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.

Imperial Guard ain't that bad. I play Imperial guard and in my 2000 point army list, I field 2 Leman Russ Varients, 1 chimera and the rest is infantry Come on, don't haters just love lots of targets to pick and choose from, like seriously.

I love playing against Guard and with my Guard. I loved playing against Guard before I had my own army, and I still love it now.

Deadshane1 wrote:I love how people will come into a thread and tell Dash he doesnt know what he's talking about. Specially when he's played in more tournaments and faced of against more different people than the people criticizing him could imagine.

It's also funny that he described a Guard army that I faced off against this weekend at an RTT....exactly....EXACTLY. I lost, it would've been boring but I'm playing a brand new army that I'm learning still....so I was engaged. If I was playing my sisters or another list that I'm used to, I wouldve been napping in between my turns.

Yea, he doesnt know what he's talking about. Not in the least. Dash doesnt have a clue as to what successful guard players bring to the table...he's such a noob.

If you want to play guard, do it, but dont get all defensive and whiny when someone calls you out on the lack of imagination in your army. You chose it, stand by it, but don't deny that people hate it, and CERTAINLY don't deny that your army is boring to play against. That opinion is reserved for your opponents.

Yeah....I didn't respond to any of that flamebait trash.

Mech IG are competitive, no lie. I had a fight of my life this past weekend, winning 11 killpoints to 10 after we mauled each other. To date, I've lost two tournament games to Mech IG since their codex came out; once on the top table of 'Ard Boyz semis in 2009 with my Orks when he got to DoW move onto the table 72" away from me, and once in December 2010 when my opponent seized the initiative on me, and then had a turkey shoot.

Couldn't even tell you what my record against Mech IG is, but I see them often in tournaments across the country, have won every other game against them, and they are always the same.

Mech IG aren't boring because you can't win against them because you certainly can. They're boring because every competitive Mech IG player pretty much seems to run the same thing. Everywhere. I don't want to play the same person using the same list five times in a row if I beat it soundly the first time. I'm seriously tired of different faces behind the same army list. With as much as the codex has to offer, I wish there was more variety.

Matt Cassidy took it to my Orks in February 2009 at the SVDM GT with a completely foot-slogging IG army. It was a pleasure to get beat on...it was *different*. Since then, I've played against a grand total of ONE IG army that was not an almost carbon copy of every other Mech IG list.

*EDIT* My orks get flamed for not being an efficient use of points, my DE get critiqued for not having enough anti-tank or being a "take all comers" list (hell, I dog on my own DE), and Necron players bash me for steadfastly refusing to budge from my stance that Wraiths > Destroyers. My armies are unique, and I love seeing what other people can do with their codex to present a unique twist to what is available to them. I just feel like IG players won't break out of their standard list and find ways to be successful with something other than the ONE SINGLE LIST that I see in every tournament.

What IG list do you run? No attack intended, I am genuinely interested in seeing a non mechvet IG army that is successful, if you are comfortable revealing your list.

Polonius wrote:Interestingly enough, at some point, if the builds are all cookie cutter, is that the fault of the players or the fault of the codex?

Both, arguably.

GW should write better codexes with more useful options and builds. Players should use a different army to the IG cookie cutter, whether it's from the IG book or from a different book.

I'm not surprised that people want to use the best list they can make out of their codex.

there is a great example of IG lists that aren't mech and succesfull.
Powerblob. Read the Blood Conquers series by ailaros he beats most enemies without a single tank..
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/recentTopics/showTopicsByUser/4820.page
that is really an effective tactic. My IG opponent started using it and since i found it harder to beat him.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Yeah....I didn't respond to any of that flamebait trash.

And yet you start your..opinion with flamebait trash.... ?

Somewhat unnecessary and overly antagonistic picture removed.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Polonius wrote:Interestingly enough, at some point, if the builds are all cookie cutter, is that the fault of the players or the fault of the codex?

Both, arguably.
GW should write better codexes with more useful options and builds. Players should use a different army to the IG cookie cutter, whether it's from the IG book or from a different book.
I'm not surprised that people want to use the best list they can make out of their codex.

There are plenty of good builds in the IG codex. It's just that hydras + vendettas + chimera spam is by far the easiest of those builds.

Dashofpepper wrote:Matt Cassidy took it to my Orks in February 2009 at the SVDM GT with a completely foot-slogging IG army. It was a pleasure to get beat on...it was *different*. Since then, I've played against a grand total of ONE IG army that was not an almost carbon copy of every other Mech IG list.

Was there a SVDM in 2009? I thought you'd only been doing GTs for a year, not two years.

Deadshane1 wrote:I love how people will come into a thread and tell Dash he doesnt know what he's talking about. Specially when he's played in more tournaments and faced of against more different people than the people criticizing him could imagine.

We're not saying Dash is a noob, or that he's not a great player. Dash is a great 40k player. We all know this. HOWEVER, we can still say that he is giving an unfair description to the Imperial Guard.

It's also funny that he described a Guard army that I faced off against this weekend at an RTT....exactly....EXACTLY. I lost, it would've been boring but I'm playing a brand new army that I'm learning still....so I was engaged. If I was playing my sisters or another list that I'm used to, I wouldve been napping in between my turns.

It seems the biggest problem the non IG players have is that they think the only competitive IG army is the Mech Vet, or skimmer spam lists. It's not. Those happen to be 2 of the MOST effective lists, but there are several other lists that are just as effective. And infantry swarm Guard list can tear apart MEQ armies, and can do a heavy number on the biggest swarm with just sheer number of lasguns. The problem with infantry guard is that it is a horde army, so the TFGs who just codex hop are too lazy to put the time and effort into building a horde IG list, and settle for the generic, cookie cutter Chimera and Vet spam.

If you want to play guard, do it, but dont get all defensive and whiny when someone calls you out on the lack of imagination in your army. You chose it, stand by it, but don't deny that people hate it, and CERTAINLY don't deny that your army is boring to play against. That opinion is reserved for your opponents.

I like to think that I have done a good job of making a game interesting. I simply refuse to believe that its the ARMY that makes a game boring. I think it's the IG PLAYER being an ass that's a much bigger problem. I don't play tournaments--that side of 40k just doesn't appeal to me--so I can't comment on conditions there...but in my opinion, the IG codex is one of the most dynamic, and customizable codexes we have available. We just happen to have a lot of bandwagonners who copy a net list for Mech Vets. In all honesty, I think the hate at IG is basically a watered down version of the hate directed at SWs and BAs.

ph34r wrote:What IG list do you run? No attack intended, I am genuinely interested in seeing a non mechvet IG army that is successful, if you are comfortable revealing your list.

THis isn't the MOST competitive classic IG list, but it's a reasonably competitive one I think...and it's nice and fluffy.

HQ
CCS: Standard, Lascannon
Lord Commissar: Power Weapon, Carapace, Melta Bombs
2x Priest w/ Eviscerator

Elites
Ratling Snipers

Troops
Infantry Platoon 1
PCS: HEavy Bolter
IS: PW, Flamer, Meltabombs, Commissar w/ Power Weapon
IS: PW, Flamer, Meltabombs
IS: PW, Flamer, Meltabombs
SWS: 3x Melta
HWS: 3x Lascannon
HWS: 3x Missile Launchers

Infantry Platoon 2
PCS: HEavy Bolter
IS: PW, Flamer, Meltabombs, Commissar w/ Power Weapon
IS: PW, Flamer, Meltabombs
IS: PW, Flamer, Meltabombs
SWS: 3x Melta
HWS: 3x Lascannon
HWS: 3x Missile Launchers

Heavy SUpport
LRBT: Lascannon, HB
LRBT: Lascannon, HB
LRBT: Lascannon, HB

I can not see anyone calling this 2000 pts list cheesy, and I would give it a fair fight against most other armies at 2k points.

I think that is probably right.

There seem to be several IoM codexes with obviously good, strong, easily playable builds; SW Long Fang and IG Mechvet are key examples.

These are used pretty widely. They are good builds and hard to fight against.

Nah nah nah, etc.

I think it would be interesting to do a kind of campaign in which one side would be IG. Their side would have a number of armies and each army would represent a different part of the whole IG mega army.

One player could have a Mechvet list, and another could have a regular infantry list, and so on.

The other side would be allowed to take whatever they wanted in their army.

The whole campaign would represent the IG defending a planet against several attackers.

I wouldn't mind playing such a campaign. Sounds interesting and fun.

I definately think the IG codex could have been a lot better, whilst the lowering of troop costs was nice I hope in the next codex, doctrines will make a return, as there were plenty of truly poriginal guard armies there/

jp400 wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:

Yeah....I didn't respond to any of that flamebait trash.

And yet you start your..opinion with flamebait trash.

jp400, the difference between flamebait and non flamebait is the identification of a subject for your harangue. I didn't flame anyone because I didn't identify anyone or their opinion and call them out on it - just made a note that I wasn't choosing to respond to intentionally provocative remarks spewed forth in such a way that I wouldn't get anywhere responding to them because they weren't looking to discuss, just insult.

Whereas YOU are flaming because you're identifying me in particular, and being insulting and provocative. This is the third thread you've followed me into in the last week with malicious intent. Since you have no interest in anything that I write with the exception of finding a reason to respond with derogratory comments that never contain value or constructive content, please put me on ignore. Short of that, I'm going to start spamming "report" to this kind of stuff. There's no reason for you to follow me around dakka trying to get my attention - I help everyone equally, and if you need something, just ask. If you have less honorable intentions, go away.

....It is indeed good advice to utilise the "ignore" function if, for whatever reason, a certain other user rubs you up the wrong way.

Or, you know, count to 10 and let it pass. It's just toy soldiers people.

..let's move on then yeah ?

I think the guard codex is good, a solid book. There are issues -- serg equipment etc etc, but i would suggest perhaps it is more the types of scenarios being played that are causing the cookie cutter/identikit lists that are so prevalent.

Trying some new or different scenarios or types of fights works wonders for showcasing the viability of other units often in my experience.

Dashofpepper wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:

Yeah....I didn't respond to any of that flamebait trash.

And yet you start your..opinion with flamebait trash.

jp400, the difference between flamebait and non flamebait is the identification of a subject for your harangue. I didn't flame anyone because I didn't identify anyone or their opinion and call them out on it - just made a note that I wasn't choosing to respond to intentionally provocative remarks spewed forth in such a way that I wouldn't get anywhere responding to them because they weren't looking to discuss, just insult.

Whereas YOU are flaming because you're identifying me in particular, and being insulting and provocative. This is the third thread you've followed me into in the last week with malicious intent. Since you have no interest in anything that I write with the exception of finding a reason to respond with derogratory comments that never contain value or constructive content, please put me on ignore. Short of that, I'm going to start spamming "report" to this kind of stuff. There's no reason for you to follow me around dakka trying to get my attention - I help everyone equally, and if you need something, just ask. If you have less honorable intentions, go away.

Taking criticism doesn't seem to be a strong suit of yours Dash does it.
If anyone disagrees or criticises your opinion it always seems to be that they are trolling or flaming regardless of the actual content thats supplied, which most of the time is pretty valid
I'm not even sure how you consider what he said an insult

Dismissing peoples opinions just because they aren't similar to yours, is a pretty common feature of your personality if your previous posts are anything to go by.
That or when you do try to address them, you do this weird **** waving thing where you try boast about how you win with certain armies and how you know best about everything regarding Warhammer and the armies you use , theres apparentlly no room for debate with Mr Dash as far as I can tell, the only option available is he is right.
It's really quite odd to be frank

I'll give you this though, you write damn good Battle Reports

Anyways on topic
The only issue that seems to be a constant factor when IG is discussed, is the massive underpricing of units
You can spam units with tons of excellent weapons or veichles for insanely low costs, meaning your opponent can field enough of them so that unless you specifically tailor your list, you've got an uphill battle ahead of you
Which clearly isn't viable in a tournament setting, where all comers would be the key

I've never had a fun game vs Imperial guard except when i played a foot guard list, and even then it was a closely fought game. Every time i see mechvets across the table with vendettas I feel like it's a futile effort even to try. That shouldn't be how a game is played.

Ruckdog wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:So now that I've laid the fault at the designers...not the players....so IG players won't get their hair raised at the following; IG---Why are they so loathed? Lack of interaction is my answer. If I play a dual prince/PM/Oblit list (Another cookie cutter army that I believe is the product of a weak dex)...at least I'm going to mix it up with the other player. We're going to get close, rapid fire a bit, get some assault going, etc.

Mech vets, I'm going to roll armor damage tables all day and stare at tanks while his army sits in the sideboard. If I make it in HTH, the game is over...if I don't...the game is over. It's black/white win/lose. He rolls to wound, I roll a d6 to see what happens to the 6th Chimera on the damage table. I'm sorry, this is not enjoyable or exciting.

Great point! This is the kind of thing that I was hoping for when I started the thread. Your theory makes a lot of sense to me actually. I can see how players who are used to a lot of HTH would get turned off by rolling on vehicle damage tables all game long. That other players might have that reaction never occurred to me; I am pretty new to 40k (well, since the fall of 2008, anyway), and the IG is the only army I've played. So, I probably don't have the same conceptions of what a game of 40k "should" be as someone who has been playing a lot more often and/or for a lot longer. In fact, some of my favorite games have been some major tank on tank battles using the Spearhead rules, and it sounds like that kind of game would be very boring to some.

For all intents and purposes, Cruddance should have given Chimeras 3 turrent mounted, defensive classified melta-guns, made them scoring and saved IG players some money.

Agreed, especially given how much I've spent to get enough meltas to fill the two vet squads in my current list!

Well, I think historically the armies most complained about are always the alpha strike shooting armies. SW Assault Cannon spam w/ Eldar allies way back when, Iron Warriors of more recent years and now IG/Razorspam. I feel this is due to the lack of interaction inherent in those lists.

For example, strong assault armies still require a degree of shooting to dismount mechanized armies so this naturally brings a slight mix to composition. Assault elements in each army provide an interactive affair, strategic moving/flanking, etc etc. Alpha strike shooting lists usually lack that element.

And not to say I'm the authoritative voice on 'what 40k should be'. I think a balanced assault/shooting list inherently makes the game more enjoyable for both parties...but in the end that's just my opinion. Just like I feel painted armies, good/interesting terrain, etc make the game more enjoyable. It could be that two opposing IG players may be perfectly happy to line up grey plastic chimeras/vendettas with a single tree on the board and roll dice to blow up armor all game. If that's their thing, it's their thing...who am I to tell them how to play? But will I ask for a game next? Doubtful......

I am beginning an IG army and would love to make them fun yet competitive to play against what are some good army builds to make that possible?

Asuron wrote:[Taking criticism doesn't seem to be a strong suit of yours Dash does it.
If anyone disagrees or criticises your opinion it always seems to be that they are trolling or flaming regardless of the actual content thats supplied, which most of the time is pretty valid
I'm not even sure how you consider what he said an insult

Asuron, criticising my opinions with a refutation is perfectly fine, and all over the forums I'm happy to engage in debate about the value or validity of a certain tactic.

When someone's entire post is "Your post is flamebait trash" with a big offensive picture, there is nothing REMOTELY similar to "constructive criticism" in there. Just garbage. It is my opinion that someone is trolling when they are trolling. Your post here is a criticism of me (albeit misguided it seems), without being offensive or trolling. Nothing wrong with that. But if there is nothing of value to a post, and it exists solely to insult someone, it shouldn't have been made in the first place. Do you disagree?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:I am beginning an IG army and would love to make them fun yet competitive to play against what are some good army builds to make that possible?

Bloodfrenzy, someone started a topic with this exact question that might be a better source for you to get specific answers to your question: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/348279.page

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Well, I think historically the armies most complained about are always the alpha strike shooting armies. SW Assault Cannon spam w/ Eldar allies way back when, Iron Warriors of more recent years and now IG/Razorspam. I feel this is due to the lack of interaction inherent in those lists.

For example, strong assault armies still require a degree of shooting to dismount mechanized armies so this naturally brings a slight mix to composition. Assault elements in each army provide an interactive affair, strategic moving/flanking, etc etc. Alpha strike shooting lists usually lack that element.

And not to say I'm the authoritative voice on 'what 40k should be'. I think a balanced assault/shooting list inherently makes the game more enjoyable for both parties...but in the end that's just my opinion. Just like I feel painted armies, good/interesting terrain, etc make the game more enjoyable. It could be that two opposing IG players may be perfectly happy to line up grey plastic chimeras/vendettas with a single tree on the board and roll dice to blow up armor all game. If that's their thing, it's their thing...who am I to tell them how to play? But will I ask for a game next? Doubtful......

Indeed! So, out of curiosity, would you play my 2000 point list? This is what it looks like (and yes, it is fully painted!):

CCS w/4 Plasma
Chimera

Vet squad w/3 melta
Chimera

Vet squad w/3 melta
Chimera

PCS w/4 flamer
Chimera

Inf Squad w/ GL & AC
Chimera

Inf Squad w/ GL & AC
Chimera

Hellound squadron w/ 2 Hellounds

Scout Sentinal squdron w/ 2 ML & 1 AC

Vendetta (no troops inside)

Demolisher

Executioner

Manticore

I tried not to make this list just about taking vets in Chimeras. I also took a Vendetta and the 3 Sentinels mainly because I like the models so much . My concept was that this would be a mechanized infantry formation, getting some tank and air support from regimental assets.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Vulkan Marines in Drop Pods make a mockery of mech lists. Cling to your precious Mystics! They won't save you from my onslaught of pain!

Okay, but seriously, I don't have much trouble against a lot of tanks; that's the point I want you to take away from this post.

Mega blobs on the other hand...

Ruckdog wrote:
*Snip of army list*

Well of course I would play you. Whom I invite to my house and play on regular basis is never based on army lists but on personalities. Are they laid back/mature and fun to be around? Then I'll likely give two gaks about what they play and look forward to seeing them each weekend...chimeras or no.

In a tournament setting, I play whatever I'm faced with. I always secretly hope I play Orks to be honest because Ork players always seem to answer my above questions and I know win/lose/draw...we're going to see HTH and mix it up. But again, this depends on personality----an donkey-cave Ork player is worse than a nice IG player. All things being equal though (Personality/maturity/painted army), I always prefer to play foot/moving armies as opposed to gun lines. That's just my flavor though, doesn't make it right/wrong...just me.

Che-Vito wrote:

Ruckdog wrote:
So, why do I care? Well, first of all, I genuinely don't want to field an army that isn't fun for others to play against. As I play in "friendly" (that is, non-tournament) games, I like to make sure my opponent has some fun too so that he will be more willing to play me again in the future. Secondly, I wanted to cast the net wider than my local gaming group on these two issues (as well as any others you might like to bring up) to see how well my thinking survives the scrutiny.

Thoughts?

As an IG player, I can assure you that they're not hard to beat. A half-assed list won't do it, and when people expect it to...is when they run into trouble.
Sometimes it just is poor rolling, but oftentimes, it's people trying to out-gunline the IG, or out-armor the IG. Frankly, there are half a million ways to beat the Imperial Guard, and "broken" is hardly what I would call them.

Do you get beaten a lot?

I know I do .

Ruckdog wrote:IG list with all sortsa doodads.

I'd enjoy playing this army. It looks hard, but by no means unbeatable.

I don't really hate IG to be honest. When I use Chaos, the mechanised approach most IG players i've seen take annoys me (i'm left chasing around Exterminators with Khorne Berzerkers) but that's due to my list above all else (no obliterators, Tzeentch prince, no troops that aren't Berzerkers...).

As Tau, I get annoyed by being out-gunned and outnumbered, but since IG are just as unreliable shooting-wise, I don't automatically get decimated (disruption pods are a great help) and if I get lucky with shooting (not very often, my close combat has been better than my shooting in the last few games) then I can usually do alright.

Every army will annoy you a little, but I can't say these annoyances have made me 'hate' IG, they've just meant that I have to enter the fight and just try to pull out all the stops; which as a challenge, I can say I enjoy.

Dashofpepper wrote:

*EDIT* My orks get flamed for not being an efficient use of points, my DE get critiqued for not having enough anti-tank or being a "take all comers" list (hell, I dog on my own DE), and Necron players bash me for steadfastly refusing to budge from my stance that Wraiths > Destroyers. My armies are unique, and I love seeing what other people can do with their codex to present a unique twist to what is available to them. I just feel like IG players won't break out of their standard list and find ways to be successful with something other than the ONE SINGLE LIST that I see in every tournament.

Good to see someone else out there enjoys the real spirit of the game.

My problem with IG is that my three armies('Nids, Daemons, Thousand Sons) will never have enough anti-tank to win against 7+ chimeras, 2 Vendettas, and 2 Manticores. My games against this list have usually boiled down to popping a few chimeras, but not having killed enough of them nor having enough models left to fight what actually had their transports taken out. I don't mind losing, but it's pretty boring when I can do next to nothing about it.

I have to agree with DashofPepper. (IMO)IG players should branch out some more. The most fun game I've ever played against IG(and lost) was against a unit of triple Executioners, a Deathstrike, a Medusa, only 1 chimera, and the rest of the points put into veterans on foot with sniper-rifles(it was 1k, I think).