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.

Hi all,

Yesterday I thought a bit about the removal of the Doctrine system from the IG codex 5th edition onwards, in the light of the inclusion of the Chapter Tactics system in the recent SM codex.

With the Chapter Tactics system, GW has differentiated the various chapters in how they work rules-wise (something which not always was the case, with the exception of SW, BT et cetera). The interesting thing here is that this change has two positive effects on sales: One, this creates an incentive to buy two different SM armies - if they play differently on the battlefield that becomes much more interesting. Secondly, if you start a second SM army, the different Chapter Tactics will encourage you to buy different units making it less likely you repaint your old ones or use your old models in your new army in friendly games, because (at least ideally) different Chapter Tactics are beneficial for different types on units.

So consequently, I think Chapter Tactics was a boon both towards players (allowing them to play their armies in an unique fashion) and for GW, because separate rules = more potential sales.

Now look at the current IG range. The IG has the luxury of having functionally identical models for SEVEN different armies (Armageddon Steel Legion, Tallarn, Valhalla, Mordian, Cadia, Catachan, Vostroya) and functionally different models for but two (Death Korps of Krieg, Elysian Drop Troops), with EVEN MORE if we count past models (Praetoria, Necromunda (the really old ones...)). I obviously don't count Tanith and Attila into this. Do you agree with me that with a direct comparison to the SM Chapter Tactics, this has to be the opposite of a sensible sales strategy with respect to rules? Compare this with Eldar. What if they had SEVEN different types of Guardians representing Eldar from different craftworlds? Or to Orks or Tyranids. Why don't they get several different models for their basic troops?

Rules-wise there's really no incentive at all to buy a new IG army if you already own one. The viable tactics stay exactly the same regardless of which army you choose, and it's not a different experience on the battlefield. Now I think that in the previous codex, they tried to differentiate the armies by having different characters for the various armies. Seeing how people frequently put Al'rahem in just about any army and not necessarily with Tallarn IG (or even in a Tallarn platoon), this has obviously failed.

However! Some things might point towards a brighter future. The two FW armies - IIRC the models of which were released after the 5th edition IG codex, who are functionally different from "ordinary" IG, have these differences laid out almost entirely within the framework of 4th edition doctrines. This and GW abandoning the system of differentiating armies by use of special characters in favour of Chapter Tactics in the SM codex makes me think they have realized the stupidity of having lots of different models with the same rules, instead of the other way around.

A doctrine system restricting the usage of Ogryns and Ratlings would probably also boost the sales for these models if they do it right - currently they are just plain worthless in general (Ogryns having situational usability). If you lower their points costs to make them really worthwhile, while restricting their usage by making them cost one "doctrine point", this would make them something you would always want to buy for some kinds of armies, but since not every army could make use of them, we wouldn't see them spammed in every army in tournaments.

What do you think?

I dont think that GW should use the doctrine system to make models more useful... i think they should rework the model rules so that they are more useful. That being said i would be giddy for chapter tactics in the next codex. And im not sure what argument you're trying to make with the different models for IG troops, that there should be some reason to take them over their counterparts apart from aesthetics? Because im not sure i like that idea nor do i trust GW to do it responsibly.

 Somedude593 wrote:
I dont think that GW should use the doctrine system to make models more useful... i think they should rework the model rules so that they are more useful. That being said i would be giddy for chapter tactics in the next codex. And im not sure what argument you're trying to make with the different models for IG troops, that there should be some reason to take them over their counterparts apart from aesthetics? Because im not sure i like that idea nor do i trust GW to do it responsibly.

I'm saying that from the perspective of GW, it would be better to have more units in the rules than models for them, than the other way around. Rather several sets of rules for one model than lots of different models to represent one unit. This has been accomplished in the SM codex with Chapter Tactics.

Additionally, I'm saying that for IG I can think of one way to correct this with inspiration from a recent codex - I would be happy to have "Chapter Tactics" for Tallarn, Mordian, Armageddon Steel Legion et.c. in the same way as in the SM codex. Supposing you already have a Cadian army, it would be an interesting prospect to create a Tallarnian(?) or Mordian army. Because it would play differently on the tabletop, and the Mordian special rules might encourage you to choose entirely different units in your army, instead of you buying new infantry models and then playing with the same Leman Russes, same artillery, same transports and so on - in the same way as starting a new White Scars army encourages usage of bikers with their Chapter Tactics, and allows for different styles of play.

Absolutely agree with everything you said.

Hoping GW will do this and release the models needed to pull it off (plastic Steel Legion and so forth)

Indeed, with the rumours we've been hearing I think it's likely we might see plastic models for Steel Legion.

What I hope is that different rules for Steel Legion, and for Mordians and all the others, will be in the codex just like Chapter Tactics, and not only in a supplement. Again comparing with SM, having Chapter Tactics in the codex still obviously allows for supplements to be released.

Doctrines would be wonderful. The economic analysis is limited and somewhat flawed however.

There are rules which increase sales and rules which don't. For instance the ability of a chapter master on a bike to make bike units troops increases sales of bike models and salamanders chapter tactics can increase sales of melta weapons and perhaps a few extra tactical marines. However, the difference between imperial fists and ultra marine chapter tactics has little difference other than tiggy. It is an accepted practice by SM players to play as the chapter you want to regardless of your color scheme.

Until GW moves a range to plastic they are not really serious about selling it. The profit margin on plastic is just better than metal and they can get more sales due to the customization of the models. Finecast appears to be an intermediate where they make money but it really doesn't seem to be a serious effort to sell the stuff.

So for the IG doctrines if they want to increase sales they will need several elements; 1) plastic models/bits for the other regiments and 2) weapon/model changing doctrines. A good example of a doctrine that would sell more models is the ability to take a CC weapon and pistol on Infantry squad members. This requires a total conversion of your models to WYSWYG. I personally hope for a "stromtroopers" as troops ability to represent terrax forces.

There is to some degree a problem GW has created for itself. They have a division called forgeworld which has done a pretty fantastic job of expanding the model and rules range for imperial guard. This wasn't as much of a deal with CSM or SM as they can have ridiculous looking stuff and it doesn't seem as ridiculous due to the inherent tongue in cheek of the armies. Can you imagine armour inside armour or a dino bot for IG?

What I'm curious about is what's the new unit or two for Imperial Guard? Every single release has atleast two units and kits that didn't exist before. Last time the IG got launched the catch was bringing all the FW medium tanks into the main 40K codex. This time it has to be something new, or alternatively bringing the Baneblade variants into the main book.

If they want IG to become uber mega popular they just put a Knight in it. I can't see what they stand to lose in giving the imperial faction one badass looking mech? Adeptus Mechanicus or Adeptus Titanicus forces in an IG book make a lot more sense than most of the new stuff they've put into other books. If they're really serious about making money and selling models, they'll make it just as powerful as the Riptide and Wraithknight too, or better.

I know I wouldn't be able to resist shelling about 1000€ for an IG army if they released a great sculpt of a Knight, some plastic storm troopers or steel legion to replace the Cadian models as the infantry basis, and made it all atleast reasonably competitive on the tabletop. If they can reach my wallet with it I'm sure they could reach a thousand others too. However, if they release some crappy new Leman Russ variant noone even wants to use because it's a heap of overpriced scrap metal, while removing some options from the book because GW doesn't make models for them, the release will bomb.

 Therion wrote:
What I'm curious about is what's the new unit or two for Imperial Guard? Every single release has atleast two units and kits that didn't exist before. Last time the IG got launched the catch was bringing all the FW medium tanks into the main 40K codex. This time it has to be something new, or alternatively bringing the Baneblade variants into the main book. If they want IG to become uber mega popular they just put a Knight in it. I can't see what they stand to lose in giving the imperial faction one badass looking mech? Adeptus Mechanicus or Adeptus Titanicus forces in an IG book make a lot more sense than most of the new stuff they've put into other books. If they're really serious about making money and selling models, they'll make it just as powerful as the Riptide and Wraithknight too, or better.

One option they could use to introduce new models into the IG line would be to actually produce everything in the codex (I know that FW makes Vendettas and the artillery tanks, but many people find FW to be too expensive, especially with shipping considered). Plus, they could plasticize some of the minis that are currently metal-only. Boom, that would give them as many new kits to sell as the Marine release gave us.

You're right though, that they will want to offer at least one or two completely new units. There were rumors of a new tank that would be between a Land Raider and a Macharius in size, which seems reasonable enough a guess, whether or not it's true. The rumor mongers mentioned a new plane, too.

The talk of a new IG flier really points to the main issue with the IG getting new units, in my mind. IG have gained the most by way of FW out of any faction, by far. New IG units can be found in nearly every single Imperial Armour book, after all. However, FW has therefore mined a lot of the design space that GW would otherwise have had for the Guard. Thudd guns, heavy mortars, the Thunderbolt, stationary Colossus/Earthshaker cannons...these are all awesome models, awesome units, that really fit in with the Guard. But unless GW are willing to take them away from FW and turn them into plastic, it would be silly to put them in the codex. Having the Griffon, Colossus, and Medusa might have helped some FW sales, but it mostly led to an increase of conversions and 3rd party model companies. It really puts GW in a corner as far as what they can ADD to the IG this time around.

It really puts GW in a corner as far as what they can ADD to the IG this time around.

I agree, and that's exactly why a 'Macharius-sized tank' or 'some new plane' doesn't make any sense since IG already has dozens of both. What Forgeworld doesn't produce is a big IG walker, a Knight. How are you going to guarantee that the new tank kit will sell? Cruddace or some other semi-incompetent person will bomb the rules for it and it'll gather dust for 4 years aside from model collectors (not gamers) buying 1 of them to paint. Your sales strategy should be to get new players interested in the army as a whole, not just selling 2 new boxes for existing IG collectors.

I know the release can succeed with something else too, if that something else is spectacular, but GW gave the Tau a big walker, and then they decided out of nowhere to imagine a smaller than Revenant but larger than Wraithlord Eldar walker too. They could've just made a 'Scorpion-sized tank' or 'more new planes' but they opted for the Wraithknight because it will make them a lot of money. Those two armies are now the most popular (upwards trending) and talked about armies in 40K.

To me, anything else than a Riptide/Wraithknight sized walker will be a missed opportunity. On the other hand, GW misses opportunities and squanders a lot of potential all the time so I'll prepare myself for disappointment.

If it's a walker, it will probably fail anyway. Walkers are much worse that GW seems to think, and Sentinels and Dreadnoughts are almost universally overpriced/bad. Wraithknights and Riptides being Monstrous Creatures is key, of course. Now, I don't know enough about the fluff to answer this: without considering Mechanicus-only units, is there ANYTHING that the IG have in the background that could reasonably be classed as a Monstrous Creature?

 tomjoad wrote:
If it's a walker, it will probably fail anyway. Walkers are much worse that GW seems to think, and Sentinels and Dreadnoughts are almost universally overpriced/bad. Wraithknights and Riptides being Monstrous Creatures is key, of course. Now, I don't know enough about the fluff to answer this: without considering Mechanicus-only units, is there ANYTHING that the IG have in the background that could reasonably be classed as a Monstrous Creature?

That's just a rules design issue. Monstrous creature is just a classification and doesn't these days denote something as either mechanical or biological. That's why Riptides and Wraithknights are monstrous creatures just like Hive Tyrants. If you did make it a vehicle however, that's still not a problem as long as you're putting yourself in the mindset to make it competitive. Give it a 4+ power field invulnerable (so people don't need to worry about cover since its a big model) and a high armour value (13/13/12 or better) and 6 hull points, some insane weaponry and a competitive points cost and you're there. You can make it just as overpowered as you want, vehicle or MC. And it will sell like hotcakes.

But still, without dipping into Mechanicus/Titanicus units, is there anything the IG generally have access to that would fit this bill? Or would they have to create something out of whole cloth like Centurions?

 tomjoad wrote:
But still, without dipping into Mechanicus/Titanicus units, is there anything the IG generally have access to that would fit this bill? Or would they have to create something out of whole cloth like Centurions?

No, they don't, so they'd have to pull it out of their hat if they don't want to use the stuff available to mechanicus in the background. Why they'd do that doesn't make any sense to me though. IG are deployed to battlefields by the Imperial Navy which is a separate organisation, get support from the Astra Telepathica for communication, Adeptus Titanicus battle titans for large scale operations etc. The Imperial Army usually has deployments from the various branches in a warzone, sometimes all of them, including the Space Marines. So, just make it a Knight since the background and starting points for visual look are there. IG already have psyker squads and tech-priests that don't have anything to do with actual IG regiments either, so what's the big deal? It'd basically be the same as the Daemon engines of Chaos, and Obliterators, which are mostly creations of the Dark Mechanicum.

 tomjoad wrote:
If it's a walker, it will probably fail anyway. Walkers are much worse that GW seems to think, and Sentinels and Dreadnoughts are almost universally overpriced/bad. Wraithknights and Riptides being Monstrous Creatures is key, of course. Now, I don't know enough about the fluff to answer this: without considering Mechanicus-only units, is there ANYTHING that the IG have in the background that could reasonably be classed as a Monstrous Creature?

None that isn't actually some form of vehicle pretending to be a MC. Or Lord Solar Macharias, iirc he's a warrior saint, but he's not exactly a huge presence in the fluff so i can't see a unique monstrous creature based on him.