF in that COD should have a marginal price that would justify the IG's cost, which most people see as slightly too high.

aka_mythos wrote:No a claymore is a two handed weapon, chainsword clearly one handed. From the 4th ed Codex space marines, the great weapon represented a two handed close combat weapon, a claymore by adding +1 to Str. You're missing the point that you can't use that type of weapon in a tight formation, just try and someone looses an eye.

You're missing the basic point that the occasional inclusion of a weapons bit, or particular modeling choice, isn't a strong basis for rules. And you seem to have ignored that Chainswords as modeled have the length of a longsword (or greater).

But that is a good catch - if the Chainsword has that kind of length, then the added length is worth +1S. So SM should be S5 vs IG.

Just to keep the discussion on line and save the mods from having to lock this: we're proposing rules for a system very deliberately based on nothing, not even model sales. (that's the rules as they are) Analogies to examples of real-world fighting are totally irrelevant to 40k proposed rules unless the proposed changes go so far as to throw out the very skeleton of the game. Since we're not talking about trying to represent a command structure, flow of information/what information a real commander could react to, or even the working of any of their equipment, we'd all do best to couch our arguments in our experiences of what makes a balanced and fun game. Realism has never been part of 40k and never will be. (no disrespect to people who write their own rules for 40k pieces)

Right.

Anyhow, getting back to the start, I'd like:
- 10 Guardsmen for 50 pts
- rational Heavy & Special Weapons (15-pt Lascannon & 10-pt Plasma)
- rational Chimera (45 pts for AV12/11/10 w/ Multi-Laser & HB)
- Platoon-based special rules, rather than squad-based or army-based special rules.

I don't have 5th ed yet, so I don't have a feel for some of the changes. However, somethings I thought would be good for Guard:

Vehicle upgrades: LR and its variants can take side armor upgrade in place of sponsons, increase side AV by 1. points 10? Chimera can take same, loses the las gun ports on the side.

Coaxial stubber or SB for LR variants, gives same effect as from Apocolypse.

Troop upgrade: Hasty fortifications. 10 pts for any squad, they improve their cover save by 1. If they move from their location the benefit is lost.

Some thoughts.

CE

Cameoline is 10 pts and improves cover saves by 1 at all time...

JohnHwangDD wrote:Right.

Anyhow, getting back to the start, I'd like:
- 10 Guardsmen for 50 pts
- rational Heavy & Special Weapons (15-pt Lascannon & 10-pt Plasma)
- rational Chimera (45 pts for AV12/11/10 w/ Multi-Laser & HB)
- Platoon-based special rules, rather than squad-based or army-based special rules.

I think 50 pt guards only work if you make taking a platoon type doctrine mandatory so that the costs of those upgrades bring the general cost back to or beyond the 60 pt squad mark, this helps to keep down the already swollen model count; ie Mechanized Infantry +cost of chimera; Drop Troops +10 or whatever; Light Infantry +10.

This kinda goes back to what I said before that the cost per unit is about right relative to the army but its the lack of abilities on the part of the guard that bring them down. By giving them access to fluffy special rules for what is effectively free (relative to current cost) this cost to benefit comparison can be better balanced.

I doubt GW will change the armor stat on the Chimera as much as I'd love to see it. I think for the purposes of keeping the players of other armies happy, GW would probably do what CadianEversor recommended, where the +1 side armor is a vehicle upgrade.

CadianEversor, I like your recommendations I think they'd all work very well and really fit the IG. The hasty fortification would probably work as a single benefit of taking some upgrade like "Combat Engineers." Especially how Space Marines got this sort of fortification rule tossed around to some units I wouldn't be surprised to see some form of it in IG.

I suppose a Platoon-wide "Doctrine" wouldn't be a bad thing, but I don't think that Mechanized would be at the expense of Carapace:

1 Sergeant w/ 9 Guardmen for 60 pts
includes *one* set of equipment:
- Carapace (Sv4+)
- Cameoline (+1 to cover)
- Warrior Weapons (LP&CCW, Frag, Krak)
- Vox (may test on any Officer)
then may pick *one* at cost:
- Drop Troops (Deep Strike for +10 pts)
- Mechanized (Chimera discounted by 5-10 pts)

But 5-pt Guardsmen won't break anything, I don't think. It's not like 4-pt Conscripts are hugely popular.


I think GW will be forced to bump the Chimera to AV11 sides if they want Guard to be playable in Objectives missions. Otherwise, they're perpetuating the failed static Guard approach.

Reg COD. It would be wasteful to train your Space Marine to fight in close order. The typical SM force sent to relieve a warzone is what, 2/3 companies?? That's 200/300 marines in total for a worldwide conflict. Your typical strike force (in a game) is only about 40 marines. And you're going to train them to line up in ranks of 10 and fight shoulder to shoulder?

WHY? They don't need it to increase their combat effectiveness, and they don't need the presence of their mates to improve their leadership.

I think it would be game-fair to give Guard free COD, since the new blast rules are a compensation. However, It's not fluff-fair, as COD represents a very particular style of guard training, which wouldn't be given to your Catachan or Tanith regiments.

Besides, with the new blast rules, no-one would opt to do
it anyway...

Otherwise, I support cheaper heavy weapons, except maybe missile launchers and mortars, as they are now more effective. Cheaper Chimeras are a no-brainer. 'Toy' units I'm not so bothered about - they're mainly interesting choices for fluffy armies, not 'competitive' units, and I wouldn't like to see EVERY IG army taking Ogryns because they've suddenly become more effective.

I also think the 'doctrine' rules (whichever way they implement them) should be per-ARMY, not per-platoon. I don't like the idea of people fielding one platoon of droptroops, one platoon of light infantry, one platoon mechanised etc. IG only fight as a 'combined' force at a much greater scale - a small game-size force would realistically all be from the same regiment, and trained the same way.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I suppose a Platoon-wide "Doctrine" wouldn't be a bad thing, but I don't think that Mechanized would be at the expense of Carapace:
1 Sergeant w/ 9 Guardmen for 60 pts
includes *one* set of equipment:
- Carapace (Sv4+)
- Cameoline (+1 to cover)
- Warrior Weapons (LP&CCW, Frag, Krak)
- Vox (may test on any Officer)
then may pick *one* at cost:
- Drop Troops (Deep Strike for +10 pts)
- Mechanized (Chimera discounted by 5-10 pts)

But 5-pt Guardsmen won't break anything, I don't think. It's not like 4-pt Conscripts are hugely popular.

I think GW will be forced to bump the Chimera to AV11 sides if they want Guard to be playable in Objectives missions. Otherwise, they're perpetuating the failed static Guard approach.

I think we'll see something where there are formation upgrades and then equipment upgrades. One item from either list must be taken, but multiples items from the equipment can be taken. Somehow I only think Drop Troops and Standard Infantry should have the carapace armor option.

Follwoing the current format for options it'd look like this:

Any IG platoon may take a formation upgrade:
Formations: Mechanized Infantry (adds Chimera), Light Infantry (adds infiltrate or scout), Drop Troops (add deepstrike), (where Standard infantry is taking no upgrade)

Any formation may take a Vox for +X points/sqd.

Any of the following formations: Light Infantry, Drop Troops, and Standard Infantry may take
Camelione +X points/sqd
Warrior Weapons +X points/sqd
Carapace Armor +X points/sqd.

ArbitorIan wrote: I also think the 'doctrine' rules (whichever way they implement them) should be per-ARMY, not per-platoon. I don't like the idea of people fielding one platoon of droptroops, one platoon of light infantry, one platoon mechanised etc. IG only fight as a 'combined' force at a much greater scale - a small game-size force would realistically all be from the same regiment, and trained the same way.

The rumors are that platoon wide "doctrine" like rules is what IG will get in 5th ed which is why its come up often. GW idea appears to be that it will accentuate the fact that often the collective IG forces sent to a combat zone are adhoc and come from diverse planet-scapes, so that within a "army" you'd see several different planets represented. GW seems to working on the idea that most planets in the Imperium are very specialized to a particular way of fielding and to have a cohesive and effective force they use combination of those specialized forces. Light Infantry as the Scouts, Droptroops as the fast responders etc.

ArbitorIan wrote:Reg COD. It would be wasteful to train your Space Marine

COD represents a very particular style of guard training, which wouldn't be given to your Catachan or Tanith regiments.

Besides, with the new blast rules, no-one would opt to do it anyway...

Cheaper Chimeras are a no-brainer. 'Toy' units I'm not so bothered about - they're mainly interesting choices for fluffy armies, not 'competitive' units, and I wouldn't like to see EVERY IG army taking Ogryns because they've suddenly become more effective.

I also think the 'doctrine' rules (whichever way they implement them) should be per-ARMY, not per-platoon. I don't like the idea of people fielding one platoon of droptroops, one platoon of light infantry, one platoon mechanised etc. IG only fight as a 'combined' force at a much greater scale - a small game-size force would realistically all be from the same regiment, and trained the same way.

You do realize that, by Fluff, SM spend a fair amount of time fighting is confined quarters - ship-to-ship space boarding missions... So by Fluff, SM should be trained to fight shoulder-to-shoulder so they can maximize their killing potential at choke-points within a ship, right? Otherwise, they'd bog at something as simple as a corridor or doorway.

If COD cost 10 pts, and traded against another option (e.g. Carapace / Cameoline), then that would make more sense, representing one Doctrine vs another.

With 4+ Cover, +1 Cameoline, and +1 Go to Ground giving a 2+ covers save, COD is still useful for the +1 Ld.

But really, if you're going to give something non-WYSIWYG to the Guard for "FREE", why not integrate Vox? Vox is something that would actually make some kind of sense and actually be usefully distinctive. Plus, it would simplify the rules by removing those stupid 12" Ld bubbles.


Ogryns *should* be something that see play. They're characterful and fighty, something the Guard need. And being Elites, they top out at 3 units - smaller, if they use Chimeras. Much smaller in volume than Guard Platoons


Doctrines should be by platoon, rather than by army. A platoon is basically a mini-army in its own right. And in a universe of Skittles Daemons and Skittles Cult Marines, Skittles Guard by Platoons is not unreasonable or unfair. Besides, when you look at points, you're not going to have so many Platoons to begin with. And then when you look at effectiveness and theme, players are probably going to concentrate on one or two Platoon types. That is, if you have 4+ Platoon Doctrines available, the odds of a player taking all 4 are low from a buying / modeling / fielding / effectiveness standoint. Skittles Platoons basically mean the player is fielding combined / collected remnants from a battlefield where the main regiments have lost a lot of guys, Lost Chancers / Black Legion / MoCU style.

JohnHwangDD wrote: You do realize that, by Fluff, SM spend a fair amount of time fighting is confined quarters - ship-to-ship space boarding missions... So by Fluff, SM should be trained to fight shoulder-to-shoulder so they can maximize their killing potential at choke-points within a ship, right? Otherwise, they'd bog at something as simple as a corridor or doorway.

If COD cost 10 pts, and traded against another option (e.g. Carapace / Cameoline), then that would make more sense, representing one Doctrine vs another.

A marine ability to fight in close quarters isn't quite the same as the IG COD where the IG are effective ganging up on someone.
I do agree though that the COD might deserve an actual cost or in the very least a trade off on available upgrades. I think Cameoline is the one that fits most; you don't really try to hide if you're going to bunch up into a formation.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
But really, if you're going to give something non-WYSIWYG to the Guard for "FREE", why not integrate Vox? Vox is something that would actually make some kind of sense and actually be usefully distinctive. Plus, it would simplify the rules by removing those stupid 12" Ld bubbles.

I think that probably is the easiest thing to just say IG should automatically have; it also makes the most sense. In the 41st millennium does anyone have a reason they would not take to the field with a Vox or some communication device? Not at all, even feral worlders would take the time to learn how it works.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Ogryns *should* be something that see play. They're characterful and fighty, something the Guard need. And being Elites, they top out at 3 units - smaller, if they use Chimeras. Much smaller in volume than Guard Platoons

The ogryn issues is a very difficult one, right now they die to easily and increasing their number or decreasing their cost doesn't make up for it. The lack of ability to perform in their designated niche is the problem. What ever change this units sees must be an adjustment to their survivability.

JohnHwangDD, as an additional thought if the "hasty fortification" weren't tied to a specific support unit, it could take the form of another equipment upgrade.
"Entrenching Tools" at the start of game the equipped platoon may fortify their position, where by they gain +1 to cover save if they move this bonus is lost.
I also just noticed you left off Cybernetics, from the list of equipment any specific reason? It is fluffy that some Imperial worlds employ cybernetic enhanced troops and with the number of Admech/IG players sprouting up these days it doesn't strike me as something that would be done away with.

Yes, fortification is easy to create rules-wise, but it's undesirable game-wise. So I wouldn't go down that road.

When Guard routinely have Sv3++ or 4++ in cover, an second 6++ from Bionics is pointless. OTOH, if Cyber gave FNP, that would be somewhat interesting on balance. I'd back that as an alternative to Carapace / Cameoline.