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.

 Signet-Powers wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Yep, the Leman Russ needs a major buff.

Agreed. I think the problem is that a lot of people (mainly those who don't play IG) *think* LR tanks are good. I'm not sure why - maybe because they're the cheapest AV14 vehicles, or perhaps because they remember that LRs used to be strong, and think they still are.

Trouble is, whilst LR tanks might have been strong in the past, the game has moved on since then. Unfortunately, the LRs haven't.

In fact, the ordnance varieties got significantly worse. But, even aside from that, most of their weapons just aren't good. It seems that they're either under-specialised (autocannons, the punisher without Pask, the heavy bolters they all come with etc.) or over-specialised... and still rubbish (is any tank really afraid of the vanquisher?). Then there's issues like plasma cannons having a fatal design flaw. AV14 means jack when you can die simply from firing your own weapons (made even more tragic because plasma cannons are about the only LR weapon that's even vaguely competent). We don't even have the advantage of squadrons anymore, because a) FoCs are a joke (so it's not like it's a useful bonus), and b) several elite races have been handed vehicle squadrons anyway.

About the only advantage LRs have over the tanks of other armies is AV14... in an edition where races can have D-weapons in standard games, multiple-shot haywire guns on basic troops etc.

Leman Russes need some sort of jink equivelent and a hull point upgrade. These are supposed to be massive, slow, frontline war machines, the idea that they can be wiped out as easipy as they are is absurd. BS4 should come standard as it should be easier for a tank gunner to aim than a footsoldier. Hull points should increase to 4 or 5 as well.

If not, a massive points drop is needed for it to be somewhat competitive in its current state.

Actually they dont need a HP upgrade, GW needs to get rid of the bloody HP system all together. But if we cannot have that then I will settle with 4 to 5HP. For now.
One of my biggest pet peaves is how people seem to think that a Leman Russ is nigh on invincible and even broken. Sure, they used to be tough. Not anymore though and 150 points for a cannon and a Heavy Bolter is just too much, especially when the rear armour is so weak that thy can be boltered to death within the space of a single turn by a squad of Marines. And failing that almost any basic Infantry unit is glancing them on 4's with Krak Grenades. Sure, tanks should be vulnerable to close assault but thanks to the HP system they are far too vulnerable. If it is going to remain in place then perhaps we need to go back to the third editions methods of resolving assaults against vehicles whereby the armour value of the facing side was used (so if you assaulted the front then you where trying to penetrate the frontal armour with those Krak grenades, not the rear)

I think that everyone here remembers the time a few weeks back when I started a thread because a friend of mine wanted to neuter my army by limiting the number of tanks I could bring. Apparently my Leman Russ where OP because they ignored his basic Marines armour saves. Well, two of them did anyway. And only with their main guns. And the frontal armour is really OP levels of tough because his Missile Launcher Devastators could not penetrate it. Sadly it as yet to occur to him to flank them, or to stop trying to just bumrush the tanks (which I always dig in) and actually try to use cover.... Well I do tell a lie, he has started using cover more in the last few games. Probably something about me turning up with 7 tanks when he tried to limit me to three.....
I should also note that he sees nothing wrong with the Land Raider, an AV14/14/14 BS4 2 TL Lascannon 1 TL Heavy Bolter with POTM and a 12 man capacity that costs a mere 50 points more than the Leman Russ. Or his most basic weapon ignoring my Infantries armour
Or for that matter to turning up with close to 3000 points in a game that was meant to be 1500 points (didnt help him though)
Or turning up with a Primarch when we had agreed on no LoW choices (still didnt help him)
But those are other issues.

The point is that the Leman Russ needs a massive buff and a reduction in points to bring it back to its old position, as a slow moving but scary focus point around which the rest of the army can assemble.

Oh and JohnHwang DD, I completely disagree with you. We have veteran infantry at BS4 so why should our tank crews, whom owing to their tank and its great big thick armour plates, have a far higher survivability ratio and thus would find it even easier to achieve veteran status? Veteran tanks at BS4 are something that we most definitely need and 10 points is a fair cost for this.

Besides, why should the IG be shittier than other Infantry? What about Grots? Or Conscripts? Or Cultists?
Hell, we should be around the level of basic Eldar Infantry in terms of training or at least BS.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

A mere 10 points is even more ridiculous. That is so cheap as to be automatic, which defeats the point of IG being a basic human force.

Guard should be the WORST basic troopers in the galaxy. Period. They are mere humans against everything else. The reason Guard exist is to make everyone else look good. BS4 should be EXTREMELY RARE, and expensive. A human shooting as well as a augmented super soldier Space Marine or hypertwich Eldar is ridiculous. Offensive, really.

40-50 points is a good number, because it keeps BS4 very rare, truly exceptional.

Two things.

The system isn't granular enough to represent the differences in a vet or stormtrooper vs an Eldar Guardian or Space Marine. Thus, BS4 represents any unit that is considered significantly better than the baseline of BS3. For Guard, that happens to be vets who have survived years of frontline combat, and stormies, who are trained from nearly birth to be the ultimate, non-genetically modified human soldier. If the system operated on a D10, 20, or 100, then yes, there would be a difference between vets and marines.

The second thing is that points shouldn't be representing the fluffy rareness of something. Points exist to create a balanced selection of units in a game where the player can customize their force. It should be readily apparent to you that if we used points to indicate how rare something is, Marines wouldn't be a playable force, as pointed earlier in this thread.

So no, 40-50 is not a good number. Its a terrible number based on some poor premises that don't do anything positive for the game. A 10pts upgrade represents a good cost for most vehicles on top of their base price for people who want to play a more elite feeling Guard regiment, which is as fluffy and appropriate as any other force.

 Blacksails wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

A mere 10 points is even more ridiculous. That is so cheap as to be automatic, which defeats the point of IG being a basic human force.

Guard should be the WORST basic troopers in the galaxy. Period. They are mere humans against everything else. The reason Guard exist is to make everyone else look good. BS4 should be EXTREMELY RARE, and expensive. A human shooting as well as a augmented super soldier Space Marine or hypertwich Eldar is ridiculous. Offensive, really.

40-50 points is a good number, because it keeps BS4 very rare, truly exceptional.

Two things.

The system isn't granular enough to represent the differences in a vet or stormtrooper vs an Eldar Guardian or Space Marine. Thus, BS4 represents any unit that is considered significantly better than the baseline of BS3. For Guard, that happens to be vets who have survived years of frontline combat, and stormies, who are trained from nearly birth to be the ultimate, non-genetically modified human soldier. If the system operated on a D10, 20, or 100, then yes, there would be a difference between vets and marines.

The second thing is that points shouldn't be representing the fluffy rareness of something. Points exist to create a balanced selection of units in a game where the player can customize their force. It should be readily apparent to you that if we used points to indicate how rare something is, Marines wouldn't be a playable force, as pointed earlier in this thread.

So no, 40-50 is not a good number. Its a terrible number based on some poor premises that don't do anything positive for the game. A 10pts upgrade represents a good cost for most vehicles on top of their base price for people who want to play a more elite feeling Guard regiment, which is as fluffy and appropriate as any other force.

I can't add much to this. There are basically only three options for BS: 2,3,4. That makes it very challenging when assigning veteran humans vs spess mahreens. I'm with BS 4 humans, because the whole spess mahreen thing is kinda stupid anyway.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Actually they dont need a HP upgrade, GW needs to get rid of the bloody HP system all together. But if we cannot have that then I will settle with 4 to 5HP. For now.
One of my biggest pet peaves is how people seem to think that a Leman Russ is nigh on invincible and even broken. Sure, they used to be tough. Not anymore though and 150 points for a cannon and a Heavy Bolter is just too much, especially when the rear armour is so weak that thy can be boltered to death within the space of a single turn by a squad of Marines. And failing that almost any basic Infantry unit is glancing them on 4's with Krak Grenades. Sure, tanks should be vulnerable to close assault but thanks to the HP system they are far too vulnerable. If it is going to remain in place then perhaps we need to go back to the third editions methods of resolving assaults against vehicles whereby the armour value of the facing side was used (so if you assaulted the front then you where trying to penetrate the frontal armour with those Krak grenades, not the rear)

I think that everyone here remembers the time a few weeks back when I started a thread because a friend of mine wanted to neuter my army by limiting the number of tanks I could bring. Apparently my Leman Russ where OP because they ignored his basic Marines armour saves. Well, two of them did anyway. And only with their main guns. And the frontal armour is really OP levels of tough because his Missile Launcher Devastators could not penetrate it. Sadly it as yet to occur to him to flank them, or to stop trying to just bumrush the tanks (which I always dig in) and actually try to use cover.... Well I do tell a lie, he has started using cover more in the last few games. Probably something about me turning up with 7 tanks when he tried to limit me to three.....
I should also note that he sees nothing wrong with the Land Raider, an AV14/14/14 BS4 2 TL Lascannon 1 TL Heavy Bolter with POTM and a 12 man capacity that costs a mere 50 points more than the Leman Russ. Or his most basic weapon ignoring my Infantries armour
Or for that matter to turning up with close to 3000 points in a game that was meant to be 1500 points (didnt help him though)
Or turning up with a Primarch when we had agreed on no LoW choices (still didnt help him)
But those are other issues.

The point is that the Leman Russ needs a massive buff and a reduction in points to bring it back to its old position, as a slow moving but scary focus point around which the rest of the army can assemble.

Oh and JohnHwang DD, I completely disagree with you. We have veteran infantry at BS4 so why should our tank crews, whom owing to their tank and its great big thick armour plates, have a far higher survivability ratio and thus would find it even easier to achieve veteran status? Veteran tanks at BS4 are something that we most definitely need and 10 points is a fair cost for this.

Besides, why should the IG be shittier than other Infantry? What about Grots? Or Conscripts? Or Cultists?
Hell, we should be around the level of basic Eldar Infantry in terms of training or at least BS.

Please oh please do not hat me for this, but I actually kind of like the idea of the HP system. I don't know why, I just sort of do. Not as it is, with all the Haywire/Gauss/Grav/etc. it's broken, but I liked the basic idea behind it. Where the screwed up is with all the auto-glance weapons, and the HP values assinged, which makes little to no sense. Chimera's and Hellhound have the same HP as a Leman Russ? Land Radiers have more? Yeah they screwed the delivery of it up, but I actually find the system sort of interesting. Maybe because I entered on the tail-end of 5th and haven't experienced any other form of 40k without HP really.

On the BS 4 thing, as pointed out, the realisim of training and so on is completely unrealistic in 40k. If we were running a d10 or d20 system as pointed out above and Guard had the same BS as SM, then you'd have a good reason to complain. With a 6 sided cscale though, there just aren't enough options for BS values to show the differences in skill that well. Besides which, I'm not paying almost a whole chimera to make a tank BS 4, and I doubt anybody would, so balanced it is not.

With SM getting their free transports, it might be possible that as a formation bonus thing for taking a large force, conscripts might become free. Plus it would push sales as everyone wants to take 50 free guys for every platoon you bring.

an AV14/14/14 BS4 2 TL Lascannon 1 TL Heavy Bolter with POTM and a 12 man capacity

That variant has a 10 man capacity last I checked.

Comparing the two---

that's two high S hits, and a TL HB vs your High Str Pie Plate
and a HB.

The weapons can be argued as something of a wash.

leaving A point of BS difference, some rear/side AV, the Transport Capacity and the POTMS vs 50? points and the number one can field per FOC (selection)?

Here is something we have been playing around with for Rough Riders

Rough Riders Troop [Points: 50]
Sargent/Rough Rider
Weapon Skill: 3/3
Ballistic Skills: 3/3
Strength: 3/3
Toughness: 4/4
Wounds: 1/ 1
Initiative: 3/3
Attacks: 2/1
Leadership: 8/7
Save: 5+/5+
Unit Type:
Cavalry. Rough Rider Sergeant is Cavalry (Character).
Unit Composition:
4 Rough Riders
1 Rough Rider Sergeant
SPECIAL RULES:
Special Training
Wargear:
>Flak Armor
>Las Pistol
>Close Combat Weapon
>Hunting lance [+2 I]
>Frag & Krak grenades
Options:
>May include up to five additional Rough Riders [10 PPM]
>The Rough Rider Sergeant may replace his Las Pistol and/or Close Combat Weapon with one of the following:
May replace his Close Combat With with one of the following:
>Power Weapon [5 Points]
>Power Fist [15 Points]
>Las Pistol [Free]
>Plasma Pistol [10 Points]
The Rough Rider Sergeant may take Melta Bombs [5 Points]
Up to two Rough Riders may replace their hunting lance with one of the Following:
>Flamer [5 Points]
>Grenade-Launcher [5 Points]
>Melta-Gun [10 Points]
>Plasma-Gun [15 Points]
>Plasma Pistol [15 Points]
One Model may take the following:
>Battle Standard (Gives Unit Stubborn) [10 Points]
Any Model may exchange their Las Pistol and/or Close Combat Weapon for one of the following.
>Las Gun [Free]
>Las Pistol [Free]
>Shotgun [Free]
>War Shield (+1 Save) [5 Points]
Special Training:
Roll 1d6 for Each Rough Rider Troop right after determining Warlord Trait. [Option Roll once and all get the same Special Training]
1] Coursers: Can Shoot after or Before Running
2] Death Riders: Gain +1 FNP [6+]
3] Detesters: Gain Gain Furious Charge
4] Lancers: Can still Assault after Running
5] Outriders: Gain Outflank
6] Raiders: Gain Hit and Run

I se a lot of posters arguing about the price of equipment for the guard. It is ridiculous of course that a power fist costs 25 points in a guard list, and the same for a death company jump troop, who can do much more damage with it.

In general I think there is too much equipment choices in 40k. it slows down the games, makes for strange lists and RPS lists... GW could sell much more models if they had 8 or 9 different types of IG troopers, but with set equipment. Grenaders, demolitions experts, bayonetters, plasma squad etc sort of like WarMaHordes does if you understand where I am trying to get?

...Rough Riders...

When it comes to Rough Riders whenever GW updates them they need to serious consider some important points...

Regardless of where they come from cavalry have always been regarded as elite troops relative to infantry. Rough Riders in whatever form need to be on that same level as Veterans and Storm Troopers rather than simply basic guardsmen on horses with a flaccid lance...

Would it hurt to simply give them true "Power lances?" -it's not as if anyone actually uses those despite being in the core rulebook.

The other big advantage of cavalry has always been their ability to carry heavier equipment than footslogging infantry. When a steed does all the work you can carry a heavier weapon than the infantry. This means heavier armor, more weapon, or both, while still retaining heighten mobility.

I think Rough Riders should be used to emphasize the "imperialness" of the Imperial Guard and to that end I see them a two unit in one kit... Rough Riders split into "Lancers" and "Dragoons". Lancers being the rough riders we've had but with tweaks to emphasize that assault and scout role, power lance and some sort of shield for a invulnerable armor save. Dragoons are more mid-to-close mobile firepower to help compensate for the slower static nature of purely gun line infantry; I picture them with carapace armor, a heavy las-carbine, and choice of special weapons.

Well Rough Riders have always been something of a favorite red-headed step child. GW has always loved them without actually showing them any love. Just a vague reference to Atilla the Hun that got included everywhere, but expanded on nowhere.

I still wouldn't take those rough riders.

Rough riders are something I really want to take, and a simple fix I see is simply give them the ability to assault after coming on from reserve. They would then work like a proper counter attack unit, and imagine how cool it would look for the static lines of infantry to be saved from the assaulting foe by a unit of mighty lancers, driving back the heretical filth with the emperor's fury!

Well some people won't take Ratlings or Ogryn, and some people won't take Khorne Berzerkers or Thousand Sons, and some people won't take etc... The fact some people are disinterested in a unit doesn't mean GW should ignore a unit completely. Most often when I hear a complaint about IG it's from people who want IG to be analogous to a modern army... That's simply not the case and the sooner IG depart from that notion the sooner they can incorporate more of what they need. 40k is suppose to be this anachronistic future wrought with medieval feudalism; as it is very little of that comes through. Rough riders and cavalry in general maybe a bit heavy handed thematically but it fits the character of the setting.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Well some people won't take Ratlings or Ogryn, and some people won't take Khorne Berzerkers or Thousand Sons, and some people won't take etc... The fact some people are disinterested in a unit doesn't mean GW should ignore a unit completely. Most often when I hear a complaint about IG it's from people who want IG to be analogous to a modern army... That's simply not the case and the sooner IG depart from that notion the sooner they can incorporate more of what they need. 40k is suppose to be this anachronistic future wrought with medieval feudalism; as it is very little of that comes through. Rough riders and cavalry in general maybe a bit heavy handed thematically but it fits the character of the setting.

Except that "anachronistic future wrought with medieval feudalism" isn't the rule of thumb.

Are there elements of feudalism in the culture of the Imperium? Of course. But that doesn't take away from the fact that there is room for armies like the Cadians which use combined arms tactics and have been fleshed out more recently to be in line with (relatively) modern schools of thought for warfare.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Well some people won't take Ratlings or Ogryn, and some people won't take Khorne Berzerkers or Thousand Sons, and some people won't take etc... The fact some people are disinterested in a unit doesn't mean GW should ignore a unit completely. Most often when I hear a complaint about IG it's from people who want IG to be analogous to a modern army... That's simply not the case and the sooner IG depart from that notion the sooner they can incorporate more of what they need. 40k is suppose to be this anachronistic future wrought with medieval feudalism; as it is very little of that comes through. Rough riders and cavalry in general maybe a bit heavy handed thematically but it fits the character of the setting.

Except that "anachronistic future wrought with medieval feudalism" isn't the rule of thumb.

Are there elements of feudalism in the culture of the Imperium? Of course. But that doesn't take away from the fact that there is room for armies like the Cadians which use combined arms tactics and have been fleshed out more recently to be in line with (relatively) modern schools of thought for warfare.

Are you arguing that there shouldn't be Rough Riders? -All I'm doing is arguing they should exist and need an update. I'm not insisting anyone has to use them.

This is ultimately a fictional setting or else marine bikers would be just as dead as our rough riders. And yet you have people who insist that because their Cadians use combined arm tactics that means rough riders shouldn't exist rather than asking themselves how would cavalry be used if they were institutionally forced on a regiment. Historically cavalry died to mass machinegun fire but you have to realize that was because they were used in a traditional fashion that left them relatively unsupported in the way that a combined arms approach would insist on them receiving support.

Rough Riders need an update and I'm just proposing that update should be within the character of the setting and that's where I prefer doubling down on the feudalism by pursuing two traditional forms of cavalry .

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Well some people won't take Ratlings or Ogryn, and some people won't take Khorne Berzerkers or Thousand Sons, and some people won't take etc... The fact some people are disinterested in a unit doesn't mean GW should ignore a unit completely. Most often when I hear a complaint about IG it's from people who want IG to be analogous to a modern army... That's simply not the case and the sooner IG depart from that notion the sooner they can incorporate more of what they need. 40k is suppose to be this anachronistic future wrought with medieval feudalism; as it is very little of that comes through. Rough riders and cavalry in general maybe a bit heavy handed thematically but it fits the character of the setting.

Except that "anachronistic future wrought with medieval feudalism" isn't the rule of thumb.

Are there elements of feudalism in the culture of the Imperium? Of course. But that doesn't take away from the fact that there is room for armies like the Cadians which use combined arms tactics and have been fleshed out more recently to be in line with (relatively) modern schools of thought for warfare.

Are you arguing that there shouldn't be Rough Riders? -All I'm doing is arguing they should exist and need an update. I'm not insisting anyone has to use them.

This is ultimately a fictional setting or else marine bikers would be just as dead as our rough riders. And yet you have people who insist that because their Cadians use combined arm tactics that means rough riders shouldn't exist rather than asking themselves how would cavalry be used if they were institutionally forced on a regiment. Historically cavalry died to mass machinegun fire but you have to realize that was because they were used in a traditional fashion that left them relatively unsupported in the way that a combined arms approach would insist on them receiving support.

Rough Riders need an update and I'm just proposing that update should be within the character of the setting and that's where I prefer doubling down on the feudalism by pursuing two traditional forms of cavalry .

There should be rough riders and there should be more modern forces. There should also be forces that have a mix of everything as "An anachronism is a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of person(s), events, objects, or customs from different periods of time.

All of these types of play should be possible and viable. Right now only a very small portion of guard tactics are represented in the book, and even less are viable. Light Infantry with sentinels, and rough riders should work differently than a mechanized force, and should also be at the very least semi feasible.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Well some people won't take Ratlings or Ogryn, and some people won't take Khorne Berzerkers or Thousand Sons, and some people won't take etc... The fact some people are disinterested in a unit doesn't mean GW should ignore a unit completely. Most often when I hear a complaint about IG it's from people who want IG to be analogous to a modern army... That's simply not the case and the sooner IG depart from that notion the sooner they can incorporate more of what they need. 40k is suppose to be this anachronistic future wrought with medieval feudalism; as it is very little of that comes through. Rough riders and cavalry in general maybe a bit heavy handed thematically but it fits the character of the setting.

I am interested in those units.

But with all of the WAAC players around, and the fact that they're never mechanically worth taking, means I won't.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Well some people won't take Ratlings or Ogryn, and some people won't take Khorne Berzerkers or Thousand Sons, and some people won't take etc... The fact some people are disinterested in a unit doesn't mean GW should ignore a unit completely. Most often when I hear a complaint about IG it's from people who want IG to be analogous to a modern army... That's simply not the case and the sooner IG depart from that notion the sooner they can incorporate more of what they need. 40k is suppose to be this anachronistic future wrought with medieval feudalism; as it is very little of that comes through. Rough riders and cavalry in general maybe a bit heavy handed thematically but it fits the character of the setting.

I agre with you completely, my favorite army is Steel Legion, and I don't think they should be modern, instead that would completely ruin their flavor. I actually think GW should have done sub-codexes for us instead of Marines, because we have unique groups and units, and each is artistically, thematically, and visually different, instead of just being the same looking guys in a different color. Also because I will take the average courageous guardsman who goes out to fight the horrors of 40k over the genetically engineered superman who is designed for it.

 triplegrim wrote:
I se a lot of posters arguing about the price of equipment for the guard. It is ridiculous of course that a power fist costs 25 points in a guard list, and the same for a death company jump troop, who can do much more damage with it.

In general I think there is too much equipment choices in 40k. it slows down the games, makes for strange lists and RPS lists... GW could sell much more models if they had 8 or 9 different types of IG troopers, but with set equipment. Grenaders, demolitions experts, bayonetters, plasma squad etc sort of like WarMaHordes does if you understand where I am trying to get?

This is how the Horus Heresy game does it.

I agree with a previous post here that the points should be used to balance the factions from a game-play point of view, not a fluff point of view. You could introduce something like a FOC to limit the number of units in an army or have specific unit restrictions like 0-1 per army.

BS3 guardsmen blows in current edition (np previous editions), but BS4 being uncommon fits the mold. BS4 tanks makes more sense for guardsmen as when firing you are relying on the tanks targeting systems not the person. Same for space marines right?

With the power creep in 7th the BS3 is alright with orders, but imho its the lasgun that blows, not the BS3. As a few posters said earlier on, firing 50 shots, rolling 50 dice to do 1 wound blows hard and eats alot of time.

Please o emperor give LR more hull points or bring back the old system for vehicles

Re: Ogryns, I think their fixes are easy:

- Make them 5-10 points cheaper.
- Change them from "Very bulky" to just "Bulky".
- Merge Ogryns and Bullgryns into a single unit and allow them to mix their loadout composition (Ripper gun/Grenadier gauntlet + Slab shield/Power maul + Brute shield) on a per model basis.
- *Maybe* allow them access to any Power weapon, instead of restricting them to just Power mauls, as they'd probably get a lot more mileage out of a Power axe.

Breton wrote:

an AV14/14/14 BS4 2 TL Lascannon 1 TL Heavy Bolter with POTM and a 12 man capacity

That variant has a 10 man capacity last I checked.

Comparing the two---

that's two high S hits, and a TL HB vs your High Str Pie Plate
and a HB.

The weapons can be argued as something of a wash.

leaving A point of BS difference, some rear/side AV, the Transport Capacity and the POTMS vs 50? points and the number one can field per FOC (selection)?

I stand corrected. A 10 man capacity.
Still does not remove the fact that it is far better than the Leman Russ. That 'some rear and side armour' essentially makes the Landraider immune to flanking shots with anything other than dedicated anti tank guns such as the Melta and Lascannon and also makes them immune to Krak Grenades.
And they cannot be rapid fired to death by a squad of basic infantry getting on their rear arc.
Not to mention that those two high S hits are TL. which makes them far more accurate.
Between a Leman Russ and a Landraider I will take the Landraider any day. It can actually hurt the Leman Russ.

Fingers crossed GW reads dakka dakka and implements some of these suggetsions

Before the new AM codex came out, people were already saying that IG happens to be static with little unit synergy. And they still removed HQs and units that gave a little of that synergy, nerfed the mobility knowing very well how 7th ed is going to look. I doubt the next AM codex is going to fix anything, unless it is a drastic codex rewrite. And when GW did something like that the last time in 7th, GK droped from 3 builds in a single codex to 4 usable units.

Vaktathi wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
A mere 10 points is even more ridiculous. That is so cheap as to be automatic, which defeats the point of IG being a basic human force.

Guard should be the WORST basic troopers in the galaxy. Period.

Huh? Worse than Grots?

They're not supposed to be ultra elite, but there are very definitely things that a guardsmen should be both better equipped and stat'd than. We're talking generally well trained human troops (not poorly trained conscripts, who have their own unit entry), some of whom have been exposed to military training their entire lives. There also have always been IG units that have been portrayed as very well trained and lavishly equipped, and, depending on the reigning GW design paradigm of the time, has sometimes been portrayed in the rules (e.g. all Cadians in 3E/4E were effectively BS "3.5").

. A human shooting as well as a augmented super soldier Space Marine or hypertwich Eldar is ridiculous. Offensive, really.

If you're offended over that, I don't know what to say. However, there have been BS4 guardsmen in every single edition of 40k ever.

Also remember basic Eldar, aside from Aspect Warriors & characters, were all WS3/BS3 for more than 90% of 40k's existence until they decided to change that very recently and to some degree of controversy. Humans weren't *that* far down the totem pole.

40-50 points is a good number, because it keeps BS4 very rare, truly exceptional.

Points costs are there to reflect the tabletop value of a unit, not to reflect background rarity. Otherwise a Tactical Marine would be 800,000,000 points next to a basic Guardsmen, and is why pricing things that way is terrible game design. 10pts would be an entirely appropriate points cost in terms of reflective tabletop value on many units, particularly those that rely single shot weapons and don't properly function within the current ruleset (e.g. Vanquishers).

EDIT: as a further point, I think it's time to start looking beyond stats as simple faction defining features. Even 70 year old tanks with crews that only had a few weeks training could hit targets hundreds of meters away with great accuracy, modern tanks moving at highway speeds can hit another moving target at a couple thousand meters away with 90%+ success rates.

Other games don't typically treat to-hit ability as a faction specific trait. Flames of War deals with to-hit rates depending on the opposing army's veterancy. Any conscript can be taught how to shoot modern weapons with some competency fairly quickly, it's up to the foe to make themselves hard to hit, and thus a Veteran enemy is very difficult to hit (knowing how to move from cover to cover, when to make their move, how to cover each other, etc) and sometimes even impossible to hit, while conscripts bumbling around in the open running human wave attacks are hit on 2's even by other conscripts.

Or one can look at something like Dropzone Commander, where to-hit rolls are generally weapon specific, with the "IG" style faction having just as many "hit on 2+" weapons as even the advanced cyborg humans and hyper-capable aliens, with similar power weapons, but don't necessarily have the same specialized support abilities or things like energy forcefields or blistering speed or raw resiliency.

First off, Grots, Conscripts and Guardians are not the standard troops of the Ork / IG / Eldar forces. The basic troopers are Orks Boyz, Guardsmen, and Aspect Warriors. Relative to every other army's basic troops (Boyz, Tac Marines, Aspect Warriors, Necron Warriors, Chaos Marines, etc.), Guardsmen should be the worst and their stats (and points) should reflect that.

Conscripts should be worse, and the d6 system should put them at BS2 (or even BS1). Some Cadians might be Veterans, warranting BS3.3, and the best trained Companies and Brigades might average BS3.1.

As above, the standard Eldar Trooper is a BS4 Aspect Warrior. Guardians have always been understat (should have been BS3.7). And yes, basic Humans SHOULD be that far down the totem pole. Making races distinctive is a good thing.

Again, 10 points is an auto-take, so it's a poor price. How would it be that EVERY SINGLE Russ / Hellhound / Valk on the tabletop wouldn't pay the 10 points? How would that be good design? Fact is, people take Pask, who's an expensive 0-1 upgrade. That means Vet Russes are properly balanced and costed and limited, and your proposed 10 point upgrade is nonsense.

40k uses WW1 technology. There are auto-targeters, but the crews are trained to disable them and use the manual aiming systems, with multiple redundant failsafes that are manually enabled and then disabled as part of the firing sequence. There is a prayer that is recited by the entire crew at each step of the firing sequence, which makes it pretty hard to hit something. To compare with WW2 or moderns is completely wrong. Also, the 40k scale is wrong. 40k should actually be played with Epic Minis (which is a different issue).

I am aware of how FOW works, and it's a better engine. 40k isn't a simulation. It's a fantasy game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Again, 10 points is an auto-take, so it's a poor price. How would it be that EVERY SINGLE Russ / Hellhound / Valk on the tabletop wouldn't pay the 10 points? How would that be good design? Fact is, people take Pask, who's an expensive 0-1 upgrade. That means Vet Russes are properly balanced and costed and limited, and your proposed 10 point upgrade is nonsense.

No, 10pts is not auto-take. Paying 10pts for every chimera rapidly adds up to the cost of having one or even two extra chimeras, which are more useful in putting more effective shots down range, and better saturate the field with armour. In a 1500pts army, I could field some ~5-6 chimeras, and paying 10pts for each would not be worth it if I could have an extra chimera or Wyvern or Hydra or infantry squad, or better wargear options, or advisors.

Further, on just about any blast vehicle (most of the Guards' tanks), the BS4 is mostly wasted and not worth the 10pts. A vanilla russ seeing a -1" deviation is hardly worth it for 10pts, and especially if you were doing it army wide. In a 1500pts game, its not unreasonable to have in excess of a dozen tanks, and that upgrade would literally cost you an extra tank or two. The only tanks that would see a very real boost would be the Exterminator and Punisher, and really only the Punisher. Chimeras would receive some benefit, but a BS4 multilaser and occasionally heavy bolter too is so insignificant an upgrade compared to the standard BS3 as to be hardly worth mentioning in any competitive sense.

And the tank commanders are different, because they also grant Tank Orders, and Pask grants specific (and good) bonuses to a few already desirable variants. His points costs are justified far more than looking at his BS4.

Seriously, of all the examples you used, I'm laughing because the Hellhound and Banewolf can't even make use of their BS stat for their main cannons. Valks have pathetic guns to begin with, the Vendetta is already TL'd, and most of the other Guard weaponry is already TL'd or a blast and therefore see little improvement from a bump in BS, especially at 10pts.

All that said, I'd be fine it was 15pts, if only at first to play test and err on the side of caution. Anything more is ridiculous.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

First off, Grots, Conscripts and Guardians are not the standard troops of the Ork / IG / Eldar forces. The basic troopers are Orks Boyz, Guardsmen, and Aspect Warriors. Relative to every other army's basic troops (Boyz, Tac Marines, Aspect Warriors, Necron Warriors, Chaos Marines, etc.), Guardsmen should be the worst and their stats (and points) should reflect that.

That's a rather narrow definition of "Basic troop", and would very much depend on the type of force in question.

Even if we accepted that however, I would argue that Guardians are very much basic troops. They crew almost all Eldar vehicles as well as operate all heavy weapons & artillery platforms, operate as "cavalry" equivalents on jetbikes, and undertake infantry roles. In fact, they are routinely noted as being amongst the most common Eldar warriors. One can very easily make armies composed of nothing but Guardian units, one cannot make an army of Aspect Warriors without any sort of Guardians (including vehicle crews) that actually functions.

Conscripts should be worse, and the d6 system should put them at BS2 (or even BS1). Some Cadians might be Veterans, warranting BS3.3, and the best trained Companies and Brigades might average BS3.1.

Ok, methinks we're being overly harsh on the poor guardsmen here, and enforcing a view of what BS should be that nothing GW has ever produced would back up. There have always been BS4 Guard meodels in IG armies going back to RT. BS1 has been reserved almost exclusively for units which have been impaired for some reason or another, typically units that are firing blindly (either because they've actually been blinded or are not actually looking at what they're shooting at because they're hiding/taking cover).

If we're assuming that the best trained IG units should only barely warrant BS3, that's a definite revision on how they've been portrayed in the past, and not reflective of any way GW has chosen to portray them. GW have consistently portrayed BS3 as the base for a typical averaged "Trained soldier", with BS2 being used for unimpaired but untrained/uncaring units

As above, the standard Eldar Trooper is a BS4 Aspect Warrior. Guardians have always been understat (should have been BS3.7). And yes, basic Humans SHOULD be that far down the totem pole. Making races distinctive is a good thing.

Distinctive is one thing, insisting they should always have amazing stats "because Elves" is not. BS4 doesn't make Eldar distinctive, it just makes them BS4 (and devalues of BS4 meant on Aspect Warriors). Part of what I'd liked about Eldar until recently was that they didn't fall super hard into the "Elves are Better" trap. What makes a faction distinctive is their weaponry, style of play, unit makeup, and look. Simply being all BS4 is a really lame way to do that.

Again, 10 points is an auto-take, so it's a poor price. How would it be that EVERY SINGLE Russ / Hellhound / Valk on the tabletop wouldn't pay the 10 points? How would that be good design? Fact is, people take Pask, who's an expensive 0-1 upgrade. That means Vet Russes are properly balanced and costed and limited, and your proposed 10 point upgrade is nonsense.

One can tweak that as necessary, 10pts on this unit, 15pts on this unit, etc.

I can think of all sorts of things I wouldn't buy that on.At 10pts, it's not worth it on Chimeras, nor Hellhounds where I'm not using BS in the first place. Not gonna bother on a Valkyrie that's supposed to be transporting stuff and spending most of its time jinking or firing weapons where BS4 isn't going to make a huge difference anyway. I wouldn't bother with it on Ordnance equipped Russ tanks. I certainly wouldn't buy it for a Taurox. Buying it for a Wyvern would be pointless. There's all sorts of things you'd never buy it for.

Typically, in the past, GW has treated a BS upgrade as a ~10pt deal, sometimes 15., Look at Company Command Squads, they pay 20pts over a Platoon Command squad for both BS4 and a greater array of more powerful Orders and the ability to issue twice as many, assuming BS4 is 10pts is probably pretty safe there. One can see this in the Tank Commander upgrade as well, they pay 30pts to get BS4 and access to Orders, BS4 fits nicely as ~10-15pts of that.

One can also look at other sources, like IA1, where BS4 HQ & Elite Russ tanks are 10pts more than BS3 Troop Equivalents. or IA13 where everything starts at BS2 and can upgrade to BS3 for 10pts (which is by no means always taken).

As for Pask, people take Pask to get Rending on a 20 shot gun. They don't take Pask for just for BS4. I don't think I've seen Pask used in anything but a Punisher, and certainly not on anything that uses a Blast.

30-40pts however is simply completely out of bounds for how much value that brings, there's nothing in an IG army where paying 40pts just for BS4 is going to be consistently worth it, and assigning that value simply to represent rarity means it simply might as well just not be an option for how often people would consider taking it.

40k uses WW1 technology. There are auto-targeters, but the crews are trained to disable them and use the manual aiming systems, with multiple redundant failsafes that are manually enabled and then disabled as part of the firing sequence. There is a prayer that is recited by the entire crew at each step of the firing sequence, which makes it pretty hard to hit something. To compare with WW2 or moderns is completely wrong.

This varies extremely wildly by author and timepoint in GW's lifetime. I've certainly read GW stories where the operation of tanks was practically identical to WW2 operate with none of the religious mumbo-jumbo ever mentioned.

Also, the 40k scale is wrong. 40k should actually be played with Epic Minis (which is a different issue).

Absolutely at this point it should, 40k at this point has run away on itself.

I am aware of how FOW works, and it's a better engine. 40k isn't a simulation. It's a fantasy game.

Right, but that doesn't mean we can't use some of these ideas from others games, slavishly adhering to specific stat's in what is effectively a binary range, means that there's essentially no room for abstraction.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

First off, Grots, Conscripts and Guardians are not the standard troops of the Ork / IG / Eldar forces. The basic troopers are Orks Boyz, Guardsmen, and Aspect Warriors. Relative to every other army's basic troops (Boyz, Tac Marines, Aspect Warriors, Necron Warriors, Chaos Marines, etc.), Guardsmen should be the worst and their stats (and points) should reflect that.

Conscripts should be worse, and the d6 system should put them at BS2 (or even BS1). Some Cadians might be Veterans, warranting BS3.3, and the best trained Companies and Brigades might average BS3.1.

As above, the standard Eldar Trooper is a BS4 Aspect Warrior. Guardians have always been understat (should have been BS3.7). And yes, basic Humans SHOULD be that far down the totem pole. Making races distinctive is a good thing.

Again, 10 points is an auto-take, so it's a poor price. How would it be that EVERY SINGLE Russ / Hellhound / Valk on the tabletop wouldn't pay the 10 points? How would that be good design? Fact is, people take Pask, who's an expensive 0-1 upgrade. That means Vet Russes are properly balanced and costed and limited, and your proposed 10 point upgrade is nonsense.

40k uses WW1 technology. There are auto-targeters, but the crews are trained to disable them and use the manual aiming systems, with multiple redundant failsafes that are manually enabled and then disabled as part of the firing sequence. There is a prayer that is recited by the entire crew at each step of the firing sequence, which makes it pretty hard to hit something. To compare with WW2 or moderns is completely wrong. Also, the 40k scale is wrong. 40k should actually be played with Epic Minis (which is a different issue).

I am aware of how FOW works, and it's a better engine. 40k isn't a simulation. It's a fantasy game.

Practically everybody else has already answered you, so I'll leave this short
-Pask is not worth the points. The only time you ever see him is on a Punisher because of the unique benefeits he gives a punisher. If he truly was worth the points, he'd actually be taken on something besides a Punisher.
-You're not paying the 70pts for Pask for just BS4. Your paying 70 pts for Preffered Enemy for him and his unit, tank orders, Tank Hunter, and a special benefeit to the tank's main gun, and BS4. And if the entire crew prays before each shot, a lot of 40k writers have been neglecting their duty. Or just realized how idiotic that sounded.

They fix guard by fixing the other broken armies. It's not GW's rules, it is the codexes that re the problem. 3rd edition was way more fun than this edition. Because the codexes were simple.

General Hobbs wrote:


They fix guard by fixing the other broken armies. It's not GW's rules, it is the codexes that re the problem. 3rd edition was way more fun than this edition. Because the codexes were simple.

Its both.

Codices are a problem, but the core rules are equally bloated, poorly written, and tend to favour certain elements over others.