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 just want to say that, as a long time AM player, this codex looks to be our best one yet in terms of building unique, thematic armies. I want to commend GW for the great job they have done in making different regiments play so differently. Even the regimental doctrines of the old (4th? edition) codex did not come close to allowing for such varied play styles within the guard army. This codex really captures the different fighting styles employed by the various regiments to the point that a <Tallarn> list is going to play completely differently than a <Cadian> list comprised of the exact same models. No, GW is not paying me to push this codex! I'm just very excited that the Guard finally has rules to support making one regiment play completely different from another, as was always supposed to be the case. If we ignore potential balance issues, I think this book is really setting the standard for how other army books should handle giving fun, useful and unique rules and stratagems to differentiate one sub faction from another. I can see why Admech players feel a little "meh" about their codex compared to this, because the quality of rules and sheer level of potential list building and gaming fun that is present in the Guard book just doesn't seem to be there. The Admech book feels rather...sterile... compared to this. We can argue about balance issues, but I think credit is due to GW for a stellar job on internal balance and just plain fun looking rules.

Edited title for clarity-K_K

Agreed. It feels like the first time in a long time that GW (outside of FW) has really recognized and rewarded the diversity of the Guard.

As a homebrew fiend, I also appreciate how easy they made designing a new regiment. Doctrine, Order, Stratagem, and Warlord Trait, with plenty of examples to tune the power level.

Agreed. I can't wait for my Mordians to actually get bonuses for the way I play them. Nice neat rows snapping off lasgun shots in perfect formation. Officers barking orders and keeping discipline. It's like the good old days again!

I agree.

Looking at the book purely from a collector/fluff perspective, it's a long-awaited treasure. All the options are viable when compared to eachother and there are no real losers or winners, units that were sorely bad became not only playable but actually good, and units that were too good got a few light taps with the nerf bat to be brought back into line (with regards to the other options in the book).

Internally, the balance is excellent and I wish everyone had the same style of codex.

Sadly, they don't, and it's pretty bad.

 Formerly Wu wrote:
Agreed. It feels like the first time in a long time that GW (outside of FW) has really recognized and rewarded the diversity of the Guard.

As a homebrew fiend, I also appreciate how easy they made designing a new regiment. Doctrine, Order, Stratagem, and Warlord Trait, with plenty of examples to tune the power level.

I like where your head is at. Always nice to have a standard template to work with when homebrewing. Hoping they'll do something similar for Orks and the klanz.

I don't homebrew my rules, but I homebrewed my regiment's models, as I suspect many Guard players have done via headswaps and various conversion, and I'm having a really hard time deciding which regiment rules I want to use. There doesn't seem to be a clear cut winner which is an amazing accomplishment if you ask me. Even some of the doctrines which appear weaker at a cursory glance have some very interesting applications, especially when combined with various list styles, traits and stratagems that really complicate the decision making process. That is exactly what we want in a codex.

egh 3rd edition had cool units like catachan devils,sniper squads, last chancers, marbo and a ton of special characters and several different artillery units that are just gone. Not to mention It was the heyday of guard with 7 armies in full support and production. (catachan, cadian, steel legion, mordian, vostroyan, valhallan, tallarn (both gw and fw), praetorian (now defunct). This doesn't include DKOK which were new. I started at the end of 2nd beginning of 3rd with a brand new steel legion battle force boxset.

While I appreciate finally getting doctrines back and the boost to certain poor units. a lot of units feel very much the same thing. grenade launchers are still gak, plasma is the new melta, and melta is the old plasma in terms of usefulness. special weapon squads, veteran squads, scions, and to a much lesser degree infantry squads are all slight variances of the same thing. mech guard is ok at best and there is still a clear winner in infantry spam being king, even with leman Russ tank companies blowing up local metas.

I think people are just happy to get doctrines back and the ability to slightly customize their army again. Which is good but balance is bad (mostly externally), but internally there are ALOT of clear winners and losers. Sadly our codex will be judged on the clear winners (OP units like conscripts and scions) and not losers (horrible units such as deathstrike, vanquishers, Valkyries, hydras, etc)

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
I just want to say that, as a long time AM player, this codex looks to be our best one yet in terms of building unique, thematic armies. I want to commend GW for the great job they have done in making different regiments play so differently. Even the regimental doctrines of the old (4th? edition) codex did not come close to allowing for such varied play styles within the guard army. This codex really captures the different fighting styles employed by the various regiments to the point that a <Tallarn> list is going to play completely differently than a <Cadian> list comprised of the exact same models. No, GW is not paying me to push this codex! I'm just very excited that the Guard finally has rules to support making one regiment play completely different from another, as was always supposed to be the case. If we ignore potential balance issues, I think this book is really setting the standard for how other army books should handle giving fun, useful and unique rules and stratagems to differentiate one sub faction from another. I can see why Admech players feel a little "meh" about their codex compared to this, because the quality of rules and sheer level of potential list building and gaming fun that is present in the Guard book just doesn't seem to be there. The Admech book feels rather...sterile... compared to this. We can argue about balance issues, but I think credit is due to GW for a stellar job on internal balance and just plain fun looking rules.

As a former 3.5 CSM player, I feel you 100%

To be completely honest I think good design should remove as much as it adds but I don't want to spoil the fun

 Jambles wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:
Agreed. It feels like the first time in a long time that GW (outside of FW) has really recognized and rewarded the diversity of the Guard.

As a homebrew fiend, I also appreciate how easy they made designing a new regiment. Doctrine, Order, Stratagem, and Warlord Trait, with plenty of examples to tune the power level.

I like where your head is at. Always nice to have a standard template to work with when homebrewing. Hoping they'll do something similar for Orks and the klanz.

100% they will. Everyone is getting this stuff.

As for the codex, it is in fact pretty great how much is in it and how many options there are for making an army unique. Ignoring the balance with other armies.

gungo wrote:
egh 3rd edition had cool units like catachan devils,sniper squads, last chancers, marbo and a ton of special characters and several different artillery units that are just gone. Not to mention It was the heyday of guard with 7 armies in full support and production. (catachan, cadian, steel legion, mordian, vostroyan, valhallan, tallarn (both gw and fw), praetorian (now defunct). This doesn't include DKOK which were new. I started at the end of 2nd beginning of 3rd with a brand new steel legion battle force boxset.

While I appreciate finally getting doctrines back and the boost to certain poor units. a lot of units feel very much the same thing. grenade launchers are still gak, plasma is the new melta, and melta is the old plasma in terms of usefulness. special weapon squads, veteran squads, scions, and to a much lesser degree infantry squads are all slight variances of the same thing. mech guard is ok at best and there is still a clear winner in infantry spam being king, even with leman Russ tank companies blowing up local metas.

I think people are just happy to get doctrines back and the ability to slightly customize their army again. Which is good but balance is bad (mostly externally), but internally there are ALOT of clear winners and losers. Sadly our codex will be judged on the clear winners (OP units like conscripts and scions) and not losers (horrible units such as deathstrike, vanquishers, Valkyries, hydras, etc)

I really don't know if Scions and conscripts are still the be all and end all. Sure, in certain list types they are still good, but why do I need conscripts if my heavy hitting valuable tanks are all outflanking, for example? Or are Scion plasma guns really optimal now that they cost 14 points per gun compared to 7 points on a BS4+ model and command squads are limited to 1 per regimental detachement? Do I need them if I can outflank plasma veterans via relic? Are special weapon squads, with 7 point plasma guns, a more efficient way to get plasma weapons now that BS3+ models have 14 point plasma guns? Are BS3+ models better served with meltaguns now that the point cost difference between them and plasma guns is much reduced? I'm not looking for answers to these questions, but these are the sorts of questions this codex is forcing us to ask, which is great. I don't think Scions + Conscripts + Artillery is clearly the best build anymore.

Exactly my sentiment. If now they are able to balance this codex, mainly with point adjustment, without touching the flavour, this will be in fact a great, great codex, that others codex in 8th should try to reach in terms of variety and flavour.

Would you guys say that, in terms of rules without points, this codex is exactly where it needs to be? Meaning that, going forward with 8th edition, GW only really needs to tweak point costs of units and weapons rather than actually change up and add rules to this book?

Its looking quite exciting.

How is the internal balance though between options? rather than fluff bonuses.

Good to hear a bit of positivity and balance!
Looking forward to getting the book and going through the new options and mechanics,

Even if you don't play guard hopefully others are looking at it and start to drool just thinking about what they will do.

Tau, Necrons.

Screw that jazz, think about the Nids and Orks! Those two were the other perenial mono-build low-tier armies alongside the guard. While the orks got a debatably usable list in the Index (I think they're decent, others don't), the Nids got a pretty good buff to most of their units. If they can do this kind of good for those two factions it bolds well for the new edition.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
I don't homebrew my rules, but I homebrewed my regiment's models, as I suspect many Guard players have done via headswaps and various conversion, and I'm having a really hard time deciding which regiment rules I want to use. There doesn't seem to be a clear cut winner which is an amazing accomplishment if you ask me. Even some of the doctrines which appear weaker at a cursory glance have some very interesting applications, especially when combined with various list styles, traits and stratagems that really complicate the decision making process. That is exactly what we want in a codex.

Catachan seems to be the obvious winner here.

Cadia is #2, but a fair bit behind, because a Catachan army does all that and more with the added bonus of being able to move.

Tallarn is probably third, since no penalties for moving heavy weapons and the strategem for outflank is pretty damn sweet, but not quite at the level of Cadia or Catachan.

Valhalla is fourth, because of the tank feature. If you're running tank-based things, it will make it a lot harder to neuter your list. SITNW is a bonus, but if you're that static that it's actually worthwhile, you should just have been Cadian.

Armageddon doesn't look so hot. It's worse than Valhalla for tanks, and the situation where it does anything for infantry is limited.

Mordian is just kind of a middle finger to the enemy. +1 overwatch won't do anything meaningful, it will just marginally annoy your enemy, and having to bunch up B2B is a major, major drawback. Doubled overwatch output isn't going to be making a difference for the unit being charged, or the units they're protecting.

Vostroya is essentially pointless. For infantry, it's worse than Armageddon, and tanks already can hit whatever they want.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
Its looking quite exciting.

How is the internal balance though between options? rather than fluff bonuses.

Eh, unit-to-units it's much the same as the index. They nerfed Conscripts and Scions and buffed other things, but Conscripts, Scions, and Manticores are still a solid head above alternate options.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Would you guys say that, in terms of rules without points, this codex is exactly where it needs to be? Meaning that, going forward with 8th edition, GW only really needs to tweak point costs of units and weapons rather than actually change up and add rules to this book?

I think some things need structural changes, *if* they intend them to ever be usable in real, not "just for funsies" games. Stuff like the Deathstrike - with the average game length of 8th, there's a very high chance it will never get to fire. Just adjusting that by points, you're going to reach a situation where you're basically buying a lottery ticket - paying a pittance for the chance that your super rocket will do something awesome, but usually wasting your money.

Leman Russ weaponry is another area I think more adjustment is needed. Doubling the firepower helped out some options, but others are so similar to each other that points adjustments will just lead to there being perpetually 1 best option over the rest. Battlecannon, Demolisher Cannon, Vanquisher Cannon, Eradicator Cannon, Executioner Cannon - all are now highly similar flavors of gun. I'd rather see the Executioner go to D3s for number of shots to make it similar to its old function, the Vanquisher Cannon go back to its old role of being really good at WOUNDING vehicles (i.e. reliability instead of damage given that you hit), the Eradicator Cannon be a dedicated anti-light infantry (maybe the number of shots being some percentage of the size of the unit you fire it at)...stuff like that, obviously with points adjustments to avoid one being bonkers.

These are kind of the problems you see in a lot of codexes. In Guard, theres always going to be a "most efficient blast weapon." In Deldar, you're going to have "The best poison guys". Tau have always had a "Best Anti-MEQ". etc.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Would you guys say that, in terms of rules without points, this codex is exactly where it needs to be? Meaning that, going forward with 8th edition, GW only really needs to tweak point costs of units and weapons rather than actually change up and add rules to this book?

I'll say that, ignoring the Warlord Traits and Relicts that those don't have a point costs but some are just plain out better than their equivalents in other armies, yes. The rules in the codex are in a very good spot, they just need point adjusments. (And of course, theres some changes that are needd to the rules like the Deathstrike mysile as Scotsmans say, but I'll say that they are a small percentage)

I only got into the game at the very, very end of 5th and into 6th, so I'm genuinely curious as to when was the last time they published a codex with painting/conversion guides. That really sells it to the hobbyist part of me.

 Desubot wrote:
Its looking quite exciting.

How is the internal balance though between options? rather than fluff bonuses.

I think it is much improved. Consider my plasma gun example above. What is better, a 14 point BS3+ plasma gun or a 7 point BS4+ plasma gun? Is a melta gun better than a 14 point plasma gun? I couldn't tell you without some real consideration. Are outflanking veterans better than scions? Are conscripts better than combined infantry squads? Are Manticores better than Basilisks under the influence of the unique Basilisk stratagem? If it's hard to decide, which I think it is, well that is a good indication of internal balance.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
I don't homebrew my rules, but I homebrewed my regiment's models, as I suspect many Guard players have done via headswaps and various conversion, and I'm having a really hard time deciding which regiment rules I want to use. There doesn't seem to be a clear cut winner which is an amazing accomplishment if you ask me. Even some of the doctrines which appear weaker at a cursory glance have some very interesting applications, especially when combined with various list styles, traits and stratagems that really complicate the decision making process. That is exactly what we want in a codex.

Catachan seems to be the obvious winner here.

Cadia is #2, but a fair bit behind, because a Catachan army does all that and more with the added bonus of being able to move.

Tallarn is probably third, since no penalties for moving heavy weapons and the strategem for outflank is pretty damn sweet, but not quite at the level of Cadia or Catachan.

Valhalla is fourth, because of the tank feature. If you're running tank-based things, it will make it a lot harder to neuter your list. SITNW is a bonus, but if you're that static that it's actually worthwhile, you should just have been Cadian.

Armageddon doesn't look so hot. It's worse than Valhalla for tanks, and the situation where it does anything for infantry is limited.

Mordian is just kind of a middle finger to the enemy. +1 overwatch won't do anything meaningful, it will just marginally annoy your enemy, and having to bunch up B2B is a major, major drawback. Doubled overwatch output isn't going to be making a difference for the unit being charged, or the units they're protecting.

Vostroya is essentially pointless. For infantry, it's worse than Armageddon, and tanks already can hit whatever they want.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
Its looking quite exciting.

How is the internal balance though between options? rather than fluff bonuses.

Eh, unit-to-units it's much the same as the index. They nerfed Conscripts and Scions and buffed other things, but Conscripts, Scions, and Manticores are still a solid head above alternate options.

I think that's a pretty reasonable list just looking at the doctrines in a vacuum but I'm trying to look at how the various doctrines interact with the unique orders and strategems and relics. For example a Catachan Russ seems superior to a Tallarn Russ in terms of shooting, but now factor in the tank order that lets the Tallarn Russ move after shooting allowing it to dip in and out of LoS, avoiding all return fire, combined with the doctrine of not suffering movement penalties for shooting the hull/sponsons. Once you factor in all those interactions, and I definitely have not done that yet, I think the regimental tier list is a lot harder to produce.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
I only got into the game at the very, very end of 5th and into 6th, so I'm genuinely curious as to when was the last time they published a codex with painting/conversion guides. That really sells it to the hobbyist part of me.

Phew, the 3.5-4e Guard codex wasn't the last time, I don't think, but I remember they had painting guides in there, and neat little blurbs about how tank companies were organized and how to reflect that organization on your miniatures, things like that.

Really helped me, certainly, and I preserve some of it today in my biggies.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Even if you don't play guard hopefully others are looking at it and start to drool just thinking about what they will do.

Tau, Necrons.

Unless you play one of the already released factions and got totally screwed over you mean?

Not that every, or even most, of the new codices should start expecting guard treatment. We all know what it looks like when GW starts playing favorites.

In particular, if people are right about why some of these balance issues are present, I wouldn't start expecting anything good to happen to Tau.

The change of command squads to one per detachment is a pretty nice change, helps make disposable special weapons spam harder to do. Not impossible obviously because scion squads are still a thing, but it toned it down nicely. And it's fluffy anyway.

I don't have my rulebook in front of me right now-- is there a limit on how many detachments you can take in an ordinary battleforged game? IIRC there was a limit of three, but that might be me remembering a local tournament rule.

 Melissia wrote:
The change of command squads to one per detachment is a pretty nice change, helps make disposable special weapons spam harder to do. Not impossible obviously because scion squads are still a thing, but it toned it down nicely. And it's fluffy anyway.

I don't have my rulebook in front of me right now-- is there a limit on how many detachments you can take in an ordinary battleforged game? IIRC there was a limit of three, but that might be me remembering a local tournament rule.

I dont think that is a book thing.

The limit of 3 is a suggested number in the rulebook for Matched Play, but not a hard number. It's recommended for competitive play, which is why tournaments take it as a rule.

Now all we need is a new basic infantry kit. At the moment I'd be happy with just an updated Cadian kit, but it would be waaaaaaaaay too awesome if they released new plastic kits of the other regiments too. I would kill for plastic Vostroyans (ok, maybe not literally, but you get me)

 Melissia wrote:
The change of command squads to one per detachment is a pretty nice change, helps make disposable special weapons spam harder to do. Not impossible obviously because scion squads are still a thing, but it toned it down nicely. And it's fluffy anyway.

Hang on, one command squad per detachment, or one per officer?

A platoon command squad plus a company command squad has been pretty core to the organization up to this point.

I heard it was one per detachment. Could be wrong, though, have heard conflicting information about other things.

The book looks super fun. Congrats to all those who have had Guard armies sitting on shelves and holding out.