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.

 Bobthehero wrote:
That wasn't aimed at you in particular

I know bob no hate buddy, I just think a lot of people think the same way as that, granted I am full of myself

I really believe that a lot of the hatred for gunlines stems from Tau, and realistically Tau and IG couldn't be anymore different. Tau have all sorts of extra shenanigans to add to their gunline that makes it almost impossible to counter except with top tier armies and cheese lists. IG just get lumped in because they are the original "Gunline" army. Hell I remember running orks against the old Basilisks that was a blast...literally

 Bobthehero wrote:
Note to self, boycott Traditio

This.

IG are mid-tier at best. Trying to group them in with Eldar/Tau balance mistakes on a "boycott cheese" list shows a hilarious lack of understanding of the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Note to self, boycott Traditio

This.

Lines from a song comes to mind:

You could never get a vote from a conservative like me.
I'm here to say that if you was running for the only office in the town
Not one person, and that was me, I wouldn't vote for you
You would never get a vote from a conservative...
I wouldn't give you a vote...

Mutatis mutandis, of course.

There's nothing fun about facing overwhelming numbers and having to pick up hand fulls of models at range because large numbers of barrage blasts.

If that's your idea of fun, then we're not really missing out by not playing against each other.

Traditio wrote:
There's nothing fun about facing overwhelming numbers and having to pick up hand fulls of models at range because large numbers of barrage blasts.

Try not deploying your models in perfect template formation? Or using drop pods, flying transports, etc, to deliver your models into range before the artillery can do anything? Or using units with 2+ armor saves that can laugh off IG barrage weapons (which are all AP 3 or worse)? Or using bikes that can get in close asap and jink to mitigate the damage of blasts, on top of having larger bases that more easily exploit 2" coherence distance? In my experience with blast-heavy IG the only armies that spend the whole game removing models by the handful without accomplishing anything are poorly-designed armies that were going to lose horribly to pretty much anything played by people who made poor decisions like deploying their models in perfect template formation.

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
There's nothing fun about facing overwhelming numbers and having to pick up hand fulls of models at range because large numbers of barrage blasts.

Try not deploying your models in perfect template formation? Or using drop pods, flying transports, etc, to deliver your models into range before the artillery can do anything? Or using units with 2+ armor saves that can laugh off IG barrage weapons (which are all AP 3 or worse)? Or using bikes that can get in close asap and jink to mitigate the damage of blasts, on top of having larger bases that more easily exploit 2" coherence distance? In my experience with blast-heavy IG the only armies that spend the whole game removing models by the handful without accomplishing anything are poorly-designed armies that were going to lose horribly to pretty much anything played by people who made poor decisions like deploying their models in perfect template formation.

As I said. We're not missing anything by not playing against each other.

And for what it's worth:

Enjoy the wraithguard.

Traditio wrote:
Enjoy the wraithguard.

Ah yes, of course you'd proudly mention your blatant double standard where an IG player auto-losing and not having any fun is fine and you'll celebrate how great it is, but you auto-losing is a major problem and your opponent is morally wrong (and a TFG, of course) if they don't nerf their own army to give you a better chance of winning. I think it's very clear to everyone here that your standard for balance is "I win without having to change anything about my army or strategy", and everyone else should do all the hard work of changing to make this happen.

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Enjoy the wraithguard.

Ah yes, of course you'd proudly mention your blatant double standard where an IG player auto-losing and not having any fun is fine and you'll celebrate how great it is, but you auto-losing is a major problem and your opponent is morally wrong (and a TFG, of course) if they don't nerf their own army to give you a better chance of winning. I think it's very clear to everyone here that your standard for balance is "I win without having to change anything about my army or strategy", and everyone else should do all the hard work of changing to make this happen.

It's not my fault that your list isn't sufficiently well designed enough to deal with wraithguard. L2P.

Traditio wrote:
It's not my fault that your list isn't sufficiently well designed enough to deal with wraithguard. L2P.

Don't worry, I'm adding this to my list of quotes to pull out any time you try to claim the moral high ground or argue that we should care about your list struggling to compete. It will go nicely next to the "how dare you buy a knight instead of giving your money to starving people in Africa" one.

Edit: because it's impossible to laugh at this too many times:

Traditio wrote:
What could possibly justify spending $140 on an imperial knight? Seriously. Give me a list of reasons why someone would buy one. For every reason you list, I will be able to tell you why there's something wrong with that person.

Traditio wrote:
You dropped $140 on a model because it's pretty? If you have $140 to drop on a random decoration, that's money that you could have donated to charity. While a pretty model is sitting on your shelf, people are starving in Africa. How many bags of rice and beans do you think $140 could purchase?

Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
You dropped $140 on a model because it's pretty? If you have $140 to drop on a random decoration, that's money that you could have donated to charity. While a pretty model is sitting on your shelf, people are starving in Africa. How many bags of rice and beans do you think $140 could purchase?

I'm just saying, Peregrine, it's not the prerogative of GW to make sure that clearly bad and poorly designed lists (or codices) are competitive.

Sure, there's a points system, and all. And your army list is probably perfectly legal and fluffy.

But you clearly suck at the game if you can't deal with wraithguard.

L2P!

Pull your head in Traditio, your posts are very rude and verging on spam. Stop it or you won't be posting at all.

As to other users, saying "boycott X" isn't very polite either. Everyone needs to chill and post more maturely. Thanks

If Imperial Guard are so damn strong, where's all the Imperial Guard victories in major tournaments? Hell, I'd even be content with them making a major showing in the top 16 of various tournaments.

 motyak wrote:
Pull your head in Traditio, your posts are very rude and verging on spam. Stop it or you won't be posting at all.

As to other users, saying "boycott X" isn't very polite either. Everyone needs to chill and post more maturely. Thanks

See the "Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes" thread.

My posts are a direct parody of Peregrine's most recent posts in that thread.

Nonetheless, out of respect for your moderator authority, I shall cease from posting in this thread.

Traditio wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Pull your head in Traditio, your posts are very rude and verging on spam. Stop it or you won't be posting at all.

As to other users, saying "boycott X" isn't very polite either. Everyone needs to chill and post more maturely. Thanks

See the "Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes" thread.

My posts are a direct parody of Peregrine's most recent posts in that thread.

Nonetheless, out of respect for your moderator authority, I shall cease from posting in this thread.

Actually, your posts seem more like your standard posts of "everyone who disagrees with me is a scrub!".

@Traditio: Finally someone who sees sense. The IG are a damn powerful army.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Ironwolf45 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Traditio wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:IG are competitive against other non-competitive armies. Against competitive armies they suck. Plethora of jinking vehicles, re-rolling cover/invulnerable saves, alpha strikers and deep striking shenanigans = death to most IG vehicles/squads

IG are about as fun to play against as Tau.

Just saying.

I disagree about that one pretty strongly. IG at least don't have built in stupidity like Move, shoot, move. Or giant robots that fire more dakka then whole tank squads, but magically count as MC and GMC's because "reasons".

IG are a gunline army but they at least die when you shoot at them.

Not sure what army you play but the IG are not that strong at all right now. They can do well against the other Non-Competitive armies atm, but they get wiped out against all the other top tier lists. It has seriously gotten to the point with me where I do not want to play my IG anymore unless it is a fun game. Even then it is annoying sometimes. I don't complain and I love my IG but reality shows the stark difference of how weak the IG are right now compared to other armies in the game.

That is literally what I just said, they are competitive against other non-competitive armies like Orks, Tyranids, Chaos, but they can't stand up to the cheese armies (SM, Tau, Eldar, Necron)

against the new orc supplement the guard is chanceless ...
WAAAAG in the first turn, ghazkull deathstar, charge at second turn and so on. guard can not win such a battle ...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
@Traditio: Finally someone who sees sense. The IG are a damn powerful army.

is this sarcasm?

From that guy? Probably not.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think making HWT's full bore T7 artillery is a wee bit much.

That said, the concept of something similar has been discussed before. If we made them a unique gunteam type unit that more accurately reflected how they actually operate, we could make them more functional. It could be something like "if this unit has not moved this turn, it gains +2 Toughness and a 4+ cover save". This would help represent gun shields and entrenchments set up with the heavy weapons, while when moving they're just normal dudes. T5 W2 4+cover gun teams would have a whole lot more utility without being a somewhat overblown T7.

What is with people and Cover Saves?

Cover Saves are useless this edition against any of the 'top tier' armies--and many of the 'bottom tier' armies have ways to deal with Cover Saves just as effectively.

Either it needs to be something that actually WORKS(i.e. Artillery) to prevent the HW teams from being one-shotted from range but still making them vulnerable to CC units; or HW point costs need to drop like rocks tied to anvils tied to a safe for Guard Infantry Squads and Guard Heavy Weapon Squads(note: not Veterans. The price is just about right for them).

If the concerns are that "T7 is too much for just a couple of guys with a tripod mounted gun and makes no sense for a Missile Launcher or Mortar Team!" or whatever garbage; then make MLs and Mortars into Special Weapons instead of Heavy Weapons; or attach a special rule of "Emplaced Position" to the tripod mounted weapons.

Why not give HW teams or even standard guardsmen the ability to dig in for a toughness increase at the price of losing the ability to move. Have it so they can start the game already dug in but anytime you dig in the movement phase you can't shoot, run, or charge that turn.

Dantes_Baals wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Dantes_Baals wrote:Because an earthshaker cannon is a monstrous piece of heavy forged steel artillery they can duck/take cover under. A LC that goes up to their knees and can be carried around by a two man team doesn't even begin to provide that kind of cover. There is no reason at all a krak missile should have an easier time wounding a carnifex than a pair of humans hiding behind a tin gunshield. We aren't even talking fluff anymore. This is straight up common sense.

And neither does a Riptide or Stormsurge being an MC and not a vehicle, or for that matter three Vindicators being able to suddenly fire a super shell or for that matter an ornamental spiky iron ring providing a 4++ save or just about half of the things in 40K, but your point is?

Edit: AND a 3+ vs shooting? Seriously man ; in addition to your wishlist for LRBTS to ignore basically ALL vehicle weaknesses and then some, why don't you go ahead and throw an "I win" Warlord trait in there with the other changes.

My wishlist of LRBT's to avoid all vehicle weaknesses? What, you mean the one that makes them useable again as opposed to the wast of points we have now? All I want them to do is to be able to move and fire their main gun and secondary weapons effectively, have some form of a save against damaging (both things that an MC and GMC can do) and for assaulters to have to attack its facing armour because right now LRBT's vanish as soon as the enemy reaches assault range. And for the stupid damage mechanic that has overflowing damage spread across the entire troop removed.
Do you even play Guard? Do you even know what it is like to play them? Have you ever had the wonderful privilege of having to set up your army only to have packed most of it back up by turn two? No? Well then, you should try playing an Imperial Guard army and good luck lasting past turn three.
Oh and that 3+? It is only vs shooting and, along with the T7, might actually see HWT's lasting beyond the first shooting phase.

Selym wrote:Perma cover save, points drop The dudes are hiding behind a HMG in spehss, and a couple of sandbags. They're not particularly durable.

Perma cover save would be nice but ultimately redundant with all the 'ignores cover' that flies around these days. T7 and a 3+ vs shooting thankyou very much.

I have no issue with bringing back lumbering behemoth. I thought it actually made a lot of sense. But Russes should be harder to assault, get an arbitrary save and ignore the glance/pen allocation rule on squadrons because... Why? I'm drawing a blank. Look man, non-skimmer vehicles just suck this edition. Everybody else has to deal with it, I don't see why IG shouldnt. Especially if there is no fluff or good reason for it. And T7 3+ vs shooting in an almost entirely shooting based edition is a pretty big deal. Even a boost to T5 would make zero sense. I get HWTS could use a hand, but outside of a permanent 4+ cover, the ability to overwatch and 20 points max for a HWT of any type don't see what else can be done. Maybe give them access to Camo netting? The whole "the most OP dexes in the game have stupid, nonsense rules so mine should too", doesn't really play well.

Because, unlike every other faction, the Imperial Guard rely upon our tanks for just about everything. Other factions have Infantry or MC's as their heavy hitters or go to units but we have our tanks and hell, some of us just want our damnable panzers to feel a little.. Well, you know, tankish. If you want fluff reasons then:
Save wise the Leman Russ are extremely robust with extra reinforcements and the like. This is represented by the save.
The Glance/Penetration thing should be universal to all factions but if you want to fluff it up then it represents Guard tank commanders not being congenitally stupid in areas regarding tank warfare
The harder to assault thing should also be a universal thing (it worked in 3rd edition and it would work really well now) but I am sure we can find some fluff reason to justify it.

The T7 vs shooting may seem a big deal to you but just look at how easy HWT's are to remove. They get plasma/S6+ sniped from across the board on turn one and no other faction I can think of has to cope with losing its big expensive support choices on the first turn because 'GW'. I just want my damn teams to last longer than it takes my opponent to cast his eye over them.

Oh and Tradito, never have I heard from someone so condescending as yourself. "IG are OP coz ma fancy swankies cant stand in da open infront of dem and not be hurt" is just such a valid arguement for declaring something to be OP. And, from what I can see, you play Eldar. Maybe it is YOU who should L2P?

Guys, ignore Typically-Wardian, pretty much everything he's ever posted has been curiously rabidly anti-IG and is a known troll .

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think making HWT's full bore T7 artillery is a wee bit much.

That said, the concept of something similar has been discussed before. If we made them a unique gunteam type unit that more accurately reflected how they actually operate, we could make them more functional. It could be something like "if this unit has not moved this turn, it gains +2 Toughness and a 4+ cover save". This would help represent gun shields and entrenchments set up with the heavy weapons, while when moving they're just normal dudes. T5 W2 4+cover gun teams would have a whole lot more utility without being a somewhat overblown T7.

What is with people and Cover Saves?

Cover Saves are useless this edition against any of the 'top tier' armies--and many of the 'bottom tier' armies have ways to deal with Cover Saves just as effectively.

Either it needs to be something that actually WORKS(i.e. Artillery) to prevent the HW teams from being one-shotted from range but still making them vulnerable to CC units; or HW point costs need to drop like rocks tied to anvils tied to a safe for Guard Infantry Squads and Guard Heavy Weapon Squads(note: not Veterans. The price is just about right for them).

If the concerns are that "T7 is too much for just a couple of guys with a tripod mounted gun and makes no sense for a Missile Launcher or Mortar Team!" or whatever garbage; then make MLs and Mortars into Special Weapons instead of Heavy Weapons; or attach a special rule of "Emplaced Position" to the tripod mounted weapons.

Cover is not universally ignored. I still usually get to take cover saves in most games, and likewise do my opponents. It's not as useful as it once was, I won't argue that, but it's not useless at all. If we just balanced everything around Eldar, Tau, and Librarian Conclave SM's, then we'd have to make IG equally absurd and that's not really a good solution. Cover is still useful, particularly in games against non-cheese'd out armies or against armies like Necrons, non-Psyker supported SM armies, and all the other armies that IG are roughly on par with but against which HWT's are garbage (e.g. GK's, Dark Eldar, Orks, CSM's, SoB's, etc). It would certainly give greater flexibility in deployment (as most HWT's are usually stuck trying to deploy in useful terrain currently), and give some additional protection against spammed AP4/5 shots.

As for Toughness, heavy weapons units are not on the scale of T7 artillery and shouldn't be treated as such. They're infantry with infantry carried weapons, not towed or self propelled artillery the way something like a Thudd Gun or Thunderfire Cannon is. A toned down version to T5 as I suggested might be reasonable both in gameplay and fluff terms, and nobody wants to hear the bemoaning that Sabre platforms brought at the beginning of 6th.

He'll just Tau and Eldar really. Out of all 72 powers there are 2 that I know of that give a weapon/unit ignores cover.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Guys, ignore Typically-Wardian, pretty much everything he's ever posted has been curiously rabidly anti-IG and is a known troll .

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think making HWT's full bore T7 artillery is a wee bit much.

That said, the concept of something similar has been discussed before. If we made them a unique gunteam type unit that more accurately reflected how they actually operate, we could make them more functional. It could be something like "if this unit has not moved this turn, it gains +2 Toughness and a 4+ cover save". This would help represent gun shields and entrenchments set up with the heavy weapons, while when moving they're just normal dudes. T5 W2 4+cover gun teams would have a whole lot more utility without being a somewhat overblown T7.

What is with people and Cover Saves?

Cover Saves are useless this edition against any of the 'top tier' armies--and many of the 'bottom tier' armies have ways to deal with Cover Saves just as effectively.

Either it needs to be something that actually WORKS(i.e. Artillery) to prevent the HW teams from being one-shotted from range but still making them vulnerable to CC units; or HW point costs need to drop like rocks tied to anvils tied to a safe for Guard Infantry Squads and Guard Heavy Weapon Squads(note: not Veterans. The price is just about right for them).

If the concerns are that "T7 is too much for just a couple of guys with a tripod mounted gun and makes no sense for a Missile Launcher or Mortar Team!" or whatever garbage; then make MLs and Mortars into Special Weapons instead of Heavy Weapons; or attach a special rule of "Emplaced Position" to the tripod mounted weapons.

Cover is not universally ignored. I still usually get to take cover saves in most games, and likewise do my opponents. It's not as useful as it once was, I won't argue that, but it's not useless at all. If we just balanced everything around Eldar, Tau, and Librarian Conclave SM's, then we'd have to make IG equally absurd and that's not really a good solution. Cover is still useful, particularly in games against non-cheese'd out armies or against armies like Necrons, non-Psyker supported SM armies, and all the other armies that IG are roughly on par with but against which HWT's are garbage (e.g. GK's, Dark Eldar, Orks, CSM's, SoB's, etc). It would certainly give greater flexibility in deployment (as most HWT's are usually stuck trying to deploy in useful terrain currently), and give some additional protection against spammed AP4/5 shots.

It absolutely is useless. Even Orks have easy ways of Ignores Cover spamming at this point.

Ever ran against an Ork Burna Bommer formation? Burna Boyz heavy force?

As for Toughness, heavy weapons units are not on the scale of T7 artillery and shouldn't be treated as such. They're infantry with infantry carried weapons, not towed or self propelled artillery the way something like a Thudd Gun or Thunderfire Cannon is. A toned down version to T5 as I suggested might be reasonable both in gameplay and fluff terms, and nobody wants to hear the bemoaning that Sabre platforms brought at the beginning of 6th.

Oh please. If an Ork Mek Gun is Artillery, then Heavy Weapon Teams are no different.

Sure, Orks have some Ignores Cover stuff. Every army does. That doesn't mean cover is useless just because sometimes you won't get to take it, same with armor. It doesn't mean that the vast majority of shooting ignores cover. Cover is still useful. If we're going to balance everything around "the only saves that exist are invul saves", well, we're going to run into problems.

As for Ork Mek Gunz, those are huge, significantly larger and more substantial than IG heavy weapons.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Sure, Orks have some Ignores Cover stuff. Every army does. That doesn't mean cover is useless just because sometimes you won't get to take it, same with armor. It doesn't mean that the vast majority of shooting ignores cover. Cover is still useful. If we're going to balance everything around "the only saves that exist are invul saves", well, we're going to run into problems.

As for Ork Mek Gunz, those are huge, significantly larger and more substantial than IG heavy weapons.

Aye, I still get cover against most stuff. The problem is that some of my opponents have just started bringing more 'Ignores Cover' stuff. As for HWT, maybe have them count as T5 vs shooting with a 4+ armour save? Kind of like a mini artillery rule.

I'm just shocked that the person that thinks Plasma Cannons are amazing has trouble vs Imperial Guard.

Which guy is that?

I am going to guess Tradito

The guy said he was done posting. Why are some of you still taking shots at him? Embrace your inner Elsa and let it go, ffs.

New Ork Supplement, 1st off ORK NOT FETHING ORC God that burns me, this is 40k not the hobbit.

That formation your talking about that allows ghaz to waaagh first turn requires over 1,100pts (not fully upgraded) just for that ability. And most of those points are wasted on useless crap. As far as the GHaz Death star? How many death stars do you know of that only have 1 model with an invulnerable save? Here is a quick/easy lesson on beating the Orkurion, If you get 1st move then shoot the feth out of ghaz's deathstar, because he doesn't get his Invul until his turn, so a handful of blasts will kill all the nobz and some AP2 lascannons will burn out the warbosses pretty quickly. Boom your left with Ghaz, naked and alone (he isn't allowed to join other squads because of formation restrictions/detachment restrictions. Once he is dead the orks lose all benefits and boom your left with a useless ork force that is EXCEPTIONALLY open to ranged weapons. Furthermore you could just IGNORE the ghaz deathstar and focus fire the trukks which your apparently afraid of, not a big concern for IG as they have a plethora of Blast/Ordinance and AP2 weapons capable of popping multiple trukks/BattleWagonz.

IG Vs ork is a fun matchup, but lets not pretend like the Ghaz supplement was even worth the paper it was re-printed on.

It absolutely is useless. Even Orks have easy ways of Ignores Cover spamming at this point.

Ever ran against an Ork Burna Bommer formation? Burna Boyz heavy force?

Orks do not have "Easy ways to ignore cover" at this point. Burna boyz? seriously? Expensive models with 6+ armor saves that have to be in an open topped vehicle to be remotely effective? that is what your afraid of? To even use them they have to be ON TOP of the unit with a cover save, and at that point it wouldn't matter anyway.

And the Burna Bommer formation? If your army is remotely scared of AV10 flyers then you need to do something drastic, like read the codex. Ork Flyers are utter trash, all of them.

To try and get back on topic:

I think that HWT should maybe have the option to "dig in" to represent them setting up sandbag emplacements and stuff like that. It would give them a 4+ cover save when out in the open if they entrench (maybe a bonus to their saves if they're already in cover?)