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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ultimately however, expecting these other units to get toned down is not something anyone can count on or expect.

As opposed to Ogryn buffs?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ultimately however, expecting these other units to get toned down is not something anyone can count on or expect.

As opposed to Ogryn buffs?

With the track GW is on, it's more likely than the other units getting toned down, particularly as IG hasn't gone through the current codex-power-inflation scheme yet, and it's just one book as opposed to many.

Ultimately, even if you removed TWC's and Wraiths, Ogryns are still bad, even next to many other "bad" or merely "mediocre" units

Guard isn't supposed to smash face in CC. Don't expect much.

Personally I don't feel Ogryns or Ratlings really fit the core theme anyway; they'd be better off in an Abhumans supplement where somebody could invest the time and effort to actually make them more interesting and developed units.

Same with Tempestus, make the codex reflect modern SF (high speed low drag!) with precision weapons, intelligence-driven operations and a light logistical footprint. The Taurox Prime MRAP is fine, just add wheels for god's sakes. A quad ATV and a pick-up would be great too.

Then, go back to basics and refocus Guard properly on WW2-style combined arms warfare. Why isn't there a cheap unarmed truck you can squadron that lets you move an entire infantry platoon around for less than 50pts? Why isn't there a sensible way to protect your backfield aside from bubble wrap? Why isn't there any coordination between forward forces and artillery?

Personally I think there's plenty of room for thinking outside the box. Example:

- Every unit should have a Vox upgrade available, including tanks and artillery
- Command units should be able to offer mutual support across the different Arms (for example, Danger Close artillery becomes twin-linked if the friendly unit has a Vox)
- Units become stronger when working in synergy and as intended (ie. non-scattering blasts gain Shred)

There are a few classic principles of war like mobility, flexibility, firepower, shock action, communications, logistics, etc. I think this is where a redesign should start -- not turning every unit into Cantopek Wraiths 2.0. We can do better!

 TheSilo wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
Random crazy idea about the Basilisk: instead of dropping its price or anything, what about making its shot use the Apocalyptic Mega-Blast template (the 12" three-in-one blast)? The inner blast is S9 AP3 as normal, the middle blast is S6 AP5, and the outer blast is S3 AP-. The ultimate artillery piece or 'Nice Green Tide You Have There'.

Two very simple fixes, taken from the original Cityfight book, that would remedy the Leman Russ ordnance issues, these should apply to all armies:

- Ordnance, these weapons hit with such massive force that they shatter trees and trenches alike, all cover saves against ordnance weapons -1 to their dice roll.

- Earthshaker ordnance, the bone-rattling impact of artillery and demolisher shells rips through buildings and bone like paper. Cover saves suffer an additional -1 to their dice rolls when rolling for wounds taken from ordnance weapons that are strength 9 or 10. This is cumulative with the -1 from the ordnance special rule.

Now you can actually use the demolisher and basilisk for their intended purposes, laying siege to entrenched infantry and vehicles.

Now you see the problem with this is that other armies also utilise the Demolisher Cannon and the Battlecannon meaning that GW would also have to go and re-write a lot of other things.... Unless they made it an Imperial Guard specific thing like a form of specialist shells or representing the expertise of the gunners.
Combining this with the LB rule and the Leman Russ would finally enter the path to competitiveness again.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Guard isn't supposed to smash face in CC. Don't expect much.

Personally I don't feel Ogryns or Ratlings really fit the core theme anyway; they'd be better off in an Abhumans supplement where somebody could invest the time and effort to actually make them more interesting and developed units.

I want an Abhumans dex with Spiderman.

That'd be funny as gak, until we realize the model is in fact a distorted human body with extra legs coming out the back...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kinda assassinated my own idea there...

 TheSilo wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
Random crazy idea about the Basilisk: instead of dropping its price or anything, what about making its shot use the Apocalyptic Mega-Blast template (the 12" three-in-one blast)? The inner blast is S9 AP3 as normal, the middle blast is S6 AP5, and the outer blast is S3 AP-. The ultimate artillery piece or 'Nice Green Tide You Have There'.

Two very simple fixes, taken from the original Cityfight book, that would remedy the Leman Russ ordnance issues, these should apply to all armies:

- Ordnance, these weapons hit with such massive force that they shatter trees and trenches alike, all cover saves against ordnance weapons -1 to their dice roll.

- Earthshaker ordnance, the bone-rattling impact of artillery and demolisher shells rips through buildings and bone like paper. Cover saves suffer an additional -1 to their dice rolls when rolling for wounds taken from ordnance weapons that are strength 9 or 10. This is cumulative with the -1 from the ordnance special rule.

Now you can actually use the demolisher and basilisk for their intended purposes, laying siege to entrenched infantry and vehicles.

Personally i think ordnance just needs to get concussive but -1 cover sounds really cool.

Also i think a simple BRB FAQ of no jinks against barrage (since how the feth did you see that coming that you can react to it....) would add a bit more stratigery to a game that sorely lacks it.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Guard isn't supposed to smash face in CC. Don't expect much

There's a difference between "this is not a CC army" and "the couple CC units they do have are non-functional". If Ogryns and Rough Riders are going to be so bad as to be incapable of serving a role, we might as well just remove them from the codex.

It's one thing if they were just mediocre. But these units are so bad they might as well just not exist for how much they are used.

Personally I don't feel Ogryns or Ratlings really fit the core theme anyway; they'd be better off in an Abhumans supplement where somebody could invest the time and effort to actually make them more interesting and developed units.

This is probably highly unlikely to ever happen, and these units have been part of the IG army as long as it has existed.

RE: Ordinance, I would outright prefer if Ordnance just gave a -1 to cover saves instead of re-rolling armor penetration. Ordnance weapons suck ass at destroying vehicles anyway due to hullpoints and the change to the vehicle damage table, so I'd change its focus to anti-infantry. -1 to cover saves is a fluffy and effective representation of how ordnance weapons would work in reality, without being as broken as flat-out ignores cover.

Ordnance weapons that are specifically designed to destroy armor should just have armorbane or the one that allows re-rolls to pen. Can't recall the name.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
RE: Ordinance, I would outright prefer if Ordnance just gave a -1 to cover saves instead of re-rolling armor penetration. Ordnance weapons suck ass at destroying vehicles anyway due to hullpoints and the change to the vehicle damage table, so I'd change its focus to anti-infantry. -1 to cover saves is a fluffy and effective representation of how ordnance weapons would work in reality, without being as broken as flat-out ignores cover.

Ordnance weapons that are specifically designed to destroy armor should just have armorbane or the one that allows re-rolls. Can't recall the name.

Aye, Ignores Cover would remove the purpose and role of the Eradicator.

Some form of extra damage against vehicles would be nice too, maybe a +1 on the damage chart or taking off 2 HP as opposed to one (and no I do not care how big and well armoured your Land Raider is, it has just been hit by a 150mm HE shell. What little is left of its facing armour will be gathered for use as a colander or possibly an ornamental example of a modern art fixture).

As to Ogryns I do feel that they need a massive buff. Whilst the Imperial Guard may not be a close combat based army on a whole there are some units within the book intended to function as close quarters combatants, namely the Ogryns and Bullgryns. However as has been put forth already these units utterly suck, costing a hell of a lot of points for just a single model (40 for Ogryns, 45 for Bullgryns) and failing miserably to do what they are intended too (Ogryns relying on amassed attacks to get through your opponents armour and Bullgryns being okay against light infantry but utterly worthless against anything else) meaning that as an actual viable choice they are pointless. Other armies have the odd unit that goes against their mainstream design (The Kroot for the Tau, the Centurion for the Space Marine, etc) and provides some form of specialist support to shore them up in an area that they otherwise fail in.These units rarely cost even half as much as the Ogryns/Bullgryns and yet prove to be just as effective. Why?

That said and more to the point we really need to look at the Imperial Guard and try to uncover the defining aspect. Tanks are most certainly a contender, along with Infantry. Sadly though we do neither well, suffering from a lack of effective units in both of these categories and owing to the "Space marines must be better" syndrome things look bleak for us. It is indeed highly unlikely that GW will risk their poster boys (and the whines of all the children whom play Space Smurfs) by making the Imperial Guard codex anything close to the level of the Space marine codex. All in all things look bleak.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
RE: Ordinance, I would outright prefer if Ordnance just gave a -1 to cover saves instead of re-rolling armor penetration. Ordnance weapons suck ass at destroying vehicles anyway due to hullpoints and the change to the vehicle damage table, so I'd change its focus to anti-infantry. -1 to cover saves is a fluffy and effective representation of how ordnance weapons would work in reality, without being as broken as flat-out ignores cover.

Ordnance weapons that are specifically designed to destroy armor should just have armorbane or the one that allows re-rolls to pen. Can't recall the name.

Armourbane gives a 2D6 to pen. Would be handy, but would make the Vanquisher useless if the rule is just handed out.

 Selym wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
RE: Ordinance, I would outright prefer if Ordnance just gave a -1 to cover saves instead of re-rolling armor penetration. Ordnance weapons suck ass at destroying vehicles anyway due to hullpoints and the change to the vehicle damage table, so I'd change its focus to anti-infantry. -1 to cover saves is a fluffy and effective representation of how ordnance weapons would work in reality, without being as broken as flat-out ignores cover.

Ordnance weapons that are specifically designed to destroy armor should just have armorbane or the one that allows re-rolls to pen. Can't recall the name.

Armourbane gives a 2D6 to pen. Would be handy, but would make the Vanquisher useless if the rule is just handed out.

Yep, please let us not invalidate the Vanquisher any more so than it already is.

Tanks are likely to get a Formation that does something with Ordnance, I think.

Give Ordnance Armourbane, and then:

Vanquisher Cannon:
Range 72" // Str 8 // Ap 1 // Ordnance 1, Critical Hit!

Critical Hit! If the to-penetrate roll is 3 points or more above the armour value that was hit, this shot does 2 HP damage, and has an extra +1 on the damage table

Pure genius, IMO.

 Selym wrote:
Give Ordnance Armourbane, and then:

Vanquisher Cannon:
Range 72" // Str 8 // Ap 1 // Ordnance 1, Critical Hit!

Critical Hit! If the to-penetrate roll is 3 points or more above the armour value that was hit, this shot does 2 HP damage, and has an extra +1 on the damage table

Pure genius, IMO.

The one modicifation I would make to this is to give the Vanquisher a +3 to the damage table anyway, increasing the chances of it oneshotting a tank it penetrates to 50%. Add in your Critical Hit! rule and with a good enough penetration the Vanquisher will be knocking out tanks on a 3+, something it needs to do.

 master of ordinance wrote:
That said and more to the point we really need to look at the Imperial Guard and try to uncover the defining aspect.

Well said. Any redesign should start first with this -- armies are usually designed around their common Special Rules to give some kind of unified gameplay, which is why throwing out unit buffs isn't the best place to start.

Guard revolves around:
- Mass
- Supporting leadership
- Blast weapons
- Orders
- Inter-arms cooperation

So I'd start first with this. Can anyone else add to the list?

Yoyoyo wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
That said and more to the point we really need to look at the Imperial Guard and try to uncover the defining aspect.

Well said. Any redesign should start first with this -- armies are usually designed around their common Special Rules to give some kind of unified gameplay, which is why throwing out unit buffs isn't the best place to start.

Guard revolves around:
- Mass
- Supporting leadership
- Blast weapons
- Orders
- Inter-arms cooperation

So I'd start first with this. Can anyone else add to the list?

Tanks, tanks have always been a defining feature of the Guard.

I don't have anything to add to the list, but I'm going to use it to detail the issues in the codex.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
That said and more to the point we really need to look at the Imperial Guard and try to uncover the defining aspect.

Well said. Any redesign should start first with this -- armies are usually designed around their common Special Rules to give some kind of unified gameplay, which is why throwing out unit buffs isn't the best place to start.

Guard revolves around:
- Mass High shot - high strength spam had made this only somewhat of an advantage. Outnumbering your opponent 3:1 is not as important as it used to be
- Supporting leadership Tactical, but a weakness of the IG. Other armies have direct leadership, and thus morale and effectiveness cannot be singled out and killed.
- Blast weapons Steadily becoming less and less effective. Useless against armour, and of limited use against infantry in the current format.
- Orders A Good concept, but inefficiently implemented. Should be expanded on.
- Inter-arms cooperation Much like real life, units are co-dependent. Other armies operate on individual merits, however, and find it all to easy to pick apart an IG battle structure.

So I'd start first with this. Can anyone else add to the list?

 Vaktathi wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Guard isn't supposed to smash face in CC. Don't expect much

There's a difference between "this is not a CC army" and "the couple CC units they do have are non-functional". If Ogryns and Rough Riders are going to be so bad as to be incapable of serving a role, we might as well just remove them from the codex.

It's one thing if they were just mediocre. But these units are so bad they might as well just not exist for how much they are used.

Personally I don't feel Ogryns or Ratlings really fit the core theme anyway; they'd be better off in an Abhumans supplement where somebody could invest the time and effort to actually make them more interesting and developed units.

This is probably highly unlikely to ever happen, and these units have been part of the IG army as long as it has existed.

Some people don't like abhumans, but for me they're part of what make the Imperial Guard feel like this larger intergalactic military. Many want Imperial Guard to be an analogue to a modern military, those players are most often those that dislike Abhumans. I understand the people who want to play them that way, but its ultimately a very unimaginative approach to the army and a bit lazy when it comes design. As long as they're approached as just an analogue they will never have as strong a presence as they deserve. When you look at the IG and Solar Auxillia that FW have done it shows there is plenty of room for something less bland.

Ogryns with their most recent update I think made the move in the right direction, though they are still lacking. They're a defensive close combat unit and they've certainly gotten better in that regard.

I think when it comes to Rough Riders, the Death Korp of Krieg's Deathriders should be the starting point. They're actually a bit survivable, reasonably priced point-wise, and actually stand a chance of killing a Marine tactical squad. Broken record, but just like all of human history Rough Riders should be comprised of elite soldiers on the same tier as Storm Troopers and Veterans, instead of being line guardsmen on horseback. Also would it be so bad to just make their hunting lances, power lances? -Combined with hit and run and that could actually accomplish something more significant.

The problem is that Rough Riders have never once been described as "elite soldiers". They can certainly include "elite soldiers", but when you have entire huge formations of Rough Riders from backwoods planets the chances of "elite soldiers" being the rule rather than the exception goes down.

@aka_mythos

That's the thing; how is IG going to leverage a defensive CC unit in the context of their overall strategy?

How does the Ogryn play with the wider forces?

I feel like they're a unit that dates back to when 40k was simply transplanting Fantasy units (ogres; halflings) into the race-equivalent 40k armies. I don't see intergalactic military, I just see dated game design from the 80's. As long as the IG is a hodgepodge of units without holistic design, they aren't going to make much sense on the tabletop either.

Ogryns may be a beloved unit, hence giving them the love they deserve, but it doesn't cancel out that issues with internal balance AKA coherent design.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Also would it be so bad to just make their hunting lances, power lances? -Combined with hit and run and that could actually accomplish something more significant.

I'm not sure about that. You're talking about replacing S5 I5 weapons with S4 I3 weapons. Considering their statine, I doubt many will survive to hit the enemy at all, let alone hit and run afterwards.

I think the initiative bonus really is important on such slow and fragile models.


With regard to Ogryns, might it be better to take them in a slightly different direction? Perhaps, rather than having them be crap melee units with crap guns, they should be mediocre melee units with good guns. So, they become more of a shooty unit, that won't just fold in melee.

As said gentlemen (and ladies), we need excellent definition of issues to direct solutions. We need to put the army before the units; otherwise we never get to coherent and unified design.

Following up Selym's excellent summary of the issues, these things are needed:

- Some form of greater protection from shooting; cover saves probably make the most sense as T3 and 5+ won't change
- Greater depth within the IG's leadership; commanders dying will happen, so there needs to be a mechanic to give IG more LD depth
- Some kind of retooling of blast weaponry; lots of good suggestions in the thread here already.

Next. We need to think about what the army should looks like on the table; what are the major units, how should it deploy, how should it move, how does it win, how does it lose. At that point we all agree (yay!), we finally get to brainstorm fixes.

Core units: The core units are obviously the real-life combat arms : Armour, Infantry, and Artillery (we're leaving out Combat Engineering and Air Defense/Aviation).

Deployment: Typically long-range fire support in the back, shock units staged in front, and follow-on forces protected and ready to advance.

How should it move: Combined arms tactics usually mean a mix of mechanized (armoured) and motorized (unarmoured) transports; tanks are highly mobile and usually spearhead the assault. Long-range fire support isn't supposed to be racing onto objectives!

How does it win: Fire support disrupts the enemy army, armour applies the speed and concentration of force needed to assault objectives, infantry provides close protection to armour, cleans up what's left and subsequently consolidates to hold ground.

How does it lose: Enemy armies disrupt one of the 3 major components of our army; we lose synergy and thus effectiveness. Keep in mind this shouldn't necessarily be easy!

Keep in mind this is only my opinion. I think this format is good though, so if you want to take a stab at defining how the IG should play yourself, here is Form 7216-B. Please follow the proper rules of staff writing when submitting to the Administratrum for review

Core units:
Deployment:
How should it move:
How does it win:
How does it lose:

Well I like that idea and I cant think much of way to improve on it just now, but I can tell you how the IG currently work:

Core units: Leman Russ Tanks and Veteran Sections with Company Command Squads and Tank Commanders

Deployment: The Leman Russ are deployed in a dug in position with the Infantry surrounding them in a term coined by the troops 'Bubble wrapping'

How should it move: Move? Whats that? The whole army sits in its defensive position as moving will A) Reduce the effective firepower of heavy weapon equipped sections and B) Take you closer to the enemy, something that you do not want

How does it win: With enough prayers to the dice gods you may be able to halt the enemies advance before they slaughter you. If they are not using Drop Pods, Deepstrike, heavy armour, assault vehicles, cover, etc

How does it lose: Usually when you opponents troops pass wind and massacre a third of your infantry, then shoot the rest and finally charge your tanks and kill them.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
Random crazy idea about the Basilisk: instead of dropping its price or anything, what about making its shot use the Apocalyptic Mega-Blast template (the 12" three-in-one blast)? The inner blast is S9 AP3 as normal, the middle blast is S6 AP5, and the outer blast is S3 AP-. The ultimate artillery piece or 'Nice Green Tide You Have There'.

Two very simple fixes, taken from the original Cityfight book, that would remedy the Leman Russ ordnance issues, these should apply to all armies:

- Ordnance, these weapons hit with such massive force that they shatter trees and trenches alike, all cover saves against ordnance weapons -1 to their dice roll.

- Earthshaker ordnance, the bone-rattling impact of artillery and demolisher shells rips through buildings and bone like paper. Cover saves suffer an additional -1 to their dice rolls when rolling for wounds taken from ordnance weapons that are strength 9 or 10. This is cumulative with the -1 from the ordnance special rule.

Now you can actually use the demolisher and basilisk for their intended purposes, laying siege to entrenched infantry and vehicles.

Now you see the problem with this is that other armies also utilise the Demolisher Cannon and the Battlecannon meaning that GW would also have to go and re-write a lot of other things.... Unless they made it an Imperial Guard specific thing like a form of specialist shells or representing the expertise of the gunners.
Combining this with the LB rule and the Leman Russ would finally enter the path to competitiveness again.

I don't see that as a particularly big problem. Ordnance weapons as a whole are massively underutilized, and large blast weapons are not often used. From a gameplay perspective, and real-world perspective, the role of blast weapons is to clear enemies out of cover. But currently it is much more effective to shoot machine guns at targets in cover, that's the opposite of the real world where machine guns decimate targets in the open and artillery is used to destroy cover. IG have the most ordnance out of every army, but there's nothing wrong with a slight buff to vindicators and defiler battle cannons, especially since it would open up new tactical options where players are faced with a legitimate choice between rapid fire and large blast.

2d6 and pick the highest for armor pen is not enough to offset that it forces vehicles to snap shoot everything else. Multi-shot weapons stack much more effectively with psychic powers and other special rules.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well I like that idea and I cant think much of way to improve on it just now, but I can tell you how the IG currently work...

I don't think the Comissariat is going to appreciate your frank approval of the ground situation, Major

 vipoid wrote:

With regard to Ogryns, might it be better to take them in a slightly different direction? Perhaps, rather than having them be crap melee units with crap guns, they should be mediocre melee units with good guns. So, they become more of a shooty unit, that won't just fold in melee.

Honestly, they need to be able to Overwatch with Blast weapons and the Grenadier Gauntlets and Ripper Guns should be Blast with a decent statline.
Grenadier Gauntlets should be S4 AP5 Assault 3
Ripper Guns should be S5 AP4 Assault 3

I, personally, have had some success with Bullgryn but if we could get a "Supporting Fire" styled rule for Guard and things of that nature they would move from "Meh, why would I?" to "Eh, why not?"

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ultimately however, expecting these other units to get toned down is not something anyone can count on or expect.

As opposed to Ogryn buffs?

I support a significant Ogryn cost reduction. Ogryns are grossly overpriced at 40+ pts per model. Get them down to 20, even 25 pts per model, and they make a lot more sense. Drop them to W2, if necessary, but pricing that high is crazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Guard isn't supposed to smash face in CC. Don't expect much

There's a difference between "this is not a CC army" and "the couple CC units they do have are non-functional". If Ogryns and Rough Riders are going to be so bad as to be incapable of serving a role, we might as well just remove them from the codex.

Ogryns aren't really a CC unit, they're close-in firepower with a (bad) option to take CCWs.

What's missing is giving Conscripts the option to trade their Lasgun for a CCW. They're the models that should fight in HtH.

Our elites section needs all kinds of work.

I think the obvious fix to ogryns would be a cost reduction and a stronger focus on specific battlefield roles. I.e. instead of being a sorta close combat, sorta bubble wrap you double down on one.

Ogryns drop to 30 points per model, lose hammer of wrath, gain carapace armor, and are bulky not very bulky. Now you can squeeze 5 + an IC into a chimera. Give them ripper pistols and CCW, now they're a decent mobile close assault force with moderate survivability and 4 S5 attacks per model.

Bullgryns lose their grenadier gauntlets. They now have slab shields and power mauls at 40 points per model. Grenadier gauntlets are mostly useless and brute shields are mostly useless. Now bullgryns are a much more effective counter-assault, defensive force.

Scions is an easy fix. Special rule change, clarion vox net: scion units equipped with a vox may receive orders issued from any range as long as the ordering unit is also equipped with a vox or is embarked on a command vehicle. Now FRF with hellguns is a lot easier to execute, bring it down with BS4 plasma guns is a serious threat when you deep strike, etc.

Ratlings, allow them to be taken 0-1 per platoon, they're now troops (i.e. objective secured).

Wyrdvane psykers, new special rule, for the glory of the Emperor: trained not only in the ways of harnessing the warp, but also indoctrinated into the Imperial Creed, wyrdvanes will not hesitate to sacrifice themselves for the good of mankind. When this unit attempts to cast psychic powers, after you roll the dice, you may re-roll one warp charge die each time you attempt to manifest a power. Every time you opt to re-roll one of the warp dice, this unit suffers one wound.

Conceptually, the oddity for me is that IG have basically NO CC units, aside from the absolutely terrible Bullgryn and Rough Rider choices. Which is strange, as the CC armies (i.e. Quins, Orks, Nids) can still shoot. Everybody else has awesome guns or actual fighty units (e.g. Kroot, ASMs).

I wonder if solving the CC problem is as simple as:
1. having all IG Snap Shot at BS2, and
2. allowing all IG to Snap Shot non-Heavy weapons in CC instead of fighting.

So, instead of swinging a S3 AP- stick in CC, a Guardsman squeezes off a couple Lasgun rounds. Or Plasma shots.

That might go a long way toward making those expensive Guard special weapons worth paying SM points, while making them not roll over when assaulted.

Oh yeah, bump the Chimera to 12/11/10 - IG need Transport with a bit more protection.

Guard have CC enablers, not CC units.

They're supposed to help your boys hold, or take on the heavy lifting themselves (Lord Commissars are WS5) when the going gets too tough.

Ogryns and Rough Riders are auxiliaries. Giving line Guardmen specal snowflake rules, though, goes against the nature of what IG should be.