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'd love to see a new Guard codex. It's not balanced internally and certainly not balanced in the meta. Bringing back doctrines and the Steel Legion would be great.

 Peregrine wrote:
Post of awesome.

I lol'd throughout, great post, if a bit cynical.


I'm with the folks on internal balance issues honestly. I'd like to field RR's, Artillery Batteries, Yarrick, Ogryns, and more Stormtroopers in a game and not write them off as KPs.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Erm, they sort of are, "grimdark" doesn't just mean "unpleasent", it means skull-festooned deco-gothic totalitarian absurdity, and it's the whole point of the IP for a lot of people.

You don't have to turn it to 11 either, because then Grimderp or (even worse) Darkness Induced Apathy happen and your theme is screwed.

The problem is that 11 for you obviously isn't the same thing as 11 for me, the difference is that the current setup allows you to easily "turn it down" to what I would consider four or five, while your proposal would limit everyone else to what you think is the "appropriate amount" of grimdark.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Further, if you want near-future-ish Guard, you can do that now by simply not choosing the options that don't fit with your theme, so why would you want to piss on everyone else's fun by saying they can only play the game the way YOU want?

I'm talking about the theme and the aesthetics of the Imperial Guard and not its options. They are all fine, even the Rough Riders are cool for some modernish change (and they will still use horses!). Except the Vendetta, that thing should burn in hell. The real change would be in the looks: you could still make a Valhallan army, with all their crazy stuff and such, but your guys would look like a rag-tag army of Spetsnaz instead of a direct WW2 soviets rip-off.

Oh ok, so you just want to limit my aesthetic choices, that's totally fine

What if I like having "Soviet ripoffs"? Or Bedouin-influenced LRDP? Or Napoleonic gunlines with lasers? Or techno-gothic Scots Guard? The aesthetic and theme of the Guard is supposed to be varied and diverse, with levels of technology that vary from barbarians all the way up to full-on sci-fi, ie it already includes the themes and aesthetics you're looking for, it just includes the ones I and others are interested in as well, so again; why is taking away choices from everyone else necessary in order for you to enjoy yourself?

 Yodhrin wrote:

What if I like having "Soviet ripoffs"? Or Bedouin-influenced LRDP? Or Napoleonic gunlines with lasers? Or techno-gothic Scots Guard? The aesthetic and theme of the Guard is supposed to be varied and diverse, with levels of technology that vary from barbarians all the way up to full-on sci-fi, ie it already includes the themes and aesthetics you're looking for, it just includes the ones I and others are interested in as well, so again; why is taking away choices from everyone else necessary in order for you to enjoy yourself?

I agree with this. Guard regiments come from a very wide range of worlds with such diversity that any player can find or imagine an aesthetic that suits them. Leave it that way! The more, the merrier. 40K was never meant to look like Battlefield 2, 3, or 4.

If you like modern, then model it and play that kind of IG army. but don't turn up your nose and condemn those that enjoy Tallarn, Mordians, cavemen, Vostroyans, Cadians, Catachan, DKOK, Elysians, Steel Legion, Praetorians, Zulus, or any other form of IG.

 AtoMaki wrote:

I'm talking about the theme and the aesthetics of the Imperial Guard and not its options. They are all fine, even the Rough Riders are cool for some modernish change (and they will still use horses!). Except the Vendetta, that thing should burn in hell. The real change would be in the looks: you could still make a Valhallan army, with all their crazy stuff and such, but your guys would look like a rag-tag army of Spetsnaz instead of a direct WW2 soviets rip-off.

Why the hell should IG look modern? How is early 21st century look more appropriate for 41st millennium army than early 20th or late 19th century look?

Why the hell should IG look like rambo, WW2 troopers, canadians, techno-savages or anything? Surely they're in the 41st millenium with uncountable planets which are all exactly the same, right?
Come AtoMaki, Come crimson, we can go make space marine armies because the average joe in the 41st should be wearing all that kit. We'll call it imperial guard and tell everyone else that they're wrong.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Oh ok, so you just want to limit my aesthetic choices, that's totally fine

Nobody limits you... You do whatever you want with your models, but I think if GW cuts down the IG line (believe me: they will), then they should keep the "modernish" look and theme. Because it makes sense. So you don't have to stop mid-game because you've realized that you are playing Flames of War 40K with your quasi-soviets or Waterloo 40K with your Napoleonic gunline. What I want is originality. Because AFAIK, the "grimdark modern army" is a virgin territory, so the Imperial Guard can finally have its very own identity, instead of being random historical references in SPESSH.

But of course, if you like your historical references, then you can have them, no problem. We have female Space Marines armies too.

 AtoMaki wrote:
Because it makes sense.

How?

(And since when is 40K supposed to make sense anyway?)

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Oh ok, so you just want to limit my aesthetic choices, that's totally fine

Nobody limits you... You do whatever you want with your models, but I think if GW cuts down the IG line (believe me: they will), then they should keep the "modernish" look and theme. Because it makes sense. So you don't have to stop mid-game because you've realized that you are playing Flames of War 40K with your quasi-soviets or Waterloo 40K with your Napoleonic gunline. What I want is originality. Because AFAIK, the "grimdark modern army" is a virgin territory, so the Imperial Guard can finally have its very own identity, instead of being random historical references in SPESSH.

But of course, if you like your historical references, then you can have them, no problem. We have female Space Marines armies too.

How does it make sense? You keep repeating the same thing over and over, and yet you've still failed to even attempt to justify it beyond "I dun durr dunt like dem historicalamajiggers!"; why is "quasi-Battlefield 3" any more sensible, or original, then "quasi-Soviet" or "quasi-Napoleonic"? And how on earth can you justify claiming you're not trying to limit people after arguing that GW should change the entire IG miniatures line and background info to suit your tastes? Especially since what you want, "quasi-Battlefield 3", is entirely possible with the current background and miniatures range(put webbing and pouches on Cadians - done) without putting any limitations on what other people want to do.

No one familar with the general background of the IoM and IG would argue that the IG would be a uniform and consistent force across regiments.

I do not think the LR should be made into a "medium" tank. There is no good reason for that and plenty in game reasons not to. The table top is only so big and you need room to move around not just put your tanks on the board and never move them.

One more thing that I wish to be tweeted.

Yarrick. Needs maybe to drop 50 points or so. I want to use him more, but he’s not worth a tank.

Actually just thought of something to add to my wish-list;
something that is non-forgeworld, has the assault ramp special rule, and a transport capacity of 22.

That would probably go a long way to fixing ogryns all by itself...

 Captain Roderick wrote:
Actually just thought of something to add to my wish-list;
something that is non-forgeworld, has the assault ramp special rule, and a transport capacity of 22.

That would probably go a long way to fixing ogryns all by itself...

Plastic CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT?

That would be glorious.

 Yodhrin wrote:

How does it make sense? You keep repeating the same thing over and over, and yet you've still failed to even attempt to justify it beyond "I dun durr dunt like dem historicalamajiggers!"; why is "quasi-Battlefield 3" any more sensible, or original, then "quasi-Soviet" or "quasi-Napoleonic"? And how on earth can you justify claiming you're not trying to limit people after arguing that GW should change the entire IG miniatures line and background info to suit your tastes? Especially since what you want, "quasi-Battlefield 3", is entirely possible with the current background and miniatures range(put webbing and pouches on Cadians - done) without putting any limitations on what other people want to do.

I think you misunderstood me. I don't want BF3 either in my Warhammer 40K. I wan modernish look, because that way, they would look like actual battle-worthy soldiers who can win a firefight against vastly superior opponents instead of the "cool but impractical" setup. Remember, the average Guardsman has to fight things that are many-many leagues above him/her. And regimental pride won't help you in reload, but a well placed magazine harness will. Over time, every ineffective arrangement should simply die out, because the guardsmen using them die much quicker than those who use an effective setup (what should be pretty close to the gear setup used by modern armies). It is just simple evolution.

And hell, I can't see your point in this limitation thing... You sound like someone who thinks that GW runs at least 20 different IG ranges instead of the current 2... And miraculously, people still field Mordian/DKoK/Tallarn/whatever armies!

Actually, regimental pride, any boost to unit morale, would help a great deal in fighting the kind of mostrosities the IG has to deal with. Most modern armies would piss themselves and run if faced with tyranids.

 Valhalla130 wrote:
Actually, regimental pride, any boost to unit morale, would help a great deal in fighting the kind of mostrosities the IG has to deal with. Most modern armies would piss themselves and run if faced with tyranids.

And that's why they have Commissars .

 AtoMaki wrote:
And miraculously, people still field Mordian/DKoK/Tallarn/whatever armies!

Ever heard of Forgeworld? Or the collectors part of the GW website? People are buying those models to represent those armies - if people are buying them to field those armies surely that presents an opportunity for GW to make money by increasing the range of plastic Guard models?

If it ever came down to a single bland and utterly BORING range of modernish soldiers, I'd jack in 40k entirely. The Guard & it's diversity is that important to me as a player.

 AtoMaki wrote:

I think you misunderstood me. I don't want BF3 either in my Warhammer 40K. I wan modernish look, because that way, they would look like actual battle-worthy soldiers who can win a firefight against vastly superior opponents instead of the "cool but impractical" setup. Remember, the average Guardsman has to fight things that are many-many leagues above him/her. And regimental pride won't help you in reload, but a well placed magazine harness will. Over time, every ineffective arrangement should simply die out, because the guardsmen using them die much quicker than those who use an effective setup (what should be pretty close to the gear setup used by modern armies). It is just simple evolution.

Colonial British troops were not battle worthy soldiers? WWII Red Army wasn't? It is ludicrous to think that early 21st century look is somehow more practical or fitting for 41st millennium than late 19th century look. In few decades our current modern armed forces will look antiquated too. Battles that IG fight are nothing like the battles 21st century armies fight. Granted, they're nothing like the battles that 19th or 20th century armies fought either. But that's the point, it is absurd to claim that some specific real world army composition is better at fighting tyranids or chaos marines.

Furthermore, you talk about progress and evolution. That sounds like heresy and commissar will probably shoot you. Are you sure you don't want to play Tau?

 Sparks_Havelock wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
And miraculously, people still field Mordian/DKoK/Tallarn/whatever armies!

Ever heard of Forgeworld? Or the collectors part of the GW website? .

Thank you, that's the whole point I try to make . One high-quality, full-plastic range would be much more awesome IMHO than a couple of low-quality, half-failcast range. And since you have to pick and choose in this case, my vote would go for the modernish look, because it makes more sense (and because my personal opinion is that historical references in SPEESSH are silly and unoriginal).

Crimson:
Ah, and I'm pretty sure that british colonial troops and WW2 soviets fought lots of Orks/Space Marines/Tyranids/whatever too .

 AtoMaki wrote:

And since you have to pick and choose in this case, my vote would go for the modernish look, because it makes more sense (and because my personal opinion is that historical references in SPEESSH are silly and unoriginal).

It doesn't make any more sense.

And I think historical references are cool and modern look is boring. So there, opinions.

Ah, and I'm pretty sure that british colonial troops and WW2 soviets fought lots of Orks/Space Marines/Tyranids/whatever too .

I said they didn't. Which is why it makes exactly as much or as little sense for them to be fighting tyranids or orks as it makes for modern looking army to be fighting them!

 AtoMaki wrote:
Over time, every ineffective arrangement should simply die out, because the guardsmen using them die much quicker than those who use an effective setup (what should be pretty close to the gear setup used by modern armies). It is just simple evolution.

Wrong
If that was true no one would use the AK47s any more. Less effective, but easy to produce, easy to use for untrained masses of expendable soldiers ... wait that's sounds like IG.

How about:
"Non-Forge World" Chamrias take Auto Cannons.
Replace the Death Stike Missile with the Destroyer Tank Hunter.

Lathor wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
Over time, every ineffective arrangement should simply die out, because the guardsmen using them die much quicker than those who use an effective setup (what should be pretty close to the gear setup used by modern armies). It is just simple evolution.

Wrong
If that was true no one would use the AK47s any more. Less effective, but easy to produce, easy to use for untrained masses of expendable soldiers ... wait that's sounds like IG.

If you are somehow claiming the AK47 is an ineffective weapon, you really don't know real world weaponry. The reason its still being used 65+ years later is the fact that it IS effective.

 AtoMaki wrote:


...(and because my personal opinion is that historical references in SPEESSH are silly and unoriginal).

Then you sir are in the wrong hobby. The 40k universe is nothing but mythological and historical references in space

Everything Primarch
Everything Ultramarine
Most things Space Marine
Everything Space Wolf
Everything Dark Angel
Everything Inquisition
Everything Chaos
Everything IG
Everything Eldar (vanilla or chocolate)
Everything Imperium timeline
Some stuff Blood Angel
Even Tau stuff
Everything Black Library

I guess Orks and Nids might avoid historical references the most... do you play them?

You may have actually made the most un 40k comment possible for someone who likes 40k




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HisDivineShadow wrote:

If you are somehow claiming the AK47 is an ineffective weapon, you really don't know real world weaponry. The reason its still being used 65+ years later is the fact that it IS cheap, durable, and available.

Fixed that for you

Thanks for the fix

There were more compact, easy, accurate weapons when the AK47 was designed, just those need a skilled weapon smith instead of a factory worker to produce and an average laborer could not maintain it.

Lobukia wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HisDivineShadow wrote:

If you are somehow claiming the AK47 is an ineffective weapon, you really don't know real world weaponry. The reason its still being used 65+ years later is the fact that it IS cheap, durable, and available.

Fixed that for you

Which largely happen to be the biggest determinants of weapon effectiveness

 Vaktathi wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HisDivineShadow wrote:

If you are somehow claiming the AK47 is an ineffective weapon, you really don't know real world weaponry. The reason its still being used 65+ years later is the fact that it IS cheap, durable, and available.

Fixed that for you

Which largely happen to be the biggest determinants of weapon effectiveness

Yeah, for a club or an iron pipe
Stopping power, range, accuracy, handle, fire rate count more for a single weapon, army effectiveness is an other thing.

 Lobukia wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:


...(and because my personal opinion is that historical references in SPEESSH are silly and unoriginal).

Then you sir are in the wrong hobby. The 40k universe is nothing but mythological and historical references in space

*list*

I guess Orks and Nids might avoid historical references the most... do you play them?

You may have actually made the most un 40k comment possible for someone who likes 40k

Ah, fair point. But I must add, that none of the races on the list are so clean-cut, in-your-face references than the IG. And it disturbs me greatly. At least they should do some sort of Eldar-style twist where your Space Elves have guns that shoot miniature shurikens and totally cool with necromancy.

On the AK-47/military evolution thing:
Uh... Guys... I was speaking about much bigger differences in terms of gear than some random AK-47/SCAR-H comparison. I was thinking about M1 Garand/AK-74 style of stuff .

 AtoMaki wrote:

Ah, fair point. But I must add, that none of the races on the list are so clean-cut, in-your-face references than the IG. And it disturbs me greatly. At least they should do some sort of Eldar-style twist where your Space Elves have guns that shoot miniature shurikens and totally cool with necromancy.

I agree that it is better if things are merely inspired by something (possibly several different things) instead if directly copy-pasted. That's why Vostroyans are my favourite, they are inspired by Imperial Russia, but have enough Blanchian weirdness added that they become rather unique.

On the AK-47/military evolution thing:
Uh... Guys... I was speaking about much bigger differences in terms of gear than some random AK-47/SCAR-H comparison. I was thinking about M1 Garand/AK-74 style of stuff .

But all the IG has pretty much the same weapons anyway. We are talking about cut of the coats and fur hats here; hardly the most crucial elements of the combat effectiveness.

 Crimson wrote:

But all the IG has pretty much the same weapons anyway. We are talking about cut of the coats and fur hats here; hardly the most crucial elements of the combat effectiveness.

Actually, clothing can be a major factor. It affects your mobility and comfort, not to mention that with a tactical harness, you will have all your gear at hand. You can reload your gun faster (and you can carry more ammo), you can throw your grenades faster (and again, carry more grenades), your first aid kit will be at hand, increasing your survivability, your secondary weapon(s) will be at hand and so on. You can also move faster and "lighter". These are small things, but over time, they could be decisive because of the snowball effect.