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.

Also, Cadian training and doctrine have been adopted by many other planets. Now, that might be because GW wants us to use the kits for multiple planets worth of troops, but still, it's fluff.

 Kanluwen wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:
@Kanluwen
I am a casual gamer/hobbyist. You strike me as a more competitive type. Because of this, I doubt that we will ever agree.

I'm actually a fairly casual person.

Guard were my first army and are near and dear to my heart. Hence why I have very strong opinions. I've seen several editions of this game turn my Guard from a force which required a bit of a learning curve to an army that is a joke now. Most of that can be, and always will be, tied to the insistence of retaining "legacy" items and points costs.

I get that you might have taken some time to make an army truly yours, but at this juncture? Nothing about Guard is fun. It's a chore army and the reason why I've packed everything up and have two huge bins of unbuilt stuff(one bin is filled to the brim with infantry even! the other is tanks) and several drawers with assorted bits and bobs(one drawer is nothing but Kasrkin. another is Sentinels and parts for an Emperor's Wrath Artillery Company). It's why I've been playing Skitarii and started a Tau army over the holidays.

You might think that I'm just saying "I don't care how much work you put into your army". That's fine. I'm trying to tear the whole damn book down and start from scratch. I've been over this topic far too many times to really be exceedingly friendly/delightful about it. There's no salvaging this book or some of these relic units, not without a complete overhaul to the mechanics of 40k as it stands.

The way I see it, it boils down to these possibilities for the next Codex in regards to Ratlings and Rough Riders:

A. They are replaced entirely by a unit that... well I'm not certain exactly what you want the replacement to do on the battlefield. It could end up being a shiny but terrible unit. But GW would never do that, now would they!
B. They remain in the codex without the addition of a new Elites and Fast Attack unit to overshadow them and receive minor to major tweaks.
C. The I.G. receive a cool new FA and Elite unit that does something awesome and useful. You flip the page and find that Ratlings and Rough Riders are still there (*gasp*!). They may or may not have the minor tweaks they need to be better [Ratlings gain pinning, move through cover, a Ld7 sarge and a points reduction. Rough Riders reduce in price, krak grenades become optional, gain Scout/Outflank, mounted priests and doctrines (carapace armor for 4+save, Demolitions for demo charge and meltabombs, and cyber-steeds to boost toughness or some other buff)] Is that really so bad? It only took a couple minutes for me to figure out a logical way to beef them up a little without making them overpowered. Now I (the theoretical rules writer) have all the rest of my time to hammer out the details of the two new units you want!

Option C is possible and would make both of us happy. If that doesn't appease you, I see no sense in continuing this discussion with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
Wasn't the number like only 1 in 9 regiments stayed on cadia. Which isn't significant since it was a pure regimental hive world.

Also I don't think the end of the cadia planet is the same as a the end of the cadia system regimental tide.

I hope pask made it off the planet, I hope creed pokeball gets released, and I expect a new basilisk kit with another artillery variant. Beyond that maybe rough riders plastics, servitors are due and popular again, I don't see ratlings getting love. I also see a quick money grab with some type of small artillery variant (who knows rapier laser, thudd gun, or some made up frag cannon artillery)

I personally think that a basilisk/Medusa kit and a Colossus/Griffon kit would be feasible and awesome. If they redo rough riders, they had better give them some doctrinal options and release a horse-mounted priest. Servitor plastics would be cool, but I already converted my own. Ratlings could probably use pinning. The artillery is an interesting idea. Unfortunately, all of that probably isn't in the cards Time will tell, however.

Some thoughts on improving the Chimera (which is already a decent vehicle imo)

Bump it's side armor up to 12.
Give it the option to take a hull mounted multi-melta.
Upgrade the lasgun arrays to vollygun type arrays (not hotshots). 4 shots each. 12 shots at 24" each side if there's enough men on board.
Grants cover save to nearby friendly IG infantry units (not as much as the Russ though).
Price decrease.

Tag team with a unit of Ogyrns (who also got improvements). The Chimera gives the ogyrns a cover save, and the ogyrns keep people from assaulting it.

 master of ordinance wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Someone above mentioned bringing the Guard back to their basic level: The Platoon.

This is, to me at least, a stupid idea. An army composed of platoons of infantry is neither viable nor flexible enough to ever function. What is more, transporting such a huge (660 models for three basic troops choices) is quite frankly virtually impossible without a car.... Or a large dumper truck. What is more, setting up and moving all of those figures is a massive pain, and when they get killed the effect of removing vast swathes of infantry is really demoralising.

No, the Guard need to be buffed. "MOAR MANZ" is not the answer, and it will never be. There is a finite limitation that players are willing to collect, and that is practical to use. More power, not more manz.

(Or better yet reverse the obscene power bloat)

Well I disagree.

I want to see 660 models, I want to see real fething Imperial Guard.

If I ever get into that army, I'll have legions of noname nobodies who'll just get crushed in masse because that's their whole purpose in life. (by the way, movement strips are a thing you know.. even in 40k).

I'd rather they don't make the IG more powerful per head than it already is.

Also, I would like their tanks to be shrunk in points and maybe even downgraded a little, so that hey may be more numerous, more "we suck but there's a lot of us".

It doesn't scream "Mechanical Division" when you have about 10 tanks on the table.

And here we have one of the major issues the Guard face: Other factions players.

You disagree, good sir, because to your perspective the Guard army is all about the horde of MORE MANZ THANZ YOUZ LOLZ! In reality the Guard is a combined arms army similar to many WW2 fighting units. We are not a horde army, and this cannot be stressed enough.
Now you see, your perspective of the Guard as a whole is wrong, and your ideas for "fixing" our army are even worse than that. You are talking about making Guardsmen cheaper, but at 5 points per head (6 if you bring Veterans which you do) they cannot really conceivably get any cheaper than they already are, and even if they did then your average Guardsman would have to be a mere 2 points per model (3 or 4 if Veteran) to be anywhere near viable with their current stats. At this point most Guard players will just laugh and throw the towel in because bringing (let alone owning) that many Guardsmen is ludicrous.
What about tanks. Well, you want to make them worse. That is NOT the answer by any stretch of the imagination, especially as they are already bad for their points cost as it is. "But make them cheaper so you can spam them" I hear you cry, but this is not a viable strategy. If anything Leman Russ need to become more powerful AND cheaper to be anywhere near viable again.

Then we come to the crux of the matter: "If I ever get into that army". You do not even PLAY the Imperial Guard, and yet you seem to think that your rather stupid suggestion is a great fix for our army, despite what everyone else has said. You say that you would run thousands of Infantry models on the board, hundreds of support units. Have you any idea how stupid that is? Have you ever tried to collect and build that big of an army? No, you have not. Just buying that many models is beyond the budget of most players, and assembling and painting that vast a sum of near identical figures to any level of tabletop standard takes so long that in the end you find yourself just wanting to pack it in.
And once you have done this herculean task you then have the issue of transporting them to the store, a job that requires a car and several large boxes, before youset up. Setting up will take the better part of an hour, and the chances are that you will struggle to get everything into your deployment zone. And then when you have done so you had better pray that your opponent has no blast weapons, otherwise your army will be removed before it can even do anything.

No, horde Guard is the wrong way to go. However judging by your attitude I am going to guess that you play one of the big three: Marines, Tau or Eldar.
you have no idea, and until you have been here you never will. Wait until your finely painted infantry are reduced to the status of glorified wound markers and your big hitters are laughable, and then come back to us.

On a brighter note, there is one thing that 40K really needs: To come back down in scale so that infantry are viable once again. Look at Bolt Action, a platoon scale game with one or two AFV's operating in a sea of Infantry. It works. We need something like that, a game that focuses on Infantry supported by a couple of vehicles and with the big things left out for specified Apocalypse matches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:

Still, they are expected to suck balls compared to space marines and be vastly more numerous.

Look, stop showing your ignorance and go and read up on the Guard fluff. Dan Abnett's books are a good starting point

This.


After Robart Gorillaman's reforms, the newly-minted Imperial Guard became THE primary fighting force of the Imperium of Man, with the now-Adeptus Astartes becoming a "high-speed, low drag" rapid response force and specialists in dealing with things that might be a bit much for the Guard alone. They should be more than a "drown them in bodies" force. Sure, you have your cannon fodder regiments. But the cream of the crop regiments (Cadian, Mordian, etc) should be more than that. Even the Death Korps, with their World War One attrition aspect) are experts at siege warfare and combat engineering.

But I guess that's not GRIMDARK enough for the hardcore neckbeard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

gmaleron wrote:
-IG Tanks get a variant that is effective in dealing with Monstrous Creatures (Beast Hunter Shells anyone?)

Forgot abut this. We need an anti MC choice or ywo, and they need to be good.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

>Ogryns are dropped to 20 PPM, gain rending and a 4+ armour save. Oh, and FNP

Is.. that really necessary? Or is this just full wishlisting.

Have you ever run Ogryns? Which reminds me:
>An effective delivery system for Ogryns.

Give the Guard the option of taking Land Raiders to transport Ogryns, and create a formation around that. It was good enough for the old Imperial Army,

 don_mondo wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Why would you want to remove strength D?

Just because it breaks your favorite "one big badass" ?

Well, for me, it's because I do not believe that superheavies, D weapons, Gargantuan, etc etc belong in a game of 40K. And I play IG and Sisters of Battle, usually with a single CAD (Force Org), no allies, no formations, etc, so no "one big badass". Again, because I want to play 40K, not Apocalypse. But that's just an old greybeard's opinion... I'd like to see the game return to a skirmish level game, and leave all that other stuff for Apoc style gaming. But oh well...

text removed. Please don't bypass the language filter like this.
Reds8n

About ThunderwolfLord busses.
About any other stupid deathstar riding exclusively on the almighty invulnerable save, rerollable or with FNP.

Those things are absolutely stupid and it's just awesome that strength D gives them a second thought about their ridiculously strong defense.

Strength D is an answer at a skirmish level too.


And... it does nothing to people who actually bring armies without big badass units, because you don't care whether your tank is hit by one D shot or two S8AP2 shots.

Or are you complaining about strength D being the equivalent of two shots?

The entire point is that those crazy deathstar units shouldn't exist in the first place.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
@Master of Ordnance, those blast radii seem awfully big to me, but the actual damage profiles and special rules I'm for the most part good with. I wouldn't create an extra rule for vortex scatter, though, even regular rules for vortex are rarely used.

Eh, it is a massive, very expensive, oneshot weapon that can be put out of action before it has a chance to fire, or spend so long prepping to fire that by the time it does so the enemy is too close for it to work. Not to mention it is an intercontinental ballistic missile and is so huge that there are smaller Super Heavies.

Rather than giving us Land Raiders, give us a scaled down gorgon type vehicle. Transport capacity of 30 (so either a full sized ogyrn squad or a big combined infantry squad) that's open topped, so they can all shoot away until they reach their target.

Martel732 wrote:
Do casual players not care if their units are effective? I don't get why that distinction is important.

Sometimes they/we don't. General consensus is that Ratlings suck, yes? And yet, I fielded a full-up squad of 10 in my last game, along with a Scout Sentinel. The Ratlings died really fast, as was expected but the Sentinel actually survived the game. Would I like them to be more effective? Sure. Am I going to continue to field them even if they aren't? Yep.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Why would you want to remove strength D?

Just because it breaks your favorite "one big badass" ?

Well, for me, it's because I do not believe that superheavies, D weapons, Gargantuan, etc etc belong in a game of 40K. And I play IG and Sisters of Battle, usually with a single CAD (Force Org), no allies, no formations, etc, so no "one big badass". Again, because I want to play 40K, not Apocalypse. But that's just an old greybeard's opinion... I'd like to see the game return to a skirmish level game, and leave all that other stuff for Apoc style gaming. But oh well...

text removed. Please don't bypass the language filter like this.
Reds8n

About ThunderwolfLord busses.
About any other stupid deathstar riding exclusively on the almighty invulnerable save, rerollable or with FNP.

Those things are absolutely stupid and it's just awesome that strength D gives them a second thought about their ridiculously strong defense.

Strength D is an answer at a skirmish level too.


And... it does nothing to people who actually bring armies without big badass units, because you don't care whether your tank is hit by one D shot or two S8AP2 shots.

Or are you complaining about strength D being the equivalent of two shots?

I'm guessing (based on s8n's edit) that you took offense to my opinion. And yes, I do care if my leman Russ is hit by one D or two S8AP2. Assuming front armor, it's the difference between possible destruction and two low probability glancing hits... So yeah, it does indeed do something to 'people who actually bring armies without big badass units'. But meh, the worm has turned, we'll never get the genie back in the bottle, and superheavies, ST D, and all that stuff I think does not belong in a skirmish level game is here to stay. Altho given points creep, etc, not sure if we can still call 40K 'skirmish' level.

morgoth wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Why would you want to remove strength D?

Just because it breaks your favorite "one big badass" ?

Well, for me, it's because I do not believe that superheavies, D weapons, Gargantuan, etc etc belong in a game of 40K. And I play IG and Sisters of Battle, usually with a single CAD (Force Org), no allies, no formations, etc, so no "one big badass". Again, because I want to play 40K, not Apocalypse. But that's just an old greybeard's opinion... I'd like to see the game return to a skirmish level game, and leave all that other stuff for Apoc style gaming. But oh well...

text removed. Please don't bypass the language filter like this.
Reds8n

Not on purpose, no idea how it happened.

 don_mondo wrote:

Well, for me, it's because I do not believe that superheavies, D weapons, Gargantuan, etc etc belong in a game of 40K. And I play IG and Sisters of Battle, usually with a single CAD (Force Org), no allies, no formations, etc, so no "one big badass". Again, because I want to play 40K, not Apocalypse. But that's just an old greybeard's opinion... I'd like to see the game return to a skirmish level game, and leave all that other stuff for Apoc style gaming. But oh well...

This.

Unfortunantely 40k has gone to far for this ever to happen. Apocalypse used to be a hybrid between Epic 40k and regular 40k. Now that hybrid is the norm in regular games.

The Imperial Guard, the Tyranids and the Orks are all in the same boat, suffering from the other factions getting stronger in order to be balanced against one another. What they have in common is that they where originally designed with a "horde" theme in mind. As an old school Inquisition and new school Guard player I feel the most fun games I play are always with a horde army myself or against a horde army of the enemy. This simply comes down to the fact that it's fun when stuff dies. Many people have told me that it was just lots of fun to play vs what you read about, the 100+guardsmen with the 10+tanks. This is because when a unit goes down and you can point to that unit having killed 30+ guardsmen you feel good. The fact of the matter is however that this type of army is simply not good and investing in it, both time and money, is the same as deciding to bet on the losing team. You will not win tournaments, you will not have a 75% win ratio and you will not beat that (Timmy) power gamer who brags about his tactical prowess but is simply winning due to a higher tier army. In most games this would be problematic but in 40k where you invest months and even years into 'your dudes' it's simply catastrophic. At least the fun value remains the same, win or lose. I think readers will find that the players who put their time in a thread like this lean towards the fun value of things but are getting tired of losing games before they start.

Also something about the platoons of the guards, because there seems to be alot of debate around this. The platoons where originally very versitile entries. I honestly don't remmember much of 3d ed guards but in 4th ed platoons could have 4+save, infiltrate, deep strike, +1cover with move through cover, exchange lasguns for laspistols + close combat weapons, include storm troopers squads (currently temptestus scions), +1ws and +1I, have 6+save but get +2cover in jungle/woods with treating woods/jungle as clear terrain, include up to 4 psykers for 12p each, have bionics, re-roll misses of 1s, be stubborn, ignore ld for losing 25%casualities if within 12" of an officer. I wrote the list from memory so feel free to call me out on anything I might remmember wrong or things I've forgotten about. Theese choices where regulated by a point systems where you could chose up to 5 doctrines, most costing points, which also included locked codex units. For instance, using Ogryns also cost 1p to unlock, leaving you with 4 to spend on fun stuff. You could chose not to use this system and instead play the codex as presented, as vanilla as it is today. Some people have said that the same vearsatility is provided today in veterans. Take one look at the list above and tell me it's even remotely on the same level. The original platoon was not the bulky thing you see today, it was a crazily versitile thing.

In the future we're likely to see the streamlining continue, for guards to become another "Imperial ally" like in the agents of the Imperium book.

Finally a confession. I never quite understood how people must have felt at the death of squats or the removal of fantasy. With the death of Cadia I feel I understand it just a little bit better. It's not a pleasant experience.

I skimmed through this thread and was a little amazed at how little consensus there is between guard players.

In fact I am not sure why some people seem to have read 20 years worth of fluff involving 100's of guardsman dying to kill 1 marine or whole Guard armoured columns being smashed by half there number of xenos tanks.
Looked at GW battle reports with massive guard forces outnumbering there oposition handily and the impressive dioramas in WHW showing old soviet style parades with guardsman, chimera's and the centuries old LR and thought I want a small elite force with high end equipment IG look perfect.

I get wanting your chosen army to get better I don't get wanting to effectively change them in such a way as that they may as well be a different army. I mean seriously other than some weird nerd rage about SM being to popular or good a lot of you guys are describing or wanting Marines style forces.

Also as for IG being a combined arms style army, not really they are a ww1 style army that happens to have an air component. The rules and fluff still lean towards large amounts of artillery and troops with tank support. No whether this is viable at the moment is defiantly debatable but it remains the imlression given by GW.

SeanDrake wrote:
I skimmed through this thread and was a little amazed at how little consensus there is between guard players.

In fact I am not sure why some people seem to have read 20 years worth of fluff involving 100's of guardsman dying to kill 1 marine or whole Guard armoured columns being smashed by half there number of xenos tanks.
Looked at GW battle reports with massive guard forces outnumbering there oposition handily and the impressive dioramas in WHW showing old soviet style parades with guardsman, chimera's and the centuries old LR and thought I want a small elite force with high end equipment IG look perfect.

Do you understand the difference between a "Crusade force"(what those "old soviet style parades" usually were done to represent; the army and regiments at the muster before launching into the void) and a "Regiment"?

Also, I don't hear you commenting on the fact that now the most popular build for Space Marines is effectively a horde list...

I get wanting your chosen army to get better I don't get wanting to effectively change them in such a way as that they may as well be a different army. I mean seriously other than some weird nerd rage about SM being to popular or good a lot of you guys are describing or wanting Marines style forces.

Right. Because wanting a change to your army so that you're not having to take multiple cases worth of infantry and multiple cases worth of tanks with you for a normal sized game is changing them in such a way as "that they may as well be a different army".

Also as for IG being a combined arms style army, not really they are a ww1 style army that happens to have an air component. The rules and fluff still lean towards large amounts of artillery and troops with tank support. No whether this is viable at the moment is defiantly debatable but it remains the imlression given by GW.

I don't think you understand what "combined arms" means if you think that artillery and troops with tank support isn't exactly that.

Combined Arms is a term used to describe utilizing different combat arms(read: branches) of a military to achieve mutually complementary efforts.

An example of this is using infantry and armoured units in an urban environment, where the infantry can provide support to the armour and the armour can provide support to the infantry.

SeanDrake wrote:
I skimmed through this thread and was a little amazed at how little consensus there is between guard players.

In fact I am not sure why some people seem to have read 20 years worth of fluff involving 100's of guardsman dying to kill 1 marine or whole Guard armoured columns being smashed by half there number of xenos tanks.
Looked at GW battle reports with massive guard forces outnumbering there oposition handily and the impressive dioramas in WHW showing old soviet style parades with guardsman, chimera's and the centuries old LR and thought I want a small elite force with high end equipment IG look perfect.

I get wanting your chosen army to get better I don't get wanting to effectively change them in such a way as that they may as well be a different army. I mean seriously other than some weird nerd rage about SM being to popular or good a lot of you guys are describing or wanting Marines style forces.

Also as for IG being a combined arms style army, not really they are a ww1 style army that happens to have an air component. The rules and fluff still lean towards large amounts of artillery and troops with tank support. No whether this is viable at the moment is defiantly debatable but it remains the imlression given by GW.

It might seem strange that we can't agree on anything, but that makes sense in a way. In the background The Imperial Guard is described as a diverse fighting force that hails from hundreds of thousands of planets. Now take all of those regiments into one rulebook and see if you can please everybody. Conversely, marines have the organizational rules of the Ultrasmurfs to follow, and many chapters who don't fall in line have their own codex.

SeanDrake wrote:
In fact I am not sure why some people seem to have read 20 years worth of fluff involving 100's of guardsman dying to kill 1 marine or whole Guard armoured columns being smashed by half there number of xenos tanks.
Looked at GW battle reports with massive guard forces outnumbering there oposition handily and the impressive dioramas in WHW showing old soviet style parades with guardsman, chimera's and the centuries old LR and thought I want a small elite force with high end equipment IG look perfect.

There are examples of both in the fluff. Some (relatively) small elite forces might be the hardened veterans of many engagements while others might be the well trained and equipped soldiers of a wealthy planet.

That huge parade might actually be made up of elite warriors. That's why I used the term relatively small. The Imperium of Man operates on a huge scale. Hypothetically, if the IoM were to show up to Earth as it is in the real world right now and demand a tithe of one person out of every hundred thousand they would end up with ~70,000 new guardsmen. I think that Earth could probably afford to give one person out of 100,000 an awful lot of training and some really good equipment. Combine that with bits of fluff about the Imperium getting their choice of the planet's PDF, so they might be taking all of the SAS, Spetsnaz, SEALs, etc. If they built one spaceport and all the recruits got shipped off to that city, then on the day that they start sending them up to space it would make for a gigantic farewell parade of very dangerous humans (by present-day Earth standards).

On a hive world you might see the same thing, but with many millions of recruits. I also wouldn't be surprised if the tithe rate was higher than that. I can't remember any specific fluff about exact percentages and frequency when it came to the tithing of soldiers. I imagine it actually varies immensely when it comes to different planets. If I remember correctly the one tenth of a world’s PDF is pretty common. I imagine on some planets that have high populations but are short on other resources the tithe might be a higher percentage of poorly trained and equipped cannon fodder soldiers. On other planets that have a lot of resources but are low on population the tithe might be a lower percentage of the population, but very well trained and equipped.

I would guess that one of the biggest factors in what the IoM will accept is the relative cost of space travel. If space travel is very expensive, it seems like they would only be willing to accept the best. If space travel is relatively cheap, then it seems like they might be willing to accept mass cannon fodder. I imagine that it tends towards expensive, but there are still situations where cannon fodder is acceptable.

Anyway, I’ll stop now as I’ve forgot what the point I was trying to make was.

There isn't as much consensus as there is with other armies regarding the direction of the codex for many reasons. One of which is the amount of ways that the army can be played, possibly moreso than any other army.

Players also get into the mindset that their way of playing is a "more appropriate" way of playing the army. Usually citing the background where X Regiment did Y in Z story, which of course is useless for defending a point simply due to the large amount of fluff in the background.

Every play style for guard has a story behind it, but that doesn't mean one is more correct over the other.

The guard has so many ways to play and this needs to be reflected in their unit selection. I think the codex does a pretty good job of this, and with the inclusion of Militarum Tempestus I think this is better now than ever.

The one thing that doesn't need to happen is the elimination of units (i.e. Rough Riders). As the game expands to include more and more regiments, players, and weapons it needs to bring a more diverse range of units into the fold- not less.

Rough Riders may be a unit that not many use, but that doesn't warrant their elimination. I still don't understand the resentment to them (@Kan) despite pretty much every thread on this subject including that discussion. To this date the only thing I've gathered is that they are a "relic from 2nd edition" and "if they are gone it opens up the spot for another unit to take their place". The first doesn't make any sense as there are PLENTY of units in the game that are from 2nd edition, and the second isn't any sort of guarantee.

Regardless, I think that having more specialist units for Militarum Tempestus would be pretty cool. I'm imagining something like dedicated teams of scions (2 dudes) with weapons like anti-tank rifles similar to the Skitarii Rangers Arquebuses (spelling?)- Possibly more like STR 5 AP 2 Armorbane. Or that same team could have one rifle with different rounds, one for monstrous creatures, one for vehicles, one for characters, etc.

I also think a unit similar to Marine JTAC's would be awesome (Joint Terminal Attack Controllers). I'm not a trained JTAC but I have worked with them before, and if I had to boil their job down to one sentence it'd be: go out ahead of the main body, act as scouts and stay hidden, and identify targets and sense for Air strikes. It's pretty cool and we don't really have much besides the Master of Ordnance that does that.

 Ignatius wrote:


I also think a unit similar to Marine JTAC's would be awesome (Joint Terminal Attack Controllers). I'm not a trained JTAC but I have worked with them before, and if I had to boil their job down to one sentence it'd be: go out ahead of the main body, act as scouts and stay hidden, and identify targets and sense for Air strikes. It's pretty cool and we don't really have much besides the Master of Ordnance that does that.

We used to kinda have a rule for that, once upon a time. IIRC, any command squad (CCS or PCS) with a comm unit (now vox) could call for artillery on an enemy unit in LoS, both as a preliminary bombardment AND during the game. The in-game may have required that an Ordnance equipped vehicle still be in reserves and I don't remember if the unit did it instead of another action or along with another action.

 Ignatius wrote:

The one thing that doesn't need to happen is the elimination of units (i.e. Rough Riders). As the game expands to include more and more regiments, players, and weapons it needs to bring a more diverse range of units into the fold- not less.

Rough Riders may be a unit that not many use, but that doesn't warrant their elimination. I still don't understand the resentment to them (@Kan) despite pretty much every thread on this subject including that discussion. To this date the only thing I've gathered is that they are a "relic from 2nd edition" and "if they are gone it opens up the spot for another unit to take their place".

The first doesn't make any sense as there are PLENTY of units in the game that are from 2nd edition,

Sure, and many of those have:
-Gotten model updates in that time.
-Gotten updates to their background and equipment in-game

Rough Riders are a dead end. They have been for a long time. It's rather telling that GW has flat-out dropped their models.

and the second isn't any sort of guarantee.

Name a time where a Codex has seen units(units, not characters) removed and not seen additions to those slots.

Regardless, I think that having more specialist units for Militarum Tempestus would be pretty cool. I'm imagining something like dedicated teams of scions (2 dudes) with weapons like anti-tank rifles similar to the Skitarii Rangers Arquebuses (spelling?)- Possibly more like STR 5 AP 2 Armorbane. Or that same team could have one rifle with different rounds, one for monstrous creatures, one for vehicles, one for characters, etc.

Why would it have to be Scions?

Also, those Arquebi while great in concept are garbage in game unless you're fighting strictly vehicles. MCs laugh that stuff off, and GMCs laugh even harder.

I also think a unit similar to Marine JTAC's would be awesome (Joint Terminal Attack Controllers). I'm not a trained JTAC but I have worked with them before, and if I had to boil their job down to one sentence it'd be: go out ahead of the main body, act as scouts and stay hidden, and identify targets and sense for Air strikes. It's pretty cool and we don't really have much besides the Master of Ordnance that does that.

I've proposed similar things time and time again, yet people like yourself always are vocally against it because I want the Ratlings and Rough Riders gone along with a dramatic overhaul to the Guard itself.

We are not going to get a good army without sacrificing something. If Rough Riders and Ratlings going the way of the dodo gets us the preeminent combined arms force?

So be it.

I would like to see them brought in line with everyone else (A shock, I know).

It wouldn't really even be that hard, I think, if say they leave the fundamentals of the Guard alone (Platoons mostly) and just add in different Regiment/Homeworld tactics (akin to Chapter tactics). It would allow people to field different armies and have them mean something other than just a reskinned Cadian force.

And I think it was Kanluwen that point it out near page one, regarding armor, but without a rework of the entire armor rules - there's really no point in doing anything with the army anyway. As the rules are now, tanks are a complete joke and there are variants (some of which I actually own) that have been completely sidelined by the stupid change from Lumbering Behemoth to 'heavy tank' - a small complaint, but still something I find irritating - and not to mention the overall 'scratch the paint enough times and the vehicle becomes combat ineffective'.

I *hope* that when they finally get around to writing an update they truly look at the player feedback; the same goes for the other bottom of the barrel codexes as well.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:

The one thing that doesn't need to happen is the elimination of units (i.e. Rough Riders). As the game expands to include more and more regiments, players, and weapons it needs to bring a more diverse range of units into the fold- not less.

Rough Riders may be a unit that not many use, but that doesn't warrant their elimination. I still don't understand the resentment to them (@Kan) despite pretty much every thread on this subject including that discussion. To this date the only thing I've gathered is that they are a "relic from 2nd edition" and "if they are gone it opens up the spot for another unit to take their place".

The first doesn't make any sense as there are PLENTY of units in the game that are from 2nd edition,

Sure, and many of those have:
-Gotten model updates in that time.
-Gotten updates to their background and equipment in-game

Rough Riders are a dead end. They have been for a long time. It's rather telling that GW has flat-out dropped their models.

Fair enough. Though there was Mogul Kamir just one codex ago so that could technically be seen as an update to them. Additionally there are the Death Riders for Krieg which fulfill essentially the same role. So the concept might not necessarily be dead.

and the second isn't any sort of guarantee.

Name a time where a Codex has seen units(units, not characters) removed and not seen additions to those slots.

 Ignatius wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:

The one thing that doesn't need to happen is the elimination of units (i.e. Rough Riders). As the game expands to include more and more regiments, players, and weapons it needs to bring a more diverse range of units into the fold- not less.

Rough Riders may be a unit that not many use, but that doesn't warrant their elimination. I still don't understand the resentment to them (@Kan) despite pretty much every thread on this subject including that discussion. To this date the only thing I've gathered is that they are a "relic from 2nd edition" and "if they are gone it opens up the spot for another unit to take their place".

The first doesn't make any sense as there are PLENTY of units in the game that are from 2nd edition,

Sure, and many of those have:
-Gotten model updates in that time.
-Gotten updates to their background and equipment in-game

Rough Riders are a dead end. They have been for a long time. It's rather telling that GW has flat-out dropped their models.

Fair enough. Though there was Mogul Kamir just one codex ago so that could technically be seen as an update to them. Additionally there are the Death Riders for Krieg which fulfill essentially the same role. So the concept might not necessarily be dead.

Death Riders for Krieg are a totally different thing, seeing as it's a FW army.

Might seem an odd distinction but it is an important one. The only available Rough Rider models as of this moment are the Death Riders.
As for Kamir? He was in C: IG 2nd edition, not in the Doctrines book, then came back only to get dumped again.

I think that's rather telling, don't you?

and the second isn't any sort of guarantee.

Name a time where a Codex has seen units(units, not characters) removed and not seen additions to those slots.

Off the top of my head I have no idea. Just pointing out that it isn't a guarantee, there's nothing saying they can't choose to not give any replacement. Not saying it's likely they won't just saying it's not written anywhere they will.

Me personally I'd like see some form of regimental tactics included, or maybe an update on the doctrines that Guard used to have

 Kanluwen wrote:


Ratlings? Special Weapon Squads with Sniper Rifles!

If you give me a few days to work up a document, I'll get back to you with my "big overhaul".

I'd rather have Ratlings. they are cheaper, better BS, come with infiltrate, can be plussed up to 10 models, etc etc. But wouldn't mind them becoming part of the Platoon.

Look forward to your 'overhaul'.

@Kanluwen. 4th edition guard codex. We lost the griffon, exterminator and vanquisher tanks. They were replaced with nothing until 5th when they were reinstated.

In regards to Ratlings and Rough Riders, perhaps you didnt read my previous post (or didn't want to respond)

The way I see it, it boils down to these possibilities for the next Codex in regards to Ratlings and Rough Riders: A. They are replaced entirely by a unit that... well I'm not certain exactly what you want the replacement to do on the battlefield. It could end up being a shiny but terrible unit. But GW would never do that, now would they!  B. They remain in the codex without the addition of a new Elites and Fast Attack unit to overshadow them and receive minor to major tweaks. C. The I.G. receive a cool new FA and Elite unit that does something awesome and useful. You flip the page and find that Ratlings and Rough Riders are still there (*gasp*!). They may or may not have the minor tweaks they need to be better [Ratlings gain pinning, move through cover, a Ld7 sarge and a points reduction. Rough Riders reduce in price, krak grenades become optional, gain Scout/Outflank, mounted priests and doctrines (carapace armor for 4+save, Demolitions for demo charge and meltabombs, and cyber-steeds to boost toughness or some other buff)] Is that really so bad? It only took a couple minutes for me to figure out a logical way to beef them up a little without making them overpowered. Now I (the theoretical rules writer) have all the rest of my time to hammer out the details of the two new units you want! Option C is possible and would make both of us happy. If that doesn't appease you, I see no sense in continuing this discussion with you.

Pinning does nothing to fix the crap that is Ratlings.

The same thing applies to Rough Riders.

And really, what is the obsession with them? I never have understood the appeal of them.

@Kanluwen, I'll agree that some of those are redundancies, but only to a certain extent.
*Traditionally, rough riders have been outflankers, a role that Orgryns have never filled.
*Ratlings are better than specialists with sniper rifles. They infiltrate, allowing them to set up advantageously. They make better use of cover and can put out a higher volume of sniper shots.
*the different psykers fulfill different rolls. Wyrdvanes and astropaths give you a bigger dice pool without having to trade in a precious Command Squad for a Primaris. Wyrdvanes have more freedom--they don't have to be tied to a Command squad.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Pinning does nothing to fix the crap that is Ratlings.

The same thing applies to Rough Riders.

And really, what is the obsession with them? I never have understood the appeal of them.

Fun...

 Kanluwen wrote:
I never have understood the appeal of them.

Much as I'm agreeing with your changes here, scrapping a unit because you don't like it is why we have favouritism and imbalances in many codexes.

Cruddace was an Imperial Guard player, and he got landed with writing the Tyranid Codex. It's no surprise that he disliked Tyranids, and they were rather bad that edition.
At the same time, Kelly was an Eldar player, and wrote the Eldar codex. I wonder how good Eldar were when he wrote it.

Rough Riders are unique. They are cavalry. That is their appeal. No other unit in the Imperial Guard is cavalry. Scrapping Rough Riders is fine. Just replace them with a cavalry unit, but at that point, they're Rough Riders in all but name. So why not just improve Rough Riders?

CplPunishment wrote:
@Kanluwen, I'll agree that some of those are redundancies, but only to a certain extent.
*Traditionally, rough riders have been outflankers, a role that Orgryns have never filled.

It's only been relatively recent in the game's lifespan that we have had an "outflank" style ability.

There have been plenty of units that can perform that same role however. Jungle Fighters setup from the Doctrines book, for example.

*Ratlings are better than specialists with sniper rifles. They infiltrate, allowing them to set up advantageously. They make better use of cover and can put out a higher volume of sniper shots.

Ratlings are better than Specialists with Sniper Rifles because Special Weapon Squads are still stuck with having to do a 1:1 ratio of Lasguns to Sniper Rifles and can't get any upgrades under the past two books.

With Doctrines? Different story.

*the different psykers fulfill different rolls. Wyrdvanes and astropaths give you a bigger dice pool without having to trade in a precious Command Squad for a Primaris. Wyrdvanes have more freedom--they don't have to be tied to a Command squad.

Unfortunately, this is no longer true. "Agents of the Imperium" has shaken things up, with Primaris and Astropaths being able to be taken without messing with your Command Squads. Same with the Officer of the Fleet.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I never have understood the appeal of them.

Much as I'm agreeing with your changes here, scrapping a unit because you don't like it is why we have favouritism and imbalances in many codexes.

Cruddace was an Imperial Guard player, and he got landed with writing the Tyranid Codex. It's no surprise that he disliked Tyranids, and they were rather bad that edition.
At the same time, Kelly was an Eldar player, and wrote the Eldar codex. I wonder how good Eldar were when he wrote it.

Rough Riders are unique. They are cavalry. That is their appeal. No other unit in the Imperial Guard is cavalry. Scrapping Rough Riders is fine. Just replace them with a cavalry unit, but at that point, they're Rough Riders in all but name. So why not just improve Rough Riders?

@Kan This is essentially the feeling I get from your posts. You don't like the concept of certain units so want them gone. Commissars as you've noted you don't like. Rough Riders are the other big one I can remember you not liking. You are advocating for their removal on the grounds that you don't like them and have developed the thought that you don't feel they support the image you have of the guard in your head as evidence. Both of those things are highly subjective, which is why you are getting push back.

I don't like Ratlings or Ogryns personally. But I don't want them to be removed.

Cavalry was a very important part of the Victorian/Napoleonic Era, which is how I've modeled my Guard, which is why I like it and would like to keep it. I also a Cavalrymen in the US Army so I have a bias towards them. But by the same token I think it would be cool for there to be a scout (supporting role instead of direct damage) unit either on horseback or in light vehicles like a modern cavalry unit because the concept of scouts is mostly missing from the Guard, which is pretty dumb. I think the difference between us is that I would want this new scout unit to not replace Rough Riders, but be offered along side them.

I look forward to your overhaul as well.