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.

 vipoid wrote:
Well, Wyverns do outcompete most of our other anti-infantry units (though as much because our other units are crap as because of the wyverns being too strong).

It's certainly hard to call them OP - especially when they're useless/ineffective against most of the really OP units currently in the game.

But, I feel the real problem with wyverns is that they're a bad element for the game in general. It's so good at its job that it makes infantry even less desirable than they already are.

And now I'm just remembering that the thunderfire cannon also exists. Sigh.

I sense another soul whom longs for the game to be reset to 4th/5th edition and reworked from there. No more Lords of War, no more Scatbike spam and certainly no more Unbound. Knights can also go and become an apocalypse only army. No more amassed units that ignore basic core rules and effects. No more D spam. No more Ignores Cover/Ignores Terrain on many many units, no more hard counters to everything. Codexes that are internally balanced and externally balanced.

 master of ordinance wrote:

I sense another soul whom longs for the game to be reset to 4th/5th edition and reworked from there. No more Lords of War, no more Scatbike spam and certainly no more Unbound. Knights can also go and become an apocalypse only army. No more amassed units that ignore basic core rules and effects. No more D spam. No more Ignores Cover/Ignores Terrain on many many units, no more hard counters to everything. Codexes that are internally balanced and externally balanced.

Yeah, that sums up my views perfectly.

I think the really telling thing for me is when I think what I'd miss from current books if they were reset back to 5th. Answer: very little. With Dark Eldar I'd maybe miss IWND on Haemonculi (simply because I love regeneration abilities). A couple of the coven artefacts were nice, I guess, and I like the Parasite's Kiss if only for amusement value. The new WWP is nice. I like the freedom in the Archon's court... even if it mostly just compensates for crap HQ choices by giving us a 10pt one.

With IG, I think I'd miss even less from the current book. The current Yarrick is pretty nice. Commissars' execution ability is better. Priests are good.

Aside from stuff like pint drops, that's about it.

 Grimskul wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
No faction in the game should get free stuff in a game revolving around points."Other factions have it" is a poor justification.

Agreed. GW was actually going towards the right way with the first part of the 7th ed. codices in toning things down until they did a heel-face turn and outright changed the design paradigm again with Necrons and Eldar. The idea that if "everyone is overpowered then it will be balanced" is fallacious in the extreme since they'll effectively keep one-upping one another with increasingly crazy things in order to match one another (as you can see with GW's unimaginative use of giving free stuff for Mechanicus and Marines since they lack the race/weapon mechanics of the Eldar/Crons).

The "free units" is merely a money grab. The only thing better than dropping the points costs across the board, and expecting people to keep playing games at the same points level, is giving people a bunch of "free units" for taking formations and encouraging people to buy extra models as part and parcel of Pay-To-Win-Hammer.

Same thing with Formations, really. And even more so with super formations.

 master of ordinance wrote:


I sense another soul whom longs for the game to be reset to 4th/5th edition and reworked from there. No more Lords of War, no more Scatbike spam and certainly no more Unbound. Knights can also go and become an apocalypse only army. No more amassed units that ignore basic core rules and effects. No more D spam. No more Ignores Cover/Ignores Terrain on many many units, no more hard counters to everything. Codexes that are internally balanced and externally balanced.

And AGREED. 5th edition was the best edition. I honestly believe that the only people who hated 5th were simply bad at real 40k.

For me, 5th was certainly the last edition that felt 'tactical' in any way.

 vipoid wrote:
For me, 5th was certainly the last edition that felt 'tactical' in any way.

It hurts me to agree with this given how many problems I thought 5E had at the time, but yeah, it was the last edition where I actually think I had to generally sit and think about stuff beyond simple target priority on a regular basis.

I like some of the things 6E and 7E brought to the table, the power bloat, army construction insanity, and scale issues far overshadow them.

I think fixing up some of the core Vehicle rules would go a long way to making Imperial Guard a worthy codex again. I had some ideas over in this thread, but to copy/paste for the lazy (not all of these might be needed, but maybe a combination of some):

Overwatch: Vehicles can fire S5 or lower weapons at a target that declares Overwatch against them. Note that Line of Sight restrictions still apply to Overwatch as normal for a Shooting Attack.
One of the biggest weakness of non-Walker Vehicles is their huge vulnerability to assault, and this might be a way to mitigate that. Assault units can avoid arcs of fire to lessen the impact of overwatch, rewarding good movement by the Assaulting Player. S5 restricts to mainly anti-infantry weapons, so no shooting high strength/low AP stuff in overwatch. Tau can already do this with the Point Defence Targeting Relay upgrade, and could be changed to allow their vehicles to overwatch at BS2.

Heavy: Vehicles with the Heavy type ignore the penalties for firing Ordnance weapons, so long as they remained stationary in the movement phase.
This would be in addition to the current benefits of the Heavy type, and would be a way to restore some of the functionality of the Lumbering Behemoth rules for Leman Russ's. GW must have decided Lumbering Behemoth was too good, so this still keeps the downside of Ordnance if the vehicle is moving. It would also buff Monoliths.

Tank: Vehicles with the Tank type may fire 2 weapons at full BS when moving at Combat Speed. Penalties for moving at Cruising Speed apply as normal
Currently, as soon as a vehicle moves up to 6", they can only fire 1 weapon at full BS and everything else as snapshots. This change would allow Tanks to fire 2 weapons at full BS so long as they only moved up to 6". This gives a nice delineation between the various vehicle types and how they can fire weapons at full BS when moving at combat/cruising speeds (non-tanks: 1/0, Tanks: 2/0, Fast: 2/2, Heavy: All/not-applicable). This would buff all Rhino variants, Predator variants, Land Raiders, Chimera Variants, Battlewagons, Looted Wagons, Hammerheads, Devilfish and Sky Rays.

Independent Gunners: Weapons of S6 or less may be fired at different 'Secondary' targets to the rest of the Vehicles weapons. All other weapons must be fired at a declared 'Primary' target. Line of Sight is still required as normal for any target.
This is mainly to help Sponson weapons, especially on bulky models like Land Raiders or Russ', to fire at something rather than sit there uselessly (Land Raider Redeemer I'm looking at you...). It also helps with mismatched weapon loadouts on some vehicles. Monoliths already have something like this.

Glancing Hit: On a Glancing Hit, roll a d6. On a 1-3: Nothing Happens. 4-5: Crew Shaken. 6: Crew Stunned. No HP is lost, and AP modifiers apply as normal.
This is to prevent the excessive stripping of HPs, whilst still providing a noticeable impact on the vehicle - ie being forced to Snapshot and not move.

Honestly the easiest solution is to just give the Battle Cannon and the Demolisher cannon the Primary Weapon rule. Necrons got it on some of their regular vehicles, why can't we have it? Oh right, Imperial Guard can't have nice things...

 ultimentra wrote:
Honestly the easiest solution is to just give the Battle Cannon and the Demolisher cannon the Primary Weapon rule. Necrons got it on some of their regular vehicles, why can't we have it? Oh right, Imperial Guard can't have nice things...

With the new IG Codex getting Baneblades (and all of the variants), Primary Weapon is the right "fix" for the Leman Russ family of vehicles.

[

 master of ordinance wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Well, Wyverns do outcompete most of our other anti-infantry units (though as much because our other units are crap as because of the wyverns being too strong).

It's certainly hard to call them OP - especially when they're useless/ineffective against most of the really OP units currently in the game.

But, I feel the real problem with wyverns is that they're a bad element for the game in general. It's so good at its job that it makes infantry even less desirable than they already are.

And now I'm just remembering that the thunderfire cannon also exists. Sigh.

I sense another soul whom longs for the game to be reset to 4th/5th edition and reworked from there. No more Lords of War, no more Scatbike spam and certainly no more Unbound. Knights can also go and become an apocalypse only army. No more amassed units that ignore basic core rules and effects. No more D spam. No more Ignores Cover/Ignores Terrain on many many units, no more hard counters to everything. Codexes that are internally balanced and externally balanced.

I completely agree, though I'd get rid of wound allocation shenanigans and then 5th'll be the best version of 40k.

 GoonBandito wrote:

Spoiler:

I think fixing up some of the core Vehicle rules would go a long way to making Imperial Guard a worthy codex again. I had some ideas over in this thread, but to copy/paste for the lazy (not all of these might be needed, but maybe a combination of some):

Overwatch: Vehicles can fire S5 or lower weapons at a target that declares Overwatch against them. Note that Line of Sight restrictions still apply to Overwatch as normal for a Shooting Attack.
One of the biggest weakness of non-Walker Vehicles is their huge vulnerability to assault, and this might be a way to mitigate that. Assault units can avoid arcs of fire to lessen the impact of overwatch, rewarding good movement by the Assaulting Player. S5 restricts to mainly anti-infantry weapons, so no shooting high strength/low AP stuff in overwatch. Tau can already do this with the Point Defence Targeting Relay upgrade, and could be changed to allow their vehicles to overwatch at BS2.

Heavy: Vehicles with the Heavy type ignore the penalties for firing Ordnance weapons, so long as they remained stationary in the movement phase.
This would be in addition to the current benefits of the Heavy type, and would be a way to restore some of the functionality of the Lumbering Behemoth rules for Leman Russ's. GW must have decided Lumbering Behemoth was too good, so this still keeps the downside of Ordnance if the vehicle is moving. It would also buff Monoliths.

Tank: Vehicles with the Tank type may fire 2 weapons at full BS when moving at Combat Speed. Penalties for moving at Cruising Speed apply as normal
Currently, as soon as a vehicle moves up to 6", they can only fire 1 weapon at full BS and everything else as snapshots. This change would allow Tanks to fire 2 weapons at full BS so long as they only moved up to 6". This gives a nice delineation between the various vehicle types and how they can fire weapons at full BS when moving at combat/cruising speeds (non-tanks: 1/0, Tanks: 2/0, Fast: 2/2, Heavy: All/not-applicable). This would buff all Rhino variants, Predator variants, Land Raiders, Chimera Variants, Battlewagons, Looted Wagons, Hammerheads, Devilfish and Sky Rays.

Independent Gunners: Weapons of S6 or less may be fired at different 'Secondary' targets to the rest of the Vehicles weapons. All other weapons must be fired at a declared 'Primary' target. Line of Sight is still required as normal for any target.
This is mainly to help Sponson weapons, especially on bulky models like Land Raiders or Russ', to fire at something rather than sit there uselessly (Land Raider Redeemer I'm looking at you...). It also helps with mismatched weapon loadouts on some vehicles. Monoliths already have something like this.

Glancing Hit: On a Glancing Hit, roll a d6. On a 1-3: Nothing Happens. 4-5: Crew Shaken. 6: Crew Stunned. No HP is lost, and AP modifiers apply as normal.
This is to prevent the excessive stripping of HPs, whilst still providing a noticeable impact on the vehicle - ie being forced to Snapshot and not move.

I quite like the idea of overwatch on our tanks, they are very vulnerable nowadays so some form of defence for them would be lovely.

I think Leman Russes should just be able to fire all weapons at full BS regardless of ordnance or whether or not they've moved, giving them Primary weapon like ultimentra suggested would of course be the easiest solution.

Russes should also have 4 HP, the flimsy looking Ghost Ark, which is also a skimmer, has 4, why shouldn't the veritable mobile bunker that is the LR get it?

 vipoid wrote:
Project much?

I have never once said that adding broken stuff to IG would be the only way to improve it.

It isn't projecting when your response to "don't add more broken gak into the game" is "so Imperial Guard should remain noncompetitive?" There is no logical way to interpret that as anything other than it being an implication that opposing broken mechanics is tacitly supporting the faction being underpowered.

*ALL* I did was question the logic behind IG not getting similar stuff to AM, because of a pipe dream that GW will instead remove all the broken stuff from other books.

Every single thing in this thread is a pipe dream. You can keep dodging this fact but I'm going to just keep pointing it out. The entire premise of this thread depends on the assumption that we somehow have control over GW's rules and can edit them at will.

 Blacksails wrote:
I think the most important thing for the IG book is to fix the internal balance...

I'm going to jump on this because the IG codex needs more than recosting or balance tweaks. Several units have very murky or redundant roles, or don't synergize well with the army. So on top of the other points, here's a few more radical changes for consideration.

Hellhounds (and variants) as Dedicated Transport or FA (12 models).
Say hello to your new assault APC. Hellhounds have fun and fearsome weapons, but with a very limited target profile. They are an expensive unit which needs more general utility to offset that cost. In terms of board position, they want to be shocking enemy infantry off objectives or racing towards priority targets like AV14. Your more elite infantry wants to be there too (Flamer PCS, Melta Vets), so why not get more synergy on the assault by putting both together? At 12/12/10, a Hellhound is a lot tougher than a Chimera, but it's certainly not cheap enough to replace it as a transport option. Meanwhile our Vet Squads stand a better chance of getting there, and the Hellhound presents a "deeper threat" due to the infantry inside. Is it worth 60-70pts extra over a Chimera? Your call I guess!

All Sentinels gain a 12" move, MTC, Smoke/Searchlight for free, a Str - AP2 Chainsaw, and pretty much any Heavy Weapon option you want.
Overgunned and underarmoured is definitely the right idea. They are skirmishers and flankers, the IG's solution to the immobility of a conventional HWS and in meta terms it's how IG abuses cover despite lacking Jink. MTC and Fast encourages bounding from cover-to-cover, and we open up some new builds with Heavy Bolters, Multimeltas, and Flakk missiles. We also give Sentinels a very cinematic Chainsaw to open up troops and light vehicles in CC, if they can make it there. AV to 11/11/11 and 10/10/10, costing to match, and Cam Netting becomes a 5pt upgrade.

Ratlings get a CC rework. 5+ Invul save in CC (rerollable against Stomp), Poison in CC (2+), Blind Grenades, Haywire Grenades. Also, Fleet.
Sniper Weapons are available all over the AM codex and Ratlings can't really leverage Infiltrate, so I redesigned these guys as a Meta unit matching their theme to make them more distinctive. They will still get stomped in CC by average 40k infantry, but they are now giant killers in a pinch who can mess with a Wraithknight or IK. Their LD6 is still a real issue, at least at I4 they have a good chance of escaping. Either way, it's a start.

Veterans get new doctrines and completely replace Scions.
Hear me out! It's been repeatedly argued on Dakka "why take Scions with X when you can take Vets with Y?" Right now, Scions and Vets are essentially about 2 upgrades apart, MTC and Deep Strike. MTC can become a "Commando" doctrine for Vets, who will be scattering out of Valkyries. Deep Strike becomes an "Airborne" doctrine. And now, we'll combine MTC, DS, 4+ and Krak grenades into one last "Stormtrooper" doctrine that gives you a discount if you really want to shell out the points. Scions are now completely redundant except for the AP3 Lasguns. You don't get those anymore -- too bad!!! If you wanted fancy toys, you shouldn't have joined the Guard.

FA becomes essentially Flyers and Sentinels if the Hellhound is taken as a DT. Elites becomes Rough Riders, Ogryn, Bullgryn, Ratlings, and Wyrdvanes. Still a weaker category but it's probably where Rough Riders belong as a CC solution. With new squadroning rules for the Leman Russ, it would do a lot to put more breathing room in the FOC. Though with Formations it might be an academic point.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Every single thing in this thread is a pipe dream.

True. Fun though

OK, how does a Hellhound without any Transport capability become a DT?

And won't the fact that HHs are overpriced still make them worthless?

OTOH, making the FW Chimeras legal (twin-HB or Autocannon turret) would be nice.

Yeah, got to agree with JohnHwang here, there is literally no physical way to fit any Infantry in there, the troop compartment is taken up by those massive fuel/chemical tanks.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Every single thing in this thread is a pipe dream. You can keep dodging this fact but I'm going to just keep pointing it out. The entire premise of this thread depends on the assumption that we somehow have control over GW's rules and can edit them at will.

If you honestly can't see the difference between pipe dreams for what you'd like to see in a new codex, and pipe dreams for a new codex that also require GW to retroactively nerf every 7.5 codex, then I really can't help you.

Hell, why don't we just start planning the guard book based on GW releasing 8th edition first, which is a complete rewrite of 40k? It's just a pipe dream, after all.

 vipoid wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Every single thing in this thread is a pipe dream. You can keep dodging this fact but I'm going to just keep pointing it out. The entire premise of this thread depends on the assumption that we somehow have control over GW's rules and can edit them at will.

If you honestly can't see the difference between pipe dreams for what you'd like to see in a new codex, and pipe dreams for a new codex that also require GW to retroactively nerf every 7.5 codex, then I really can't help you.

Hell, why don't we just start planning the guard book based on GW releasing 8th edition first, which is a complete rewrite of 40k? It's just a pipe dream, after all.

8th edition which is 5th edition with the problems fixed and proper vehicle damage tables (Glances cant KO a tank and are limited too Stun, Shake, Immobilised and Weapon Destroyed, penetration tables which have a 50% chance to KO the vehicle)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, how does a Hellhound without any Transport capability become a DT?

And won't the fact that HHs are overpriced still make them worthless?

OTOH, making the FW Chimeras legal (twin-HB or Autocannon turret) would be nice.

Fluff-wise, maybe they find an STC or something? Costing is a bit misleading, it can be changed. The tougher issue is the overlap between IG units. The options I looked at:

- AV13 front (more survivability). Problems: the chassis isn't a tank, AV13 is too close to a Leman Russ, and Hellhound weapons are still highly specific for a pricey unit. It's going to end up competing with the Eradicator and Executioner.
- Lower costing (more economy). Problems: For pure weapons effects, you're still in competion with the Wyvern and other units, most importantly Sentinels who once fixed need be cheap enough for suicide flamer and melta runs. You also aren't getting much utility from the Hellhound platform, aside from the weapon or tank shock. 12/12/10 won't last long in 7th.
- Assault APC (transport). Problems: Contradicts fluff and doesn't match the model. However, we get a highly differentiated and unique role from Sentinels/LR/Chimeras/Wyverns. We're putting the Hellhound's protection and mobility 1st as a transport. The sick guns with short range now make sense, they're to support the infantry jumping out of the carrier.

Twin-HB or AC Chimeras would be a nice option and it fits well with internal balance, as a tough transport than doesn't anticipate close assault or flanking, but can use its range to support the forward forces. Keep in mind it would more or less force a revision of the Taurox. (Good!)

If you're dead set on the idea of a new transport based on the Chimera/Hellhound chassis, then do as was mentioned several pages ago. Create a second set of Hellhound variants that have longer range, non-template guns. Off the top of my head, in order of cost, TL-Autocannon turret, TL-Lascannon turret, Vanq Cannon turret. Hull weapons are the same as Hellhounds.

Fast, AV12/12/10, transport capacity of 5-6.

Done.

Why would you create a new transport on the Hellhound chassis?

It would just be a Chimera.

That is fast and side armour 12.

 Blacksails wrote:
That is fast and side armour 12.

Just make the Chimera competitive: Give it side armour 11. and allow it to be upgraded to fast.

That "Hellhound transport" idea was an internal balance thing.

I see Sentinels eventually able to rush down targets as well as a Hellhound, using Heavy Flamers, Multi-Melta, and Plasma Cannons.

So, I was intending to give the Hellhound the chance to bring something else to the table. If not, these two units would end up doubling each other's role.

"Competitiveness" or external balance wasn't a motivation here.

Well, I mean sure, I don't really care in theory if everything is brought up to Scatterbike level or if everything is brought all the way down to Tactical Marine level. The end result is the same, though you completely dismiss the latter as 'unlikely'.

Thing is just, as a CSM player, being buffed feels about as likely as being nerfed, so I am not sure which of the above results is likely in the end...

 Ashiraya wrote:
Well, I mean sure, I don't really care in theory if everything is brought up to Scatterbike level or if everything is brought all the way down to Tactical Marine level. The end result is the same, though you completely dismiss the latter as 'unlikely'.

Actually, I dismiss both of those as unlikely.

Even in the context of 7.5 books, scatterbikes are regarded as absurdly OP. And, I'm not sure it's even possible for everything to be brought up to their level. The problem is, 40k has upper limits (stats cap out at 10, vehicles appear to cap out at AV14, d6s cap out at 2+ etc.). Basically, you can only increase power so much before you run out of room at the top end - so either a lot of units end up the same, or else a lot of units end up being too strong or too weak.

Whilst I'd love a lot of things to get nerfed, I see that as equally unlikely, albeit for different reasons. Firstly, GW doesn't even release faqs in a reasonable time-frame, so I seriously doubt it will start removing the broken formations from codices, nor release updated codices with those changes prior to 8th edition. Moreover, I think GW has opened a lot of cans of worms (allowing players to bring whatever they want, super-formations designed to sell models, free upgrades/vehicles designed to sell yet more models), and I don't believe they'll even want to try closing those cans again. It might be better for the game in the long-run, but GW has shown that it doesn't think like that.

What I see as likely is that IG will get a super-formation, probably similar to the marine one (if DAs is anything to go by), and probably with free stuff of some kind or other.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Thing is just, as a CSM player, being buffed feels about as likely as being nerfed, so I am not sure which of the above results is likely in the end...

Well, I can see where you're coming from in that regard - CSMs certainly haven't had a great record in terms of recent books.

"Even in the context of 7.5 books, scatterbikes are regarded as absurdly OP."

On the power unit thread, most people ranked WKs higher.

As several others have mentioned, swap the vox re-roll for an unlimited range on orders, or at the very least a significant increase. It makes sense for the Company Commander to be co-coordinating the efforts of those units on the other end of the gunline. Platoon Commanders should be restricted to only issuing orders to their own platoon over the vox, it's the platoon net channel after all, but I think there should be an option for Platoon Commanders to forgoe their own order and allow Company Commanders to issue Senior Officer orders to units in that platoon indirectly through vox channels.

1) Company Commander takes a leadership to pass order down to Platoon Commander.
2)Platoon Commander then takes their own leadership test to pass said order on to the said unit.
3) Unit resolves the issued order.

That way we see a (perhaps risky) boost to the use of those juicy Senior Officer orders, and it really comes across as a proper chain of command. That way a well coordinated IG could pull off some brilliant combinations, and enemy players would have real incentive to target officers.

Yoyoyo wrote:
You don't get those anymore -- too bad!!! If you wanted fancy toys, you shouldn't have joined the Guard.

I feel like I should say something in the defence of the most glorious Imperial Guard. But it's not like you're incorrect in making that statement.

Martel732 wrote:
"Even in the context of 7.5 books, scatterbikes are regarded as absurdly OP."

On the power unit thread, most people ranked WKs higher.

I didn't say sactterbikes were the *most* powerful unit in the game - only that they were regarded as OP even by the standards of the new (and much stronger) 7.5 books.

In any case, I'd certainly agree with that assessment of WKs.

No Leadership for Orders.

Seriously. Why do people want unlimited range for Orders but then still want to keep the stupid Leadership test?

If you want to keep the "random" element because you think Orders are broken/unbalanced, then do it like the Armoured Battlegroup:
Roll a D6. Consult the table for results.
1--Garbled Communication: The Order fails and no more orders may be issued by any models in the army this turn.

2-3--Could You Repeat That Sir?: The order has no effect, but both the command vehicles and the target vehicles may continue as normal.

4-5--Orders Received Sir!: The Order is successfully received and is resolved immediately.

6--Inspired Tactics: The Order is successfully received and is resolved immediately and does not count against the total limit of Orders the command vehicle may issue this turn. The command vehicle may attempt to issue another Order up to a maximum of two in each turn.

Something like that would be easy as hell to work for the infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
"Even in the context of 7.5 books, scatterbikes are regarded as absurdly OP."

On the power unit thread, most people ranked WKs higher.

That mostly comes down to the fact that most people believe that nobody would spend the money to go crazy with scatterbikes while at the same time believing that Eldar players had at least two Wraithknights.

 vipoid wrote:
If you honestly can't see the difference between pipe dreams for what you'd like to see in a new codex, and pipe dreams for a new codex that also require GW to retroactively nerf every 7.5 codex, then I really can't help you.

You admit in your own post that they're both pipe-dreams but try to be contrary anyway. Lol, keep digging that hole mate.

 Kanluwen wrote:
No Leadership for Orders.

Seriously. Why do people want unlimited range for Orders but then still want to keep the stupid Leadership test?

If you want to keep the "random" element because you think Orders are broken/unbalanced, then do it like the Armoured Battlegroup:
Roll a D6. Consult the table for results.
1--Garbled Communication: The Order fails and no more orders may be issued by any models in the army this turn.

2-3--Could You Repeat That Sir?: The order has no effect, but both the command vehicles and the target vehicles may continue as normal.

4-5--Orders Received Sir!: The Order is successfully received and is resolved immediately.

6--Inspired Tactics: The Order is successfully received and is resolved immediately and does not count against the total limit of Orders the command vehicle may issue this turn. The command vehicle may attempt to issue another Order up to a maximum of two in each turn.

Something like that would be easy as hell to work for the infantry.

I would be fine with orders being 100% reliable if you could only issue like one a turn. That the number of orders you can issue is limited only by the number of command squads you have on the field necessitates some kind of potential misfire, imo, whether it be range or a chance for the order to fail.