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.

Every army has to break the rules at some point, we all know that.

I'm still very sceptical on the claim that the book will contain more than 20 tanks and vehicles. I've got a feeling that we might see one or two FW patterns get drafted in the book, as with Tau Empire's Piranha and Sky Ray becoming plastic, along with a randomly thrown together tank that everybody will love or hate (see: that tiny drawing in the 5th ed. book) Anyway, I've got a feeling that we'll be getting the Executioner this time round, along with *fingers crossed* the return of the Griffon and Exterminator, two outstanding vehicles that had to go because they were too much alike to the old Whirlwind and Predator.


Seen here is the NEW Hellhound turret.


And here is the turret of a Leman Russ Executioner. That heavy mortar looks Imperial enough, maybe a new plastic Griffon is on the horizon as well?

If I'm not mistaken that battlecannon like turret was first shown on a Chimera chassis. Perhaps the Chimerax will make an appearance?

Vaktathi wrote:If I'm not mistaken that battlecannon like turret was first shown on a Chimera chassis. Perhaps the Chimerax will make an appearance?

No, that is the new Chimera / Hellhound kit.

aka_mythos wrote:
Something tells me you just really don't want to see special characters. To be honest in Codex Space Marines they're really isn't an issue of having to take a particular special character to do a particular build, GW just made it very advantageous, so I think your concerns are unlikely to come to pass.

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

I like the option of special characters. That doesn't mean I want to have to take a special character every game just to make it so that my guardsmen have different qualities. I like the doctrines, and although having some of them combined as default into the platoon structure is good I do not want the remainder to be attached to special characters that are basically compulsory if you want a certain type of army.

I don't know what's happening, but I agree with John.

I also want Guard to remain a fairly simple selection of units. The idea of wave upon wave of guard REALLY appeals to me, both tactically, and fluff-wise (dead kitten). While I'm not a super fan of the new Special Characters = Special Rules design, I think that GW's mandate that the characters do NOT represent different chapters and are interchangeable makes this LESS of a restriction. Usually their wargear is pretty decent and is hardly a restriction in exchange for their rules.

I also don't want anything "special" about Guard Tanks. I want them to be especially NUMEROUS, which means CHEAP. I don't care how cool your machine spirit is if you kill one tank this turn and three more are waiting for you. Mainly, I think I will just trust GW to put together a decent book. I liked the Orks, I liked Space Marines, I even thought Daemons were pretty cool. I think it'll be alright for Guard.

My codex wishlist


HQ
Two options
Senior officer and squad, Stormtrooper and Ogryn bodyguard options
Command Tank Bs4
Plus special characters.

Core differences in army list not to be restricted vto a specific special character but more to how the Command squad is outfitted or if a tank is taken.

Commissars 20pts
Psykers keep as they are but roll 2 dice for powers and choose.
Priests 30pts.
All can be deployed freely, but the first Commissar must accompany the Senior officer if present.

ELITES
Ogryn, cheaper to account for their vulnerability.
Snipers/ratlings
Assault squads with special weapons, demo charges
Stormtroopers (can be troops) can take Valkyrie
Veterans, always scoring

TROOPS

Platoon = 1Kp based on the Command squad.

each platoon Mechanised, Rough Rider, Conscript or Infantry

platoon consists of Command squad
2-3 Infantry squads
0-1 Heavy weapons squad.

Mechanised: Chimera or alternate transports all round. So Centaurs and Gorgons apply.

Rough Rider: Mount all units in platoon, including Command. Nom heavy weapons squad, or heavy weapons options.

Conscript: 3-5 infantry squads. Command squad includes a heavy bolter, only command squad can have advisors. ?Command squad includes mandatory Commissar?. All infantry squads fight as a single unit. if a morale check is failed unit cannot rally. If Command squad is fired at broken conscript unit, unit rallies automatically but casualties are taken as normal.
a simplification could state that the heavy bolter rallies the conscript platoon but remove d3 conscripts.

Infantry: pretty much as usual.

FAST ATTACK
Hellhound
Sentinel squadron
Rough Rider squad
Armoured Fist squad
Salamander scout vehicle

HEAVY SUPPORT

Heavy weapons platoon
Command squad and 2-3 heavy weapons squads.

Squads have three identicle heavy weapons, or one thudd gun or heavy mortar and crew.

Various Russ
Basilisks
Griffons

Well, things will more or less be simplified. Infantry platoons will be our only troops choice as AF squads are dumped in favour of mutable platoons and conscripts are now the basic line trooper with upgraded stats.

Seeing as no greens or designs of a new regiment have been presented as of yet it might be safe to assume that GW is going to be pushing tanks to the fore a lot more with this edition, which will mean that most if not all tanks get special rules to make them pretty and selling item of the month. Personally I am hoping for something that deals with the sponson weapons mounted on our venerable Russ tanks, as the general image of the Imperial Guard is one of tanks advancing with all guns blazing. One thing in particular I am hoping for is a cheaper Chimera. I really like the model but feel that paying 85 pts for a standard IFV is a tad too much, even if it is the best one in the game.

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

Heh. Now who's being argumentative.

Take it from me TicToc, the best way to fight a wall is to walk away from it.

BYE

Orlanth wrote:Psykers keep as they are but roll 2 dice for powers and choose.

So you would have a better chance of rolling a crappy power?

Sanctioned Psykers aren't just bad because of random powers, they're bad because the powers themselves aren't even worth the 12 points you spend to get the Psyker.

BYE

Indeed. You could even give the psykers ALL five powers and they still wouldn't be incredibly overpowered. No, what they need to do is give psykers some kind of useful battle telepathy power so they can support HQs that remain in the rear, or a much better Lightning Arc so they can zap people on offense.

And don't make us roll on an insultingly bad random table, either.

Some things I would like to see is Vets added to platoons, maybe 1 squad per. Get rid of armored fist squads and just give the option to give chimeras to your platoons. Adding whole heavy weapon squads to a platoon, instead of a separate heavy support choce for a whole heavy weapon platoon might be good.

Stormtroopers as troops would be nice too. They need to be made more formidable somehow. Right now, a helgun is jut a lasgun.. needs to be higher str and higher ap .. or let them take 3 special weapons. A lot of cool (and useful) wargear that will make people fear them, not just "hey they can use our cool new plastic valkyre"

I'd like to see hellhounds added to platoons instead of fast attack... are they really faster than any other tank? no.

Speaking of tanks, guard should be allowed to have better defensive weapons/sponsons, like heavy bolters should be ok. I'd like to see the russ be more "generic" in the book where it lists the stats for the standard russ, then says "swap battle cannon for demolisher cannon for +xx pts", "If adding demolisher cannon side sponsons may also add plasma cannons for +xx pts" ..

For elites I'd like to see ogryns that actually are elite, and maybe even assassins.

I dunno.. .just a few ideas..

Scottywan82 wrote:

I also don't want anything "special" about Guard Tanks. I want them to be especially NUMEROUS, which means CHEAP.

The problem in 5th edition with "cheap" and "numerous" should be apparent to anyone.

Cheap and numerous are synonymous with "high kill point total"

Yet another hurdle for IG game design.

One of two things is going to happen in may '09

Guard are going to STILL lose 1/3 of their standard mission games

Guard are going to field less units (or some of their units aren't going to be worth a KP, which i doubt)

I see the KP issue as being a big, big issue for the upcoming guard codex. I have high hopes that GW can come up with an elegant solution for it.

Want to buy some bottom land? Just don't ask what it's on the bottom of.

Agamemnon2 wrote:what they need to do is give psykers some kind of useful battle telepathy power so they can support HQs that remain in the rear, or a much better Lightning Arc so they can zap people on offense.

I agree. Psykers are only good as extra wounds right now, and at 12 pts, that's just too high in a Guard army. I say, bump him to 15 pts, but make him worth it: 1 "*good* Psychic attack, with some kind of middling Psychic defense.

Necros wrote:Some things I would like to see is Vets added to platoons, maybe 1 squad per. Get rid of armored fist squads and just give the option to give chimeras to your platoons. Adding whole heavy weapon squads to a platoon, instead of a separate heavy support choce for a whole heavy weapon platoon might be good.

Stormtroopers as troops would be nice too. They need to be made more formidable somehow. Right now, a helgun is jut a lasgun.. needs to be higher str and higher ap .. or let them take 3 special weapons. A lot of cool (and useful) wargear that will make people fear them, not just "hey they can use our cool new plastic valkyre"

I'd like to see hellhounds added to platoons instead of fast attack... are they really faster than any other tank? no.

Speaking of tanks, guard should be allowed to have better defensive weapons/sponsons, like heavy bolters should be ok.

I'd like to see the russ be more "generic" in the book where it lists the stats for the standard russ, then says "swap battle cannon for demolisher cannon for +xx pts", "If adding demolisher cannon side sponsons may also add plasma cannons for +xx pts" ..

For elites I'd like to see ogryns that actually are elite, and maybe even assassins.

Your Platoon requirements are easily met, so GW will either do something like that, or give 4 or 5 options, one for each major option grouping.

Stormtoopers should be Troops, and they should be armed with Bolters. But that still makes them much worse than Sisters without Faith, so give them Deep Strike and Infiltrate standard, and they'll be fine at 10 pts /model

Hellhounds are fine as Fast - it's not like there's anything else you'd use those slots on... Unless the Sentinel gets *much* cheaper, say like 25 pts / 30 pts enclosed.

I don't think Russes or other Tanks need defensive weapon bumps - just the option to take Heavy Stubbers, Heavy Flamers, or Heavy Bolters. A Russ with PMHS, Hull HS, Sponson HS would be pretty handy... Heck, a Chimera with hull HS and twin HS turret would be a helluva infantry support tank.

I don't like "generic" Tank, because the statline changes. The primary virtue of the Demolisher is AV14/13/11 over AV14/12/10. It's not worth "upgrading" the Battlecannon to a Demolisher cannon if you don't get the armor bump.

Shep wrote:The problem in 5th edition with "cheap" and "numerous" should be apparent to anyone.

Cheap and numerous are synonymous with "high kill point total"

I don't see a KP problem. First, if Guard are cheap and numerous, then they have good chances to table the opponent, so KPs don't matter. Second, I don't think Guard are going to be full KPs for every unit. Either Guard will ignore line squads, or Platoons will be 1 KP total, or Guard Platoon units will be half KP each. Last, we're playing more Apocalypse and Objectives, so KPs don't matter.

Hell, bump them up to 70pts, and make him a full blown battle psyker; not necessarily as powerful as a marine psyker, but with in reason. Priest/Commissar/Psyker really need to be dead even in usefulness to be effective "advisor" options and *gasp* they have to be able to accomplish something. Right now advisers are usually baggage.

At 70 pts, he's more expensive than an Inquisitor Lord...

70 pts is another squad of dudes.

I'd rather see a Battle Psyker like a regular Inquisitor, but really, I hope the points stay down, between 15 and 25 pts.

why not just add an inquisitor as an advisor? the regular ones, save the inquisitor lords for the inquisition codex that's coming out in 2016.

JohnHwangDD wrote:At 70 pts, he's more expensive than an Inquisitor Lord...

70 pts is another squad of dudes.

I'd rather see a Battle Psyker like a regular Inquisitor, but really, I hope the points stay down, between 15 and 25 pts.

It was hyperbole. To say it doesn't really matter what price it is as long as its useful and the price reflects the units worth.

Right, and to be useful in a Guard context of 4-pt basic dudes, it probably can't be much more than 25 pts.

That preserves a similar points ratio of a SM / CSM Librarian compared to 15-pt SM.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Indeed. You could even give the psykers ALL five powers and they still wouldn't be incredibly overpowered. No, what they need to do is give psykers some kind of useful battle telepathy power so they can support HQs that remain in the rear, or a much better Lightning Arc so they can zap people on offense.

The fact that Lightning Arc, the '6' and therefore typically the 'best' result on the table, is just a Heavy D6 Lasgun, shows why the psyker isn't worth it. Isn't the fact that he's Ld8 bad enough, especially with the psychic defences out there? Lightning Arc needs to be similar to its original 2nd Ed ruleset, so R24 S6 AP3 Assault D6.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:Cheap and numerous are synonymous with "high kill point total"

I don't see a KP problem. First, if Guard are cheap and numerous, then they have good chances to table the opponent, so KPs don't matter.

There is a bunch of bull.

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@aka: By definition, a "meta-unit" is a unit composed of units, just like a "meta-game" is the game of the games.

So a Platoon being a unit of sub-units means it must be a meta-unit.

Meta, means self referential in regards to a characteristic above or beyond a given perspective.

In the case of a game it would be gaming a portion of the game that isn't intended to be gamed. An example of that would be a person playing a role playing game, who min-maxes their character; where by they're effectively not playing the game the way its intended because of their choosing to emphasize an aspect of the game beyond what their suppose to play; they are no longer playing a role play but are in fact playing the system. An example of this in 40k, is when you realize you can get a rhino at a 15pt discount by taking a 5 man Assault squad without jump packs and then exploiting that fact.

In the case of a meta-unit, it is a unit beyond a unit. A platoon is a subunit and sub (or within) is the opposite of meta (or beyond). A platoon is a meta-unit to the constituent parts, irregardless of those parts; those parts are sub units to the platoon. A platoon is a sub-unit of the meta unit that is an "army."
---End of semantic argument---

In regards to the platoon I think its silly for anyone to be confused by it. You have a selection of squads and vehicles that can be taken and a smattering of upgrades to the squads. Irregardless of what those units are they form a platoon and occupy a single FOC slot. This concept is about as confusing as bodyguards and retinues with an IC counting as one FOC choice, or a vehicle squad.

I personally like the ideas the Devs have for this codex, it is much like the proposed rule discussion that JohnHwangDD started a while ago. This dev managed to address many of the same issues the discussion identified but goes a step further to create what is mounting to a real combined arms feel. \

I think this may be an intelligent post with some really good points. Unfortunately I was unable to follow it because everytime I read the word "irregardless" I feel as if someone has surgically relocated my genitalia to where my eyes are supposed to be and then toe-kicked me super-hard in them. Sorry.

skyth wrote:
I don't see a KP problem. First, if Guard are cheap and numerous, then they have good chances to table the opponent, so KPs don't matter.

Yes, because lots squads of 10 T3 5+ troops with weapons affectionately called "flashlights" are really going to table the opponent... :S

But wait, there's more! HQ squads of 4 T3 5+ troops are worth a KP, as is a single T3 model.

There really needs to be a fix. It's not obvious, I don't know how to fix it, but really, it's bad.

Then again, my opponents and I have agreed not to do KP. But for those of you who have to, it probably sucks.


:edit: But personally, I really like the sound of the new rules. 4 point Guard is spot on. Of course, this means that my 1500 army is going to be around 150...but then I could fit in a Valkyrie or something snazzy, so it's not that big of a loss!

I'm liking the potential "'Changes"...

Filling up my Heavy slots with Arty AND attaching tanks to my squads!
How cool is that going to be.

I think this is one of the "Aims" of the codex designers...get the Infantry/tank players to buy Arty and get the Infantry/ Arty players to buy tanks.

Plus the lower point cost will require more infantry to be purchased....So how is that plastic Mordian Box coming along guys?

I think most of us here would say the fact that we get so many units that its fair for our opponents to get the KP off us, to a degree. I also think that most people who play other armies see this as an unfair disadvantage. No one wants it to be a be a major handicap, something that ends the game before it starts. It is however an issue that needs to be mitigated and given attention.

The important question to see if its fair is:
How many IG players have actually won an Annihilation game against an MEQ?

Vladsimpaler wrote:Yes, because lots squads of 10 T3 5+ troops with weapons affectionately called "flashlights" are really going to table the opponent... :S

So you're *not* taking the standard Heavy and Special Weapon upgrades for each squad??? You're *not* supporting them with Tanks & Ordnance??? Are you *sure* you're a Guard player??? :S :S :S

aka_mythos wrote:How many IG players have actually won an Annihilation game against an MEQ?

All I know is that I've never *lost* an Annihilation game to MEQ, so I don't see KP as an issue.

I think the poor showing of guard at the recent Vegas GT and HardBoyz (admittedly self reporting) is a factor here.

DD loves Kill Points. He also thinks that Victory Points were too complicated (yet we assume he can construct an army list, so one wonders what the problem with VP's is, it's army list conscruction almost in reverse...).

Guard suffer from KP's. They suffer horribly. Anyone who can't see that is blind/is JohnHwangDD.

BYE

I agree that the platoon structure needs to stay, as it's one of the defining characteristics of the Imperial Guard. However, that system makes the KP issue very irritating indeed. The current system renders the Guard hideously vulnerable to KP missions, especially since the codex all but forces you to use Drop Troops if you want to win games. Sadly, the platoon structure of the Imperial Guard also makes it very difficult to think up a working system for Kill Points, since "1 per platoon" swings it way too far in the other direction-- it's not very hard to hide a remnant squad in the backfield and therefore deny the point for the entire rest of the platoon. Further, any system successfully applied to the Imperial Guard would have to be in line with existing Codices (Marine Combat Squads). To me, it seems like the best solution would involve "half-credits" or a similar method, but giving the bizarre aversion to accounting in the present Design Studio, I somehow doubt that this will be placed in effect.

The OP is almost certainly fake, incidentally-- the fellow working on the new Imperial Guard was shown in a recent White Dwarf and was not a well-known member of the Studio.