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 think something like entrenching would be generally more suited for apocalypse where everything just dies and you need every little bit of help. It might also be suited as an upgrade for heavy weapon platoons as it would make sense that they'd want a cozy place to shoot from and wouldn't want to move to much.

Well looking at Carapace Armor, Cameoline, and Bionics they all approach the same issue of survivability. Carapace armor by modifying base save, Cameoline modifying cover saves, and Bionics a 6+ invulnerable save. Its a matter of whether you believe they should have the wide variety of options to modify their survivability. FNP is a bit of trade off for bionics as they are, FNP basically operates the same as Bionics but as a 50/50 chance instead of 1/6 chance while losing protection against insta-death. The importance of bionics and why they were even included seems to be to provide that protection from insta-death.

Here's another random thought to throw out there, in some hypothetical post-doctrine future:

(formatting may not survive posting)

(further notes in brackets are where my rules-writing ability fell through or where I wanted to insert a justification or a bit of colour)

(yeah I know the stuff about "overall" command teams could be confusing but I wrote this in about 15 minutes so I'm not about to try to dodge the semanticians on that one)

Imperial Guard Platoon - HQ/Troops/Heavy Support

Imperial Guard WS BS S T W I A LD SV
Vet. Command Team 5 3 3 3 7 4 7 9 5+
Command Team 25 pts. 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 8 5+
Weapons Team 30 pts. 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 7 5+
Heavy Team 30 pts. 3 3 3 3 2 4 2 7 5+

Structure:
An Imperial Guard Platoon consists of a single Command Team backed by two to five Imperial Guard Squads, except when that Platoon is purchased as an HQ choice in which case the Platoon size becomes 0-5 Squads. Each Imperial Guard Squad consists of one Command Team, one Weapons Team and one Heavy Team.
A single platoon MAY be purchased as an HQ instead of a Troops choice. (Lords Solar, Inquisitors and other "Leader of Men" types will often override the usual company structure as part of their personal style of command) If the game is being played at 1500 points or greater, the "overall" (wording issues) Command Team of this platoon automatically upgrades to a Veteran Command Team at +0 points.
Any number of platoons may be chosen as Heavy Support. The squads in these platoons consist of three Heavy Teams instead of the usual one of each, but the platoon as a whole must still purchase a single Command Team.

Special Rules

Human:
Imperial Guard Teams may not Go to Ground or Run. (they're loaded down with MREs, ammo, tents, sleeping bags, etc., don't wear power armour, always work with the ground to the limits of their courage, and besides, who wants to try and tip a 60mm base on its side anyways?)

Teamwork:
Imperial Guard Teams are considered to have been sold mounted on a 60mm base regardless of their original packaging.
Imperial Guard Teams are Immune to Instant Death, are Small Targets and are Vulnerable to Blasts.
So long as a single figurine mounted on the base can trace LOS to a target, the whole Team is assumed to be able to trace LOS to the target regardless of the LOS restrictions to individual figurines as posed on the base.
Imperial Guard Teams are armed with multiple two-handed weapons which they are capable of using at the same time as all of their other two-handed weapons, in specific exception to the main rules as printed or errataed in the main rule book. (had to catch myself from using the word "normal" there, remembering how silly the debates around here get when someone's deluded enough to use that adjective in a 'dex or fandex)

Leadership:
The "overall" Command Team of any Platoon is not bound by Squad Coherency. Any Squad the edge of one of whose Teams lies within 12" of the edge of an "overall" Command Team may choose to use its LD characteristic.

Honour of the Regiment
Any Imperial Guard Squad which could substitute the LD value of a Veteran Command Team for its own may also re-roll the dice on any morale test. (no Commissars in here yet but if the Hangman's around you can't reroll a successful morale test with this rule. Veteran Command Teams have LD9 because not only are they scary, kill-hardened m0f0s, they inspire the trust of their men and women, and they don't get that trust by getting them killed off in every pointless skirmish that arises.)

Equipment and Options:
Command Teams have three lasguns and one laspistol. Weapons Teams and Veteran Command Teams have three lasguns and one of: plasma gun, melta gun, flame thrower, grenade launcher. (note: same costs to reflect buffs to cover and hordes in 5th) Heavy Teams have one of: lascannon, master-crafted heavy bolter, autocannon, smart mortar, or both armour-piercing and incendiary missiles. Command and Veteran Command Teams may purchase a Guard Issue Power Fist (counts as servo arm) for +10 points. A Veteran Command Squad may exchange its plasma gun and servo arm with a power sword for no additional points. (because the Captain grew up poor and hangs out with scary-@$$ knife-wielding Savlars)

Weapon Profiles:
Incendiary Missile
R48" Heavy 1 S4 AP5 Ignores Cover Saves

Armour-Piercing Missile
R48" Heavy 1 S7 AP1

Smart Mortar
RG48" Heavy 1 S4 AP5 Treats all Scatter results as "HIT"

(end)

and there we have it. I think that rolls just about every decent doctrine and 2-4 list entries into one much more coherent whole, and makes the movement phase about 500% less painful without tacitly making a sales deal with GF9.

whhopsie. Two leetle things I can see wrong with that last post (not going to risk edit function, sorry for Double Post)

1) there's a reference in there to "Veteran Command Squad" that should read "Veteran Command Team"

2) in the "Human" Special Rule it should also read "In missions where Kill Points are in effect, each wound inflicted on the IG force counts for 1% of one Kill Point." The reasoning being that individual human beings, once killed, are gone for good - there's no salvaging a semi-functional suit of armour and some geneseed, for most regiments the best thing they'll be able to do for these poor ****s is to put a bolt in their brain and call it good night.

edit - this also assumes play without allies or Last Chancers in their current incarnation.

edit - this one might be overcomplicating things but would make an decent casual game rule: "When a Heavy Team is reduced to a single wound, if equipped with a heavy bolter the Master Crafting is lost. If it is equipped with any other weapon, it must reroll all successful rolls to hit." No autoloader, no machine spirit in the armour keeping the thing primed and ready - you rely on the man next to you to keep your weapon operational. It might also represent that a single man might not be able to load the weapon under pressure or unclog any potential jams.

aka_mythos wrote:I think something like entrenching would be generally more suited for apocalypse

Well looking at Carapace Armor, Cameoline, and Bionics they all approach the same issue of survivability. Carapace armor by modifying base save, Cameoline modifying cover saves, and Bionics a 6+ invulnerable save.

FNP is a bit of trade off for bionics as they are,

Agree. Entrenching would be a great Strategic Asset as counterpoint to Bunkers.

I don't have any conceptual issue with the mix, or having both Bionics *and* FNP as options. Though, I think it might be useful to add a "we just don't care how many die" as the final alternative:
- Carapace (Sv4+)
- Cameoline (improve Cover Saves by 1)
- Chem Inhaler (FNP)
- Cybernetics (Bionics)
- Psycho-conditioned (Fearless)

Points-wise, I see each option as similar in value, around 10 pts /unit.

wight_widow wrote:Imperial Guard Teams may not Go to Ground or Run.

No.

wight_widow wrote:Imperial Guard Teams are considered to have been sold mounted on a 60mm base regardless of their original packaging.

Oh, *HELL* NO.

I've got something like a dozen ML teams. They can go to ground and run, just fine. And they're on the 25mm bases that they were sold with. That is non-negotiable. If anything, the rule should be that Teams count as separate 25mm round bases, regardless of their original packaging because it simplifies the rules.

Did they change what small targets does? I thought it was +1 to cover saves for some reason. Kind of like ALWAYS having gone to ground but still being able to fire. 2+ cover is a leetle much IMHO. If that's a guy in a gillie suit, then what's a guy with a cloaking device? My bad for not being more specific - I was probably inadvetently referring to the 4th edition GSRs so I can understand how that might have confused you.

The fact that you have somewhere between dozens and hundreds of individual pieces to move around for even the smallest of engagements is the part that I have always hated about the GW IG rules. Really Orks and Nids ought to run the same way as well. Beyond the bucket of dice rules (okay, I'm an old Fantasy Battle boy, I can live with that) the utter inattention to detail and balance and the fact that over half the design team appears at least to spend their off hours freebasing, any game over about 500 points with an IG player attempting a movement phase using only current GW products feels like you're having hours subtracted from your life. Kind of like smoking a carton, except without the mildly pleasurable side effects.

But each to his or her own. This is the proposed rules forum, after all. GW is going to read this a little after hell freezes over. (I can tell they're hurting all ready from the decreasing quality of a lot of their media supplements and the reused sculpts getting ALL THE HYPE in WD...let's throw this drowning man a brick.)

That comment on how the rules ought to reflect on the pieces we each individually own is bang on - why would anyone in their right mind consent to playing with rules that put them at a disadvantage? The whole point of house rules is to have FUN. If I wanted to play with a Leman Russ that can move 48" a turn and has 7 attacks at WS10, then if that was what I and my group had decided was fun, that's how we'd play. If I want to play with marines with 6+ armour saves and boltguns that are S10, well, hey hell, it's a science FICTION game deliberately based on NOTHING. In the privacy of my own home or private club, I don't have to concern myself about shystering strangers to make back the investment on my moulds or about conforming to any idiotic notion of "composition." I can write fluff out of my ****hole that would make those powder monkeys over in Nottingham bawl their eyes out. In a game with a TOTALLY fictional setting, ideas about background are inevitably bound to be divisive, and everybody has their own idea of fun. I'd rather slit my wrists with a spoon than sit and watch my opponent carefully measure 6" for each individual infantryman then roll a d6 per squad that isn't within range, remeasuring that range as well...ugh...but, much as a heterosexual ought to be able to accept that some dudes just don't dig chicks, as a simple rules guy I have to accept that some people LOVE their complications and LOVE justifying those complications.

Free market system. God bless it.

I know full well what you were referring to.

And the whole rebasing thing is a major irritant from 4E.

The models stay on their original bases, and are legal that way.

If the player chooses to multi-base, that's up to them. Particularly as it causes more rules questions and problems than single basing does.

But please don't go around forcing players to multi-base or add new restrictions / requirements above and beyond the current rules.

If some sort of multi-basing were required of any army it'd be tyranids before ever being guards.

I don't run tournaments. I can't "force" anybody to do anything. Please read and make an effort to understand the post before responding to it. Seriously guy, this is like watching someone fail the Turing test.

Whatever, dude.

It's not like your proposal was made of awesome.

What about a 'without number' type rule, like gaunts get?

The fluff about how there are always millions more guardsmen would back it up.

Yes, but Guard aren't usually used to expend the enemy's ammunition before the real attack. Usually. Most Guardsmen are highly professional, disciplined and skilled soldiers that would wipe the floor with any modern military unit you care to name, and only seem crappy when compared to the genetically engineered monsters, armoured super-soldiers and alien killing machines. There might be trillions of Guardsmen, but according to the 4th ed Tyranid codex, there are at least a quintillion Tyranid Hive Ships out there, not to mention untold septillions of Orks, Grots and so forth, and the potentially infinite number of enemy soldiers emerging from the shattered threads of time in the Eye of Terror. The Guard are nowhere near as numberless as them. I stand by my idea that Guard need to be made to be worth 7 points somehow. (I support free defensive grenades and special weapons)

Are you kidding me? Right now guardsmen, as the are, cost 8 points a model. Who takes naked guard squads anyway? Basic squad with plasma and heavy bolter. Kills on average .444 +.333+.416 or about one marine per turn.... Compare that with your standard guardian.

Um, a Guardsman is 6 pts, not 8 pts.

A Guard Squad with ML & PLas is like this:
- ML (1/2 hit, 5/6 wound, 1/2 cover) = .208 kill
- Plas (2/2 hit, 5/6 wound, 1/2 cover) = .416 kill
- Lasgun (16/2 hit, 1/3 wound, 1/3 fail) = .888 kill
= 1.5 kills at <12" range

At the same range, a Guardian squad with Starcannon does:
- AGP (2/2 hit, 5/6 wound, 1/2 cover) = .416 kill
- Shuricat (18/2 hit, 1/2 wound, 1/3 fail) = 1.5 kill
= 1.9 kills at <12" range.

These are best-case scenarios, in which some Marines have wandered into that perfect killing range.

Now, let's look at costs... The Guard with their ML and Plasma upgrades are 85 pts total. The 10 Guardians are a whopping 80 pts *before* upgrading to take the Starcannon. And it isn't "free"

But it is also to note that the Guard have certain range advantages. The 24" Rapid-fire is an advantage, along with the 48" range on the ML, given that neither unit wants to engage in HtH.

No one buys guardsmen with out their add on weapons...
Buying them their weapons makes them 8 points a pop.
With their weapons the still kill less than equivalent points cost guardians at any range where they can both fire.

Except that Guardsmen can fire at ranges where Guardians cannot. Those Guardians are only good <12", where Guardsmen are usable 36" to 48". If you're saying that Guardians will consistently engage opponents in their magical 12" zone, that is awesome. How is that happening?

Guardians = 18 inch threat range they can move and fire.

In 5th edition, the guards men are realistically only going to get two turns to fire before close combat starts. During that first turn they will kill about .5 of a marine due to cover saves ect. I hate to say it but point for point guardians are killier, shootier, better in close combat, more mobile....

JohnHwangDD wrote:Whatever, dude.

It's not like your proposal was made of awesome.

Your surrender has been accepted, sir.

edit - lol I knew that was coming, You don't have to cry about it, you know.

More like:

"Meh, you're not interesting anymore".

IG guardsmen get kicked around by guardians. Their stats are appropriate but minor gains like "sharpshooter" or some of the other minor doctrines are at the level of additional "umph" needed to bring them up to a point value that's better balanced, while providing them with minor additional but specific gains.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

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

What are you smoking John?

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

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

BYE

Dont worry HBMC I can help you there.

Btw John, do you play 40k? Im sorry if its inflammatory but that post was ridiculous.

I say make a guardsman 4 points and if you want to add special skills, they go up in points but 4 points basic guardsman without any special rules starting. The heavy/special weapons need to also go down in price to factor in 75% of the wounds in this game will receive cover saves.

4pt guardsmen don't make sense. 4pt Guardsmen equals a conscript being equivalent to Ork Grots. That's not what guardsmen are suppose to be.

High numbers of losses for IG are acceptable, it however doesn't preclude its mitigation. 4pt guardsman move such tactical decisions of sacrificing units from the realms of choices to a matter of necessity.

thehod wrote:Dont worry HBMC I can help you there.

No, you can't, because I'm not playing along.

thehod wrote:Btw John, do you play 40k?

Of course not. I spent my hard-earned money buying well over 20k pts worth of models and rulebooks to match, then spent a my limited and valuable spare time building and painting them so I can have a great collection of stuff for no good reason. :S

thehod wrote:Im sorry if its inflammatory but that post was ridiculous.

Unlike your proposal below? Riiight...

thehod wrote:I say make a guardsman 4 points and if you want to add special skills, they go up in points but 4 points basic guardsman without any special rules starting. The heavy/special weapons need to also go down in price to factor in 75% of the wounds in this game will receive cover saves.

I say 5 pts /model, with "free" Vox and access to *significantly* cheaper AV12/12/10 Chimeras, along with inexpensive equipment upgrades (10 pts/unit). The Special Weapons are OK at a max of 10 pts each. Heavy weapons might only warranty a 5-pt reduction, at most, as cutting their costs only encourages tactically boring static gunline play.

That is, I see the problem with Guard as:
1. Low mobility due to hugely overcosted, AV10 Chimeras
2. Excessive model costs due to emphasis on static shooting
I don't see any significant problems with static shooting that need corrections in greater priority over mobility and general costs.

So a ML/Plas squad in Cameoline might cost like this:
50 pts for 10 IG
10 pts for Cameoline
10 pts for Plasma
10 pts for ML
= 80 pts total vs 95+ pts today.

40 pts for AV12/12/10 Chimera w/ Hull HB, Smoke
10 pts for Turret Multi-laser
= 50 pts total

In other words, fix what's actually wrong with Guard, don't screw around with the stuff that isn't really broken.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I say 5 pts /model, with "free" Vox and access to *significantly* cheaper AV12/12/10 Chimeras, along with inexpensive equipment upgrades (10 pts/unit). The Special Weapons are OK at a max of 10 pts each. Heavy weapons might only warranty a 5-pt reduction, at most, as cutting their costs only encourages tactically boring static gunline play.

That is, I see the problem with Guard as:
1. Low mobility due to hugely overcosted, AV10 Chimeras
2. Excessive model costs due to emphasis on static shooting
I don't see any significant problems with static shooting that need corrections in greater priority over mobility and general costs.

So a ML/Plas squad in Cameoline might cost like this:
50 pts for 10 IG
10 pts for Cameoline
10 pts for Plasma
10 pts for ML
= 80 pts total vs 95+ pts today.

40 pts for AV12/12/10 Chimera w/ Hull HB, Smoke
10 pts for Turret Multi-laser
= 50 pts total

In other words, fix what's actually wrong with Guard, don't screw around with the stuff that isn't really broken.

I agree with those changes you listed. Atleast we can agree that Chimeras are overcosted and I like 12/12/10. I meant Guardsmen to be 4 points base and if you want stuff like COD, or sharpshooters, etc then they start going up in cost.

Yeah, the Chimera stats and pricing really pisses me off. AV12/10/10 is simply horrible under 5th edition rules, because that means it's really AV10. Completely unplayable against and dies to Bolters. And then it costs nearly 90+ pts for 2 guns, extra armour, and smoke. In 5th Edition, Guard are actually *less* mobile than in 4th!

So anyhow, I used to think that the Chimera would be OK at 55 pts for AV 12/11/10 with turret Multi-Laser & hull Heavy Bolter. But now, I'm thinking that Mech Guard needs the side AV to be 12 like the Hellhound to be playable. And having to buy a *lot* of them means the points cost to drop another 5 pts, to a total of no more than 50 pts (i.e. same as a BA Razorback).

Indeed, given that the Guard don't have cheaper Rhino-class vehicles, nor precision-transport Drop Pods, nor uber AV14 Land Raiders, I could see the AV12/12/10 Chimera being "fair" as low as 40 or 45 pts.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Of course not. I spent my hard-earned money buying well over 20k pts worth of models and rulebooks to match, then spent a my limited and valuable spare time building and painting them so I can have a great collection of stuff for no good reason.:S

Clearly not one for the rhetorical, are we Jonny?

BYE

I agree the point value for Chimeras is the biggest off base point cost. Just to have all the basics for it, it costs more than a Predator with the basic trimmings. A predator has better armor a better gun; a chimera can carry 12 models and is amphibious. A Chimera is closer to practicality to a Razorback but priced like a Predator.

Chimera should be: 45 pts, comes standard with heavy bolters,
may upgrade: to flamers for free
multi-laser +5
autocannon +10

I think AV 12/11/10 would be the best we could hope for at this point value. A 12/12/10, would put it in the realm of being priced like a Predator, which isn't a solution I'd like.

I used to think that, right until I saw the Rhino and Razorback entries in the new SM Codex.

Let's talk about roles and intent:
- the Chimera is the *only* Transport available to the Guard
- the Chimera is supposed to be AV12 vs AV11 / AV14
- the Chimera is Open if passengers shoot
- the Chimera is dual BS3 vs twin BS4
- the new Rhino is 35 pts and the new Razorback is 40 pts
- the Chimera transports T3 Sv5+ meatsacks vs T4 Sv3+ monsters


There is a need to create differences between IG and SM, which is why the Guard no longer use Rhinos like they did back in RT. So I now believe that the Chimera needs to be AV12/12/10. If it is AV12/11/10, then most of the time, the enemy will shoot at the large AV11 sides, which makes it the same as a Rhino or Razorback, defeating the purpose of differentiating the two armies from a Transport standpoint.

The Basilisk, of course, can stay AV10 on the sides, as it deploys so far back that only the Front is ever a target.

Then the question is cost. The Chimera has essentially similar (at best, and worse options) firepower compared to a Razorback, so when you weigh it all, the Chimera should be cheap, at no more than 40 pts. Especially when you consider that IG would have to Transport considerably more SM to achieve similar results.

Well I think you're allowing the functional based costing to override the cost as balanced by the rules. The cost has to reflect the chimera's stats.
In the new codex SM, an AV13/11/10 Predator with autocannon is 60 pts and with 2 heavy bolters is 85 pts. A Razorback, AV11/11/10 with twin heavy bolters is 40pts.
So pricing of a Chimera relative to a Razorback, we have to account for the additional front armor, the extra heavy weapon, and the added troop capacity.

The comparison of a Predator to Razorback shows that for 20pt difference, a Predator gains a autocannon and 2 points of front armor. To put the comparison on equal footing, a hypothetical predator with troop transport of a razorback would be 5pts more. 25pts thus conveys the better weapon and armor. Of that I'd estimate 20pts to the armor and 5pts to the autocannon. So an AV12/11/10 chimera should cost 10pts over a Razorback for armor alone.

The comparison of of a razorback to rhino shows that the twin heavy bolters are minimally 5pts, 10pts if you consider that the the Razorbacks cost is brought down by the reduction in transport capacity. That would shows that a baseline heavy bolter on a basic Chimera should be between 5 and 10pts, more on the lower end since IG are BS3.

The additional capacity of troops cost in about 5-6pts over a razorback.

Their is a bit of ambiguity in costing due to the different minor rule differences of razorbacks and chimeras, that I have assumed cancel out or have negligible cost, ie 3 entry hatches versus one, amphibious, lasgun firing ports...

That said looking at the Chimera as a AV12/11/10 should cost 55pts (40+10+5-5+5) just by direct convention of comparison of marine vehicles taking into consideration the lower value or cost of weapons due to lower BS of IG.

An AV12/12/10 would be 60 to 65pts. With those stats and its weapons it begins to be less of a transport and more of a medium tank on par to a basic predator.

While by comparison a less practical Chimera as its rules currently are should cost in at 45pts.

So while I believe the Chimera should be cheaper and better its cost has to reflect its stats and rules relative to the costs other armies have.

oops double post.