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 want a mounted option

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Aside from the surprising notion that the metagame isn't intended to be gamed (it's just operating at a higher level), aren't we saying the same thing?

A meta-game, literally means above the game. Once you play a game outside the parameters of the game you're no longer playing the game, you are playing the system. You call it "a higher level," I call it a lower level because it removes mutual fun from the game and emphasizes winning and personal fun at the others expense, and groups of players having fun is what its really about.

Once you start meta-gaming you attempt to make the actual game less even. An uneven game is not fair.

If exploiting features of a game for benefits that were unintended is fun to you and your friends go for it. The fact that its outside the normal game is exactly why it shouldn't be gamed.


I'm personally hoping they redo the advisors, I'd like to see them all be equally good options. I think we're gonna finally move away from the IG purposefully having units being inferior for the sake of it.

WRT the meta-game, I don't see it this way at all. For example, have you ever played WoW or some other multi-class PVE MMORPG? From a meta-game sense, if you want to do a raid (or whatever), don't you select a particular balance of classes and capabilities for that raid? Usually, you want a fairly particular mix of tanks, hitters, and healers. If you don't metagame the team, won't you often auto-lose the raid? How is that not fun? What about developing a particular character build? Isn't that meta as well, as you're usually building that character to fit a particular role on a team?

The fact of the matter is that good games cater to different styles and goals. It's why MtG designs casual cards and competitive cards into each set, and has 5+ flavors each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Inherently, this leads to variety and imbalances that cannot be perfectly even because different players have different affinities and preferences. The notion that everything should be "fair" or "even" is naive and strange. It's life. If I'm bigger than you than you, then I will have an advantage in things that require size. But if the measurement is on reflexes or pound-for-pound, maybe that extra size doesn't really help. Even Chess isn't fair because one side always goes first.

I don't see any exploitation or problem at all. It's simply how the game is.

And quite frankly, it's clear that the new IG are being redesigned for a new metagame. How is that a bad thing?


Also, I'd like Advisors that didn't suck.

Frazzled wrote:Unless I am mistaken nothing has been said about KPs. It may be that KPs are strictly at the platoon level, not by squad.

That would work. Or cut KPs to 1/2 KP per squad. Or simply ignore line squads for KP purposes.

BrookM wrote:As for turning a Guard platoon into a large unit of 25 - 55 models; that would make the Guard even more inflexible than it already is.

Yeah, that would be crap. It's a lot of the reason why I dislike the current Conscript mob. Make the units tactical and playable!

Biophysic wrote:the "line platoon" would have an option to form up into a single unit

No, thanks.

aka_mythos wrote:Now seeing the direction the codex is going I'd guess that special characters might modify what support units that can be taken to allow combination other than the standard. For example, allowing stormtroopers to be taken as a support unit in an Armored divisions. We'll probably see a guy who bolsters defenses and a guy who makes stormtroopers scoring.

I'm just hoping we see Nork return as the Ogryn Bodyguard. The rest, I don't really care about.

Shep wrote:This exactly why it should be one unit. Any other kill point solution is flawed. either they bury their head in the sand and say "units are worth a kill point... deal with it." or they try to make some units worth KPs and some not... or worse yet, only a single unit in the platoon worth KPs.

As I stated earlier, how about some decent elites choices, and a robust and interesting heavy support slot?

No, Guard are Platoons, not mobs. Thanks, but no thanks. If they ignore line squads or make the entire Platoon 1 KP, that's fine.

For Elites, what didn't you like about the Veterans? And how can you say that Guard don't have good Heavies? The best units Guard have are Heavies!

Robust Heavy Support Choices?

You mean, like a vanilla Russ or Demolisher perhaps? I dunno, call me crazy, but I find anything with frontal armour of 14 a pain to deal with, let alone when it stands to blat big holes in my line with a sodding great cannon.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
For Elites, what didn't you like about the Veterans? And how can you say that Guard don't have good Heavies? The best units Guard have are Heavies!

I like veterans. But the only real use for them is dropping 5 of them with three special weapons. They are almost identical to the 5 man command squads, better BS but one less weapon. So thats 1 elite, and one way to run that one elite. I'd like more ways to successfully run veterans, I'd like dynamic interesting intimidating to my opponent storm troopers, possibly field artillery, and playable ogryns in my elite slots

I did not say guard don't have good heavies. I said I'd like to see a more robust heavy support slot. I like the russ, I would like to have their sponson rules looked at. Right now we have 2 patterns of russ, a 'heavy platoon' which sounds to be going to troops and a basilisk. The russ patterns could be expanded more based on their sponsons, which would add more variety to them, also how about a griffon mortar? Something long range that ignores cover? How about more artillery.

looking at our friends the space marines

devastator squad - heavy weapons platoon
predator - leman russ
vindicator - leman russ demolisher
whirlwind - basilisk
thunderfire cannon - ?
land raider - ?
land raider crusader - ?
land raider redeemer - ?

Just because there are a couple good choices in a FOC slot does not make that slot "robust"


As to the MSU crowd. I respect the dissenting opinion... many won't agree with how i want it. Including, in all likelihood, GW. I get how more units is more interesting to you all and how that can make it more fun for you.

But can you also get how it could be more fun for everyone if more turns could be played, or if you are a casual player, more games could be played on a weekend with faster play?

Shep wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
For Elites, what didn't you like about the Veterans? And how can you say that Guard don't have good Heavies?

I'd like more ways to successfully run veterans, I'd like dynamic interesting intimidating to my opponent storm troopers, possibly field artillery, and playable ogryns in my elite slots

I did not say guard don't have good heavies. I said I'd like to see a more robust heavy support slot. I like the russ, I would like to have their sponson rules looked at. Right now we have 2 patterns of russ, a 'heavy platoon' which sounds to be going to troops and a basilisk. The russ patterns could be expanded more based on their sponsons, which would add more variety to them, also how about a griffon mortar? Something long range that ignores cover? How about more artillery.

looking at our friends the space marines

But can you also get how it could be more fun for everyone if more turns could be played, or if you are a casual player, more games could be played on a weekend with faster play?

Veterans are gun runners, so I'm liking the notion that they embed into the standard Platoon. Storms are Troops, so they should move down as well. Artillery shouldn't be Elite - either Heavy, or attached to a Platoon.

Of course, we should have playable Ogryns as Elites. And Ratlings. And probably Beastmen assault troops. Along with a BS4 Tank Ace.

For Heavies, I'll be very happy to see Heavy Platoons go away as squads that attach to Platoons. I don't see the need to change the basic Russ - it's iconic. The Demolisher has enough options, and the Basilisk works just fine. Bring back the Griffon and Exterminator, add FW Artillery, and we're golden.

I could care less what the SM have. This is the Guard.

Finally, I mostly play Apocalypse. The game won't go much faster or slower regardless of whether I'm playing Guard or something else. So I'm happy with the existing Platoon-like structures.

I'd like to see a slot available in Elites or Heavies for a Mercenary/hired guns squad... Orks, Tau, Eldar...

I really want an Ork Nob mercenary squad alongside my Guard army

Wow I am really liking how flexible these rumors are. Now hopefully I will be able to field something, and it won't make ~20 Kill Points!

And by the numbers it looks like heavy weapons squads actually get sarges, that is great. Like a dev squad. I always thought it was odd to have six men in the field with big guns and no one at leading.

Guard Heavy Support is pretty sparse from a Codex perspective. Two tanks, one arty piece and some dude's with heavy weapons.

Odd for an army that's supposed to be all about massed men and tanks. I really want to see a lot of the old and obscure tanks get included, plus more artillery.

BYE

With Leman Russ being allowed to support Infantry squads, I am hoping it's to make way for more Russ/Chimera varients in Heavy Support, and if not, I will still enjoy trying to squeeze as many russ as I can on the board.

You can beard up an Ork list to field 8 battlewagons legally... I'm sure the new Guard codex will let you have your wish with LRs.

Personally I'd love to see 5 Leman Russ strung out across the board as anchor points for an Infantry/heavy wepon squad line, with mortar and artillery support behind. Hmmm... maybe with an armoured fist or two to deal with those pesky infiltrators...

Actually, I'm just going to go dream about men and tanks now

I think as far as more heavy support choices go the Griffon is a must. Also some non self-propelled artillery option would be well suited.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Guard Heavy Support is pretty sparse from a Codex perspective. Two tanks, one arty piece and some dude's with heavy weapons.

Odd for an army that's supposed to be all about massed men and tanks. I really want to see a lot of the old and obscure tanks get included, plus more artillery.

BYE

Personally, I like the way FW did medium artillery with it being an Elites choice. I'd love to field an army replete with Quad Launchers as Elites units and Medusa self propelled artillery as HS and massed all of infantry

They just need to come up with a Good Force Organization, the way it was done in 2nd edition was pretty nifty.

It seems to me that the current theme that IG players are clamoring for is a return to a more classic Guard army, with a heavy focus on infantry that are in essence pathetic on an individual basis but possible of incurring immense damage with massed las/hvy weapons fire as well as an increased armored component. What I don't understand is that when the 4th edition guard codex came out players loved that the doctrines gave them the flexibility to make an army that represented the individual Guard army that they wanted to play.

Currently all of the forums I frequent are chalk full of what I can only describe as hypocritical ideology. Players are screaming in joy about the Guards return to its "true" roots (If many of the rumors are to be believed). What mystifies me is that if by the Guards "true" roots you mean back from 3rd edition on back then it seems to me that your argument has a significant flaw. Editions 1-3 contained Guardsmen that were albeit entertaining and lovable, completely homogeneous and one dimensional. In my mind the many of the original inceptions of the Guard were significantly flawed. The guard is nearly infinite in it man power and ways in which planets and regiments would choose to deploy, organize, and arm those men.

I am in no way defending the doctrine system as it currently is, but taking them away and producing a codex which forces Guard players to all play what essentially comes down to the same army seems to be a step backwards and in no way at all to reinforce the fluff.

Ill admit that I am slightly bias. I play an army that is composed of Grenadiers mounted in Chimeras with plenty of tanks to back them up. I personally like tanks and I like my Grenadiers. I like the fluff I have for them, I like the way I play them, I like them for what they are. They are not SM's I don't pretend that they are and I don't try to make them act like it, but I find it almost offensive that so many players look down upon the kind of army that I enjoy playing and for reasons that seem to have no merit.

Anyhow that's my $0.02

TicToc wrote:What I don't understand is that when the 4th edition guard codex came out players loved that the doctrines gave them the flexibility to make an army that represented the individual Guard army that they wanted to play.

People loved the idea of Doctrines, just as they loved the idea of Marine Traits. Sadly both these rulesets were flawed in the extreme, so what started as a glorious concept was soon destroyed by bad execution (typical of GW really).

I'm someone who wants the Doctrine System done away with as we currently have it, but don't want the Doctrines gone compeltely. I want them to be a platoon by platoon thing, heavily simplified (so, Light Infantry Platoon for +XX points, whole platoon gains Infiltrate/Cameleoline, Drop Infantry Platoons for +XX points, who platoon gains Deep Strike, etc.), and not the system where you give something up that you weren't going to take anyway and then just choose the best Doctrines.

Sadly I'm beginning to realise that the chances of this happening are slim-to-none. We'll get Doctrines and army-altering rules, that's for sure, but they'll come attached to a bevy of new "Special" Characters that we'll have to bring to every battle. There'll be a famous Chimera Commander that allows you to take MechInf. A famous Catachan that gives you Jungle Fighting Light Infantry. A famous Drop Guy, and so on. Bland, boring, and all tied to damned ing special ing characters.

I really hope I'm wrong.

BYE

One, thing is personally I think IG tanks need somthing to help them out. Think about it

TAU: Re rolls on immobilization and skimmer save
ELDAR: Lowest of 2 rolls and skimmer save
CHAOS: Demonically possessed (No stun or shaken)
MARINES: Machine Spirit and 14 all around armor
NECRONS: Immune to melta, skimmer save, 14 all around
ORKS: Ramshakle, (Vehicles not really in thier fluff anyways
DARK ELDAR: Not really known for tanks

Why is it that the army that would have the most fluff for thier tanks has NOTHING COOL to protect them. That is completely bogus. WOW Track guards, please give be a break.

Ill happily accept reasonably priced special characters so long as I am allowed to build the kind of army that I like and not be told i have to fit into what I believe is a cliche one dimensional army.

Platoon upgrades is however admittedly preferable.

smart_alex wrote:Why is it that the army that would have the most fluff for thier tanks has NOTHING COOL to protect them. That is completely bogus. WOW Track guards, please give be a break.

Though the IG is known for being the most proliferate armor users it isn't in their fluff at all to have glitzy tanks or cool upgrades. There just need to be a lot of them, they need to be reasonably heavily armored and armed, and practical in the extreme. That fits the fluff.

This gives a bit more diversity to the I.G, and it's not as if you have to use conscripts if you don't want to, people, and they can still play an effective roll within an army. They don't have to be tough to do it, especially if they get more heavy support choices to back them up. Who cares if you get slogged when it comes to kill points? every army has it's weakness. You'll slog the other armies at something else. My mind may change, though; I'll decide wether I really like these additions or not when I buy the codex and play a match.

I'd honestly just be happy with a point drop on the Chimera. But I do like the the possible new rules at the beginning of the post. It fits my style of play so why wouldn't I enjoy it. Just my quick thoughts until i see something more solid.

smart_alex wrote:One, thing is personally I think IG tanks need somthing to help them out. Think about it

TAU: Re rolls on immobilization and skimmer save
ELDAR: Lowest of 2 rolls and skimmer save
CHAOS: Demonically possessed (No stun or shaken)
MARINES: Machine Spirit and 14 all around armor
NECRONS: Immune to melta, skimmer save, 14 all around
ORKS: Ramshakle, (Vehicles not really in thier fluff anyways
DARK ELDAR: Not really known for tanks

Why is it that the army that would have the most fluff for thier tanks has NOTHING COOL to protect them. That is completely bogus. WOW Track guards, please give be a break.

I'd like to see extra armor actually changing the armor of a specific facing like with the baneblade, make it perhaps mildly overpriced pointwise but still an option. As far as the russ, perhaps one listing ala sentinel with different options for turrent or sponsons. I'd also like to see sentinels get some more love, they're kind of expensive when you compare them to other vehicles at 35pts (rhino) and it costs an extra 15 freakin points just to give them an armored crew compartment.

I'd like to see grenade launcher become an option for pintle mounted weapons. I'd also like to see some improvements to artillery, like some option to have a squad forgo shooting to spot or call in a strike, maybe reducing the scatter a bit or something. Ripper guns definately need some kind of tweaking, they look bad ass but rules wise they're pointless. Someone mentioned more mounted options, that'd definately be sweet, give your command squad horses or whatever.

TicToc wrote:Sadly I'm beginning to realise that the chances of this happening are slim-to-none. We'll get Doctrines and army-altering rules, that's for sure, but they'll come attached to a bevy of new "Special" Characters that we'll have to bring to every battle. There'll be a famous Chimera Commander that allows you to take MechInf. A famous Catachan that gives you Jungle Fighting Light Infantry. A famous Drop Guy, and so on. Bland, boring, and all tied to damned ing special ing characters.

I really hope I'm wrong.

Can't agree with this more, and it has been an approach with the new marine codex that I have not enjoyed one bit. It use to be you would play against a certain chapter with its own traits, and people were attached to the commanders they created on their own. Now, you play against Kantor marines, Khan marines, Vulkan marines, etc. for the most part ... I'm hoping that they keep guard special characters for flavor and nothing more.

I know that even if anyone has anything its not concrete but does anyone have and word on the status of Stormies and or Carapace armor in the new dex?

TicToc wrote:It seems to me that the current theme that IG players are clamoring for is a return to a more classic Guard army, ... What I don't understand is that when the 4th edition guard codex came out players loved that the doctrines gave them the flexibility to make an army that represented the individual Guard army that they wanted to play.

Players are screaming in joy about the Guards return to its "true" roots (If many of the rumors are to be believed). ... The guard is nearly infinite in it man power and ways in which planets and regiments would choose to deploy, organize, and arm those men.

Yes, we want a Guard army that feels and plays like a Guard army. Not a Tau army, or an Eldar army, or a Sisters army, but a Guard army.

While they contain a lot of interesting ideas, Doctrines were *extremely* badly implemented. Stupidly bad, really. So bad that it would have been better if GW had spent a little more time thinking about the basic list than wasting any time at all on Doctrines.

That, and the fact that the 4E IG Codex had no concept of rationally balanced costs. Now if GW had at least followed the MtG principle that *everything* costs, we might have been OK, but they failed miserably. The 4E book is, in most respects, inferior to the previous 3E book, and even the 3E Rulebook list.

While the Guard may be nearly inexhaustible in manpower, they use a relatively limited selection of equipment primitives and doctrine. That over-arching commonality is what makes them Guard as opposed to DIY humans with guns.

smart_alex wrote:One, thing is personally I think IG tanks need somthing to help them out.

Why is it that the army that would have the most fluff for thier tanks has NOTHING COOL to protect them.

Actually, the very fact that Guard Tanks are basic is what sets them apart. If every army has a bonus, then having a bonus is necessarily less special.

It's why the Land Raider is unique among Imperial vehicles, and costs roughly 250 pts, nearly twice what the Guard pay for a vehicle.

If you think that Guard need bonuses, then they would have to pay for them accordingly. Right now, Russes are 150 pts. That's a good deal for an AV14 Battlecannon. If I have to pay 200+ pts for a Guard Tank, then that's a clear step down. If it moves to 250+ pts, I don't want to play Guard.

Let Guard Tanks be basic, and inexpensive. And plentiful.

Crablezworth wrote:I'd like to see extra armor actually changing the armor of a specific facing like with the baneblade, make it perhaps mildly overpriced pointwise but still an option.

I'd also like to see sentinels get some more love,

I'd like to see grenade launcher become an option for pintle mounted weapons.

I'd also like to see some improvements to artillery,

I like that Extra Armor is consistent across all Imperial lines. Although making it change a single facing means that Demolishers become 14/13/13...

Yes, Sentinels are grossly overpriced, and should be far cheaper, even when closed.

Pintle GL isn't a bad idea at all. Very playable.

Guard should be able to have Command Squads provide LOS for Barrage fire, using the Commander's BS for scatter purposes.

Colin Sic wrote:I'm hoping that they keep guard special characters for flavor and nothing more.

Just can't see it happening in the current environment. Jervis has always been a big champion of Special Characters. Unfortunately he's taken it way to far, making them all but mandatory (and actually mandatory in some cases - just speak to any Deathwing or Ravenwing player).

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, we want a Guard army that feels and plays like a Guard army. Not a Tau army, or an Eldar army, or a Sisters army, but a Guard army.

So what your saying is that regardless of fluff you want an army that plays the same (relatively speaking) regardless of who is playing it or who they are playing. With little variation and simply large numbers of troops and tanks with not way to truly make that army personalized. Now Ill surely agree that that is the way its been done for the guard for much of the past (read that prior to doctrines), but does that mean that is how the Guard should be. It doesn't even fit the fluff. Im sorry if its inconvenient for you to have to deal with an army that has options but it makes little sense to deprive others of the ability to customize because you prefer one style over another especially when fluff dictates that its completely anti-canon.

JohnHwangDD wrote:While they contain a lot of interesting ideas, Doctrines were *extremely* badly implemented. Stupidly bad, really. So bad that it would have been better if GW had spent a little more time thinking about the basic list than wasting any time at all on Doctrines.

Ive have not yet defended the way doctrines have been set up. Nor will I. What I do feel is that GW needs to ensure that those of us who don't like playing armies of IG who are little more than high velocity projectile sponges have the option to continue/start playing armies of drop troops/grenadiers/mechanized/armor. Obviously there will have to be some restriction on how much and to what degree for the sake of game balance, but restriction to the point of being erased is not only ludicrous but a bad sales idea.

TicToc wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, we want a Guard army that feels and plays like a Guard army. Not a Tau army, or an Eldar army, or a Sisters army, but a Guard army.

So what your saying is that regardless of fluff you want an army that plays the same (relatively speaking) regardless of who is playing it or who they are playing. With little variation and simply large numbers of troops and tanks with not way to truly make that army personalized.

Uh, no. I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying.

Pariah Press wrote:Uh, no. I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying.

If that was not what he was saying then I apologize for being argumentative. However I'm not sure how else to construe "plays like a guard army". Given that the Guard legitimately should be able to form an army that in some ways very much resembled any of the armies he listed. Sure they are not going to be the same thing but similar to them. That only makes sense given the sheer scale of the guard.

TicToc wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, we want a Guard army that feels and plays like a Guard army. Not a Tau army, or an Eldar army, or a Sisters army, but a Guard army.

So what your saying is that regardless of fluff you want an army that plays the same (relatively speaking)

I think you should do your homework as to what I've proposed before you make such grand pronouncements. I favor a Guard army based on relatively simple models and simple rules, with limited variety. But that is not the same as "the same".

TicToc wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:While they contain a lot of interesting ideas, Doctrines were *extremely* badly implemented. Stupidly bad, really. So bad that it would have been better if GW had spent a little more time thinking about the basic list than wasting any time at all on Doctrines.

Ive have not yet defended the way doctrines have been set up. Nor will I. What I do feel is that GW needs to ensure that those of us who don't like playing armies of IG who are little more than high velocity projectile sponges have the option to continue/start playing armies of drop troops/grenadiers/mechanized/armor. Obviously there will have to be some restriction on how much and to what degree for the sake of game balance, but restriction to the point of being erased is not only ludicrous but a bad sales idea.

Did I say that? No. Don't put words in my mouth.

That said, the offical GW Fluff in the 5E Rulebook is very clear that Guardmen are nothing but an inexhaustible source of wound counters.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Actually, the very fact that Guard Tanks are basic is what sets them apart. If every army has a bonus, then having a bonus is necessarily less special

Ummm yeah... I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think its the best sort of uniqueness. It probably wouldn't fit, but I think something along the lines of repairable to all IG tanks might be the sort of thing that would work.

I think the uniqueness of IG tanks should be making heavy bolter sponsons considered defensive wepaons. Something like that over any overt defensive boost.

Then in that case, the IG bonus is the mere fact that they have Enginseers available.

If the repair is innate, then how much are the Guard going to have to pay for it? 10 pts per Tank? I'd rather have more guys & Tanks.

But really, IG should not break rules if at all possible. Adding chrome for the sake of chrome is poor design.