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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Battlegrinder wrote:
Aren't they like cyborged up stormtroopers pumped to the gills with combat drugs? That's not exactly the same as "dude on a horse".

No. Their horses are genetically engineered horse-beasts on combat drugs, but the men riding them are just normal humans. And grimdark horse-beasts instead of WHFB horses is entirely in line with the theme of 40k.

and no, I was unaware of a mounted commissar being a thing.

It was a FW event-only limited edition model, but rules-wise DKoK death rider squads can take commissars.

Or RT-era models/rules (and maybe 2nd) where you could add a Commissar to Rough Riders and he automatically got a free horse. Got one sitting on my shelf. See my previous post on RT-era RR for GW catalog pics of them.

Reason I keep mentioning these older models/rules is to point out that there is actually a much longer history of some of these units/models/rules than many newer players are aware of. IE someone being unaware that a mounted commissar was a thing, even without special event only limited-release models


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Can I have my guard landspeeders back?

Yes, please. Fast lightly armored heavy plasma cannon and multilaser... Wouldn't it be loverly!

I've always thought of rough riders as a shock unit. You send them in before the enemy even knows you're there and they don't have time to man their guns. They ride up, spear some gunners and run back again.

As for the bike argument, there's probably a reason the guard uses horses instead, Its easier. You need your techpriests to spend more time on bikes, you need to maintain it constantly, you have to make sure the machine spirit doesn't go nuts and you need fuel. Horses are easy in comparison.

Hopefully the lord commander of the Imperial guard as a lord of war choice.

Why has this suddenly turned into a Rough Rider thread? As someone else said, rough Riders are so far down on our priority list right now that they are a moot point.

NivlacSupreme wrote:
As for the bike argument, there's probably a reason the guard uses horses instead, Its easier. You need your techpriests to spend more time on bikes, you need to maintain it constantly, you have to make sure the machine spirit doesn't go nuts and you need fuel. Horses are easy in comparison.

Sounds like somebody has never cared for a horse...

I'll let you in on a secret, though. You can put a bike in a sealed container for a month, and it'll be good to go when you take it out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Why has this suddenly turned into a Rough Rider thread? As someone else said, rough Riders are so far down on our priority list right now that they are a moot point.

That was me. I had suggested that Platoons and Russes were a more important issue. But carry on with the RR discussion. Maybe we can fix Ogryns and Ratlings afterward...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

NivlacSupreme wrote:
As for the bike argument, there's probably a reason the guard uses horses instead, Its easier. You need your techpriests to spend more time on bikes, you need to maintain it constantly, you have to make sure the machine spirit doesn't go nuts and you need fuel. Horses are easy in comparison.

Sounds like somebody has never cared for a horse...

I'll let you in on a secret, though. You can put a bike in a sealed container for a month, and it'll be good to go when you take it out.

I'm pretty sure the mechanicus would kill you for even mentioning that.

... unlike the horses, when the Munitorum first tried having Mechanicus care for them.

What does the future hold for IG? Hopefully no more Taurox inspired vehicles...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

NivlacSupreme wrote:
As for the bike argument, there's probably a reason the guard uses horses instead, Its easier. You need your techpriests to spend more time on bikes, you need to maintain it constantly, you have to make sure the machine spirit doesn't go nuts and you need fuel. Horses are easy in comparison.

Sounds like somebody has never cared for a horse...

I'll let you in on a secret, though. You can put a bike in a sealed container for a month, and it'll be good to go when you take it out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Why has this suddenly turned into a Rough Rider thread? As someone else said, rough Riders are so far down on our priority list right now that they are a moot point.

That was me. I had suggested that Platoons and Russes were a more important issue. But carry on with the RR discussion. Maybe we can fix Ogryns and Ratlings afterward...

Ooh, ooh! Ratlings next! Same points cost... but camo gear that gives them Shrouded by default!

Also, I'm too lazy to track down the post myself, but someone mentioned 150 pts for Ogryns ironically, but the Bullgryns are literally 145. And that's when their only job is to absorb fire, never getting to shoot or assault, as they are targeted to reduce my tanks' cover saves. If you want to make them scary in melee... Well, 200 pts for 3 guys seems excessive even for useful units like MANZ, Centurions, etc. But I still frequently take them because my opponents actually shoot at them for some reason instead of my other units, and because Bane's face.

Post deleted because I was being pointlessly irritable.

alphaecho wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

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

If I ever get into that army,

Go buy and build the your first 100 before you start making noise about what us existing IG players should do to satisfy your nonsense wishes.

Unfortunately, some of us are in the process of going that far.

This photo doesn't include the other 110 I've painted up since. Or the other ones that need stripping, prepping and painting up.




I'm clocking up in the region of 500+ Praetorians, a labour of love since 1998.

On an unrelated note, I've seen GW's first background reference to Praetorians I can recall since the 3rd ed Codex courtesy of the latest Captain Catachan article from the Regimental Standard:

https://regimental-standard.com/2017/02/22/captain-catachans-guide-to-dangerous-flora/


"Please excuse his colourful language and harsh local colloquialisms: he was raised in less refined surroundings than you, good men of Mordia, Praetoria and Cadia".


Huzzah!

According to some people on this forum, your Praetorians either:
A. Don't *actually* exist.
Or
B. Are essentially just cadians with fancy hats.

Their justification for rejecting anything that isn't vanilla? *I* don't like it because it doesn't fit with Cadia therefore it shouldn't exist. Arguing with these types feels like telling a brick wall that is about to topple over onto your intricately painted models to stop. It won't and they won't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KommissarKiln wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

NivlacSupreme wrote:
As for the bike argument, there's probably a reason the guard uses horses instead, Its easier. You need your techpriests to spend more time on bikes, you need to maintain it constantly, you have to make sure the machine spirit doesn't go nuts and you need fuel. Horses are easy in comparison.

Sounds like somebody has never cared for a horse...

I'll let you in on a secret, though. You can put a bike in a sealed container for a month, and it'll be good to go when you take it out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Why has this suddenly turned into a Rough Rider thread? As someone else said, rough Riders are so far down on our priority list right now that they are a moot point.

That was me. I had suggested that Platoons and Russes were a more important issue. But carry on with the RR discussion. Maybe we can fix Ogryns and Ratlings afterward...

Ooh, ooh! Ratlings next! Same points cost... but camo gear that gives them Shrouded by default!

Also, I'm too lazy to track down the post myself, but someone mentioned 150 pts for Ogryns ironically, but the Bullgryns are literally 145. And that's when their only job is to absorb fire, never getting to shoot or assault, as they are targeted to reduce my tanks' cover saves. If you want to make them scary in melee... Well, 200 pts for 3 guys seems excessive even for useful units like MANZ, Centurions, etc. But I still frequently take them because my opponents actually shoot at them for some reason instead of my other units, and because Bane's face.

"So you have a bolter; Do you think that gives you POWER over me?!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Why has this suddenly turned into a Rough Rider thread? As someone else said, rough Riders are so far down on our priority list right now that they are a moot point.

Because there are people who honestly believe that Rough Rider's mere existance is the reason why the IG have problems and that the guard will magically become better after removing rough riders.

I agree with you that there are more pressing issues.

CplPunishment wrote:

alphaecho wrote:

Spoiler:

I'm clocking up in the region of 500+ Praetorians, a labour of love since 1998.

According to some people on this forum, your Praetorians either:
A. Don't *actually* exist.
Or
B. Are essentially just cadians with fancy hats.

Their justification for rejecting anything that isn't vanilla? *I* don't like it because it doesn't fit with Cadia therefore it shouldn't exist. Arguing with these types feels like telling a brick wall that is about to topple over onto your intricately painted models to stop. It won't and they won't.

Indeed. And thanks for calling out the crux of the problem. We have 6(?) flavors of Leman Russ, with basic 2 statlines and each having special rules for the main gun. If we look at the metal GW IG ranges (Cadian, Catachan, Tallarn, Tanith, Atillan, Valhallan, Vostroyan, Mordian, Praetorian), they already outnumber the Russes. Then there are the FW resin IG rangs (Elysian, DKOK) and it's more yet again. But we can't distinguish light infantry Sv-/5++ from medium infantry (Sv5+)? We can't give each Regiment a doctrine? A single fething special rule? That's bullgak.

My suggestions for the abhumans:

Ratlings gain a leader, camo gear, snare mines and a vox caster.

Regular Ogyrns get changed into a shooty unit with ripper guns becoming machine guns (double their range).

Both kinds of Ogyrns get a points decrease. And slab shields increase toughness like that DA ability in addition to their other effects.

But again, since 40k needs rebuilt this might change.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

alphaecho wrote:

Spoiler:

I'm clocking up in the region of 500+ Praetorians, a labour of love since 1998.

According to some people on this forum, your Praetorians either:
A. Don't *actually* exist.
Or
B. Are essentially just cadians with fancy hats.

Their justification for rejecting anything that isn't vanilla? *I* don't like it because it doesn't fit with Cadia therefore it shouldn't exist. Arguing with these types feels like telling a brick wall that is about to topple over onto your intricately painted models to stop. It won't and they won't.

Indeed. And thanks for calling out the crux of the problem. We have 6(?) flavors of Leman Russ, with basic 2 statlines and each having special rules for the main gun. If we look at the metal GW IG ranges (Cadian, Catachan, Tallarn, Tanith, Atillan, Valhallan, Vostroyan, Mordian, Praetorian), they already outnumber the Russes. Then there are the FW resin IG rangs (Elysian, DKOK) and it's more yet again. But we can't distinguish light infantry Sv-/5++ from medium infantry (Sv5+)? We can't give each Regiment a doctrine? A single fething special rule? That's bullgak.

The 5th edition codex seems to have been written by a treadhead. I think that a hybrid of 4th's infantry doctrines and 5th's vehicle options is a start.

I change my mind, I no longer want Ratlings on horses. They should be mounted on Ogryns, Master Blaster style.

The horses will be too busy pulling the chariots, which are now the dedicated transports of Wyrdvane force lancers.

(I'm joking, just in case it isn't clear based on my previous comments about liking weird things.)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

alphaecho wrote:

Spoiler:

I'm clocking up in the region of 500+ Praetorians, a labour of love since 1998.

According to some people on this forum, your Praetorians either:
A. Don't *actually* exist.
Or
B. Are essentially just cadians with fancy hats.

Their justification for rejecting anything that isn't vanilla? *I* don't like it because it doesn't fit with Cadia therefore it shouldn't exist. Arguing with these types feels like telling a brick wall that is about to topple over onto your intricately painted models to stop. It won't and they won't.

Indeed. And thanks for calling out the crux of the problem. We have 6(?) flavors of Leman Russ, with basic 2 statlines and each having special rules for the main gun. If we look at the metal GW IG ranges (Cadian, Catachan, Tallarn, Tanith, Atillan, Valhallan, Vostroyan, Mordian, Praetorian), they already outnumber the Russes. Then there are the FW resin IG rangs (Elysian, DKOK) and it's more yet again. But we can't distinguish light infantry Sv-/5++ from medium infantry (Sv5+)? We can't give each Regiment a doctrine? A single fething special rule? That's bullgak.

For me, it's the switch to plastics that killed off a varied Imperial Guard as regards special rules or doctrines..

Whereas money could be made from multiple metal regiments as around 2nd Ed time, plastics just cost too much too make a profit especially if one particular regiment was fairly niche (or unpopular).

Hence you end up with the Cadian uniform as a standard template in much the same way as the original IG box from Rogue Trader was.

The lack of extra rules from an IG Codex doesn't particularly bother me as I view those figures as an average across the Guard as a whole.

For example, for every Death World originating regiment where the Guardsman would be S4, T4 there is a Regiment from a light gravity world who would be S2, T2. That results in the average S3,T3 in the Codex.

Now if GW want to produce a Pamphletraetorians with special rules like:

"They're only damn ignorant savages" : This army views every other race as inferior and will be wiped out in large engagements by refusing to take the enemy seriously (unless they are heavily outnumbered but shielded by Munitorum improved mealie bags and biscuit boxes)

I'll buy it.


Learn something new every day. By typing "Pamphlet : Praetorians" but with no space between the colon and upper case P, the raspberry blowing Ork has been inserted. I'm happy now.

I don't need a pamphet. Just give me an army-wide doctrine option to replace all Flak (Sv5+) to Cameoline (Sv5++), and Carapace (Sv4+) to Flak+Camo (Sv5+/5++). One line.

Doctrines would be one of many fixes needed, although I would love to be able to field platoons with a 4+ save, or a 5++. Hell, a series of army wide doctrines that you purchased for X points and which gave your infantry different abilities (+1BS, furious charge, counterattack, stealth, infiltrate, Shrouded, Tankhunters, Meltabombs, Shotguns (with S4 and Shred), Carapace, etc). This would allow you to play many different forms of Guard, from close assault specialists to light infantry to, well, anything.
Likewise there could be doctrines that affected vehicles, such as giving them all +1BS, letting them move faster for a reduction in side armour, giving them the ability to perform an escape move when charged (move back D6") or move in the Assault phase, converting all transports to Assault Transports.....
It could be amazing.

If we're re-implementing Doctrines, for how expensive IG are right now, every army should be able to choose its first army-wide Doctrine for FREE. The 2nd would cost +5pts/unit, and the 3rd would cost +10pts/unit. Easy, peasy.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Doctrines would be one of many fixes needed, although I would love to be able to field platoons with a 4+ save, or a 5++. Hell, a series of army wide doctrines that you purchased for X points and which gave your infantry different abilities (+1BS, furious charge, counterattack, stealth, infiltrate, Shrouded, Tankhunters, Meltabombs, Shotguns (with S4 and Shred), Carapace, etc). This would allow you to play many different forms of Guard, from close assault specialists to light infantry to, well, anything.
Likewise there could be doctrines that affected vehicles, such as giving them all +1BS, letting them move faster for a reduction in side armour, giving them the ability to perform an escape move when charged (move back D6") or move in the Assault phase, converting all transports to Assault Transports.....
It could be amazing.

This sounds like a good way to differentiate Guard armies and add variety. Space Marines both loyal and traitor work that way, and IG probably could too. Just be careful to make each doctrine encourage an army composition and playstyle like that of the sub-army in the fluff.

 gnome_idea_what wrote:
Just be careful to make each doctrine encourage an army composition and playstyle like that of the sub-army in the fluff.

There are untold Regiments, and something like 100 of specific Regiments in the fluff. It almost doesn't matter what they are, or what the composition might be.

I like the doctrine idea. You could split them into three groups; regimental organisation (light infantry, airborne, mechanized etc), skills and drills (sharpshooters, field craft etc) and special equipment (carapace, camo gear etc). You can have one from each group. The first is free, but the second and third are 5pts per unit each (that's OK because going for three will cost 10pts per unit which will get expensive fast).

Or better yet, the regimental organisation is free because it affects the regiments transports. The taurox is universal, but only mechanized get chimeras as DTs and airborne get Valks as DTs. The other transports can still be taken but only as FA choices. And certain skills can't be combined with certain equipment (can't have jungle fighters with carapace). The trick is making them good enough to justify taking but not so good that they become OP.

It might work!

I think it would be neat to be able to pick a Homeworld type, organization type, combat doctrines and wargear
Examples would be:
*Deathworld allows you to reroll dangerous terrain
*Artillery Battery organization gives your artillery a "preliminary bombardment" ability
*FRFSRF combat drill allows Sgts to issue FRFSRF order to their squad
*carapace could be made more accessible.

There are already special rules for one regiment. Admittedly you do have to pay for it.

If 8th edition turns out not to be happening soon, or it makes relatively minor changes and the IG are stuck with their current codex for the foreseeable future, do you think something like the Traitor Legions book could be useful? Instead of specific traitor legions of CSM it would be famous regiments of IG and people could use "plays as" rules for their own armies if they've come up with their own fluff.

I was pretty impressed by Traitor Legions. Even if it didn't fix all the problems for CSM it at least helped and gave the legions their own character. If 8th is far away or doesn't change much I hope that the neglected armies like Astra Militarum and Orks can get their own Traitor Legions treatment. (I'm not sure how well it would work for Tyranids, does each hive fleet have its own distinct flavor?)

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
If 8th edition turns out not to be happening soon, or it makes relatively minor changes and the IG are stuck with their current codex for the foreseeable future, do you think something like the Traitor Legions book could be useful? Instead of specific traitor legions of CSM it would be famous regiments of IG and people could use "plays as" rules for their own armies if they've come up with their own fluff.

I was pretty impressed by Traitor Legions. Even if it didn't fix all the problems for CSM it at least helped and gave the legions their own character. If 8th is far away or doesn't change much I hope that the neglected armies like Astra Militarum and Orks can get their own Traitor Legions treatment. (I'm not sure how well it would work for Tyranids, does each hive fleet have its own distinct flavor?)

That's a good idea actually. And yeah, personally I think Orks should be able to field klan specific forces.

It might be the way to go, sadly.

Regmental doctrines should be the thing. It adds more variety to the Guard. But if GW decides to do so, the should do the same thing to other factions as well.
Fact that Space marines are the most various while being the least numerous in the fluff is kinda silly.

Doctrines should represent what the regiment excells in.
As already have been said, Catachans might have dangerous terrain reroll or have counter-attack URS, Cadian sarges to give Frfsrf or all infantry models have +1Ld, Tanith gains Stealth to all infantry units along with reroll to hit for sniper rifles, Armaggeddon Legions might have pinning or twin linked weapons the turn they disembark from transport, Mordians have stubborn by default, Valhallans gains fearless, Vostroyan infantry might get prefered enemy...
There are many more choices what it should represent.

 Hawky wrote:
Regmental doctrines should be the thing. It adds more variety to the Guard. But if GW decides to do so, the should do the same thing to other factions as well.

SM already have their version of Doctrines. And IG infantry suck, and need a boost.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Hawky wrote:
Regmental doctrines should be the thing. It adds more variety to the Guard. But if GW decides to do so, the should do the same thing to other factions as well.

SM already have their version of Doctrines.

And in many cases, if you take any non-UM or their special Detachments(Talon Strike Force, etc)...you entirely lose access to "Combat Doctrines"(Assault, Tactical, or Devastator Doctrines) since they tied them to Ultramarines Chapter Tactics, Gladius Strike Force, and Battle Demi-Company.

And IG infantry suck, and need a boost.

Which won't be solved with Doctrines. Doctrines, in C: IG from the post-Eye of Terror book?

Remember that it wasn't just "Take X Doctrines for Carapace Armor, Y for Sharpshooter, etc". It was:

"You have to take Stormtroopers, Special Weapon Squads, Heavy Weapon Platoons, Priests, Enginseers, Sanctioned Psykers, Conscript Platoons, Ogryn Squads, Rough Rider Squadrons, and Ratling Squads as a Doctrine". If people want that setup back, they've deluded themselves into remembering "the good old times" without remembering that this system had some massive drawbacks.