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.

The best summary for the game being out of whack was a sentence from the guy with the huge Blood Ravens army in WD: "After Apocalypse 100 Space Marines are still impressive but now they're more of a first step on a road that can stretch as far as you wish" (paraphrased from German).

The whole system is out of whack and the bean counters have won. Look at this thread or any other thread about fixing armies - reducing points (often even FURTHER compared to other editions) is one of the top "fixes" for everything. The game isn't really suited to such large armies and the system isn't that good to begin with, but the FANS recommend to each other to just buy more and field more stuff. How can guard have a niche when SMs are fielding company sized contingents in normal lists and other races have bigger guns. 40k needs a reset, bad.



PS: I'm now tempted to convert the new Sigmarine birdies into Rough Riders. I don't really game anymore, but maybe use them as allied TWC count-as

Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

Check the author named on both of the most recent Guard books. Cruddace.
I don't think he's a Guard player. The only times I've seen him photographed with a Guard army is the Studio stuff. Kelly and the others like Haines? They all got shown at least once or twice with their personal stuff.

Hell, the only time I think I've seen personal stuff from Cruddace is for WHFB with Tomb Kings.

I may be wrong that he was a Guard player, but he wasn't Tyranid - that may be a reason for Tyranid weakness.

At the same time, Kelly was an Eldar player, and wrote the Eldar codex. I wonder how good Eldar were when he wrote it.

Kelly has basically written/headed every Eldar book in recent memory.

And hasn't every Eldar book been very powerful, in the top echelons of most editions?

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?

There is no improving them. They're a dead end.

What, so me giving them 2+/2++/2+++ saves with rerolls and Strength D weapons wouldn't improve them?
Huh.

I'm of the opinion that any unit can be improved. It's just a case of how much you're going to change.
And if you're saying that there's no hope for Cavalry in 40k, which is the main point of Rough Riders, then how do you intend to make your version of cavalry in your own overhaul? I look forward to your portrayal of cavalry if you say that there's no hope for them.

Who cares that they're cavalry? If you want riding beasts, play Space Wolves or Daemons. Or invest in a Death Korps army. Because that's the biggest reason I keep hearing from people to "make Rough Riders better, like the Death Korps version".

Oh, you know, people who like cavalry in their Guard. I mean, I could apply that logic to any aspect of the Guard, or even most armies.

Who cares if Ogryns aren't big and hulking brutes? If you want big hulking brutes, play Tyranids.
Who cares if Chaos Space Marines are bad? If you want power armoured Space Marines, play Space Marines.
Who cares if Dark Eldar are too fragile? If you want space elves, play Eldar.
Who cares if Imperial Guard tanks are bad? If you want tanks, play Space Marines.
Who cares if Terminators are too weak? If you want durable infantry, play Necrons.
Etc etc

Cavalry is part of the Imperial Guard, whether motorized or flesh and blood. It can have a purpose, and aside from your prejudice against them and yourself not seeing a point, I'm sure others would like to see them remain.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
They completely revamped the image of Stormtroopers, so I don't see why they couldn't do the same for Roughriders. Replacing the horses with something bigger and more dangerous might be a good start. Then organize them into platoons and replace their hunting lances with power lances. Let them take lasguns too.

Let's be brutally frank here.

They didn't "revamp" the image of Stormtroopers. They rebranded them. It's still the same background, it's still the same equipment, etc. There's no real way to do that with Rough Riders IMO. It's a dead end, no matter how much time I've spent trying to make them work. There is just no way, shape, or form where I can get them to a point where:
a) They still feel like they "fit" into the army.
b) They don't feel like they belong more in a Cultist heavy Traitor Guard army.

So why can't we "rebrand" Rough Riders? After all, we're just looking for Cavalry. If you say there's no way for mounted units to exist in the Imperial Guard, then why do the Death Korps have them? And again, looking forward to your overhaul of cavalry with no cavalry.

Ratlings however have real potential in my opinion. They just need more equipment (vox casters, camo gear, snare mines etc.). If Ratlings were Troops (part of an infantry platoon?), they could hold your home objectives whilst the other units go on the offensive.

What are we really defining as "go on the offensive"?

The whole spiel/schtick of the Guard is holding ground, then slowly pushing the enemy back.

Not all the time.

Well, unless you want to completely relegate Atttilans, Armageddon Steel Legion, Elysians, Harakoni Warhawks, Tanith First and Only, etc etc. Are they no longer Guardsmen? Or perhaps the Guard aren't all one homogenous entity as you put it. They aren't all Cadians.

This is why Doctrines would be good. So that the Guard aren't a homogenous collective, and there's actual variation in how they go to war. Attillans tend to use cavalry. Steel Legion tend advance in Chimeras. Tanith are horribly unoptimised for holding ground or pushing an enemy back. Elysians and Harakoni can't hold ground if they didn't start on it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

Check the author named on both of the most recent Guard books. Cruddace.
I don't think he's a Guard player. The only times I've seen him photographed with a Guard army is the Studio stuff. Kelly and the others like Haines? They all got shown at least once or twice with their personal stuff.

Hell, the only time I think I've seen personal stuff from Cruddace is for WHFB with Tomb Kings.

I may be wrong that he was a Guard player, but he wasn't Tyranid - that may be a reason for Tyranid weakness.

At the same time, Kelly was an Eldar player, and wrote the Eldar codex. I wonder how good Eldar were when he wrote it.

Kelly has basically written/headed every Eldar book in recent memory.

And hasn't every Eldar book been very powerful, in the top echelons of most editions?

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?

There is no improving them. They're a dead end.

What, so me giving them 2+/2++/2+++ saves with rerolls and Strength D weapons wouldn't improve them?
Huh.

I'm of the opinion that any unit can be improved. It's just a case of how much you're going to change.
And if you're saying that there's no hope for Cavalry in 40k, which is the main point of Rough Riders, then how do you intend to make your version of cavalry in your own overhaul? I look forward to your portrayal of cavalry if you say that there's no hope for them.

Who cares that they're cavalry? If you want riding beasts, play Space Wolves or Daemons. Or invest in a Death Korps army. Because that's the biggest reason I keep hearing from people to "make Rough Riders better, like the Death Korps version".

Oh, you know, people who like cavalry in their Guard. I mean, I could apply that logic to any aspect of the Guard, or even most armies.

Who cares if Ogryns aren't big and hulking brutes? If you want big hulking brutes, play Tyranids.
Who cares if Chaos Space Marines are bad? If you want power armoured Space Marines, play Space Marines.
Who cares if Dark Eldar are too fragile? If you want space elves, play Eldar.
Who cares if Imperial Guard tanks are bad? If you want tanks, play Space Marines.
Who cares if Terminators are too weak? If you want durable infantry, play Necrons.
Etc etc

Cavalry is part of the Imperial Guard, whether motorized or flesh and blood. It can have a purpose, and aside from your prejudice against them and yourself not seeing a point, I'm sure others would like to see them remain.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
They completely revamped the image of Stormtroopers, so I don't see why they couldn't do the same for Roughriders. Replacing the horses with something bigger and more dangerous might be a good start. Then organize them into platoons and replace their hunting lances with power lances. Let them take lasguns too.

Let's be brutally frank here.

They didn't "revamp" the image of Stormtroopers. They rebranded them. It's still the same background, it's still the same equipment, etc. There's no real way to do that with Rough Riders IMO. It's a dead end, no matter how much time I've spent trying to make them work. There is just no way, shape, or form where I can get them to a point where:
a) They still feel like they "fit" into the army.
b) They don't feel like they belong more in a Cultist heavy Traitor Guard army.

So why can't we "rebrand" Rough Riders? After all, we're just looking for Cavalry. If you say there's no way for mounted units to exist in the Imperial Guard, then why do the Death Korps have them? And again, looking forward to your overhaul of cavalry with no cavalry.

Ratlings however have real potential in my opinion. They just need more equipment (vox casters, camo gear, snare mines etc.). If Ratlings were Troops (part of an infantry platoon?), they could hold your home objectives whilst the other units go on the offensive.

What are we really defining as "go on the offensive"?

The whole spiel/schtick of the Guard is holding ground, then slowly pushing the enemy back.

Not all the time.

Well, unless you want to completely relegate Atttilans, Armageddon Steel Legion, Elysians, Harakoni Warhawks, Tanith First and Only, etc etc. Are they no longer Guardsmen? Or perhaps the Guard aren't all one homogenous entity as you put it. They aren't all Cadians.

This is why Doctrines would be good. So that the Guard aren't a homogenous collective, and there's actual variation in how they go to war. Attillans tend to use cavalry. Steel Legion tend advance in Chimeras. Tanith are horribly unoptimised for holding ground or pushing an enemy back. Elysians and Harakoni can't hold ground if they didn't start on it.

It sounds to me like Kanluwen thinks that codex: Astra Militarum should be codex: Cadians. I can't stress enough that all guard regiments do notoperate with the same tactics and wargear. Even the common lasgun is different from planet to planet.

I hope they find a way to make Valkyries more widespread. Look at this pic:



That's what the IG should be like when they go Airborne. Valkyries everywhere. I have 4 of them but in the current game I don't think I could take them all.

How would you do it? Make them cheaper? Again, I think 40k itself needs overhauled first.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I hope they find a way to make Valkyries more widespread. Look at this pic:



That's what the IG should be like when they go Airborne. Valkyries everywhere. I have 4 of them but in the current game I don't think I could take them all.

How would you do it? Make them cheaper? Again, I think 40k itself needs overhauled first.

I've always loved the idea of an airborne Catachan force. Actually, I'm working on one now.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I hope they find a way to make Valkyries more widespread. Look at this pic:



That's what the IG should be like when they go Airborne. Valkyries everywhere. I have 4 of them but in the current game I don't think I could take them all.

How would you do it? Make them cheaper? Again, I think 40k itself needs overhauled first.

Making them cheaper wouldn't work if Valkyries were allowed to stay on the table. If 40k introduced a system to buy support powers, then you could make a Valkyrie Flyover power that would drop off a unit you paid for, perhaps fire some of its weapons, then fly off. That would also be useful for people who can't afford to buy multiple Valkyrie models.

That system would also allow for off-table artillery strikes; unless you're playing Apocalypse, having a Basilisk battery on the front line seemed very silly.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I hope they find a way to make Valkyries more widespread. Look at this pic:



That's what the IG should be like when they go Airborne. Valkyries everywhere. I have 4 of them but in the current game I don't think I could take them all.

How would you do it? Make them cheaper? Again, I think 40k itself needs overhauled first.

I am haunted by the desire of doing an IG or Tempestus army like that but see the problem is not the rules or points costs it is the scale of the game pieces. At 28mm scale even one Valkyrie is ridiculous on a 6'x4' table. To do an air cav army properly you need to reduce the scale of game pieces right down, like 6mm tops as with epic 40k. The smaller the game pieces the bigger your battlefield becomes. At 28mm scale a 6' x 4' table is the size of a football (soccar for americans) pitch.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I hope they find a way to make Valkyries more widespread. Look at this pic:



That's what the IG should be like when they go Airborne. Valkyries everywhere. I have 4 of them but in the current game I don't think I could take them all.

How would you do it? Make them cheaper? Again, I think 40k itself needs overhauled first.

Making them cheaper wouldn't work if Valkyries were allowed to stay on the table. If 40k introduced a system to buy support powers, then you could make a Valkyrie Flyover power that would drop off a unit you paid for, perhaps fire some of its weapons, then fly off. That would also be useful for people who can't afford to buy multiple Valkyrie models.

That system would also allow for off-table artillery strikes; unless you're playing Apocalypse, having a Basilisk battery on the front line seemed very silly.

I would really love to see something like that.

One already can get the off-table Artillery through a Master of Ordnance, but support purchases like that would be awesome.

You'd probably want to limit support power purchases to a % of the total points, to avoid a literal rain of artillery/valk flyovers, but yeah.

It's a system already present in concept in my 40k ruleset, to compliment the "deck building" mechanic I've made (a la Wargame/Team Yankee).

I've tied a limit to support powers in the same way a CAD limits the amount of units from a certain category that you can take. Your Warlord also has a Strategy Rating to prevent support power spam in turn 1, with the number of powers available per turn being equal to that rating.

I am aware of the Master of Ordnance, of course, but his "artillery strike" is pretty pathetic, considering only a single Basilisk is firing each time. Is the rest of the battery on tea break or something?

I really like these ideas! Only thing is, since GW is in the business of selling models...is it possible to create these support units and still have a model for them?

This goes beyond the guard but, what if certain units were deemed as 'support assets' and could only be attacked in certain circumstances. Like, artillery support can only be attacked by air support or other artillery units...maybe this is getting too complicated.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I really like these ideas! Only thing is, since GW is in the business of selling models...is it possible to create these support units and still have a model for them?

You'd only have to use one model, but you'd still need it, since we'd also have to allow AA or other aircraft to attack that Valkyrie before it can just fly in/off, and you'd need a model for drawing LOS.

For artillery, well... anything but the Basilisk would have to be on the table anyway

This goes beyond the guard but, what if certain units were deemed as 'support assets' and could only be attacked in certain circumstances. Like, artillery support can only be attacked by air support or other artillery units...maybe this is getting too complicated.

I put a lot of support powers on cooldowns, meaning you either flip the card over for a certain number of turns, or write a number on it that you change till it reaches zero. Most things only have a 1 turn cooldown, so it's not too complicated to keep track. It balances out the fact that they can't be stopped since they're coming from something off the table.

@ General Annoyance

Sounds good to me!

What if 40k was to go down the AoS route of warscrolls and damage charts with everything having wounds and saves? It might be the best way to go...I say at the risk of starting an argument.

Here's a really simple AoS style way to operate a Hydra's autocannons for example: during your opponents turn, pick an enemy flier after it moves (LOS doesn't matter because it's up in the sky and we're being abstract here) and roll 8 dice (4 if it's slightly damaged and 0 if it's heavily damaged). Each time you roll a 5 or 6, the flier suffers a mortal wound. Some fliers can have protection against this. Tau Razorsharks and Sunsharks for example can both have Decoy Launchers, giving them a 4+ save against wounds caused by these attacks. Imperial fliers by contrast can just have more wounds (6?), letting them soak it all up.

While I think 40k could use with some serious Sigmarization, I'm not sure how well a direct translation would work. 40k tends to rely on much more customizable loadouts than WHFB and Sigmar after it did. I'd appreciate a simpler system for just about everything, but it'd probably have to be a different one.

 Fafnir wrote:
While I think 40k could use with some serious Sigmarization, I'm not sure how well a direct translation would work. 40k tends to rely on much more customizable loadouts than WHFB and Sigmar after it did. I'd appreciate a simpler system for just about everything, but it'd probably have to be a different one.

No. Nononononono, you keep AoS and its drug addled writers well away from 40K.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
While I think 40k could use with some serious Sigmarization, I'm not sure how well a direct translation would work. 40k tends to rely on much more customizable loadouts than WHFB and Sigmar after it did. I'd appreciate a simpler system for just about everything, but it'd probably have to be a different one.

No. Nononononono, you keep AoS and its drug addled writers well away from 40K.

You know they are the same ones, don't you?

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
While I think 40k could use with some serious Sigmarization, I'm not sure how well a direct translation would work. 40k tends to rely on much more customizable loadouts than WHFB and Sigmar after it did. I'd appreciate a simpler system for just about everything, but it'd probably have to be a different one.

No. Nononononono, you keep AoS and its drug addled writers well away from 40K.

I'm sorry, but 40k is basically an unplayable and thoroughly unenjoyable mess at this point. AoS at its launch was definitely a miss, but it's gotten a lot better in a very short timeframe, and at this point has a lot more going for it than 40k has in decades. Some serious simplification, downscaling, and general rethinking would do 40k a lot of good.

It can't copy AoS exactly (too much wargear) but it can learn a lot from it.

AoS's damage charts and wounds/saves for tanks would be a big boon for starters.

 master of ordinance wrote:

No. Nononononono, you keep AoS and its drug addled writers well away from 40K.

That is my first reaction to the idea of sigamising 40k but on reflection AoSing 40k isn't quite the same thing as AoSing WFB.

Aside from blowing up WFB's rich fluff and replacing it with a bland paste the issue with AoS (for me at least) is that it threw away rank 'n' flank amongst other changes. This at least made AoS a transition from WFB to something more like 40k. AoS could be seen as 40king WFB.

It is pure guess work what 8th ed 40k will be but if it was change similar to what AoS was to WFB it wouldn't necessarily be so catastrophic a change. Just 40k but simpler.

Hmm, as someone whom has played AoS and WHFB I can honestly say that whilst AoS makes for a great 'beer and pretzels' game, I have nightmares about it leaking out into other games. Not that I am against certain aspects (reduced performance from injured monsters for instance).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Back on topic.

Another major weakness that the Imperial Guard suffer from is the lack of mobility. Our transports are inherently expensive and have rather poor armour (yes, the Chimera has AV12 on its bow, but its flanks are only AV10, and the Taurox has less armour than a Rhino). They are also not viable with blobguard (why are you running it anyway) and full sized platoons can cost 270 minimal to mobilise (six Taurox) which leaves you with five sections and a command section mounte up in transports that will invariably not be there by the end of turn two, but hey, at least you have some mobility. This leaves Veterans as the only viable units to mount inside transports as they can have the suitability to be able to survive the inevitable dismounting they will suffer, as well as the Special Weapons allowance to be able to deal some damage when they get there. And you usually have less Veterans than units in a platoon, so....

Mobilising your Infantry also opens up another issue with the Guard, that of support. So, you have paid the ridiculously high cost and mounted your Veterans (why would you ever mount platoons?) within transports and you now have a few fast moving units that you can speed towards your objectives. BUT how are you going to support them? The bog standard support tank available to the guard is the Leman Russ, but this vehicle suffers from being classed as "Heavy" which is essentially nothing more than a nerf to any vehicle which is classified under its ponderous title. Your Veterans need some armoured support, but if you try to take advantage of the mobility you have spent good points on you will swiftly outrun your support units as they cannot move faster than 6" a turn, whilst your Chimera can go anything up to 18" (12" move plus 6" flatout move), meaning that your support is quickly left in the dust.
So, you need a support tank, but the only unit you can turn too is the Hellhound, which is a laughably overpriced junk tank with a short (pathetically so in the case of the Chem variant) range and an amazing armour of 12/12/10. So it costs as much as the far superior Leman Russ Eradicator (which does exactly the same job but better), but hey, at least it can actually keep pace with the Chimeras..... Until the enemy bothers to shoot it that is.

So, what can you do? If you want to run an "effective" army you have to bring foot units with armour support and pray that the enemy does not deepstrike, outflank or outshoot/run you, but you will be unable to move or react fast enough to claim the objectives, especially if you are playing Maelstrom (SchizophreniccommandersonLSDstrom), but if you do choose to pay for the laughably overpriced transports then you will struggle to support your Infantry units as they advance, and you will run the heavy (and very likely) risk of your Infantry being caught unsupported and wiped out.

Your only choice is to turn to the Imperial Armour books and bring Thunderer's and Laser destroyer's which are thankfully not (at least not yet) classified as "Heavy" (read "slow"), and these vehicles are both rather expensive for what they bring, especially the Laser Destroyer which is basically an Ordnance Lascannon mounted on a Leman Russ chassis. The Thunderer is not too bad though.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Hmm, as someone whom has played AoS and WHFB I can honestly say that whilst AoS makes for a great 'beer and pretzels' game, I have nightmares about it leaking out into other games. Not that I am against certain aspects (reduced performance from injured monsters for instance).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Back on topic.

Another major weakness that the Imperial Guard suffer from is the lack of mobility. Our transports are inherently expensive and have rather poor armour (yes, the Chimera has AV12 on its bow, but its flanks are only AV10, and the Taurox has less armour than a Rhino). They are also not viable with blobguard (why are you running it anyway) and full sized platoons can cost 270 minimal to mobilise (six Taurox) which leaves you with five sections and a command section mounte up in transports that will invariably not be there by the end of turn two, but hey, at least you have some mobility. This leaves Veterans as the only viable units to mount inside transports as they can have the suitability to be able to survive the inevitable dismounting they will suffer, as well as the Special Weapons allowance to be able to deal some damage when they get there. And you usually have less Veterans than units in a platoon, so....

Mobilising your Infantry also opens up another issue with the Guard, that of support. So, you have paid the ridiculously high cost and mounted your Veterans (why would you ever mount platoons?) within transports and you now have a few fast moving units that you can speed towards your objectives. BUT how are you going to support them? The bog standard support tank available to the guard is the Leman Russ, but this vehicle suffers from being classed as "Heavy" which is essentially nothing more than a nerf to any vehicle which is classified under its ponderous title. Your Veterans need some armoured support, but if you try to take advantage of the mobility you have spent good points on you will swiftly outrun your support units as they cannot move faster than 6" a turn, whilst your Chimera can go anything up to 18" (12" move plus 6" flatout move), meaning that your support is quickly left in the dust.
So, you need a support tank, but the only unit you can turn too is the Hellhound, which is a laughably overpriced junk tank with a short (pathetically so in the case of the Chem variant) range and an amazing armour of 12/12/10. So it costs as much as the far superior Leman Russ Eradicator (which does exactly the same job but better), but hey, at least it can actually keep pace with the Chimeras..... Until the enemy bothers to shoot it that is.

So, what can you do? If you want to run an "effective" army you have to bring foot units with armour support and pray that the enemy does not deepstrike, outflank or outshoot/run you, but you will be unable to move or react fast enough to claim the objectives, especially if you are playing Maelstrom (SchizophreniccommandersonLSDstrom), but if you do choose to pay for the laughably overpriced transports then you will struggle to support your Infantry units as they advance, and you will run the heavy (and very likely) risk of your Infantry being caught unsupported and wiped out.

Your only choice is to turn to the Imperial Armour books and bring Thunderer's and Laser destroyer's which are thankfully not (at least not yet) classified as "Heavy" (read "slow"), and these vehicles are both rather expensive for what they bring, especially the Laser Destroyer which is basically an Ordnance Lascannon mounted on a Leman Russ chassis. The Thunderer is not too bad though.

I find it rather interesting that an Imperial Guard player would complain about support being left in the dust, when you have all the longest range weapons in the game.

Also 12/12/10 is considered OP if you listen to the anti-Eldar crowd.
You should be happy that your tanks at least fit behind cover most of the time, including Aegis and footmen.

Lastly, transports are for elite armies, cheap footsloggers aren't worth the fuel required to bring them to destination safely.
In that sense, meltavets in whatever you transport them are perfectly fine.

But hey, I agree that in general, vehicles are in a horrible place right now, especially with that auto-hit rear armor thing, and that many vehicles should cost a good deal less, including for Astra Militarum.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It can't copy AoS exactly (too much wargear) but it can learn a lot from it.

AoS's damage charts and wounds/saves for tanks would be a big boon for starters.

Wargear is a joke excuse for them being unable to copy AoS. We're seeing a lot of squads with options there now(Liberators, for example).

Here's an AoS version of a Guard Squad:

An Imperial Guard Infantry Squad consists of 10 models. The Sergeant has a Laspistol and Close Combat Weapon, but can replace his Pistol with a different Ranged Weapon from the Ranged Weapon options and his Close Combat Weapon with a different Melee Weapon from the Melee Weapon options.
Two models from the Infantry Squad can be formed into a Heavy Weapons Team, selecting from the Heavy Weapons options.
One model from the Infantry Squad can take a Special Weapon from the Special Weapon options.
One model may be given a Vox-Caster.

Boom. Done, AoS'd. You can go a bit further even and have the Sergeant getting options for Carapace Armor and Refractor Fields, etc.

My Guard overhaul is still underway, with no real ETA as to when it's done. When it's done, it's done and I'll post it.

morgoth wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Hmm, as someone whom has played AoS and WHFB I can honestly say that whilst AoS makes for a great 'beer and pretzels' game, I have nightmares about it leaking out into other games. Not that I am against certain aspects (reduced performance from injured monsters for instance).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Back on topic.

Another major weakness that the Imperial Guard suffer from is the lack of mobility. Our transports are inherently expensive and have rather poor armour (yes, the Chimera has AV12 on its bow, but its flanks are only AV10, and the Taurox has less armour than a Rhino). They are also not viable with blobguard (why are you running it anyway) and full sized platoons can cost 270 minimal to mobilise (six Taurox) which leaves you with five sections and a command section mounte up in transports that will invariably not be there by the end of turn two, but hey, at least you have some mobility. This leaves Veterans as the only viable units to mount inside transports as they can have the suitability to be able to survive the inevitable dismounting they will suffer, as well as the Special Weapons allowance to be able to deal some damage when they get there. And you usually have less Veterans than units in a platoon, so....

Mobilising your Infantry also opens up another issue with the Guard, that of support. So, you have paid the ridiculously high cost and mounted your Veterans (why would you ever mount platoons?) within transports and you now have a few fast moving units that you can speed towards your objectives. BUT how are you going to support them? The bog standard support tank available to the guard is the Leman Russ, but this vehicle suffers from being classed as "Heavy" which is essentially nothing more than a nerf to any vehicle which is classified under its ponderous title. Your Veterans need some armoured support, but if you try to take advantage of the mobility you have spent good points on you will swiftly outrun your support units as they cannot move faster than 6" a turn, whilst your Chimera can go anything up to 18" (12" move plus 6" flatout move), meaning that your support is quickly left in the dust.
So, you need a support tank, but the only unit you can turn too is the Hellhound, which is a laughably overpriced junk tank with a short (pathetically so in the case of the Chem variant) range and an amazing armour of 12/12/10. So it costs as much as the far superior Leman Russ Eradicator (which does exactly the same job but better), but hey, at least it can actually keep pace with the Chimeras..... Until the enemy bothers to shoot it that is.

So, what can you do? If you want to run an "effective" army you have to bring foot units with armour support and pray that the enemy does not deepstrike, outflank or outshoot/run you, but you will be unable to move or react fast enough to claim the objectives, especially if you are playing Maelstrom (SchizophreniccommandersonLSDstrom), but if you do choose to pay for the laughably overpriced transports then you will struggle to support your Infantry units as they advance, and you will run the heavy (and very likely) risk of your Infantry being caught unsupported and wiped out.

Your only choice is to turn to the Imperial Armour books and bring Thunderer's and Laser destroyer's which are thankfully not (at least not yet) classified as "Heavy" (read "slow"), and these vehicles are both rather expensive for what they bring, especially the Laser Destroyer which is basically an Ordnance Lascannon mounted on a Leman Russ chassis. The Thunderer is not too bad though.

I find it rather interesting that an Imperial Guard player would complain about support being left in the dust, when you have all the longest range weapons in the game.

Also 12/12/10 is considered OP if you listen to the anti-Eldar crowd.
You should be happy that your tanks at least fit behind cover most of the time, including Aegis and footmen.

Lastly, transports are for elite armies, cheap footsloggers aren't worth the fuel required to bring them to destination safely.
In that sense, meltavets in whatever you transport them are perfectly fine.

But hey, I agree that in general, vehicles are in a horrible place right now, especially with that auto-hit rear armor thing, and that many vehicles should cost a good deal less, including for Astra Militarum.

No, we have ONE of the longest ranged weapons. And our Infantry need the support to be in an available position, not two miles back trying to fine a LoS across the board. in addition many of our support tanks (Eradicator, Demoliter, etc) have a short range, requiring them to waddle (or as close as a Tank can come to waddling) across the board before they can shoot.
Anyway, range is largely useless to us. Sure, our basilisk may be able to shoot 10 feet, but the board is only 6' by 4'.

AV 12/12/10 is OP on Eldar vehicles because they are also fast skimmers with invun saves, transport capacity and amazing levels of firepower on a chassis that is really quite cheap.

Transports are for ALL armies, not just the elite few whom get all the toys. And what if I want to do my Guard as an elite Heavy infantry mechanised platoon? or in a more practical sense, what if I want to grab the objectives for once, instead of inching across the board and trying not to die in vast numbers whilst I do so?

I agree with you on the last part though - hard not too really .

I'd personally use air cav to solve your issue. The Valkyrie is still quite affordable, and has decent firepower for the cost.

If I were building guard, I'd go blob/psyker/artillery/mech vet/air cav. I probably wouldn't have a single heavy tank, despite the history.

Whatever objective you are trying to take gets bombarded by wyverns followed up by the Valkyries before the troops even hit the ground. On a per pt basis, valkyries are far more durable than Stormravens and so are a very good troop mover.

"(why are you running it anyway)"

Because FRFSF is terrifying coming from 50 guardsmen on a target affected by misfortune. Blobs are why divination is literally 5 X better for guard than it is for marines. Actually more than 5X, because 4++ is better than the base guard save.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd personally use air cav to solve your issue. The Valkyrie is still quite affordable, and has decent firepower for the cost.

If I were building guard, I'd go blob/psyker/artillery/mech vet/air cav. I probably wouldn't have a single heavy tank, despite the history.

Whatever objective you are trying to take gets bombarded by wyverns followed up by the Valkyries before the troops even hit the ground. On a per pt basis, valkyries are far more durable than Stormravens and so are a very good troop mover.

"(why are you running it anyway)"

Because FRFSF is terrifying coming from 50 guardsmen on a target affected by misfortune. Blobs are why divination is literally 5 X better for guard than it is for marines. Actually more than 5X, because 4++ is better than the base guard save.

Even back in 5th I would rarely use the russ. I did for the first half of that edition until opponents started spamming broadsides.

Oh and don't forget the aegis line with commlink for your air cav.

CplPunishment wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd personally use air cav to solve your issue. The Valkyrie is still quite affordable, and has decent firepower for the cost.

If I were building guard, I'd go blob/psyker/artillery/mech vet/air cav. I probably wouldn't have a single heavy tank, despite the history.

Whatever objective you are trying to take gets bombarded by wyverns followed up by the Valkyries before the troops even hit the ground. On a per pt basis, valkyries are far more durable than Stormravens and so are a very good troop mover.

"(why are you running it anyway)"

Because FRFSF is terrifying coming from 50 guardsmen on a target affected by misfortune. Blobs are why divination is literally 5 X better for guard than it is for marines. Actually more than 5X, because 4++ is better than the base guard save.

Even back in 5th I would rarely use the russ. I did for the first half of that edition until opponents started spamming broadsides.

My lists tend to share a lot of the elements mentioned by Martel, but I still almost always use my Russes to decent effect. A blob buffed up with psychic and orders support can do a lot more heavy lifting than the opponent would expect, especially if you can keep it alive with that 4++; having 1 to 2 mech vet units and sticking a PCS in that borderline auto-include Vendetta do *enough* for mobility IMO; Wyverns are definitely auto-include and a Manticore might be nice situationally. But do you really want these things to get shot at right away? Artillery and mech vets are very easily killed, and a blob reduced to the size of regular units really loses its teeth, so why not offer a more tempting, yet fairly resilient choice of target to the enemy?

Enter the Russes. Except for D and Tau ignores LoS bull, AV 14 and side 13 is very tough. Given proper bubblewrap to prevent melta pods/melee and a source of improved cover saves, the Leman Russ can tank (APPLAUSE) quite a bit of incoming fire, at least much more than anything else we've got. Even regular battle cannons can be scary, so even without sinking lots of points into upgrades, they are certainly still a threat. They are also the largest non-flyer/non-superheavy models in the army. All of these traits put together, I argue, can make Russes the perfect distraction unit(s).

Pasknisher is another great use of the Russ, though for a very different reason. He is, of course, likely to draw a lot of fire, so I always pay for upgrades and support to up his durability, but that's because he can kill anything within 24", especially if you get the Ignores Cover divination power.

Of course, this is not claiming LRs are god-tier units in 40k, or even within the IG codex, but they are faaar from worthless.

In my experience, people just ignore the Russes in the shooting phase (unless they've got D weapons or some such thing) and kill them with assaults. Russes damage/pt is not that high in 7th ed.

Battle cannons are ignorable by most of the best units in the game now thanks to the magic of T5 and layered saves. The demolisher cannon is hands down better in most situations now. Instajibbing marines is a 5th ed thing.

"But do you really want these things to get shot at right away? "

You can't choose what your opponent shoots at. You can only choose what they assault. Me? I'm still gonna melta your Wyverns and Chimeras first.

Either that or they DS and assault unit or run it up in a landraider (difficult for Guard to pop) and wipe it out in assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Either that or they DS and assault unit or run it up in a landraider (difficult for Guard to pop) and wipe it out in assault.

No one any good uses land raiders.

Still better than a Leman Russ.