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.

I disagree about the learning curve. I started playing the game as they were being released, and picked them up. Within the time I had them built, I was playing them to a very competitive level, including in tournaments. Keep in mind of course that I read anything the internet had to offer voraciously, always doing it analytically (don't just take people's word on things, basically, because the internet is 98% dumb). Since then of course, I have refined my play, but really, very little has changed (more focused on table movement and positioning).

A lot of people disagree and claim marines are forgiving while IG are not. Me? I can't think of anything more forgiving than plopping 10+ AV12 vehicles onto the table.

I do agree about all the amazing builds out there, in fact, I would say that the tweaking of your list is where the experience comes in with building guard. Are Vendettas an auto-include in a competitive guard army? Many say yes, I do not. It depends on your build. I can think of effective armies where sentinels are a better choice, or Devil Dogs. You just have to make sure you cover all your bases if your goal is to make an all-comers army.

I will say something else about all the builds though: no matter which one you pick, opponents will declare it as cheesy

I'd suggest Space Wolves.

Great Marine starter army with great options when you decide to expand.

IG is a fantastic army but requires alot trial and error to get down. When played with the right list they are fantastic no doubt. But for a starter, I would stick with the simplicity of Space Wolves. They are a very competitive army if you ever decide to go all in with em.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:You're approaching this topic from a competitive standpoint - not a beginners. How many brand-new players have access to 3 x meltaguns? (which don't come in any of the boxes bar the CCS ones) How many new players can afford to run three/four power blobs?

I've seen lots of a hundred Guard infantry sell for the cost of two boxes of Marines, complete with special weapons and whatnot.

Ebay or second hand retailers are your best friend.

Ailaros wrote:Well, hey, I thought I was giving real reasons here, not some godlike message from on high.

Units that don't have a clear role are confusing.

Confusing? Or versatile? Just because a unit is a jack-of-all trades doesn't make it confusing to use, it just means that it can do a little bit of everything. I wouldn't have thought that new players would want to, or be advised to, ignore whole phases of the game due to the strengths/weaknesses of their chosen army.

Ailaros wrote:Marines have lots of units without good, clear roles. I'd assume that new players would want things that were less confusing. Likewise, I'd assume that new players would want to be able to make a mistake that sees them lose a unit, but have that be okay, because they have backups. Being more forgiving sounds like a better thing for new players.

I disagree completely about Marine units lacking roles; it all depends on how you equip them. ML, flamer, and combi-flamer is one of the cheapest set-ups and, when combat squad-ed, can be used to fight armour and infantry simultaneously from ranged, whilst still being able to dish out and take a few knocks in the assault. A forgiving army doesn't revolve around shrugging whenever a unit gets wiped and saying 'Oh well, I have another' that's being sacrificial. It's being able to weather the storm brought about by your mistake and then rectifying it with the survivors, something which the statline/armour of a Marine allows whereas IG do not.

Ailaros wrote:New players may have serious problems, but it seems to me that a guard army helps with things like how to deploy or target units. New players will make mistakes, but it seems to me that it's easier to make mistakes with marines, and that they are less forgiving of mistakes.

Every army helps players deploy and target units. IG are no different from Tyranids, Eldar or Orks in that respect. I agree that new players will make mistakes, but is it worse to lose 3-4 Marines because of an error, or a squad or two of IG?

Anyway, I think this whole arguement is moot, as the OP has decided to go with IG and I therefore wish them the best of luck! They really are a fun army to play just not, in this humble poster's opinion, the easiest to get started with.

L. Wrex

Ailaros wrote:Well, hey, I thought I was giving real reasons here, not some godlike message from on high.

Units that don't have a clear role are confusing. Marines have lots of units without good, clear roles. Guard have lots of units with units that are very straightforward. I'd assume that new players would want things that were less confusing. Likewise, I'd assume that new players would want to be able to make a mistake that sees them lose a unit, but have that be okay, because they have backups. Being more forgiving sounds like a better thing for new players.

New players may have serious problems, but it seems to me that a guard army helps with things like how to deploy or target units. New players will make mistakes, but it seems to me that it's easier to make mistakes with marines, and that they are less forgiving of mistakes. This would help newer players to be more competitive early on. I'm not talking about uber-players, but playing an army that sees you get whomped a lot early on doesn't seem to be a good starter army to me. That you have more players to give you advice seems to be offset by how much advice there is out there for how to beat marines.

Really, it's just the hobby aspect that is so pro-marines. It's cheaper and faster. How much of a consolation that will be when a new player whips out an army that's nothing but tac squads with missile launchers and flamers and gets destroyed over and over.

...Or you could play Tau. Everything has a VERY defined role.

FW=fill out FoC, distract enemy

Kroot=tarpit

Battlesuits=Doing all the REAL work.

Nothing else is actually any good with Tau though...either way, XV8s are awesome. They are basically jump infantry dreadnoughts that suck in melee that you can squeeze a dozen into your FoC.

Well, I have decided. I will be going with the IG. They just appeal to my play style more then the SM or the Tau, not that there is anything wrong with either. I have two friends that are starting to play both. The main reason for the decision is because I like having very clear, defined roles for squads. This also goes with the IG fluff, where every Guardsmen supports his fellow brothers in arms. Not to mention the commands, which I guess I will find out whether or not they will be effective. I also think the look of the army is really cool: massive tides of infantry supported by massive amounts of transports, tanks, artillery, and more. And are the Kasrkin (or Storm Troopers, which ever floats your boat) really as bad as I have heard?

On a side note, there is probably no good way to make a Valhallans army, is there? That is the kind of army that I would want to make an army out of. Unfortunetely, I get less stuff (compared to the Cadian and Catachan squads) for $10 more.

forruner_mercy wrote:Well, I have decided. I will be going with the IG. They just appeal to my play style more then the SM or the Tau, not that there is anything wrong with either. I have two friends that are starting to play both. The main reason for the decision is because I like having very clear, defined roles for squads. This also goes with the IG fluff, where every Guardsmen supports his fellow brothers in arms. Not to mention the commands, which I guess I will find out whether or not they will be effective. I also think the look of the army is really cool: massive tides of infantry supported by massive amounts of transports, tanks, artillery, and more. And are the Kasrkin (or Storm Troopers, which ever floats your boat) really as bad as I have heard?

On a side note, there is probably no good way to make a Valhallans army, is there? That is the kind of army that I would want to make an army out of. Unfortunetely, I get less stuff (compared to the Cadian and Catachan squads) for $10 more.

but, but, but....Tau...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

forruner_mercy wrote:Well, I have decided. I will be going with the IG. They just appeal to my play style more then the SM or the Tau, not that there is anything wrong with either. I have two friends that are starting to play both. The main reason for the decision is because I like having very clear, defined roles for squads. This also goes with the IG fluff, where every Guardsmen supports his fellow brothers in arms. Not to mention the commands, which I guess I will find out whether or not they will be effective. I also think the look of the army is really cool: massive tides of infantry supported by massive amounts of transports, tanks, artillery, and more. And are the Kasrkin (or Storm Troopers, which ever floats your boat) really as bad as I have heard?

On a side note, there is probably no good way to make a Valhallans army, is there? That is the kind of army that I would want to make an army out of. Unfortunetely, I get less stuff (compared to the Cadian and Catachan squads) for $10 more.

but, but, but....Tau...

Admittedly they play somewhat similar to the guard, except that they are even worse in melee, and deploy fewer troops who have battlesuits...
actually not that similar now that I think about it...other than being the two shootiest armies...

You have the same thing twice, just to let you know.

forruner_mercy wrote:You have the same thing twice, just to let you know.

I know :(

im2randomghgh wrote:

forruner_mercy wrote:Well, I have decided. I will be going with the IG. They just appeal to my play style more then the SM or the Tau, not that there is anything wrong with either. I have two friends that are starting to play both. The main reason for the decision is because I like having very clear, defined roles for squads. This also goes with the IG fluff, where every Guardsmen supports his fellow brothers in arms. Not to mention the commands, which I guess I will find out whether or not they will be effective. I also think the look of the army is really cool: massive tides of infantry supported by massive amounts of transports, tanks, artillery, and more. And are the Kasrkin (or Storm Troopers, which ever floats your boat) really as bad as I have heard?

On a side note, there is probably no good way to make a Valhallans army, is there? That is the kind of army that I would want to make an army out of. Unfortunetely, I get less stuff (compared to the Cadian and Catachan squads) for $10 more.

but, but, but....Tau...

Admittedly they play somewhat similar to the guard, except that they are even worse in melee, and deploy fewer troops who have battlesuits...
actually not that similar now that I think about it...other than being the two shootiest armies...

Guard are shootier. Everything Tau do well, Guard do as well or better, cheaper, and they do most things the Tau can't do pretty well too.

forruner_mercy wrote:Well, I have decided. I will be going with the IG. They just appeal to my play style more then the SM or the Tau, not that there is anything wrong with either. I have two friends that are starting to play both. The main reason for the decision is because I like having very clear, defined roles for squads. This also goes with the IG fluff, where every Guardsmen supports his fellow brothers in arms. Not to mention the commands, which I guess I will find out whether or not they will be effective. I also think the look of the army is really cool: massive tides of infantry supported by massive amounts of transports, tanks, artillery, and more. And are the Kasrkin (or Storm Troopers, which ever floats your boat) really as bad as I have heard?

Stormtroopers really do one thing: deepstrike next to or behind enemy armor with meltaguns; they're basically a suicide squad to pop a dangerous vehicle. In any other role, Veterans work better, and there's some debate as to whether or not the Stormtroopers' role is worth their cost (minimum squad and two meltas comes out to 105 points, 5 more than a vetsquad with three meltas; all they've got going for them is that rerollable deepstrike).

On a side note, there is probably no good way to make a Valhallans army, is there? That is the kind of army that I would want to make an army out of. Unfortunetely, I get less stuff (compared to the Cadian and Catachan squads) for $10 more.

If you're good with modeling you might be able to make coat and hat bitz from green stuff, then do resin casts of them, otherwise I'd say just try to find guard infantry second-hand, and slowly replace them with Valhallans as you go along, then just sell off what you bought second hand to recoup your losses.

I might try that some time.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Guard are shootier. Everything Tau do well, Guard do as well or better, cheaper, and they do most things the Tau can't do pretty well too.

But they don't have battlesuits...

Anyways, the main reason Tau can't match the Imperial Guard in a straight-up firefight at this point is because of the outdated codex (2006 was it?)

Because of this, Tau lists only really have one competitive build at this point: as many battlesuits as you can take, and JSJ like nobody's business. Full-size buildings are good for this, since you can break the line of sight when you JSJ.

Pewpewpew, guard rock. May the bitter tears of your opponents fuel your vendettas and chimeras.

Fearspect wrote:Pewpewpew, guard rock. May the bitter tears of your opponents fuel your vendettas and chimeras.

+1.

Unless they fight custodes, in which case they are SCREWED.

Just a heads up about your decision, OP: guard are easily the most expensive army you can choose, dollars-wise. Just keep that in mind. All those troops and vehicles start to add up quickly.

Fearspect wrote:Just a heads up about your decision, OP: guard are easily the most expensive army you can choose, dollars-wise. Just keep that in mind. All those troops and vehicles start to add up quickly.

Not to worry, I already know that. And it is most certainly not one of my deciding factors. They just appeal to my taste, damn the consequences.

I also do not want to be the one-billionth SM player. I have a tendency to take/like things that most people don't. Oh, and take the side of the underdogs, though in this case I do not know if that applies. Of course, the good thing about having so many SM players is that I can make an anti-SM list and more than likely, it will always be SM, with some small changes for a different army.

forruner_mercy wrote:

Fearspect wrote:Just a heads up about your decision, OP: guard are easily the most expensive army you can choose, dollars-wise. Just keep that in mind. All those troops and vehicles start to add up quickly.

Not to worry, I already know that. And it is most certainly not one of my deciding factors. They just appeal to my taste, damn the consequences.

I have a tendency to take/like things that most people don't. Oh, and take the side of the underdogs, though in this case I do not know if that applies. .

HAHAHAHA

In case you didn't know, the IG is the second most played army in all of WH40K. They are only marginally less popular than Vanilla Marines.

If you want something less popular, play Tau/Necrons/DE.

Oh. Well, still like 'em.

And what exactly are Vanilla Marines?

Vanilla Marines are Marines that adhere to the Codex Astartes. Game wise, that is Codex: Space Marines.

So...like Ultramarines?

I.G.

I am (hypocritically) sick of SM players... they're everywhere.

Lol, I think that most people will agree.

SM are by far the easiest army to learn, build, buy and teach with. They are fairly inexpensive and you can find them used everywhere. To a lot of the people that play IG at the tournament level already know that what units in the codex are poor, and how to min max any given units. It may be easy for us to say yea the CCS runs in a chimera with a 4 melta guns ……. But to the new player they see that power wep, and at first glance thinks wow I can ignore some ones armor sounds pretty good but must of us know there is more to it then that. Or I would hate to see some one build a LR nova.

SM are very strait forward, IG is only strait forward to those that have dedicated large amounts of money and time to learn.

As a note, just playing IG in no way mean you will win a poor IG army will get crushed buy any other army, even the worst built out of the worst codex. If you want look up IG battle reports on you tube, you will find far more IG losses then win. A poor build SM army are still SM, and have the 2ed best base weapon in the game, 3+ saves, BS4, and can use every type of CC weapon effectively.