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.

"Send in the Next Wave!" Valhallan only: Select a conscript unit on the table and remove it from play. Set up an identical unit with starting strength within 6" of your deployment table edge. 2 CPs"

The tears will be delicious. Even if they nerfed conscripts into the ground people would still complain about it.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
"Send in the Next Wave!" Valhallan only: Select a conscript unit on the table and remove it from play. Set up an identical unit with starting strength within 6" of your deployment table edge. 2 CPs"

The tears will be delicious. Even if they nerfed conscripts into the ground people would still complain about it.

Why Valhallans? I thought their gimmick was drop troops. Do you mean Vostroyans? Or am I just bad at guard fluff?

Some cool ideas in this thread. Keep them coming.

Valhallans are wave after wave Russian inspired, you are think Elysians, which are all about drop troops.

Yes... yes you are bad at the fluff... git gude.

 Kroem wrote:

 argonak wrote:
They better include some way of adding non-regiment units to a detachment without losing the regiment ability. It would be the height of stupidity to suddenly not be able to bring Ogryns, Astropaths, Priests, Enginesseers, Ratlings, Commissars, and Scions.

I dunno, it kind of makes sense to me that special types of units like the Ogryns, Ratlings and Storm Troopers should be in separate detachments and not benefit from the regimental special rules because they are not really part of the regiment and are not usually from the same homeworld. The Characters I 100% agree with, it would be silly if taking useful characters stopped you having the regimental special rules.

Then you're just crippling traditional guard units for no reason other than to cripple the guard. It'd be a stupid way to implement the rule. All those units have been standard imperial guard fare as long as the game has existed. No other army has to put up with something like that for core units.

 argonak wrote:

 Kroem wrote:

 argonak wrote:
They better include some way of adding non-regiment units to a detachment without losing the regiment ability. It would be the height of stupidity to suddenly not be able to bring Ogryns, Astropaths, Priests, Enginesseers, Ratlings, Commissars, and Scions.

I dunno, it kind of makes sense to me that special types of units like the Ogryns, Ratlings and Storm Troopers should be in separate detachments and not benefit from the regimental special rules because they are not really part of the regiment and are not usually from the same homeworld. The Characters I 100% agree with, it would be silly if taking useful characters stopped you having the regimental special rules.

Then you're just crippling traditional guard units for no reason other than to cripple the guard. It'd be a stupid way to implement the rule. All those units have been standard imperial guard fare as long as the game has existed. No other army has to put up with something like that for core units.

The intention would be to encourage more interesting decisions rather than make regimental tactics a no brainer.

Appropriately priced, these units are a powerful addition to a guard regiment and I like the idea of making a little army builing challenge of how you fit them in amougst your existing formations.

I shouldn't worry though, if the SM tactics are anything to go by, the regimental tactics will apply to all infantry units.
I do wonder if they will apply to Sentinals and Rough Riders though as they are in a bit of a grey area.

 Kroem wrote:

 argonak wrote:

 Kroem wrote:

 argonak wrote:
They better include some way of adding non-regiment units to a detachment without losing the regiment ability. It would be the height of stupidity to suddenly not be able to bring Ogryns, Astropaths, Priests, Enginesseers, Ratlings, Commissars, and Scions.

I dunno, it kind of makes sense to me that special types of units like the Ogryns, Ratlings and Storm Troopers should be in separate detachments and not benefit from the regimental special rules because they are not really part of the regiment and are not usually from the same homeworld. The Characters I 100% agree with, it would be silly if taking useful characters stopped you having the regimental special rules.

Then you're just crippling traditional guard units for no reason other than to cripple the guard. It'd be a stupid way to implement the rule. All those units have been standard imperial guard fare as long as the game has existed. No other army has to put up with something like that for core units.

The intention would be to encourage more interesting decisions rather than make regimental tactics a no brainer.

Appropriately priced, these units are a powerful addition to a guard regiment and I like the idea of making a little army builing challenge of how you fit them in amougst your existing formations.

I shouldn't worry though, if the SM tactics are anything to go by, the regimental tactics will apply to all infantry units.
I do wonder if they will apply to Sentinals and Rough Riders though as they are in a bit of a grey area.

It still a bad idea.

I'd like to see some stratagems to give guard basic fortifications. That'd give me a reason to buy them anyway.

 Kroem wrote:

The intention would be to encourage more interesting decisions rather than make regimental tactics a no brainer.

Appropriately priced, these units are a powerful addition to a guard regiment and I like the idea of making a little army builing challenge of how you fit them in amougst your existing formations.

I shouldn't worry though, if the SM tactics are anything to go by, the regimental tactics will apply to all infantry units.
I do wonder if they will apply to Sentinals and Rough Riders though as they are in a bit of a grey area.

I feel like the real question with Regimental Tactics and Rough Riders, is will Rough Riders even be in the Codex? We have been shown that GW will drop iconic units and wargear from an army just because they do not have a current production miniature. I am expecting our Rough Riders to be Index only unless they drop new Guard models with our Codex.

Tallarn



The goal here was to try & reflect Tallarn for the guerilla fighters/hit & run masters they are. Some might think this steps on the toes of genestealer cult's schtick but I think its completely within reason. GSC don't have to pay CP to ambush. This would allow Tallarn players to create some interesting flanking maneuvers like they use to under Captain Al'rahem. 3CP seems pretty expensive, so 2CP might be a more reasonable price tag but it depends on what ends up happening to conscripts after the codex drop.

 Commissar Benny wrote:
Tallarn



The goal here was to try & reflect Tallarn for the guerilla fighters/hit & run masters they are. Some might think this steps on the toes of genestealer cult's schtick but I think its completely within reason. GSC don't have to pay CP to ambush. This would allow Tallarn players to create some interesting flanking maneuvers like they use to under Captain Al'rahem. 3CP seems pretty expensive, so 2CP might be a more reasonable price tag but it depends on what ends up happening to conscripts after the codex drop.

SM and CSM both got a "spend 1CP to deepstrike during deployment" stratagem, so I don't think you're too off-base with this. That said, I might propose a couple of changes:
*Lower it to 1CP. As mentioned, similar abilities aren't nearly so costly.
* "Reserves" are technically a narrative play/mission-specific thing, so you won't actually have the option to use this stratagem as written outside of specific missions. Therefor, I suggest making this a "during deployment" ability. This would also make it possible to ambush with multiple units instead of just one.
* How about making it an outflank equivalent instead of a deepstrike equivalent? My guard lore is far from my best lore, but I always thought Tallarn were less about popping up out of the ground and more about moving quickly to sweep around from a surprising angle. It also seems more appropriate that a platoon of guardsmen would suddenly arrive from off-screen rather than abruptly popping up 9" away from the enemy. Also, 50 conscripts outflanking is much less problematic than 50 conscripts walking on from a board edge.

Needs to be one that a tank can leave combat and still shoot

Some terrain ones I was contemplating:

<1 CP> - Entrenched. Before deployment, but after choosing sides, you may place a connected line of trenches 18" long and 2" wide. Units that are in trenches receive the benefit of cover and attack first when charged.

<2 CP> - Mine Field. After deployment, but before the start of the first turn and scout moves, you may place a 6" area terrain minefield on the board. The minefield must be at least 9" away from the enemy deployment zone. Any unit moving in the minefield rolls 3 D6's. Each D6 that comes up a 4+ deals a mortal wound to the unit.

<1 CP> - Laser Fence. After choosing sides, but before deployment, you may place a continuous 9" line of Laser Fence in your deployment area. Any model attempting to pass through the fence takes a S4 AP - hit.

<2 CP> - Tank Bunker. After deployment, but before scout moves you may declare one of your Vehicles to be "dug in" in a embanked bunker. The vehicle gains a 5+ Invulnerable save until it moves.

<3 CP> - Squad Void Shield Generator. After deployment, but before the first turn, choose an Infantry unit with 20 models or less. Until the unit moves, it gains a 5+ Invulnerable save against shooting attacks.

<2 CP> - Holofield Generator. After deployment, but before the first turn, choose an Infantry unit with 20 models or less. Enemy units that are more than 6" away from the unit suffer a -1 to hit the selected Infantry unit.

<1 CP> - Pillbox. After deployment, but before models are placed, place one small bunker/pillbox in your deployment area. The pillbox is treated as an immobile transport with a capacity of 3. Models in the bunker/pillbox gain a 5+ Invulnerable save.

<1 CP> - Sandbags. After deployment, but before models are placed, place a 18" line of sandbags in your deployment area. Models within 1" of the sandbags can use them as cover against enemy fire. When models within 1" of a sandbag are charged, both sides roll D6 - the side with the higher roll attacks first.

<1 CP> - Boobytrap (Catachan only). After an enemy unit moves or charges to within 9" of one of your units (including arriving from a form of Deep Strike), you may make an attack against the unit. Treat the attack as Assault D3, Str 4, AP -.

<1 CP> - War memorials. Before deployment, you may place D3 Imperial Statuary on the board as you see fit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


See, I don't want them to do this. What if you want an Artillery Regiment or an Infantry Regiment with the <Steel Legion> Keyword? I know most of their regiments are Mechanized Infantry, but it would be very restrictive if it was the only regiment type that benefitted from the rules.

I actually hate the idea of homeworld rules in general. Homeworlds field a variety of different regiments, but if you make a certain homeworld the best at a certain playstyle, then you never see any other regiments (no matter how fluffy). E.G. If Steel Legion or Tallarn have the best Homeworld rules that benefit tanks, then you'll probably never see a Cadian or Catachan armoured company, despite plenty of evidence that those exist.

I would rather have seen rules for Regiment types rather than regiment homeworlds. I'd rather a Cadian Armoured Company be the same as a Tallarn Armoured Company or a Cadian Infantry Company be just as good as a Tallarn Infantry Company rather than them being wildly variant in effectiveness just because of the planet they're from.

IMO, you should be able to use the models you want (e.g. Tallarn infantry) with the rules you want (e.g. Infantry company) without having the models tied to the rules.

Agreed. It would be amazing if you could tailor your regiment.

Kind of like the army wide Doctrines that IG used to have. Something like that would be cool.

RedCommander wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


See, I don't want them to do this. What if you want an Artillery Regiment or an Infantry Regiment with the <Steel Legion> Keyword? I know most of their regiments are Mechanized Infantry, but it would be very restrictive if it was the only regiment type that benefitted from the rules.

I actually hate the idea of homeworld rules in general. Homeworlds field a variety of different regiments, but if you make a certain homeworld the best at a certain playstyle, then you never see any other regiments (no matter how fluffy). E.G. If Steel Legion or Tallarn have the best Homeworld rules that benefit tanks, then you'll probably never see a Cadian or Catachan armoured company, despite plenty of evidence that those exist.

I would rather have seen rules for Regiment types rather than regiment homeworlds. I'd rather a Cadian Armoured Company be the same as a Tallarn Armoured Company or a Cadian Infantry Company be just as good as a Tallarn Infantry Company rather than them being wildly variant in effectiveness just because of the planet they're from.

IMO, you should be able to use the models you want (e.g. Tallarn infantry) with the rules you want (e.g. Infantry company) without having the models tied to the rules.

Agreed. It would be amazing if you could tailor your regiment.

Kind of like the army wide Doctrines that IG used to have. Something like that would be cool.

Yes! I was thinking of the doctrines and the 7th Edition Cadian detachment when I wrote that.

Re-roll 1s (the old Sharpshooters) with Lasguns has always been a Cadian thing.

That means if you want to spam Lasguns, you play Cadians.
If you want to spam tanks, you don't play Cadians.

Yet there are non-cadian lasgun spammers and cadian tank companies. GW PLS!

I would predict that we'd get some stratagems lifted straight out of the marine codex. The one for extra relics, the flak missile and hopefully the auspex scan too.

As for regiment specific stratagems, I would imagine that they'd try to recreate the old formation abilities.

Admech get a thing that lets them shoot into close combat! THERE IS HOPE! WE MAY FINALLY BE ABLE TO SHOOT INTO CLOSE COMBAT!

I don't even care if it's a strategem, the fact that we can't shoot into our own units in close combat has puzzled me ever since we started in 5th edition, considering you hear about units doing it all the time in the background.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I would predict that we'd get some stratagems lifted straight out of the marine codex. The one for extra relics, the flak missile and hopefully the auspex scan too.

As for regiment specific stratagems, I would imagine that they'd try to recreate the old formation abilities.

I would be quite happy to get the flak missile one. it will have me bringing missiles with guard, which I usually don't. Bring a couple veteran units with missile launchers and have them rerolling 1s and you're golden. A very good use of a command point every turn, and we won't be hurting for command points.

Even at 1k, its easy to show up with 12.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Admech get a thing that lets them shoot into close combat! THERE IS HOPE! WE MAY FINALLY BE ABLE TO SHOOT INTO CLOSE COMBAT!

I don't even care if it's a strategem, the fact that we can't shoot into our own units in close combat has puzzled me ever since we started in 5th edition, considering you hear about units doing it all the time in the background.

Because it would break the game.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Admech get a thing that lets them shoot into close combat! THERE IS HOPE! WE MAY FINALLY BE ABLE TO SHOOT INTO CLOSE COMBAT!

I don't even care if it's a strategem, the fact that we can't shoot into our own units in close combat has puzzled me ever since we started in 5th edition, considering you hear about units doing it all the time in the background.

Because it would break the game.

Not really, considering IG infantry can leave combat for free with no repurcussions and fire like it's nothing. If anything, letting us fire into close combat with misses hitting our own units would be more balanced than things are right now. If they took away Get Back In the Fight and gave IG this instead it would actually help balance IG infantry a bit.

The Admech thing is very specific in that you can only do it if the enemy unit is the closest unit. This means that your whole army doesn't get to do it, only supporting squads nearby.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Admech get a thing that lets them shoot into close combat! THERE IS HOPE! WE MAY FINALLY BE ABLE TO SHOOT INTO CLOSE COMBAT!

I don't even care if it's a strategem, the fact that we can't shoot into our own units in close combat has puzzled me ever since we started in 5th edition, considering you hear about units doing it all the time in the background.

Because it would break the game.

Not really, considering IG infantry can leave combat for free with no repurcussions and fire like it's nothing. If anything, letting us fire into close combat with misses hitting our own units would be more balanced than things are right now. If they took away Get Back In the Fight and gave IG this instead it would actually help balance IG infantry a bit.

The Admech thing is very specific in that you can only do it if the enemy unit is the closest unit. This means that your whole army doesn't get to do it, only supporting squads nearby.

We don't leave combat for free, and we don't fire like its nothing. Doing so requires an officer, and prevents you from using any other order. I also don't think taking away get back in the fight would be a very good trade for a once per phase stratagem option.

Melee only armies need to get over themselves and adapt to not being able to hide in close combat anymore while they eat guard armies for breakfast. Maybe stop being 1 trick ponies.

Too bad, not sad.

Man, if I had a nickle every time someone playing an army that was completely stomping other people through mindless unit spamming and overpowered abilities told those who were struggling to "adapt', I could afford an entire army.

You must have played space wolves in 5th

 argonak wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Admech get a thing that lets them shoot into close combat! THERE IS HOPE! WE MAY FINALLY BE ABLE TO SHOOT INTO CLOSE COMBAT!

I don't even care if it's a strategem, the fact that we can't shoot into our own units in close combat has puzzled me ever since we started in 5th edition, considering you hear about units doing it all the time in the background.

Because it would break the game.

Not really, considering IG infantry can leave combat for free with no repurcussions and fire like it's nothing. If anything, letting us fire into close combat with misses hitting our own units would be more balanced than things are right now. If they took away Get Back In the Fight and gave IG this instead it would actually help balance IG infantry a bit.

The Admech thing is very specific in that you can only do it if the enemy unit is the closest unit. This means that your whole army doesn't get to do it, only supporting squads nearby.

We don't leave combat for free, and we don't fire like its nothing. Doing so requires an officer, and prevents you from using any other order. I also don't think taking away get back in the fight would be a very good trade for a once per phase stratagem option.

Melee only armies need to get over themselves and adapt to not being able to hide in close combat anymore while they eat guard armies for breakfast. Maybe stop being 1 trick ponies.

Too bad, not sad.

I meant leave for free in that it can be a unit of 20 genestealers and yet I can pull my infantry squad back with 0 repercussions. No attack of oppurtunity before they leave, no penalty to movement, no BS penalty, etc. Whoopdy doo, my 3 surviving guardsmen can't shoot, whatever shall I do (unless you are conscripts) When you elect to fall back, the only penalty is that that specific unit cannot shoot. Any unit that got assaulted (other than conscripts) probably isn't going to have enough survivors to bother with things like FRFSRF or Take Aim! You're going to use that order on another unit to murder the unit you fell back from with other supporting infantry.

Personally I feel like firing into combat would best be represented by an order. Something like "It's too late for them now" and just make it where failed hits hit friendlies, perhaps with the caveat that the enemy unit must be the closest one to the firer like the Admech FW trait requires.. Makes conscripts hilariously bad at it and rewards players with more veteran armies who would logically be more drilled in that kind of fighting. Also prevents an IG player from just spamming FRFSRF or Overcharged Plasmas rerolling ones into enemy units tied up with conscripts.

I'd like something like that old bonus from Apocalypse, 'Fire on my Position!' or something like that, where a unit with a vox could call in an artillery strike with a dangerously short range.

I'd rather see generic regiment upgrades eg "Shock Troops" "Jungle Fighters" "Ice Warriors" rather than have everything be specific to a limited pool of planets. Catachan regiments deployed to a desert world for 10+ years are going to adapt. Same deal with Cadians in the ice, or Valhallans on a hive world.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Admech get a thing that lets them shoot into close combat! THERE IS HOPE! WE MAY FINALLY BE ABLE TO SHOOT INTO CLOSE COMBAT!

I don't even care if it's a strategem, the fact that we can't shoot into our own units in close combat has puzzled me ever since we started in 5th edition, considering you hear about units doing it all the time in the background.

Because it would break the game.

Not really, considering IG infantry can leave combat for free with no repurcussions and fire like it's nothing. If anything, letting us fire into close combat with misses hitting our own units would be more balanced than things are right now. If they took away Get Back In the Fight and gave IG this instead it would actually help balance IG infantry a bit.

The Admech thing is very specific in that you can only do it if the enemy unit is the closest unit. This means that your whole army doesn't get to do it, only supporting squads nearby.

The admech warlord trait is slightly different to how people are reading it. All it does, is basically mean assault and rapid fire weapons become “pistols” when within 6” of the warlord.

In order to use this ability, the unit that wants to shoot HAS to be locked in combat with the enemy unit. The wording says – “Models in friendly Graia units within 6” of your Warlord can shoot with Assault and Rapid Fire weapons even if there are enemy units within 1” of their own unit, but only if they target the closest enemy unit”.

So, if they are locked in combat (i.e. within 1” of an enemy unit), the closest enemy unit will always be the unit they are locked in combat with.

The point that is making people believe they can shoot across the table into another combat is the badly phased last sentence. “In such circumstances, the model can shoot even if other friendly units are within 1” of the same enemy unit.”

This basically just means, if you have 2 units in close combat with an enemy unit, you can still use this ability to fire your assault and rapid fire weapons as though they are pistols. (For example, if your warlord and a unit of vanguard are in close combat with a marine tact squad, the vanguard can still use this ability to shoot the tact squad.)




Automatically Appended Next Post:


While i agree that fortifications need to be more useful, especially for guard, i don't think trying to replace them with stratagems is the way to go. Plus, if things like trenches were able to be dropped after deployment, i'd expect them to still cost reinforcement points.

Kdash wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Admech get a thing that lets them shoot into close combat! THERE IS HOPE! WE MAY FINALLY BE ABLE TO SHOOT INTO CLOSE COMBAT!

I don't even care if it's a strategem, the fact that we can't shoot into our own units in close combat has puzzled me ever since we started in 5th edition, considering you hear about units doing it all the time in the background.

Because it would break the game.

Not really, considering IG infantry can leave combat for free with no repurcussions and fire like it's nothing. If anything, letting us fire into close combat with misses hitting our own units would be more balanced than things are right now. If they took away Get Back In the Fight and gave IG this instead it would actually help balance IG infantry a bit.

The Admech thing is very specific in that you can only do it if the enemy unit is the closest unit. This means that your whole army doesn't get to do it, only supporting squads nearby.

The admech warlord trait is slightly different to how people are reading it. All it does, is basically mean assault and rapid fire weapons become “pistols” when within 6” of the warlord.

In order to use this ability, the unit that wants to shoot HAS to be locked in combat with the enemy unit. The wording says – “Models in friendly Graia units within 6” of your Warlord can shoot with Assault and Rapid Fire weapons even if there are enemy units within 1” of their own unit, but only if they target the closest enemy unit”.

So, if they are locked in combat (i.e. within 1” of an enemy unit), the closest enemy unit will always be the unit they are locked in combat with.

The point that is making people believe they can shoot across the table into another combat is the badly phased last sentence. “In such circumstances, the model can shoot even if other friendly units are within 1” of the same enemy unit.”

This basically just means, if you have 2 units in close combat with an enemy unit, you can still use this ability to fire your assault and rapid fire weapons as though they are pistols. (For example, if your warlord and a unit of vanguard are in close combat with a marine tact squad, the vanguard can still use this ability to shoot the tact squad.)

I don't honestly think that's very poorly worded. It's a sentence added to avoid the argument of the rule not actually working because of the "can't shoot at people in combat" rule, basically just a way to make sure there will be no stupid arguments. This is a good thing. You'd have to ignore the whole first section of the rule to think it can be used to shoot into combat across the board.

whoops, well that's what I get for having a few beers and reading the preview articles. My bad

Any predictions for Vostroyans? Fluffwise they're supposed to be urban combat specialists. I just hope they are not squatting them.

 Fueli wrote:
Any predictions for Vostroyans? Fluffwise they're supposed to be urban combat specialists. I just hope they are not squatting them.

Ah, knock on wood! I'd hate to see one of the best regiments disappear. I predict they (and all other close order type regiments) will get some sort of bonus for having units close together.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Fueli wrote:
Any predictions for Vostroyans? Fluffwise they're supposed to be urban combat specialists. I just hope they are not squatting them.

Ah, knock on wood! I'd hate to see one of the best regiments disappear. I predict they (and all other close order type regiments) will get some sort of bonus for having units close together.

I really doubt a big name like Vostroyans is gonna dodo. They didn't rustle up 7 names for the Forge Worlds only to get rid of Guard regiments when their turn comes. I just hope the First and Only get a named Regiment in the rules.