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.

Hey everyone,

So I've been thinking about the Astra Militarium in 9th, and one of the things I've been really looking forward to is some more variety in the "good" regimental doctrines. I think that, by this point, there are some definite winners and some REAL losers as far as the regimental doctrine rules. In an ideal world, every regiment would have at least some reason you would want to build a force out of it.

So how about it, how would YOU fix some of our under-performing regimental doctrines?

Scrap them entirely.

Replace them with a system that allows you to pick the kind of regiment you're playing, and have it apply on an army wide basis, [rather than detachment wide.]

So there'd be a catagory for armoured, drop troops, light infantry, & line infantry.

You'd get slight buffs around the theme, and debuffs around most other things.

Line infantry would be the "Default" which would give you no bonuses or penalities.

Then I'd have the design space to scrap a ton of stratagems too, include a handful to signify abilities for the specific forces and call it a day.

Armageddon: I like the vehicle half. It benefits the lighter vehicles, like Chimeras, Sentinels/Armored Sentinels, Hellhounds etc the most, so it works good for the "tough mechanized" playstyle of Armageddon.

The infantry trait stinks. I would change it to: INFANTRY models add +1 to wound rolls against targets within 6".

Mount Up! order: Allow it to work even if the unit disembarked this turn. Basically, this requires the vehicle to be stationary and already in position at the beginning of the turn, so I don't see how it's a problem for the unit to be allowed to pop out wholly 3" away, take an unmodified shot, and pop back in with an order.

Skull Mask of Acheron: I dunno, it just needs more. Maybe make it also -1 to Attrition tests. You need to have your damn officer THREE INCHES away from enemy units, it better have a good effect.

Armored fist stratagem: Make it +1 to hit, not Reroll 1s to hit. Reroll 1s is just too weak for a 1CP stratagem that will be used 99% of the time on a 50-point infantry squad.

In my eyes, you have two mechanized regiments, Tallarn and Armageddon, and Tallarn is supposed to be a guerilla hit-and-run force, while Armageddon is more of a blunt, grinding, trench warfare type mechanized force. That's how I'd represent that with Armageddon.

Tallarn: Obviously the vehicle trait needs redesigned, because it's move and fire heavy weapons. I would make it "Tallarn VEHICLE models can still shoot after making a Fall Back move except for with weapons that have the BLAST keyword." which is less of a huge deal than it used to be with vehicles able to shoot in close combat. Added the second clause, because you dont want tallarn to accidentally turn into an artillery gunline army.

The Tallarn infantry keyword is...OK, I guess. make them a little bit faster on foot. If you want them to really work as a mechanized force you could change it to "Tallarn infantry can disembark from Transport vehicles after they move" or you could leave it as-is and change the stratagem to...

....if it's gonna be 3CP it really ought to just be "Any number of infantry units." Obviously the 1/2 army restriction thing applies here but, really, if theyre spending 3cp just let them outflank however much infantry they want.That would really allow Tallarn to play as the guerilla warfare/ambush type army they're supposed to be. GEQ with native deep strike doesn't seem broken in GSC, don't see why it would be broken in Tallarn for 3cp.

Mordian: Parade Drill always grants +1 to hit and +1 to hit with Overwatch for Infantry, and allows vehicles to hit at full BS in close combat as well as +1 to hit in Overwatch.

Everything else for Mordians is fine. But the trait needs a boost now that Overwatch is once per turn.

Valhalla: Send in the Next Wave becomes identical to Endless Green Tide but 2CP because you can only resurrect a maximum of 150pts of unit rather than 260ish.

Vostroya: This one's pretty silly, and boring, and even worse on a tiny board. Ohboy, my heavy bolters are now the width of the entire board, instead of the width of the entire board-6", I'm sure that'll matter a lot on my 6" long tank models.

Instead, how about...

Elite Brotherhood: Veteran Squads become Troops choices in a detachment with this regiment keyword, and Veterans and Veteran Sergeants have a Sv characteristic of 4+ instead of 5+. VOSTROYAN infantry units gain +1 to their Attacks characteristic while within 3" of a VOSTROYAN CHARACTER.

VOSTROYAN VEHICLE models reroll 1s to hit if targeting the closest enemy unit.

I really dig your take on Vostroya!

The current rules certainly don't help them out, and they are one of the more fun regiments out there for sure.

Mordian just getting +1 to hit in parade formation would be awesome as well. Veterans would be essentially bs 2+!

All of the above does nothing but continue to put us further down the path of power creep.

I mean +1 to wound within 6 inches? First rank fire second rank fire guardsmen getting 37 shots wounding space marines on 4's? Wounding _Tanks_ on 5's?
Every turn? At least Veterans of the Long war is an actual stratagem, this basically gives it for free to all the important times when you'd need it.

The last thing we need is to make them _better_ we need to make them balenced. The easiest way to do that is to cut back on the number of options.

the_scotsman wrote:
Tallarn: Obviously the vehicle trait needs redesigned, because it's move and fire heavy weapons. I would make it "Tallarn VEHICLE models can still shoot after making a Fall Back move except for with weapons that have the BLAST keyword." which is less of a huge deal than it used to be with vehicles able to shoot in close combat. Added the second clause, because you dont want tallarn to accidentally turn into an artillery gunline army.

Tallarn vehicles were changed to treat Heavy weapons as Assault weapons when advancing. It's neat when combined with Hellhounds.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
All of the above does nothing but continue to put us further down the path of power creep.

I mean +1 to wound within 6 inches? First rank fire second rank fire guardsmen getting 37 shots wounding space marines on 4's? Wounding _Tanks_ on 5's?
Every turn? At least Veterans of the Long war is an actual stratagem, this basically gives it for free to all the important times when you'd need it.

The last thing we need is to make them _better_ we need to make them balenced. The easiest way to do that is to cut back on the number of options.

If the entire unit manages to get within 6"...sure. I am OK with a guard squad+Platcom doing 2 wounds to a 3+sv vehicle or monster with FRFSRF, or heaven forbid killing 1.5 W2 tactical marines if they basically suicide the squad and the attendant officer into them. 80pts of models killing 18pts of tactical marines does not seem particularly game-shattering.

For something to be "power creep" i'd look to see if it's actually better than alternative options. I really do not see these as being crazy in comparison to any of the "latter half of 8th" book traits like Drukhari, Orks, GSC, marines 2.0, etc. And guard is currently pulling pretty abysmal winrates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Tallarn: Obviously the vehicle trait needs redesigned, because it's move and fire heavy weapons. I would make it "Tallarn VEHICLE models can still shoot after making a Fall Back move except for with weapons that have the BLAST keyword." which is less of a huge deal than it used to be with vehicles able to shoot in close combat. Added the second clause, because you dont want tallarn to accidentally turn into an artillery gunline army.

Tallarn vehicles were changed to treat Heavy weapons as Assault weapons when advancing. It's neat when combined with Hellhounds.

Sure. I guess it's a little niche and limited to extreme shortrange flamer vehicles mostly (because even with a devil dog you wouldn't want to take -1 to hit in exchange for melta range, the math on that just isn't there).

the_scotsman wrote:
If the entire unit manages to get within 6"...sure. I am OK with a guard squad+Platcom doing 2 wounds to a 3+sv vehicle or monster with FRFSRF, or heaven forbid killing 1.5 W2 tactical marines if they basically suicide the squad and the attendant officer into them. 80pts of models killing 18pts of tactical marines does not seem particularly game-shattering.

That's 28pts of Tactical Marines under the new points value. And that's one of the worst matchups. It's 62pts of Orks, 62pts of Cultists, 41pts of Guardsmen, or 31pts of Primaris.

I don't think Troops killing half their value in one turn is a good direction for the game. I also agree with the idea that subfaction traits should either come with drawbacks or have intrinsic cost, like how it used to work, such that they represent sidegrades to the default codex rather than straight upgrades of ever-increasing potency.

First thing I'd do - limit faction specific stratagems to 1 signature ability and make the rest universal. Most the time you are just picking the stratagems or warlord traits you want and the army wide rule is kind of a bonus. Then I'd rework army traits so as not to be (this is the trait for vehcial based armies) (this is the trait for flyers) ect. The army traits should be universally useful to any type of unit.

 catbarf wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If the entire unit manages to get within 6"...sure. I am OK with a guard squad+Platcom doing 2 wounds to a 3+sv vehicle or monster with FRFSRF, or heaven forbid killing 1.5 W2 tactical marines if they basically suicide the squad and the attendant officer into them. 80pts of models killing 18pts of tactical marines does not seem particularly game-shattering.

That's 28pts of Tactical Marines under the new points value. And that's one of the worst matchups. It's 62pts of Orks, 62pts of Cultists, 41pts of Guardsmen, or 31pts of Primaris.

I don't think Troops killing half their value in one turn is a good direction for the game. I also agree with the idea that subfaction traits should either come with drawbacks or have intrinsic cost, like how it used to work, such that they represent sidegrades to the default codex rather than straight upgrades of ever-increasing potency.

Ork Boyz without the +1A from having 20+ return 50% of their points value in Guardsmen in 1 turn, without accounting for any specific clan tactic. The reason why that's OK is because it's basically melee range, i.e. a form of damage that they obtain usually by ending their movement phase between 7" and 9" away from the enemy lines.

Not really seeing a whole hell of a lot of distinction between that and a rule that requires you to be 6" away, if I'm being honest.

You are 1.5 editions behind if you believe that faction traits need to be designed with inherent drawbacks. more than that, actually, because Chapter Tactics as they existed in 6th and 7th also did not have inherent drawbacks.

I don't know if they ever have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First thing I'd do - limit faction specific stratagems to 1 signature ability and make the rest universal. Most the time you are just picking the stratagems or warlord traits you want and the army wide rule is kind of a bonus. Then I'd rework army traits so as not to be (this is the trait for vehcial based armies) (this is the trait for flyers) ect. The army traits should be universally useful to any type of unit.

Luckily, in "not space marines" codexes this is generally the case, you get 1 subfaction-specific stratagem.

And all Guard CT's apply to all units, they just get different rules for infantry and vehicles contained within the same trait.

the_scotsman wrote:
Ork Boyz without the +1A from having 20+ return 50% of their points value in Guardsmen in 1 turn, without accounting for any specific clan tactic. The reason why that's OK is because it's basically melee range, i.e. a form of damage that they obtain usually by ending their movement phase between 7" and 9" away from the enemy lines.

Not really seeing a whole hell of a lot of distinction between that and a rule that requires you to be 6" away, if I'm being honest.

Your math is accurate for Slugga Boyz in melee, a situation in which they can also be hit back, so need higher power than their shooting counterparts to be useful. Shoota Boyz shooting at Guardsmen kill 22% of their cost. Boyz in general are also expensive relative to their fragility, and need high damage output to counterbalance. Compared to Guardsmen you're getting +1T at the cost of a worse save, while costing over 50% more per-model.

I get that it's highly range limited, but wounding T4/T5 on 4s and T6+ on 5s is pretty nasty. That's a straight 50% upgrade against MEQ and makes lasguns not awful at plinking wounds off vehicles.

the_scotsman wrote:
You are 1.5 editions behind if you believe that faction traits need to be designed with inherent drawbacks. more than that, actually, because Chapter Tactics as they existed in 6th and 7th also did not have inherent drawbacks.

I don't know if they ever have.

Yes, they have. It was a lot more than 1.5 editions ago.

Give the 4th Ed Space Marine codex a read sometime, it's a great example for this kind of customization. You have the option to play a straight Codex-compliant chapter (no change from base codex entries), or play a more deviant chapter. The less your chapter adheres to the Codex, the more beneficial traits you can take (purchase for points, not for free), but the more drawbacks your chapter is forced to take as well.

This made each codex possible to balance around a 'vanilla' core ruleset for the faction, with individualized subfaction traits then layered on top. Since the traits cost points for all beneficial abilities, those could be tweaked as well. The current paradigm does not provide that; units can be extremely effective under one subfaction or useless under another, and we wind up with the unit either being balanced around the former and never taken in other lists, or balanced around the latter and overperformant.

Horus Heresy is still using a continuation of the 4th Ed model, with army-wide upgrades available at a per-unit cost. While it doesn't include inherent disadvantages, points cost is an effective means of balancing abilities.

This is also the model that was used for Guard in 3rd and 4th. You didn't pick one of six regiments and get their abilities for free; you either played the basic codex, or you locked yourself out of certain 'uncommon' units, got five doctrine points to spend on unlocking those units and/or taking army-wide abilities, and then those abilities were paid for via points. If you wanted to buy re-roll 1s and 4+ saves and WS3+ for all your Guardsmen to represent them being best-of-the-best, you could do that- but paid quite a bit for the options. If you wanted to just make them Drop Troops, you could do that too; something that is now gone from the game entirely with Elysians disappearing.

Even without bringing back disadvantages, the old system for subfaction differentiation allowed for more choice and provided more levers for balance adjustment.

the_scotsman wrote:

Sure. I guess it's a little niche and limited to extreme shortrange flamer vehicles mostly (because even with a devil dog you wouldn't want to take -1 to hit in exchange for melta range, the math on that just isn't there).

I'd take -1 tohit over "not being in range" though. But I just wanted to point out that GW changed the doctrine for Tallarn, not claim that it's a great doctrine now.

I'm also going to jump on the "+1 to wound within 6'' is not overpowered" bandwagon.

Compared to the other shenanigans armies seem to pull off regularly, this seems pretty tame honestly. Yeah, it makes them do things like 2-3 wounds on a tank within 6''... but is that the worst thing in the world?

The ork killing comparison is more problematic, except for it being arguable that the rule is actually working as intended if the guardsmen actually kill a fair number of standard ork boys (take that ghazzy!) ...before being inevitably shot right off the table.

Lastly, if you don't like someone else's ideas, why not post your own? :-)

It's pretty easy to poke holes in other people's rules, but a lot more interesting (and fun) to give it a shot yourself! (or at least that's my opinion.)

the_scotsman wrote:
And all Guard CT's apply to all units, they just get different rules for infantry and vehicles contained within the same trait.

Eh, they apply to all <REGIMENT> units, but that does exclude the Auxilia and the Scions, at a bare minimum.

Personally, I'd dig it if there were at least ONE doctrine that also applied to Auxilla. I want my dang Orgyn to be useful dang it!

leerm02 wrote:
Personally, I'd dig it if there were at least ONE doctrine that also applied to Auxilla. I want my dang Orgyn to be useful dang it!

Orks got one for Grot units, so I suppose it is possible.

But think how cuhraaaazy it would be if bullgryns (worse defensively than terminators now btw for nearly double the cost lol) got a chapter tactic???? the horror!!!

leerm02 wrote:
I'm also going to jump on the "+1 to wound within 6'' is not overpowered" bandwagon.

Compared to the other shenanigans armies seem to pull off regularly, this seems pretty tame honestly. Yeah, it makes them do things like 2-3 wounds on a tank within 6''... but is that the worst thing in the world?

The ork killing comparison is more problematic, except for it being arguable that the rule is actually working as intended if the guardsmen actually kill a fair number of standard ork boys (take that ghazzy!) ...before being inevitably shot right off the table.

Lastly, if you don't like someone else's ideas, why not post your own? :-)

It's pretty easy to poke holes in other people's rules, but a lot more interesting (and fun) to give it a shot yourself! (or at least that's my opinion.)

You realise if they had access to a stratagem that gave them +1 to wound, that would stack, right?

Lasguns wounding landraiders on 4+ is silly.

Wouldn't it not stack with the new rules though? The whole "maximum +/-1 thing?

Not trying to be a jerk or anything, just wondering. Also, related, do they have such a stratagem right now?

(Cause if they do and I didn't know about it I'm going to feel like a total idiot for not using it when I play guard!)

leerm02 wrote:

Hey everyone,

So I've been thinking about the Astra Militarium in 9th, and one of the things I've been really looking forward to is some more variety in the "good" regimental doctrines. I think that, by this point, there are some definite winners and some REAL losers as far as the regimental doctrine rules. In an ideal world, every regiment would have at least some reason you would want to build a force out of it.

So how about it, how would YOU fix some of our under-performing regimental doctrines?

Originally I was going to say Armored/Infantry/Mechanized/Artillery/Airborne, but it occurred to me to maybe reference well, doctrines.

So I thought about doctrines and making at least some ideas a little more combined arms, and here's what I came up with.

[As a side note, I think conscripts and auxilia should not get the benefit of regimental traits since they aren't part of the regiment, and also that there should be orders for Artillery, and that tank orders should apply to the entire squadron instead of just one tank.]



DECISIVE ACTION: If a battle is won by the actions at critical locations, concentrate your forces there to prevail in these decisive actions, and from there, find victory.
Critical Locations: All models in this detachment gain the rule Defenders of Humanity. Models that already had Defenders of Humanity count as two for purposes of determining who controls an objective.

Order (Tanks)(TC): Concentrate Fire: Select a <REGIMENT> LEMAN RUSS or HELLHOUND squadron, and select a enemy unit within line of sight of at least one model from the squadron and within line of sight of the issuing Tank Commander. Until the end of the turn, models in that squadron add 1 to to-hit rolls against the nominated unit.

Stratagem: Hold At All Costs 2CP: Use at the beginning of the command phase. Select a <REGIMENT> unit within 3" of an objective. Until your next command phase, while this unit is within 3" of the objective, it may fire overwatch, and when it does so, hits on a die roll of 4, 5, or 6. It also passes all morale checks, and gains a 5+ invulnerable save.

Relic: Superior Targeting Systems: TANK COMMANDER only. This model always uses the top row of its damage table for determining it's ballistic skill, and always hits on its unmodified ballistic skill.

Warlord: Lead From the Front: This character improves their ballistic skill, weapons skill, leadership, and attacks by 1. <REGIMENT> units within 6" may use this character's leadership instead of their own.




DEEP BATTLE: Engage the enemy not only on the main line of resistance, but throughout the depth of the battlefield to cripple his strategy and give him no respite to reorganize.
Airborne Landing: All <REGIMENT> INFANTRY units gain the following special rule: Airborne Landing: This unit may be set up conducting a grav chute insertion instead of on the battlefield. At the end of any movement phase after the first, set this unit up on the battlefield 9" away from any enemy models.

Order (Infantry)(CC): Vector CAS: Order a <REGIMENT> INFANTRY unit within range of issuing officer. Until the end of the turn, friendly ASTRA MILITARUM units with the FLYER battlefield role or AIRCRAFT keyword add 1 to to-hit rolls when targeting units within 12" of the nominated infantry unit.

Stratagem: Tank Desant 1CP: Use during the movement phase when a <REGIMENT> VEHICLE unit is selected to move. Before the vehicle moves, select a <REGIMENT> INFANTRY unit within 3" of the vehicle and remove it from the board. After the vehicle moves, set the infantry unit up again wholly within 3" of the vehicle. This counts as disembarking from a transport.

Relic: Support Relay Uplink: Use at the end of any movement phase if the bearer did not move during the movement phase. Select a point on the battlefield within line of sight of the bearer. For each unit within 6" of the nominated point, roll a d6, on a 4+ that unit takes 1d3 mortal wounds. This relic may only be used once per battle.

Warlord: Precision Parachutist: INFANTRY CHARACTER only. When this character is set up on the battlefield using the Airborne Landing rule, they may be set up anywhere on the battlefield more than 1" away from enemy units. Friendly units using the Airborne Landing rule may be set up wholly within 12" of them, and more than 1" away from any enemy models. No unit set up within 9" of an enemy model may charge this turn.




ATTRITION: "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics." Grind the enemy to dust with the Imperium's superiority of men and materiel and unparalleled logistical apparatus
Outlast: When a unit with this doctrine would lose a wound, roll a die, on a 6+ it does not. Units with this doctrine that have a damage table count as having twice as many wounds for purposes to determining their stats.

Order (Artillery)(CC): Suppression Bombardment: Select a <REGIMENT> ARTILLERY battery within range of the issuing officer [all gun carriers are considered to be equipped with a vox-caster]. Until the end of the turn, all weapons in the battery that may target enemy units not visible to the bearer gain the following ability: until the end of it's next turn target unit may not fire overwatch and halves all move, advance, and charge distances. It also subtracts 1 from all to-hit rolls until the end of it's next turn.

Stratagem: Reserve Platoons 3CP: Use at the beginning of your movement phase. Select up to 3 INFANTRY SQUAD units, 1 PLATOON COMMANDER unit, 1 SPECIAL WEAPONS SQUAD unit, and 1 HEAVY WEAPONS SQUAD unit that have been previously destroyed during the battle. Set them up again wholly within 6" of your board edge. They count as new units for all purposes, and do not cost reinforcement points. You may only use this stratagem once per battle

Relic: Additional Munitions Authorization: At the end of your shooting phase, select a <REGIMENT> unit within 6" of the bearer of this relic if the bearer did not shoot and is more than 1" away from enemy units. That unit may shoot again with one weapon.

Warlord: Strategic Commander: At the beginning of your command phase, gain one additional CP.



MOBILE WARFARE: "Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general is in the latter, the less they demand in the former."
Fire and Maneuver: Units with this doctrine may fire weapons after advancing as if they had moved normally. Units with Grinding Advance count as being stationary for purposes of Grinding Advance

Order (All)(TC/CC): Fix and Finish: Nominate a <REGIMENT> unit within range to issue orders [all vehicle units are considered to be equipped with vox casters]. Enemy units that are assessed any damage as a result of shooting attacks made by this unit may not fire overwatch and may not be selected to fight in the fight phase until all other eligible units have fought until the end of their next turn. If the ordered unit is a HEAVY WEAPONS SQUAD or VEHICLE, targeted units also reduce their move speed by the number of hits caused by heavy-type weapons in the unit until the end of their next turn.

Stratagem: Outflank 3CP: Select up to three <REGIMENT> units, one of which may be a VEHICLE SQUADRON and set them up outflanking the enemy. At the end of any movement phase after the first, you may set them up wholly within 6" of any board edge and 9" away from any enemy units.

Relic: Vox Command Net: INFANTRY CHARACTER only. When this unit issues orders and the target unit has a vox caster, they may immediately issue another order to that unit. All vehicle units are considered to be equipped with box casters

Warlord: Swift Commander: TANK COMMANDER only. This character may move after resolving its shooting attacks in the shooting phase.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

leerm02 wrote:
I'm also going to jump on the "+1 to wound within 6'' is not overpowered" bandwagon.

Compared to the other shenanigans armies seem to pull off regularly, this seems pretty tame honestly. Yeah, it makes them do things like 2-3 wounds on a tank within 6''... but is that the worst thing in the world?

The ork killing comparison is more problematic, except for it being arguable that the rule is actually working as intended if the guardsmen actually kill a fair number of standard ork boys (take that ghazzy!) ...before being inevitably shot right off the table.

Lastly, if you don't like someone else's ideas, why not post your own? :-)

It's pretty easy to poke holes in other people's rules, but a lot more interesting (and fun) to give it a shot yourself! (or at least that's my opinion.)

You realise if they had access to a stratagem that gave them +1 to wound, that would stack, right?

Lasguns wounding landraiders on 4+ is silly.

I mean, I dont, because +1 to wound is capped and there is no such stratagem.

What if marines got a stratagem to get +9 to wound??? Wounding a knight on -4 would be just stupid!!!!!

the_scotsman wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

leerm02 wrote:
I'm also going to jump on the "+1 to wound within 6'' is not overpowered" bandwagon.

Compared to the other shenanigans armies seem to pull off regularly, this seems pretty tame honestly. Yeah, it makes them do things like 2-3 wounds on a tank within 6''... but is that the worst thing in the world?

The ork killing comparison is more problematic, except for it being arguable that the rule is actually working as intended if the guardsmen actually kill a fair number of standard ork boys (take that ghazzy!) ...before being inevitably shot right off the table.

Lastly, if you don't like someone else's ideas, why not post your own? :-)

It's pretty easy to poke holes in other people's rules, but a lot more interesting (and fun) to give it a shot yourself! (or at least that's my opinion.)

You realise if they had access to a stratagem that gave them +1 to wound, that would stack, right?

Lasguns wounding landraiders on 4+ is silly.

I mean, I dont, because +1 to wound is capped and there is no such stratagem.

What if marines got a stratagem to get +9 to wound??? Wounding a knight on -4 would be just stupid!!!!!

Given that a certain flavor of space marine literally could get to a point where sniper rifles wound Land Raiders on a 4+, it also seems just kind of silly to find issue with a hypothetical that doesn't exist because IG doesn't have any source of +1 to wound anyway.

There are lots of various abilities in the game that add or subtract to to-hit or to-wound rolls, and "oh no!

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

leerm02 wrote:
I'm also going to jump on the "+1 to wound within 6'' is not overpowered" bandwagon.

Compared to the other shenanigans armies seem to pull off regularly, this seems pretty tame honestly. Yeah, it makes them do things like 2-3 wounds on a tank within 6''... but is that the worst thing in the world?

The ork killing comparison is more problematic, except for it being arguable that the rule is actually working as intended if the guardsmen actually kill a fair number of standard ork boys (take that ghazzy!) ...before being inevitably shot right off the table.

Lastly, if you don't like someone else's ideas, why not post your own? :-)

It's pretty easy to poke holes in other people's rules, but a lot more interesting (and fun) to give it a shot yourself! (or at least that's my opinion.)

You realise if they had access to a stratagem that gave them +1 to wound, that would stack, right?

Lasguns wounding landraiders on 4+ is silly.

I mean, I dont, because +1 to wound is capped and there is no such stratagem.

What if marines got a stratagem to get +9 to wound??? Wounding a knight on -4 would be just stupid!!!!!

Given that a certain flavor of space marine literally could get to a point where sniper rifles wound Land Raiders on a 4+, it also seems just kind of silly to find issue with a hypothetical that doesn't exist because IG doesn't have any source of +1 to wound anyway.

There are lots of various abilities in the game that add or subtract to to-hit or to-wound rolls, and "oh no!

"Look, the game is already getting wildly unbalenced! We certainly shouldn't worry about balence when suggesting improvements."

And again,the game caps modifiers at -1. I can't wound land raiders on 4+ anymore with my flamers ,which I could do in 8th (Salamanders doctrine + stratagem). Stacking hit/wound modifiers are basically gone,why argue a scenario where they aren't?

How would I fix the Guard?

That's a tough one... You see, the problem isn't just the Regimental Doctrines; it's also the stratagems - there are powerful stratagems, and then there are just plainly... crap... stratagems... Case in point: Splash Damage and Rolling Death, these are 1CP that provide basically a minor benefit - it wouldn't go amiss if these were baked into the Unit Profiles instead, and slightly nerfed. Splash Damage: Reroll 1's to wound if the enemy is in Cover. Rolling Death, reroll 1's to hit if the Taurox moves up to half it's movement or less. Strike First, Strike Hard is a very powerful Stratagem, and well worth that 1CP cost in T1...

Let's look at the Regimental Traits:

Tallarn, looks pretty decent to me.
Catachans, wow.
Mordians, nice.
Valhallans, insane.
Cadians, great!
Vostroyan, nothing wrong here.
Armageddon, 18" FRFSRF? That's underpowered?
Tempestus, sure the Tempestus Regiments are stronger, but this one lets you field a Vigilus Defiant Detachment...

The army doctrines seem to support different playstyles and unit compositions, like Valhallans unloading flamers into a melee with another squad - nothing wrong with taking a Flamer in each Infantry Squad. Armageddon, drive a transport near a bunch of Heavy Weapons, have a nearby officer order them to Mount Up!, they shoot, then Embark... These are all quite strong in their own ways...

 Slayer6 wrote:
How would I fix the Guard?

That's a tough one... You see, the problem isn't just the Regimental Doctrines; it's also the stratagems - there are powerful stratagems, and then there are just plainly... crap... stratagems... Case in point: Splash Damage and Rolling Death, these are 1CP that provide basically a minor benefit - it wouldn't go amiss if these were baked into the Unit Profiles instead, and slightly nerfed. Splash Damage: Reroll 1's to wound if the enemy is in Cover. Rolling Death, reroll 1's to hit if the Taurox moves up to half it's movement or less. Strike First, Strike Hard is a very powerful Stratagem, and well worth that 1CP cost in T1...

Let's look at the Regimental Traits:

Tallarn, looks pretty decent to me.
Catachans, wow.
Mordians, nice. Really? A trait that basically ONLY exists if you use a once per turn 1CP stratagem? So, a trait that can only ever exist on one unit in your army at a time, and only if you spend CP, that's good to you?
Valhallans, insane. Tank trait is just peachy, no problem there, infantry trait is a bit crap on non-conscripts but we can pretend it's "the conscript subfaction".
Cadians, great!
Vostroyan, nothing wrong here. Having played Vostroyans for a while, this one is just a preference to me. I think it's boring as hell, and the flavor of my Vostroyan army previously came from me playing them as an army of veterans in Carapace armor, so I'd honestly just prefer (and think it would set them apart from, say, Cadia a bit more) if they were a "4+ armor save" guard regiment instead. You could keep the range thing on tanks that's fine, 2+ armor tanks and whatnot would be bonkers, but I wish the infantry trait was +1 to Sv. Also, point of order but the weapon/playstyle that MOST benefits from the current Vostroyan trait is the melta gun, which IS a unique playstyle but there is also no Vostroyan Melta Gunner sculpt in existence, so that's a weird choice there.
Armageddon, 18" FRFSRF? That's underpowered? I'd say it's pretty weak, yeah. Particularly if the playstyle you want to support for Armageddon is a mechanized one and a scrappy one, a trait that makes them want to be running infantry on foot, farther than usual away from the enemy, that's a weird choice. Also, Vostroyan trait does exist, which is just kind of a better version of Armageddon.
Tempestus, sure the Tempestus Regiments are stronger, but this one lets you field a Vigilus Defiant Detachment... Which are no longer legal, so...

The army doctrines seem to support different playstyles and unit compositions, like Valhallans unloading flamers into a melee with another squad - nothing wrong with taking a Flamer in each Infantry Squad. Armageddon, drive a transport near a bunch of Heavy Weapons, have a nearby officer order them to Mount Up!, they shoot, then Embark... These are all quite strong in their own ways...

I would say there is some encouragement of interesting playstyles. The guard regiments are certainly not as bad or boring as some codexes, but a few the game has changed around very significantly to the point where it might be good to update a few of them, and I also think there's a lot of design meat on the table you could play with WRT unique orders and particularly relics, GW just really didn't know how to make an interesting relic at that point, and they're like 80% bolt pistols and power swords with slightly tweaked stats.

Guard is not really a "give your relics to your characters so they can do good fight!" army, and the fact that they have so few relics that revolve around 'inspiring the men' and changing the playstyle of your army rather than a single character is kind of saddening.

I don't think the doctrines are as boring and un-thought out as some other codexes, but some of them were clearly weak on release and have got worse. Compare say Sisters of Battle to these and even the good ones seem pretty uninspired even if they were very powerful on the back of cheap guns for the points.

Do the proposals help Guard though? I don't think so. I think Guard unfortunately may be amongst the worst armies in 9th. 5 point guardsmen may appear overpowered compared to many other units - but the reality is that any Guard army is a secondary points piñata. Unless they are doing something very strange, bring it down is a near guaranteed 15 points. Then, depending on your load out, taking attrition/grind them down - or thin the ranks if you don't want to risk individual turns - is likely to be another 15 too. (You might not get the full 15 on thin their ranks - but you are likely to get 12+ over a game just by shooting them a bit.) So you can use the last one for board positioning or the mission objective if appropriate.

Lots of guardsmen squads everywhere almost prove a liability, because it allows the opponent to motor across the board by charging them.

I'm also coming to the view Vehicles meanwhile are bad for claiming/holding objectives. Obviously if people just forget you can stick a chimera somewhere and have it claim turn after turn. But if they have two models left, its done. Assuming your opponent knows to kill things when appropriate - or has some fast response stuff - I think you can end up very hemmed in and beaten, unless you are rolling hot to aggressively remove most their stuff by the end of turn 3.

So loathe as I am to buff guard - they probably need a rule like "a Leman Russ counts for X models for the purpose of determining who is holding an objective". Although arguably this could be said (and scaled) for every vehicle/monster in the game. But then I'm not sure if nerfing infantry is really desired. Its a difficult one. I'm not sure this should be a chapter tactic either.

To be fair to Mordians, we don't know if they'll keep Overwatch as simply a base ability like Tau did.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
To be fair to Mordians, we don't know if they'll keep Overwatch as simply a base ability like Tau did.

They don't have it, currently. if they did, that would be a way to update the trait for sure. As of the current game state though, they don't, and we have no clue when a replacement codex is forthcoming.

I can only speak in the abstract -

In such a way as to reward fluffy play and list building but not absolutely prevent off the wall play.

When released the imperial guard ones were some of the best, not only in power but in design, subfaction traits of the game.

And is surprisingly, even if they have become much less powerfull, how they are still "thematic". I hope the new ones in the 9th Codex become more powerfull and usefull remaining as thematic.