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.

Hello everyone,

As I’m doing my own codex for my homebrew regiment, I took the opportunity to upgrade the current IG codex. I think everyone would agree to say this is direly needed. I wanted to do this because I gave a try for RR during the past weeks and I saw many proposed rules threads that gave me ideas.

I’m not going to write about my rules; I would just like a feedback from you people to know whether my tweaks are appropriate/balanced/outright bad. Consider that things I did not mention are still included in the codex with no modifications. Most of the list is made by the inclusion of FW stuff I felt was nice and previous editions rules and units. I also put some personal creativity for some entries.

Enough talking though.

Imperial Guard Army list 7th Edition.

1 – General changes:

- Leman Russes get back Lumbering Behemoth. They can fire their secondary weapons at full BS after having shot with their Ordnance weapon. They are Heavy still, so can’t move faster than 6” except stated otherwise in particular situations.
- Hydras get back Auto targeting system and thus ignore Jinking cover saves.
- Scions can have Grav Guns.
- Scions regain Special operations : They always have the Move through Cover USR and, when players set Infiltrators, all MT squad may take one the following:
+++++++Ambush! All MT are Infiltrators and their weapons have Pinning until their next Shooting phase.
+++++++Tactical insertion: all MT must Deep Strike. They can choose to reroll their DS dice but must keep the second result.
+++++++Clear the area: all MT must start the game in a transport. In the turn they disembark, they use their full BS for counter charge fire.
- Hellhound and the likes have [insert fancy name here] special rule: each Vehicle, MC or GMC hit by Inferno/Chem/fusion cannon templates suffers 1D3+1 hits instead of one.
- Mortars are R48” S4 AP6 Heavy2, Barrage, Explosion.
- Deathstrike is S: D
- Sentinels can have Multimeltas for +10pts. Chimeras can replace their hull mounted HB by a MM for +10pts.
- Valkyrie rocket launchers are 36’’.

2 – Special Wargear:
- Veteran Crew: The vehicle has BS4 and may ignore Crew Shaken on 4+
- Coaxial Storm Bolter: a storm bolter allows the main weapon it is stuck on to be Twin Linked if it hits its target.
- Night Vision goggles: grants the Night Vision USR.
- Smoke Shells: resolve the shot as normal then place the 5’’ blast. Any enemy unit firing through the blast template has its target gaining the Shrouded USR. (working the other way around)
- Illum Shells: resolve the shot as normal then place a token. Any enemy unit in the 18’’ of the token cannot benefit from the cover provided by Night Fighting.
- Voxcaster: orders range is unlimited. Failed Ld tests for orders are no longer rerolled.
- Special Markings: a friendly unit which can trace a LoS to a vehicle with Special Markings can reroll a single failed moral test per turn.
- Armoured cockpit: the flyer may ignore Crew Shaken and Crew Stunned on a 4+.
- Flare launchers: a token working like a Bomb. Same effect as Illum shells.
- Infrared filter : for flyers only, Night Vision USR
- ECM systems: for flyers only, 4++ against Missile attacks.

3 – IG Armory:

-Shooting weapons :
+++++++Same as current codex
+++++++Grav pistol : 15pts
-Special Weapons :
+++++++Same as current codex
+++++++Grav gun (Scions Only): 15pts.
-Heavy Weapons :
+++++++Heavy bolter : 5pts
+++++++Mortar : 10pts
+++++++AA missiles for ML are +5pts.
+++++++Same as current codex
-Melee weapons : same as current codex
-Special Issue wargear:
+++++++Krak Grenades: 1pts
+++++++Night Vision goggles: 2pts
+++++++Carapace armour: 3pts
+++++++same as current codex.
-Vehicle equipment :
+++++++Coaxial Storm bolter (LR except Exterminator and Conqueror, Chimeras, Hellhound family) : 5pts/vehicule
+++++++Same as current codex
-Flyer equipment:
+++++++Flare launchers, infrared filter : +5pts
+++++++Special Markings: 10pts
+++++++Armoured cockpit: 20pts
+++++++ECM system: 20pts.

4 – Army list.

HQ

Lord commissar: 60pts. No other changes

Tank commander: 60pts. Same order system as current codex. May choose to give one order to its squadron (then it is resolved at Ld9) or to one LR squadron in a 24” radius (resolved at Ld8). Orders are the following:
+++++++Forward!: D6+6’’ Flat out move
+++++++Fire at will: Split Fire USR for TC’s LR or to one LR of another squadron. Resolve this attack first. The other LR of the ordered squadron may choose their target freely.
+++++++Strike and shroud : Shoot then activate Smoke Launchers
+++++++Focus your fire: Successful cover saves taken against the squadron attacks must be rerolled.
+++++++Evasive manoeuvers : 5++ against CC attacks
+++++++Advance carefully: The squadron may do Counter Charge fire at BS2 instead of shooting in its shooting phase.

Regimental advisors: Priest is Ld 8, no other change

Servitors are 8pts/model.

Troops:

Infantry squads: 40pts. No other changes.

Veteran squads: 50pts. No other changes.

HWT and SWS are 30pts.

Dedicated Transport

Chimeras are 55pts and can take MM for 10pts in lieu of its hull mounted HB.

Valkyries are moved into this section. They are 100ppm.

Elite

Ogryns are 110pts and 35ppm. Can have Valkyries

Bullgryns are 125pts and 40ppm. Can have Valkyries

MT CS: 75 pts. Basic Scions are Ld8. Night Vision goggles added to wargear. Special Operations rule. The tempestor prime may exchange its laspistol for a hot shot lasgun for free.

MT Squad: 60pts. Basic Scions are Ld8. Night Vision goggles added to wargear. Special Operations rule. The tempestor may exchange its laspistol for a hot shot lasgun for free. Any Scion may take a special weapon.

Fast attack

Scout Sentinels Sqd are 30ppm

Armoured Sentinels Sqd are 40ppm. May take a multimelta for 10pts

Vendettas / Vulture Sqd is 160ppm. Vulture is 105ppm. Can be squadroned together.

Salamander Recon Vehicle : 70pts.
- BS3, 12-10-10. Open-topped, Fast, Tank.
- Capacity : 6 models
- Special rule: Forward Artillery Controller: The Salamander may try to designate any enemy unit instead of shooting one of its weapons. Use BS to hit. If successful, the enemy unit is designated and any Explosion weapon trying to target it only scatters by one D6.
- Autocannon, Heavy bolter, smoke launcher, searchlight.
- May exchange AC for HF or HB (free) or LC (10pts).

Rough riders (in light cavalry flavour): 60pts
--------------WS---BS---S---T---W---I---A---Ld-----Svg
Sergeant---3-----3------3---4---1----3---2----8-------5+
RR -----------3-----3-----3----4--1-----3--1---8--------5+

Unit composition : 1 Sergeant (character ; cavalry), 4 RR (Cavalry)
Wargear: flak armour, laspistols, hunting lances, CCW, frag & krak, Special horses
Special rules : Outflank, Light Cavalry, Accute senses
Options:
- May add up to 5 RR : 10pts/fig
- The whole squad may exchange hunting lances for lasguns : free
- The Sergeant may choose weapons from shooting and melee weapons lists.
- The whole squad may take melta bombs : +10pts
- Up to two RR who did not receive any of this equipment may receive a special weapon (flamer excluded)
- Up to two RR who did not receive any of this equipment may receive a melee weapon.

Light Cavalry (inspired from the Warp spiders) : once per turn, if an enemy unit declares a charge on the RR Squadron, it may make a special move. If it is not retreating, the squadron may immediately move 2D6 in any direction. The charging unit cannot choose another target but can charge if the squadron is still at range at the end of the special move. The RR may act normally during their next turn.

Special horses : +3'' to any movement, +1T (already counted on profie), FnP 5+

Hellhound and friends Sqd: each vehicle has a 10pts decrease. + Special rule against big targets

Heavy Support

Leman Russes Sqd:

- Vanquisher is 1205ppm. Demolisher is 160ppm. Punisher is 130ppm. Conqueror (Tank, Fast, R48’’ S8 AP3 Heavy1 Blast cannon with inbluit Coaxial Storm Bolter) and Annihilator (turret mounted 48'' Heavy2 TL LC) are added for 130 and 140ppm.
- One vehicle per sqd may take a Veteran Crew for 15pts.

Thunderers Sqd are added (basically a LR chassis with a demolisher cannon). 140ppm

Laser Destroyers (LR chassis with a big LC which is R72” S10 AP2 Ordnance1) 150pts, May take Veteran Crew for 15pts

Ordnance battery: Medusa is 125ppm, Basilisk is 110ppm, Griffon is 75ppm.
- Griffon has Accurate bombardement (basically TL main gun, which is R12-48” S6 AP4 Ordnance1, Big blast, Barrage)
- Medusa can replace its standard ammo (R48” S10 AP2 Ordnance1, Large Blast) by Breacher shells (R36” S10 AP1 Heavy1, Small Blast, Armourbane) for 15ppm.

Hydra and Wyvern are 80pts.

Deathstrike is 150pts

A Manticore may exchange its standard rockets by 4 Sky Eagle rockets (R120” S9 AP2 Ordnance 1, Skyfire) for free.


Here you got ladies and gents. Sorry for the overall presentation, I hope you made it through the wall of text.
Feedback is very much appreciated since I intend to actually play this codex. Anyway, thanks for reading!


Latest Edit : Infantry, Vets and Scions costs downgraded. LR annhilitor main gun and cost reworked. Vulture added.

A lot of good stuff here, many of the changes I agree with or at least appreciate the right direction you're going.

I'd recommend that later you try and make this look more 'professional' by putting it in a PDF and neatly laid out and such, but that's something for later.

On to the changes!

For general point costs, I think you've played it a little too safe, which isn't a bad thing as more players would be willing to test this being still a little underpowered. Of note, Hellhounds and friends shouldn't be more than 100pts, and Sentinels could use a further drop by 5pts each. Chimeras could come down to 55pts, even 50pts really. Taurox could start between 40 and 50.

On the topic of DTs, we can choose to forget the Taurox even exists, but if we acknowledge it, it has to fill a clear and distinct role from the Chimera. Give the chimera the option for an AC for 5pts, and either make the base Taurox fast, or allow it to take an upgrade for fast. Now its a lightly armoured, decent gunned, mobile truck, while the chimera is more of the pillbox and frontline vehicle.

Valks could even come down a little further, as could the Vendetta, but that's up for testing, so no big deal either way. Good call putting Valks in DTs.

Russ changes are good. Make sure the Tank Commander doesn't have to take a friend. Basically just rob the entry from the FW ABG list, Beast Hunter shells and all. Costs look good. Unfortunately, the core rules still need work so that vehicles aren't just save-less MCs, but that's another topic.

The Hellhound changes for the wounds thing is an interesting idea I never considered. Definitely an idea worth testing. Even with that buff, they still need a dramatic price cut.

Salamander is interesting, definitely another idea worth testing.

Rough riders will always be debated as everyone has a different idea of how to fix them/make them interesting. In general though, they need the survivability to do something (anything) and a points reduction to make them worth taking in the first place. However you do that, you're going to make a lot of people happy. After that its mostly details and personal vision. Personally, I'd like to see an assault variant and a shooty variant. Organize them in a platoon structure and allow certain ICs (commissars, priests) to take a mount to keep pace (and look badass as feth yo). Allow each squad to be made a veteran (assault squad gets WS4, maybe I4 as well, shooty squad gets BS4) and include the option for carapace. Now you have a number of distinct options/flavours for any type of historical basis. Heavy or light, veteran or night, shooty or assaulty. Everyone wins, takes half a page of stat lines/rules. Something to ponder anyways.

Hydra and Wyvern costs should just swap, even with the Hydra regaining auto-targeting.

Other than that, borrow liberally from FW. Give me the ABG BeastHunterQuisher, quad mortars, and heavy ordnance batteries and I'm happy.

Oh, and enclosed compartments for the arty needs to be recosted to something like 5 or 10pts max.

I'm sure there's more, but that's a start. Looks good!

Thanks for feedback Blacksails !

I'm glad you did not find anything under/over powered and have a positive feeling at first glance. I voluntary tempered my will to cut point costs just to test the water. If you think I should go further, I'd be happy to do it. Other opinions could be useful to confirm if it's the way to go .

On Chimeras and Taurox, I think you got my implicit idea. I don't like the Taurox and in my homebrew codex, I did not even put it. I don't want to use my time to work on it, so let's make it fast as you said while buffing / cutting costs on Chimeras and I think we'll be good.

Valks are still overcosted IMO. In the 5th ed codex, they were 100pts !! I really don't know why GW put such a brutal increase on this between both edition. Same questions for Chimeras though.

On the Tank commander, I don't really see the point of making him a stand alone model. Squadroning him isn't that bad, isn't it? I totally agree to rob ABG options and wargear. I already did it in a certain extend but I didn't want to put too much complexity in the first shot of this codex. Beast Hunter Shells are amazing and could totally rape Riptides, Wraithknights and the like. Don't you think it's totally of OP? Perhaps we should rework it to make it cause 1D6 wounds to MC/GMC rather than Insta Death?
I also want Commissar tanks !!

I forgot to precise : Salamander RV designation is meant to be a 36" shot.

On Heavy ordnance battery, I put it in my word doc but not on this post. The reason is they are vastly superior to self-propelled ordnance; they are cheaper, can take orders without any formation and are tougher since they have T7 3+. No crew stunned and annoying stuff like this. So, how can a player could possibly choose SP basilisk other an immobile Earthshaker platform? They both have the range to shoot the kid standing on the other side of the store, so mobility is not even useful... Any thoughts?

Kind of the same questions for Leman russes and their variants:
Is the Thunderer really useful since we already have the Demolisher? If yes, what should be their respective prices?
Can Laser Destroyer and Annihilator can coexist (or even exist at the side of a under priced LR Vanquisher)?

I really think every single unit in a codex should be in balance when the player chooses. A good list is a list where each unit is fairly competing for a slot, where there is no nobrainer nor redundant choices. That's what I'm trying to achieve with this and the help of the community is welcomed.

Subsidiary question: should IG get vehicles platform for grav canons? If yes, which ones and for which cost?

I like most of that, actually.

One change I'd propose, though, is that for the Priest, instead of becoming Ld 8, he instead gets all the wargear options from Codex: Adepta Sororitas. (This gives him access to combi-weapons, power weapons, shotguns, storm bolters and eviscerators) Additionally, all Priests (IG, Sisters, Inquisition) get to roll for War Hymns on the highest Leadership value in their unit. Maybe bump their base cost to 30 with that bonus, but...

As much as I hate the Taurox and think it was hamfisted in with no thought at all and doesn't mesh with, well, anything, we do have to admit it is here and here to stay. Might as well make it useful.

I almost forget valks were that cheap. Couldn't hurt to bring them back down to that level, seeing as they're decent transports but not exactly terrifying to face off against. Vendettas could come down a hair, but I'm not fussed. Add in vultures while we're at it too. Who doesn't love twin punisher cannons?

The tank commander thing is just weird as it is. The point of a commander is that he has a squadron beneath him, consisting of roughly three platoons, each with three tanks, if 40k's established structures are to be believed. The commander sits outside that structure as the 10th tank. So why force a second tank on the player? It makes for a gakky tax that is not needed, and its not exactly any more fluffy than having him be bought alone. There's no downside to removing the mandatory buddy, and if you really want, you can allow him to still bring up to two friends. Just write it in as 'May take 0-2 additional Russes in the squadron'. As for Beast Hunter shells being OP or not, I frankly don't give a flying feth. The game is so beyond borked and the vehicle/MC disparity is comical at this point that giving a handful of meh platforms the ability to occasionally one shot some crazy overpowered MCs is a drop in the bucket. It may make Tau players, or Eldar players, or Nid players pause for a moment and consider how to deploy/employ their big gribblies. I wouldn't pay any mind to anyone who complains about BH shells unless they also feel very strongly that MCs and vehicles need a dramatic overhaul, but again, a topic for another time.

Salamanders, cool, maybe allow them to be bought as a platoon but can be deployed separately. Or something. I dunno. Maybe if they had a small transport capacity to haul around 5-man squads. Some additional functionality than just being arty's bitch.

If the heavy ordnance is way overpowered and traditional platforms are underpowered, that to me suggests that in your document you alter the points dramatically. Bring Bassies (vehicle) down to ~90pts, bring the arty Bassie up to ~95pts, or something. Play test I suppose, seek some additional feedback. I haven't played them enough to give a solid ballpark.

Thunderer would really just be a preference. Either you take the turreted version for a little more (no more than 10pts difference) which gives you a hull weapon and extra insurance in case of a weapon destroyed result, or you go cheap and bring the thunderer, but risk a little more and lack any sort of extra oomph.

Laser destroyer and annihilililitaorotjej (I'm drinking, ain't got time for spelling) can and should co-exist. Make the annihilaortikasn Heavy 2 TL, while the laser destroyer is Heavy 1 TL, but ordnance, potentially AP1 if you want. The laser destroyer variant can be a touch more expensive, but its really just minor preference and modelling differences. Up to you though.

I don't care for grav, nor do I think its needed, nor do I feel as though it makes a whole lot of sense for the IG to have them. Grav is fairly complicated, and the IG is about massed weapons, ranging from the simple and mediocre, to the somewhat rare and complex, but very rarely anything super special in any significant amount, like grav. MCs and such can be killed by judicious application of lascannons.

More thoughts. Heavy and special weapon teams need more than just a point reduction. Their problems are a total and complete lack of survivability, zero built in ability to buff leadership (impacting orders and other morale stuff), have no built in transport options, and generally costly. Some of those fixes are easy; have option for vox, maybe have a 'sergeant' with better Ld (maybe purchaseable?), give them chimera and valk transport option, and cut cost. Outside of that, maybe consider including them in the ability to join squads and blob up. Maybe make heavy weapon teams not mutli wound models, so they don't get ID'd.

For CAD layout/structure, consider including at least one type of arty (I'm thinking Wyverns or Hydras or Gryphons [and/or the static arty variant]) in the elite slot, either by default or through manipulation through a character/trait or unique FoC or detachment or whatever the kids are calling them these days.

Ummm, I'm sure there's more but I can't remember right now. Maybe drunk me will remember in a few hours.

@jade_angel

I like the idea of getting more wargear, it's always good to have more diversity. I really think Ld8 is a must though ; if Priests were to use highest Ld, they'd most likely use Sergeants' one, which is bad since these guys usually die fast. No really, a zealot Priest which is supposed to be utterly fanatic must be Ld8;

@BlackSails

I know other factions get OP stuff in the dozen but I don't really buy this arms race. Perhaps a BH shell with 1D6 wounds per hit would be a sufficient threat? Taking in account small blasts are bad for accuracy, that could be more balanced I think.

I like your arguments on the THunderer and the Annihilator. Such a profile for the TL LC would give it more reasons to be taken, for example as a medium range MC/vehicule killer. I got to admit I love the Annihilator's look

On grav, I totally agree on fluffy reasons. But once again, I'd say it is a matter of keeping up with the pace. Grav is now a thing in the game (hamfisted like the Taurox would you say ?) and thus, we should adapt to this. It should be limited to Scions units and very specific armoured platform (perhaps a Grav hellhound? That would suits its use quite well I guess).

I'm really mixed on the ordnance platform. The only reason one could take self-propelled arty should be some new special rules (and the ability to bring Breacher Medusa at range) but I did not took the time to think about them. Any idea?

HWT should just be immuned to ID since they aremade of two T3 guys and not 1.

Only thing I don't like is access to Grav. That should stay unique to marines. I'm fine with giving guard a much needed bump but fluff wise it would make no sense. Grav tech is very rare, it makes no sense that storm troopers or guard sergeants would have access to them.

I really don't think BH shells are OP. They're limited to one unit, plus you could cost it appropriately, somewhere between 15pts and 30pts. Its a reasonable counter to many of the powerful MCs that regularly see the table. I'm not fussed about it.

I really don't care much for grav, but its your dex.

I see what you're saying about arty. It does seem oddly redundant. Maybe taking a vehicle version locks out the immobile options and vice versa. Maybe the vehicles could gain some special ability to relocate quickly to avoid an assault. I dunno, its a good problem to have though. Maybe the vehicles gain more ammo options, or have a bonus against something...or...gain bonuses for being in a full battery...or can take orders...I dunno.

Sure, HWS immune to ID is reasonable. Simple enough.

Before the Taurox was introduced I really wanted a Chimera/Hellhound variant that had a 5-6man transport capacity, 12/12/10 armour, fast, and carried larger calibre weaponry, up to a vanquisher cannon. But now, it doesn't make much sense with the Taurox. Ah well.

@HouseofDeimos

I guess giving grav guns to Scions is fine. After all, they are supposed to be super snowflake special forces. Their wargear should reflect that! I agree on sergents. Grav pistols should be removed from the shooting weapons sections and put in every army list entry that need it.

@Blacksails.

I understand your POV. My feeling is really personal. I play in a friendly meta where people tend to avoid things like triple Riptides/WK so, I wouldn't be confortable with killing their lesser MC that easily. S8 AP2 would just murder any Carnifex.
That being said, small blast are inaccurate and that's true BH shells have very limited access. Plus many MC have FnP or invu saves, so having 1D6 wounds per hits instead of one ID wound could actually increase the chance to do something to the target. Once again I'm mixed.

I try to give some thought to the arty ;
- Selfpropelled Medusa are 125 and fixed Medusa carriages are 100. Mobility here is better since Breacher shells have a quite limited range of 36''. For normal shells, 48'' is not bad but the carriage would not fire at turn one and could be targeted easily. Actually, the Medusa range make it vulnerable in every flavour.
- SP Griffon : clear difference here. Either you take a 75pts tank with Accurate bombardment, either you have a small carriage with W2 at 50pts and no particular rule except the ability to take orders. Good then.
- Our beloved Bassie now : Earthshaker platforms are way better, for the aforementioned reasons. More durable, more useful, with an insane range that invalidate mobility. I have strictly no idea how we could give a special flavour to the SP version though...

There's also the possibility to deny any rotation out of a 45° angle to fixed carriage, but that would render them nearly useless.(Isn't that already the case ?).

I'm really happy to see this thread. I too have been trying to tinker with the Guard for years to make them the absolute best that they can be.

One thing I have figured out is that with a few noticeable exceptions, Guard units need to be absolutely cheap as possible. Other factions can get the nastier units, weapons and special rules; we should focus instead on having more units than them to balance it out. And I'm not just talking about regular infantry either. All of our units; tanks, fliers, special forces etc should be able to be fielded in larger numbers than other armies can. In the past, fifth edition for example, we were supposedly the only faction to be able to take big vehicles in squadrons. That's not the case anymore, so we need a way to correct it. So I would back big point reductions all around.

Another idea I had was to try and bring back the old Doctrine System from 3rd edition, updated for the modern game. Because right now a Catachan fights exactly like a Vostroyan, and the Marines are ore varied in style than us, and that's a shame. My current idea for that is a system based on the Warlord Trait idea. A list of 6-12 different skills (depends on how many I can create), with the IG player picking 1-2 of them and applying them to every Company Command Squad, Veteran Squad and Infantry Platoon unit in their army at no extra cost. An IG version of Chapter Tactics. These skills would need to be good enough to consider taking, but mild enough to justify being free. Here's some examples (some based on other sources I've read):

- Sharpshooters: Models with this skill can re-roll To Hit rolls of 1 with lasguns, hotshot lasguns and sniper rifles.
- Iron Discipline: Units containing at least one model with this skill roll 3D6 for Fear, Morale and Pinning checks, disregarding the highest,
- Field Craft: Models with this skill have the Move Through Cover and Stealth (Forests) special rules.

Scions could take either a fixed set of skills, or maybe a random mix of them. Just some food for thought.

 RazgrizOne wrote:

I understand your POV. My feeling is really personal. I play in a friendly meta where people tend to avoid things like triple Riptides/WK so, I wouldn't be confortable with killing their lesser MC that easily. S8 AP2 would just murder any Carnifex.
That being said, small blast are inaccurate and that's true BH shells have very limited access. Plus many MC have FnP or invu saves, so having 1D6 wounds per hits instead of one ID wound could actually increase the chance to do something to the target. Once again I'm mixed.

I really, really dislike unnecessary randomness. Making it 1D6 would just be frustrating for all involved. Roll a 6? Now your opponent is still annoyed, but at something completely out of his control and outside a normal average. Roll a 1? Now you're annoyed, again at something out of your control. It strips away any sort of tactical decision making. It becomes a pure gamble, and this game is already rapidly becoming Yahtzee with pretty models. Give it a fixed value or fixed rule that is predictable for both you and your opponent to plan around. Keeping it as is is reasonable as it'll make your opponent think twice about where to move, use of cover, and committing to an attack.

I guess you have to decide if this venture here is specifically for play with your group, or a semi-serious attempt on getting the ball rolling for a larger acceptance IG fan-dex/FAQ/Errata. If its the former, sure, pick the more random, underpowered option. If its the latter, consistency, predictability and simplicity are king. I believe keeping it as is is perfectly reasonable, especially if it comes with a 15-30pts price tag and only available on a very small number of specific units.

As for the arty, some good thoughts so far, I'll think more on it.

@FutureWarCultist

Doctrines are awesome and I realized I did not include any when I posted the first shot of this codex. Thanks for bringing that back on the table.
I remember the chapter traits list on the SM 4th Ed Codex. It was simply awesome, with total compliance, major and minor divergence from the Codex Astartes. The numbers and words I'm going to bring are vague but the principle is nice I think. People who remember would correct me.

Total compliance gave you access to one major trait and command/synergy bonuses.
Minor divergence gave you one major trait and one minor traits
Major divergence gave you two major traits.

Traits where USR, bonuses, maluses and limitations of wargear and so. It was very intuitive and very creative. We could bring such a system back to life by doing either :
- a selection of different doctrines like you said and like it was in previous IG codexes.
- create a system that could look like what I described and allow you even more customization with for example the possibility to play mech IG, line infantry, drop troops ... and adapt traits according to this.

I really have to think about it, and I need help if anybody is willing to contribute!

@Blacksails

Randomness can be annoying when stupidly applied on unnecessary things like Warlord traits or Psy powers, but for wounds, I feel it's not that illogical.

To answer your second question, I would like to make this into an attempt to have playtesters and a regular follow-up on results and fixes. But I guess I'm not the first the one to want this, so I will limitate myself to the "local group" version in a first place.

Can we add back our doctrines? They really would add more to the codex

Yes sure, what do you have in mind?

 RazgrizOne wrote:
Yes sure, what do you have in mind?

Camo cloaks for all units (Vets and regular troopers) - > Tanith Armies
Carapace for all units (Vets and regular troopers) - > Vostyroian Armies

Sarges can take Lasgun for +1 points (reason behind this is adding extra shots for FRFSRF but balanced out with point cost)


Light Infantry Doctrine (Move through cover)
Sharpshooters Doctrine (Already covered)
Hardened Fighters (+1 WS in CQB)


Thats about all I would want back or added in. Overall I dont think any of it is OP.

I would add in the vox caster models as well as vehicles with command vehicle, the ability to direct barrage weapons fire, similar to the Cadian/Mont ka artillery formation. That is one of the things that has bugged me about the IG/AM since I began playing. Radios are meant to direct and coordinate fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would add in the vox caster models as well as vehicles with command vehicle, the ability to direct barrage weapons fire, similar to the Cadian/Mont ka artillery formation. That is one of the things that has bugged me about the IG/AM since I began playing. Radios are meant to direct and coordinate fire.

 RazgrizOne wrote:

@Blacksails

Randomness can be annoying when stupidly applied on unnecessary things like Warlord traits or Psy powers, but for wounds, I feel it's not that illogical.

Just to be nit-picky, if you'll forgive me, but my issue isn't with the logic, its that its just unnecessary. There are probably a solid half dozen reasonable and logical ways of going about the BH shell, of which your idea fits, I just think its one of many that have unnecessary elements. That's all. Regardless, its not a big deal and I'd encourage you to play test both options and see which one works best.

To answer your second question, I would like to make this into an attempt to have playtesters and a regular follow-up on results and fixes. But I guess I'm not the first the one to want this, so I will limitate myself to the "local group" version in a first place.

Well, colour me interested then, if my participation this far hasn't been an indication of that.

Now, on to new stuff.

Doctrines. The always discussed, never agreed upon, and rarely balanced red-headed step child of the IG special rules. Where do we even start with this?

I'll at least start by saying that I'd personally encourage the doctrines to not be representative of each specific established regiment. I'd rather not pigeon-hole the player in having to pick the Vostryan doctrine if the Cadian one might suit his army better. What you want to do is create doctrines that represent generic archetypes. Like say an Airborne Doctrine, or a Light Infantry Doctrine, or a Grenadiers Doctrine, and so on. That way, as a Mordian player, I'm not stuck taking the same doctrine that offers some meaningless bonus like re-rolling morale checks or getting an extra lasgun shot for being in base to base contact. I can field my Mordians as a veteran task force (Grenadiers) or as a patrol on a feral world (Light Infantry), or as a mechanized division, and so on.

As an example, let's say we have a doctrine called Grenadiers (or Heavy Infantry, or whatever, you get the idea). This doctrine would grant all veterans the carapace armour option for free, and all infantry squads would have the option of taking them for +20pts (ish). In addition, all grenade launchers, and thrown grenades are twin-linked and gain the shred rule. Or something, you get the idea.

Airborne would allow Vendettas as dedicated transports too, and Vultures could be fast attack and heavy support choices. All units that can buy a DT must take a Valk or Vendetta and 50% may arrive on Turn 1, similar to marine drop pods.

When you combine this type of bonus (think Chapter Tactics) with a proper Mega Detachment, we're basically good again.

Yeah, that's exactly what I wanted to do. To create the broadest, most generic type doctrines that could suit multiple regiments, and let the player customize them to best suit both their play style and their armies fluff. Like a customisable version of the Space Marine chapter tactics. Despite the wide variety of regiments, a lot of them are actually very similar in practice. Vostroyans and Mordians march in close order drill, the Catachans and the Tallarns are both good at ambushes and raids etc. Well written doctrines should be applicable to multiple regiments.

Exactly. People tend to forget that and push each regiment into specific niches. Tallarn also represent some of the most gifted tank commanders and home to a vast number of armoured regiments. They're also highly skilled light infantry and cavalrymen.

So I guess we'll need no less than 5 but no more than 8 of these doctrines if we want a system that represents a good variety without being burdensome. Remember as well that other specific rules can be pushed onto the units and formations.

I'm going to find a copy of the last doctrine system for inspiration.

I think 6 is a good round number. GW seem to like multiples of 6 in things like this.

Perhaps you could take a leaf out of FFG's Only War creation ideas? So, try and represent the sweeping regiment types, and impose certain limitations, much like the 30k Rites of War?

Examples could be:
-Airborne Regiment
-Line Infantry Regiment
-Light Infantry Regiment
-Mechanised Infantry Regiment
-Grenadiers Regiment
-Artillery Regiment
-Tank Regiment

Good call. Definitely a good start.

The only issue I'm having now is how the codex would be laid out. As in, should there be a focus on having doctrines plus formations as the primary means of army construction and balance consideration, or do we go with doctrines as a form of modifying the CAD with some alternate detachment structures, more similar to how FW tends to operate.

If the former, then doctrines can be used for sweeping buffs that end up meshing with formations that are in line with that doctrine. If the latter, then doctrines could be used to swap around force org slots and provide more generic bonuses.

For a while, one idea I was going with was having the doctrines 'layered' with the size of the units. It's...complicated, but here me out:

Let's take a possible Mechanised Doctrine as an example:

At the squad level, it lets Officers issue orders to Chimeras and Tauroxes (with the orders affecting the embarked units as well). Like the way that sentinel formation works. The vehicles can count as being leadership 8, unless there's a model embarked upon them with a higher leadership value.

At the platoon level, it lets you combine the transports of units from the platoon into squadrons before the game starts. Literally, combined squad for vehicles. So those orders will work better.

At the Infantry Company Formation level (a CCS and 3 platoons), it lets you take the transports for free, like the marine company formation. Because you'll need at a minimum 10 transports and that gets expensive fast. Buying in bulk should be cheaper!

So if you had a little CAD army, or a huge Battle Group detachment, you'll get bonuses regardless, but bigger equals better. How does this sound? My problem with this idea though is that I have no idea how to adjust it for the other doctrines.

I think we should standardize formations just like the other codecies. It would fit the game better and make the codex more accessible to other players.
If we strictly apply the fluff, players would have to support heavy limitations by taking mostly infantry, mostly tanks or mostly artillery. I don't think it is the way to go.
One solution : Let's keep it simple and attractive. Formations would be agenced according to your preference (maybe we could do different variations to illustrate different regiments) just like any codex. And then, we would apply doctrines on it.

Second solution : we make Tallarn, Catachan, Cadian, Mordian, etc... (the most famous regiments) formations and people would use these formations as doctrines. You take the Steel Legion one to illustrate the armoured regiment you want. You take the Catachan one to make your own light infantry but don't like mini-rambos.

I don't have the time to write atm but I'm following the discussion closely folks. Thanks for your interest so far!

 RazgrizOne wrote:


Second solution : we make Tallarn, Catachan, Cadian, Mordian, etc... (the most famous regiments) formations and people would use these formations as doctrines. You take the Steel Legion one to illustrate the armoured regiment you want. You take the Catachan one to make your own light infantry but don't like mini-rambos.

Without sounding overly dramatic: Nooooooooooooooo!

Some regiments don't have a prescribed play style, and even within their regiments, still operate on a fairly standard template. Tallarn, for example, are renown as excellent light infantry and cavalrymen, while also being home to the finest armoured regiments in the Imperium. How do you make a formation to represent them accurately? Mordians use a variety of regimental types as the need arises. Vostroyans act much the same. Same for Cadians.

The only way I could see using regimental specific rules is for a doctrine type rule like chapter tactics. However even that I find is a poor decision as it would feel off for a number of players and either counter to the fluff or too restrictive. Unlike marines, regiments don't have primogenitors, so where chapter tactics works in that even a custom regiment can claim to be a descendent of 'X' and therefore use that chapter tactic, each regiment is raised independently and fights differently. Within each regiment, there will more than likely be a variety of different formations that may run slightly counter to a perceived stereotype. Best not to pigeon hole the player by assigning a specific regiment to a doctrine, but instead keep the doctrines and regiments generic.

Where you can add regimental specific flavour is in the characters. Bring in your Creeds, Al'Rahem, Marbo, and Chenkov. And a Mordian character. Totally not biased.

Loving all this stuff so far! But just got a couple of stuff to ask about the changes you've made!

- For the Conscripts, would there ever be the option of CCW + Pistol (Autogun/Laspistol) as I could imagine that the conscripts could just scrounge up whatever piece of weaponry they got and go nuts (And they're still S3 T3 I3 dudes, not that scary, unless you go uper expensive with characters to go buffing them).

-And for the Bullgryns, are you keeping their upgrades the same for the Power Maul + Shield, and I don't think just a 5 point decrease is enough, though could be wrong. Maybe a Move Through Cover for them as I'm sure their size would allow them to easily lumber through (and likely smash) through some terrain! Or give them Fear, as I wouldn't be surprised if they could scare the crap out of weaker stuff with their intimidating size!

What about a system of combat doctrines to represent the common denominators between regiments (line infantry, light infantry etc) and a separate system of skills and drills for the 'dressing'?

For example, Cadains and Mordians would probably both be classed as line infantry (whatever that might entail), but for skills the Cadains would have sharpshooter and iron discipline, whilst the Mordians would have iron discipline and close order. Similar but different. Again, the Elysian drop troops and Harkoni Warhawks would both have the drop infantry doctrine, but different skills from each other.

My idea would be, you pick one combat doctrine out of a list of three/six/whatever, and then two skills from a list of say, 6-12. Maybe the skills could be be called 'tactical protocols' or something?

To make things even greater, maybe scions could have a rule called 'ordo tempestus' or something which means that they can pick a combat doctrine and three skills separate to the ordinary guard in your army?

Overly complicated.

I find there's a trend in 40k among the playerbase to have a specific rule for every aspect of the fluff. There needs to be a certain level of abstraction if they want infinite customization and the ability to represent any type of regiment. To that end, keep the doctrines fairly generic. Let the players use their modelling skills to create an army that obviously the regiment they want it to be, and let the rules support the style of regiment they're currently running.

For the diehard fans of regiment 'X', you can re-introduce and add special characters for all the big regiments. Bring back the Cadian and Catachan guys, Al'Rahem, Chenkov, and add in a character for the Vostroyans, Mordians, Elysians, Kriegers, and one or two others I can't remember. Now you have a specific character for a specific regiment for that 'dressing', and players with a custom regiment can re-purpose the characters as someone in their own regiment.

Always keep it simple. Doctrines + Formations is already about as complicated as I'd go personally, adding a 3rd layer of options would be a nightmare to balance, awful for the Guard player to sift through, and even worse for the opponent trying to remember what all the combinations do.

Yeah, the way I was kinda leaning with those traits was more like a 30k Rite of War - you could still have a small set of regiment traits, and then get the option of using the ROW to determine what kind of regiment it is.

Therefore, you could have a "Sharpshooter" "Die Hard" guys arranged in a Grenadiers regiment. However, other regiments from that homeworld could have the "Sharpshooter" and "Die Hard" traits, but be an Airborne regiment.

On the other hand, you could have another Airborne Regiment, but they come from a different planet, so they get "Cover Finders" and "Warrior Elite" bonuses.

(I have no idea what these traits would do. )

I like the idea of RoW very much, but we have to choose.
The pros of the RoW are the combination of Force chart customization (limitations or bonus in given slots) and general rule bonus for your guys.
The main cons is that the player can't make its very own force like he would have done with a traits matrix (like the one you had in the 4th SM Ed Codex). Plus, RoW hardly fits 40k-style formations.

I don't think one way is better than the other, it's just that I feel we have to choose one way to keep it simple.

I really have to think about it. I think I'm going to try a matrix system in the first place.