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.

agroszkiewicz wrote:"How could imperial guard be made better?"


MOAR! large blast templates.

I like the sound of that

jmurph wrote:But then you get back into the overlap problem. Besides, a Primaris is probably more unsettling than inspiring.

Inspire is a psychic power which is commonly used by psykers in the Imperial Guard, it does not make the Psyker an inspiring figure, it merely bolsters the courage of any number of targets within range.

Terminus wrote:Well, let's hope the Stormtroopers in the Grey Knights codex are a little more interesting. At the very least, having Vakyries as dedicated transports is some food for thought. And I'll be overjoyed if they get their Apocalypse data sheet as a special rule.

If they don't ditch them to focus primarily on Grey Knights.

We already have plenty of pretty solid rumors that they WILL be in the codex. We just don't know what form.

I thought the prevailing rumor was that GKs and SoB were getting their own "Pure"codices with no guard or inq units.

The Guard needs Baneblades to be in their codex! No super heavies for anyone else though. *I jest of course*

Maledictus wrote:I thought the prevailing rumor was that GKs and SoB were getting their own "Pure"codices with no guard or inq units.

You've been out of touch. I don't know about the Sororitas, but every rumor to come out about the GK lately has had the Ordo Malleus represented. It's simply the opposite of the previous formula where it was 80% Inquisition and 20% GK.

Terminus wrote:

Maledictus wrote:I thought the prevailing rumor was that GKs and SoB were getting their own "Pure"codices with no guard or inq units.

You've been out of touch. I don't know about the Sororitas, but every rumor to come out about the GK lately has had the Ordo Malleus represented. It's simply the opposite of the previous formula where it was 80% Inquisition and 20% GK.

thats a relief, i thought it was pretty stupid to have the chapter militant of the ordo malleus running around without and inquisitor calling the shots, and STs to do the grunt work.

I don't think this is mentioned yet?

How about some plastic kits of some existing regiments? To be honest I'm surprised that this wasn't something which came with the previous codex, considering how many rumours had been flying about. In no particular order, perhaps Valhallans, Elysians or Tallarn? And the Catachans basic box really needs re-doing IMO, even compared to the old metal models they are not that good..

I would love to see plastic Vallhallans or Tallarn. A wider variety of Tanith models might be good too, but I digress.

I think everyone's pov is that we've got so many new tank models as is, with the Battle tank and Demolisher kits that we really have nothing to complain about. Hell, at least a model for every option in our codex exists at this point, unlike some of the other armies.

Standard carapace armor for the vets

Better armor profile for the chimera and remove the immobile = destroyed rule in squads so my techpriest can actually be more usefull!

Put some mechanicus like doctrine into the Guard codex, I'm a fan of the adeptus mechanicus armies

The immobile = destroy rules is there to balance out vehicle squadrons. Seriously, we can 9 Leman Russes, or 9 Hydras, or 9 Basilisks, there has to be something to balance it out, and the squadron rules help do that.

I do agree carapace vets would be nice. We're already selling out the potential to take a crap ton more firepower in order to take vets, so carapace would actually be a decent buy.

I persoanlly think that IG lack good Elite choices....I think GW could incorporate better weapons with the addition of a few more elites

ChrisWWII wrote:The immobile = destroy rules is there to balance out vehicle squadrons. Seriously, we can 9 Leman Russes, or 9 Hydras, or 9 Basilisks, there has to be something to balance it out, and the squadron rules help do that.

It's still a bad way of doing it, since the in-universe justification doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I'm pretty sure the famous quote doesn't go "When we run out of fuel we scuttle the tank and hide until the noise stops."

Element206 wrote:I persoanlly think that IG lack good Elite choices....I think GW could incorporate better weapons with the addition of a few more elites

Or just focus on fixing the elites they already have so they become more viable. Even that aside they have a great amount of units that can perform well in their own right. But at same time there's a lot of redundant units.

Great points, Terminus!

Sure, you guys can have a better codex, if you all agree that Vendettas and Executioners need to be nerfed or more expensive. :p

But seriously, I'd like to see units fixed. Mind, these are the suggestions of a dedicated MEQ player, so this is what I'd perceive as "fair and viable" rather than "a buff." Note that the basis for most of these changes are based on how often I see people take certain units/options, and how well they do against me.

I'm not sure why exactly what makes Ogryns bad, though a P.Fist option for Bone 'Eads and Fleet all around would certainly make them viable, I think.

Punishers need Range 36" and a points reduction to 150, maybe?

Primaris Psykers could use a few changes, and are a little more complex:

A) Make Lightning Arc Assault 6+D6. This takes it from being mildly annoying to "oh noes, you just 2 upped my mahreenz."

B) Allow Nightshround to be put on any unit within 12"? For clarification, in this case, vehicles may shoot unaffected, as they posses no leadership value.

C) The wording for Soulstorm needs to be "S equal to psykers in unit" not "S equal to Sanctioned Psykers in unit" and Primaris Psyker could maybe make the AP roll 1 better when joined to the PBS.

D)Ignore A and B, but give the Primaris Psyker a once per game psychic power nullification on a 2+.

Ratlings could use some work, but I think that should come by way of a buff to all Sniper type weapons. Alternatively, BS5.

Shock Troopers I think are fine when used intelligently, but a SoB profile with Special Operations and the option to take Bolters instead of Hot Shots would certaintly make them more popular, I think.

Penal Legions I have seen kick serious ass, but I won;t waste an opportunity to plug my Colonel Schaeffer idea for them.

Rough Riders simply need some more staying power in CC. Laspistols and Close combat weapons would be a step in the right direction, (instead of or) and I think if Space Marine can get +1 T for riding a giant wolf, a human can get +1 for riding an angry f***ing warhorse, comparatively. Finally, give the sergeant the same options as an Infantry Squad sergeant. Oh, and having some actual models for the unit would help too. (Instead of the "God damn Mongorians knocked down mah s***y wall" rough riders we have now.)

Armored Sentinels should have an actual side armor value; probably 11. Both types of sentinels should have 2 attacks base.

So, a fair amount of changes from someone who doesn't even play IG, but there it is. I fee like some of these may be overpower slightly, but I have tried to be conservative. I do fell, however, that every unit and most options should be viable.

ChrisWWII wrote:The immobile = destroy rules is there to balance out vehicle squadrons. Seriously, we can 9 Leman Russes, or 9 Hydras, or 9 Basilisks, there has to be something to balance it out, and the squadron rules help do that.

Being able to field multiple models in one FOC slot is balanced by the fact that they all have to target the same thing. The immobile=destroyed rule is supposed to balance out the free extra armor you get for being in a squadron.

I don't mind the immobile=destroyed rule in theory, but it's really stupid/annoying to get a benefit that's easily gotten elsewhere. If squadrons allowed you to ignore shaken results, you could combine that with extra armor to ignore 1s and 2s on the damage chart, while being destroyed on 4+. That would be a fair exchange (and make extra armor worth the 15 points premium).

I honestly don't think the rules writers spend a lot of time playing the game.

I guess you're right in a way, but the fact remains that IG vehicle squadrons have the potential to become very broken, very quickly if they go too far. Your idea really doesn't seem like it'd balance out too much, Terminus. A squadron of Leman Russes that can ignore all Crew damage results, and the consolation is that you wreck on a 4+?

Not much consolation for most people, I'd think. I mean really, most ways to kill a Russ are closing in for close comabt, or melta, in either case the tank has a high chance of being dead anyway.

I personally like Endova's rule suggestion the most right now...it seems like an outside player would be best for these kind of things, to be honest, as hey, all IG players will want their specific chunk of the army a bit more competitive.

I like Terminus' idea actually, or at least would like to give it a try. The big reason wreck on a 4 sucks so much is because it opens up a whole new door for being destroyed on glancing and I don't feel like extra armor compensates for that. Of course you get the benefit of being able to bring on more tanks, but you still have to pay full price and they're all handicapped by that and by having to shoot at the same thing.
At least from my experiences, vehicle squadrons suck for anything except sentinels and sometimes hellhounds.

edit: also, terrain tests, forgot about those. totally not worth it.

Terminus wrote:1.) Sgt's need to get lasguns too. I mean seriously, would two extra las shots really break FRFSRF?

Not too fussed about this one, I think its more of a personal preference over anything else, its kind of cool to have the Sergeant w/ pistol + CCW so you can easily identify him on the table. I think here 'rule of cool' > gameplay mechanics.

Terminus wrote:2.) Commissars should be able to take power fists, because power blobs aren't uber enough.

If they can take powerfists they should be able to picked out in close combat much like...

Terminus wrote:3.) Instead of #2, priests should be Commissar-like attachments rather than Independent Characters.

Priests with executioners are deadly. Not being able to pick these models out of a 30-40 wound power blob would be, quite frankly, broken. Cruddace has done a good job of balancing the killing power of Commisars (by limiting them to power weapons) with the survivability of a blob (not allowing them to be picked out). If you wanted Priests to be 'attachments' they'd have to lose their executioner option, any other variant breaks the blob even further.

Terminus wrote:4.) Missile launchers in infantry squads should cost 10 points, so you actually consider them side by side with the autocannon.

5.) Heavy bolters should be 5 points like the mortar, so they don't get dismissed out of hand.

100% agree on this.

Terminus wrote:6.) Conscripts need to be 1/2 the cost OR have Send In the Next Wave! built in for free.

And this. Conscripts are simply not cheap enough for what they do. Maybe having the option to add in an 'Overseer' (a la Runtherds) would strike a nice balance between cheapness and staying power, then they could actually perform as the fluffy bubble-wrap they were so obviously desgined to be.

Terminus wrote:10.) Squadron rules should let you ignore shaken results (this is universal for everyone, really).

YES! I also hate the immobilised = dead rule as well. Nothing like rolling a '1' on a DT check and losing an 150pt LRBT for really no good reason.

L. Wrex

So, the immobilized = destroyed doesn't bother me. In the real world, tanks only work if they're in formation, so it would make sense to abandon vehicles that can't keep up.

However, this exact same principle means that tank commanders are more likely to do what it takes to stay in formation. As such, if immobilized = destroyed, then stunned should equal shaken. That way the tank is still nullified for the turn, but the tank can stay in formation by moving.

Once these two even out, and the fact that you have to target a single unit evens out the fact that you have more than one. Then you're just left with squadding being more vulnerable to assaulting, which counters the benefit of even being able to do this in the first place.

That said, russes are so expensive that I still dont' think many people would squad them. Squadding seems like something that GW cautiously put in, but was afraid that it would be broken, and so heavily muted their new thing just in case (cf. the punisher).

Stunned does equal shaken - they essentially get EA for free...

The squadron rules currently are quite terrible, and it's why you generally don't see people fielding much besides barebones valks, griffons and hydras in competitive lists for the most part. The immobilized=dead thing just makes them far too fragile, bringing them back to 4E damage tables and is far more punitive than the bonus of essentially getting EA for free (which is worth far less on gun tanks than on transports). It's not actually in there as a balance mechanism, but rather as a simplification so that immobilzed units didn't act as unit anchors like they did in previous editions. I don't know why they needed to get rid of that, it worked just fine, but apparently they thought they did as it was a bit fiddly. However it makes vehicle squadrons much easier to kill and much more vulnerable to destruction by a wider array of weaponry (e.g. Leman Russ tanks can be killed by autocannons on side armor). Couple the immobilized=dead with how hits are allocated and it makes it very hard to get good use out of squadrons of anything that isn't rather cheap. When hits can be allocated to vehicles far out of range or base contact with attackers, it makes the whole thing far more fragile and vulnerable than they should be given the reduced effectiveness of each additional vehicle since they all have to shoot at the same thing (e.g. fire dragons killing LR's through double-pen shots that are 22" away from them, a Warboss killing a Leman Russ in a squadron up to 16" away from him, etc)

Ailaros wrote:So, the immobilized = destroyed doesn't bother me. In the real world, tanks only work if they're in formation, so it would make sense to abandon vehicles that can't keep up.

To be honest though I don't even like how they support the rules with that fluff. If I'm squatting three LRBTs in the back of my firing line and one gets hit by a lucky krak missile 48"+ away, gets glanced, is immobilized.. why is its crew scuttling it? Maybe if it was like immobilized by CC that would make sense, but if my tank squadron is a pack of basalisks (basili?) that aren't moving anyway who cares if a tread is severed?
Something like it just gets immobilized [maybe the squad is allowed to leave it behind and] it just is immobilized until an enemy unit is within 12, 18, 24" at which point the crew ditches it would make more sense to me.. Maybe it's immobilized + a weapon destroyed because some of the gun crew panics and runs away when they're left behind..
I dunno, maybe that'd be broken, all I know is I just don't like the rules how they are now..

Cantus wrote:

Ailaros wrote:So, the immobilized = destroyed doesn't bother me. In the real world, tanks only work if they're in formation, so it would make sense to abandon vehicles that can't keep up.

To be honest though I don't even like how they support the rules with that fluff. If I'm squatting three LRBTs in the back of my firing line and one gets hit by a lucky krak missile 48"+ away, gets glanced, is immobilized.. why is its crew scuttling it? Maybe if it was like immobilized by CC that would make sense, but if my tank squadron is a pack of basalisks (basili?) that aren't moving anyway who cares if a tread is severed?
Something like it just gets immobilized [maybe the squad is allowed to leave it behind and] it just is immobilized until an enemy unit is within 12, 18, 24" at which point the crew ditches it would make more sense to me.. Maybe it's immobilized + a weapon destroyed because some of the gun crew panics and runs away when they're left behind..
I dunno, maybe that'd be broken, all I know is I just don't like the rules how they are now..

Good point Cantus. In the rulebook they tried to explain the immobilized = wrecked rule by saying the crew needs to scuttle the tank since it cannot keep up?! SO how about formations that didnt need to move at all? Shouldnt that be taken cared of by techpriest?

I'm pretty sure it's more the case that the crew have just taken steps to destroy the tank if they have to leave it behind, or have just abandoned the whole thing to go hide somewhere else.

I'd imagine that after the battle the techpriests would recover the tank if they could, and even if they don't....so what? It's the Imperium! They don't care that a couple Basilisks got abandoned on random planet 1277x8d!

mindfield wrote:

Cantus wrote:

Ailaros wrote:So, the immobilized = destroyed doesn't bother me. In the real world, tanks only work if they're in formation, so it would make sense to abandon vehicles that can't keep up.

To be honest though I don't even like how they support the rules with that fluff. If I'm squatting three LRBTs in the back of my firing line and one gets hit by a lucky krak missile 48"+ away, gets glanced, is immobilized.. why is its crew scuttling it? Maybe if it was like immobilized by CC that would make sense, but if my tank squadron is a pack of basalisks (basili?) that aren't moving anyway who cares if a tread is severed?
Something like it just gets immobilized [maybe the squad is allowed to leave it behind and] it just is immobilized until an enemy unit is within 12, 18, 24" at which point the crew ditches it would make more sense to me.. Maybe it's immobilized + a weapon destroyed because some of the gun crew panics and runs away when they're left behind..
I dunno, maybe that'd be broken, all I know is I just don't like the rules how they are now..

Good point Cantus. In the rulebook they tried to explain the immobilized = wrecked rule by saying the crew needs to scuttle the tank since it cannot keep up?! SO how about formations that didnt need to move at all? Shouldnt that be taken cared of by techpriest?

The battles that are played are usually part of a bigger picture (Or suppse to be) which is why we see Chapter Masters and Dark Eldar Archons walking about, this isn't a minor skirmish it's a snapshot of a much larger fight. If this is taken into account it means that a tank would be abandoned since battles often shift and if the crew are found sat in a steel can when the battle shifts and suddenly they are miles from the fight or, worse, the enemy has won and is about to blow them the hell up. This is about the crew wanting to survive.

ChrisWWII wrote:I'd imagine that after the battle the techpriests would recover the tank if they could, and even if they don't....so what? It's the Imperium! They don't care that a couple Basilisks got abandoned on random planet 1277x8d!

...Yes, they do. They'd probably have you executed twice, once for abandoning the Emperor's artillery, and once for running off and hiding.

AlexHolker wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:I'd imagine that after the battle the techpriests would recover the tank if they could, and even if they don't....so what? It's the Imperium! They don't care that a couple Basilisks got abandoned on random planet 1277x8d!

...Yes, they do. They'd probably have you executed twice, once for abandoning the Emperor's artillery, and once for running off and hiding.

The crews will never admit to having abandonedthem they would probably say thay were attacked and the got destroyed or something.