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.

icn1982 wrote:
As a side note, I think increasing the range of any small arms weapon over 24inches was a mistake, the point of 24 inches being the maximum range was so that armies would actually have to move in order get within range of the enemy with most of their weapons. Now you have basic weapons that can shoot 30+ inches and thus hit your opponent from turn one without moving.

The fact that the rules about shooting are so simple and have not evolved since 3rd edition, despite 4 new editions and nearly 20 years of professional rules writing, is fething embarassing.

I want ranges to be at least double their current level, so long as cover is revamped, long range penalties and target priority rules are introduced, and some sort of flanking system is put in place.

Because you're right, the current rules are so mind numbingly simple that the best option is to sit at max range and blast away, since clever maneuvering and getting closer offers no benefits other than bringing you closer for melee units to charge and an extra shot with rapid fire weapons. And even with rapid-fire weapons, they often get used for suicide tactics like sternguard drops and chaos terminator deep strikes.

icn1982 wrote:
Stop focusing on objective based games and get back to actually killing the enemy.

Having the game revolve only around killing enemy units would be a huge mistake, as that means the only units that will be fielded and designed are units that focus on damage. If objectives don't exist, it will be harder to create different army compositions that feel appropriate and much, much more difficult to create an all comers list, because you would have to have enough of every counter for anything (mass-infantry, armor, aircraft, superheavies).

For example, an all infantry list and an all armor list could conceivably face each other in a tournament, and the armor player should have a strong damage advantage since 80% of the enemy's units aren't a threat, and we don't expect the remaining 20% of the list to have enough anti-tank firepower to take out 5 times their points in armor. If objectives don't exist, the armor player will just crush the infantry player, since they have such a firepower and durability advantage. But if there are objectives, the infantry player could play smart and win an objective victory, despite being at an overwhelming damage disadvantage.

icn1982 wrote:
A Brand new and properly fleshed out regiment with a new line of models OR New plastic kits for each of the current regiments that are easy to interchange (If GW is worried about selling models, have each regiment/kit come with a single heavy and single special weapon that is preferred by the regiment like they did with the original metal models)

While this would be awesome, I would much prefer a single general purpose infantry kit that focuses on accessories and modular designs.

10 bare heads in the kit that can be used as is, but there's optional helmets, berets, gasmasks, communication headsets, etc that fit onto the heads.

The torso has a standard back, but the front can be a standard uniform, simple tank top, or a trench coat. Then you can put tactical webbing or flak chest armor accessories on top of that.

This approach would let a single kit fit as many different regiment designs and players as possible, even if you only get one style of each type of accessory, without GW needing to make dozens of new molds, which seems laughably unlikely.

icn1982 wrote:
Allow you to take heavy weapons platoons and specialist platoons.

While I agree that this should be an option, maybe not equal access for every type of regiment? Light Infantry regiments for example probably shouldn't get as much access to heavy weapon platoons, but get more access to specialist platoons.

What about this...Infantry Squads get a bonus to their ballistic skill depending on how many models the unit has in it. 20-29 is +1, 30-39 is +2 and 40+ is +3. A unit of 50 infantry would have 40 lasgunners once you subtract sergeants and specials. At BS6, this would kill around four space marines under the current rules. Adding 5 plasma guns to that would kill another 4 space marines out of cover. Ordering this unit to bring it down would kill a Carnifex just with the lasguns!

Instead of increasing BS, I would give each lasgun/pistol an additional shot.
3/2 without FRF (close/long range)
4/3 with FRF

 Hawky wrote:
Instead of increasing BS, I would give each lasgun/pistol an additional shot.
3/2 without FRF (close/long range)
4/3 with FRF

I have a unit in my custom codex with range 18 assault 3 lasguns, and they are actually pretty decently balanced according to all of the opponents that I have used them against.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I have a unit in my custom codex with range 18 assault 3 lasguns, and they are actually pretty decently balanced according to all of the opponents that I have used them against.

This reminds me, hot shot lasguns should be given a stat line like that; 18" range assault 3, like those skitarii weapons.

Also, I'm OK with more shots for big units. I just figured that an increase in BS would be 'neater'.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I have a unit in my custom codex with range 18 assault 3 lasguns, and they are actually pretty decently balanced according to all of the opponents that I have used them against.

This reminds me, hot shot lasguns should be given a stat line like that; 18" range assault 3, like those skitarii weapons.

Also, I'm OK with more shots for big units. I just figured that an increase in BS would be 'neater'.

Both would properly represent increased "accuracy" due to the sheer volume of shots.

Either way, it's something taken straight from the playbook of Age of Sigmar.

Just like a lot of things that should happen in 40k are.

NivlacSupreme wrote:
Both would properly represent increased "accuracy" due to the sheer volume of shots.

Yeah exactly! I'm happy to go with either really. So I guess it's just a case of how much you like dice rolling.

 Fafnir wrote:
Either way, it's something taken straight from the playbook of Age of Sigmar.

Just like a lot of things that should happen in 40k are.

You said it!

I would hope that this would encourage people to take big units of IG infantry, provided that we also get their price under control. But with this, could a price drop be justified?

Well, I'm of the opinion that 40k needs less models on the table in general. I have no problem with their being more guardsmen fitting on a table than space marines (space marines need to be completely redesigned to reflect how powerful they actually are in the fluff anyway), but in terms of the raw number of models on a table, there needs to be less for standard games.

 Fafnir wrote:
Well, I'm of the opinion that 40k needs less models on the table in general. I have no problem with their being more guardsmen fitting on a table than space marines (space marines need to be completely redesigned to reflect how powerful they actually are in the fluff anyway), but in terms of the raw number of models on a table, there needs to be less for standard games.

So, maybe make 1000 points the standard? There's been a trend over the years to not only make models cost less points but also to raise the amount of points in a standard game.

At the shop closest to me the standard casual game is now 750 points as it lets people get more games in.

If they do a major overhaul in the next edition I could definitely see them raising points across the board. Not necessarily to make for lower model count games (people can play at whatever amount of points they want) but to make it easier to adjust points costs on the lower end. Right now it seems like a basic infantry model in a "hoard" army (guardsmen, boyz, 'gaunts) is ~5 points. If you take a point off or add a point to try to balance things between the armies that ends up being a big shift. If the standard cost of a basic infantry model was increased to ~10 points then adding a point or taking a point away wouldn't be as big of a change. Does that make sense?

At the bottom end, you're buying Guardsmen in blocks of 10 models, so +/-5 pts is a half point per model.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

NivlacSupreme wrote:
Both would properly represent increased "accuracy" due to the sheer volume of shots.

Yeah exactly! I'm happy to go with either really. So I guess it's just a case of how much you like dice rolling.

 Fafnir wrote:
Either way, it's something taken straight from the playbook of Age of Sigmar.

Just like a lot of things that should happen in 40k are.

You said it!

I would hope that this would encourage people to take big units of IG infantry, provided that we also get their price under control. But with this, could a price drop be justified?

I do think that would work for the praetorian gunline army I'm going to get eventually.

Somebody should probably come up with bonuses for playing other styles of guard.

NivlacSupreme wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

NivlacSupreme wrote:
Both would properly represent increased "accuracy" due to the sheer volume of shots.

Yeah exactly! I'm happy to go with either really. So I guess it's just a case of how much you like dice rolling.

 Fafnir wrote:
Either way, it's something taken straight from the playbook of Age of Sigmar.

Just like a lot of things that should happen in 40k are.

You said it!

I would hope that this would encourage people to take big units of IG infantry, provided that we also get their price under control. But with this, could a price drop be justified?

I do think that would work for the praetorian gunline army I'm going to get eventually.

Somebody should probably come up with bonuses for playing other styles of guard.

I'm going to quote myself for something that would work for storm troopers/drop troopers:

 Fafnir wrote:

In order to develop guard infantry (vehicles have always functioned as pretty much their own separate game in 40k, and the Guard's solutions on this front would be heavily built on fixing how vehicles function in 7th edition, so I won't touch on that for now), the IG would have to be built on an overhauled order system that could allow them to act as if they had some sort of flanking/suppression/combined fire system. Have orders function less like poor man's psyker buffs, and more like bonuses given for developing coordinated actions.

For example, draw an imaginary line between two units of guardsmen. If an enemy unit is intercepted by that line, both units may fire at the same time, with a severe bonus to reflect a 'flanking' maneuver (for example, imagine this flanking maneuver took up the shooting phase of only one of the flanking units, allowing the other unit to shoot a second time). This would allow stormtroopers and drop troops to act as their fluff actually suggests, while also giving potential for lots of tactical depth.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What about this...Infantry Squads get a bonus to their ballistic skill depending on how many models the unit has in it. 20-29 is +1, 30-39 is +2 and 40+ is +3. A unit of 50 infantry would have 40 lasgunners once you subtract sergeants and specials. At BS6, this would kill around four space marines under the current rules. Adding 5 plasma guns to that would kill another 4 space marines out of cover. Ordering this unit to bring it down would kill a Carnifex just with the lasguns!

I'd make the following:

Revamp the company. Sure, make it 3 platoons, but make them 2-5 infantry squads and make it that you only need to field a sentinel. BAM! EFC is now a viable formation as you need only around 500pts to field it. Now, make that the squads get bonuses the more of them fire at a certain enemy.

If 11-20 guardsmen fire an enemy they re-roll ones to hit with ALL weapons. (change cadian bonus to extra orders on all officers, bonus for leader of detachment is issuing Yet another order, so creed could issue five of them in a turn.)
If 21-30 guardsmen fire an enemy they re-roll ones to wound.
If 31-40 guardsmen fire an enemy they re-roll failed to hit rolls and ones to wound.
If 41-50 guardsmen fire an enemy they re-roll all to hit and to wounds.
If 51-60 guardsmen fire an enemy they gain rending on their lasguns.

This would represent the weight of fire that the IG is famed for. One lasgun isn't worth much but a thousand are nightmare.

I think that the problem with encouraging massed guardsmen units is that you end up with big units that don't spread out across the battlefield and don't act indepentently.

How I envision my guard is that they have around 35 guardsman ( a platoon) and different battlefield assets to provide heavy fire support, recon, etc. Each unit has their role in my guard and they work best when used in tandem with each other.

Large units tend to be unwieldy and require you to shoot at a single unit, potentially wasting a lot of fire power.

I'd like guardsmen to be able to specialize each squad in order to reflect its individual role on the battle field. You might have a squad that is supposed to slowly advance, or hold the line, while another squad is light and fast, meant to ambush and outflank an enemy. The first squad would hold the line and force the enemy to overextend itself, while the second squad capatalizes on that moment. All the whilst a flexible unit like sentinels can provide support where needed.

Right. That's my problem. Okay you have your large blob. Your enemy's taking multiple small unit. Turn one you wipe one unit out. Turn two and three another small unit is in melee with your blob and he grabs all the objectives. He wins and you have little to show for it, because you couldn't split fire and you could be tarpitted.

 Melissia wrote:
Right. That's my problem. Okay you have your large blob. Your enemy's taking multiple small unit. Turn one you wipe one unit out. Turn two and three another small unit is in melee with your blob and he grabs all the objectives. He wins and you have little to show for it, because you couldn't split fire and you could be tarpitted.

Pretty much this. Or even worse, if your blob is not fearless and he throws in Kharne or another melee monster/powerful special character and wipes the blob out. Or even just tarpits them because he is insanely tough and it is physically impossible to get enough models into melee range with him to do any actual damage.

@ Sledgehammer

I think more on the company level myself. Instead of specialized squads, I'd have specialized platoons performing individual roles. But again, there's no reason why you couldn't have both. We just need suitable rules to help with small unit tactics as well. As for all that firepower going to waste, that's just 40k's clunky targeting mechanic. AoS's is much better. Point is, that needs fixed as well.

And let's not forget some of the other ideas we floated around here. Leman Russes granting 4+ cover saves to infantry units within 6" of them for starters. That would be a huge boon, would really represent the combined arms of the IG very well and let us advance in the open for once.

 Melissia wrote:
Right. That's my problem. Okay you have your large blob. Your enemy's taking multiple small unit. Turn one you wipe one unit out. Turn two and three another small unit is in melee with your blob and he grabs all the objectives. He wins and you have little to show for it, because you couldn't split fire and you could be tarpitted.

That's why you have artillery and air cav, too. After playing against it a bit more recently, the Valkyrie is amazing for 125 pts. Plus, IG can get reserve manipulation without fishing for it on a warlord chart. Yeah, Eldar and Tau are still brutal, but IG really have tools at least as good as BA, Orks, maybe even Necrons. Necrons haven't been winning as much in my area lately.

MSU like BA where we have to pay for everything isn't as good as it sounds unfortunately.

In theory, IG should be able to out-MSU just about any other unit, where losing individual units is so inconsequential, you'd never want to blob them. That is why I say that IG core (Platoons, Chimeras, Russes) needs to be cheap, so you can afford to throw them away as part of "acceptable losses".

NivlacSupreme wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

NivlacSupreme wrote:
Both would properly represent increased "accuracy" due to the sheer volume of shots.

Yeah exactly! I'm happy to go with either really. So I guess it's just a case of how much you like dice rolling.

 Fafnir wrote:
Either way, it's something taken straight from the playbook of Age of Sigmar.

Just like a lot of things that should happen in 40k are.

You said it!

I would hope that this would encourage people to take big units of IG infantry, provided that we also get their price under control. But with this, could a price drop be justified?

I do think that would work for the praetorian gunline army I'm going to get eventually.

Somebody should probably come up with bonuses for playing other styles of guard.

My idea was to give mordians and praetorians a "volley fire" doctrine. Basically, sergeants can issue the FRFSRF command to their own squad.

I have a few general proposals here:

Scions need to be made better, because right now they can't really compete with vets, who are cheaper, can secure objectives and have access to more special weapons. And like all of our special troops, they're kinda garbage at present. So why not:

- give them the option to take a third special weapon if the squad is ten men strong, just like Skitarii Vanguards and Rangers.
- make hot-shot lasguns Assault 2, or even Assault 3. It makes them actually deadly instead of gimmicky. I don't mind if it means reducing their range to compensate.
- give them Scout. Suddenly, they can Outflank. Or move forward before the first turn...in a fast DT. One thing that made us so good in 5th was our widespread outflanking. Make the IG outflank again.
- let the Tempestor and Tempestor Prime take melta bombs (I can't remember if they can at present).
- consider some point reductions for them and the Taurox Prime too.

Also, give the normal Taurox a points decrease and make it Fast.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I have a few general proposals here:

Scions need to be made better, because right now they can't really compete with vets, who are cheaper, can secure objectives and have access to more special weapons. And like all of our special troops, they're kinda garbage at present. So why not:

- give them the option to take a third special weapon if the squad is ten men strong, just like Skitarii Vanguards and Rangers.
- make hot-shot lasguns Assault 2, or even Assault 3. It makes them actually deadly instead of gimmicky. I don't mind if it means reducing their range to compensate.
- give them Scout. Suddenly, they can Outflank. Or move forward before the first turn...in a fast DT. One thing that made us so good in 5th was our widespread outflanking. Make the IG outflank again.
- let the Tempestor and Tempestor Prime take melta bombs (I can't remember if they can at present).
- consider some point reductions for them and the Taurox Prime too.

Also, give the normal Taurox a points decrease and make it Fast.

All great ideas. Hotshots should be 18" s3 ap3 assault2

If we get a doctrine system again, we should get access to a Grenadiers doctrine that opens Scions up as a troops choice.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In theory, IG should be able to out-MSU just about any other unit, where losing individual units is so inconsequential, you'd never want to blob them. That is why I say that IG core (Platoons, Chimeras, Russes) needs to be cheap, so you can afford to throw them away as part of "acceptable losses".

The problem then is the Kill Point meta, whereby your opponent can lose just about everything but still win because he killed more of your throw away units than the number of units that he deployed in the first place.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In theory, IG should be able to out-MSU just about any other unit, where losing individual units is so inconsequential, you'd never want to blob them. That is why I say that IG core (Platoons, Chimeras, Russes) needs to be cheap, so you can afford to throw them away as part of "acceptable losses".

The problem then is the Kill Point meta, whereby your opponent can lose just about everything but still win because he killed more of your throw away units than the number of units that he deployed in the first place.

The Kill Point meta needs to die mostly... a slow painful death if possible.

It never made any sense to begin with... back in my day, people would have KP relative to points costs, and that made sense since it represented the cost of achieving the mission.

CplPunishment wrote:
All great ideas. Hotshots should be 18" s3 ap3 assault2

If we get a doctrine system again, we should get access to a Grenadiers doctrine that opens Scions up as a troops choice.

I'm happy with hotshots having that stat line. It's about time we had serious firepower.

 master of ordinance wrote:
The problem then is the Kill Point meta, whereby your opponent can lose just about everything but still win because he killed more of your throw away units than the number of units that he deployed in the first place.

This is why we had combined squads introduced in the first place. I remember before the 5th ed book came in. Dark times.

One other thing I'd like to mention is that I wish a Platoon could count as 2 troops choices if you don't have any other troops. Then they would be much less cumbersome in 500 or 750 point games, and even a bare bones platoon is more bodies than what other people can do with 2 troops, like 2x5 or 2x10 cultists, scouts, etc. Assuming you want to bring said platoon and remain a legal CAD, you'll have to pass on making the platoon bigger/upgrading or mechanizing that second obligatory vet unit/taking a Russ. Obviously in larger games this is really not an issue, but in small games you're mostly forced to do 2 vet squads if you want any kind of vehicle support or special weapons.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
One other thing I'd like to mention is that I wish a Platoon could count as 2 troops choices if you don't have any other troops. Then they would be much less cumbersome in 500 or 750 point games, and even a bare bones platoon is more bodies than what other people can do with 2 troops, like 2x5 or 2x10 cultists, scouts, etc. Assuming you want to bring said platoon and remain a legal CAD, you'll have to pass on making the platoon bigger/upgrading or mechanizing that second obligatory vet unit/taking a Russ. Obviously in larger games this is really not an issue, but in small games you're mostly forced to do 2 vet squads if you want any kind of vehicle support or special weapons.

What goodies are you trying to fit into a 500-750 pt game that you can't? If you think abou it, 3 barebones vet squads are actually cheaper than a barebones platoon and one barebones vet squad (180 vs 190) for almost as many meatshields (30 vs 35).

What is your preferred HQ choice at this points level?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If I got my hands on the next codex...
Vet squads would be 5-10 man squads
Grenadiers would be a doctrinal choice letting you take scions as troops
Scions would be slightly cheaper, regain access to scout and infiltrate, and their weapons would be 18" s3 ap3 assault 2
I would also steal future war cultist's ideas for scions.

Grenadiers should not ever just be "Scions as Troops". That's a dummy option.

Edit note:
By "dummy option", I mean that it is something that disguises itself as an option but really isn't.

Grenadiers, as an option on Hardened Veterans, should give them access to Hellguns instead of their standard Lasguns. It gives you a more survivable, bit more "oomph" but without making it so that it's just "Scions become Troops".

 Kanluwen wrote:
Grenadiers should not ever just be "Scions as Troops". That's a dummy option.

Edit note:
By "dummy option", I mean that it is something that disguises itself as an option but really isn't.

Grenadiers, as an option on Hardened Veterans, should give them access to Hellguns instead of their standard Lasguns. It gives you a more survivable, bit more "oomph" but without making it so that it's just "Scions become Troops".

Either way would work and would effectively provide the same result. I get the feeling that you feel compelled to contradict everything I say, even when we are more or less saying the same thing.