What does the future hold for the Imperial Guard?

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.

**Kanluwen**

If you want Deep Strike for your entire army, play Elysians.

**don_mondo**

Kanluwen wrote:
If you want Deep Strike for your entire army, play Elysians.

So I shouldn't have it available in my IG codex and should have to buy an extra Forgeworld book just to have that option? And what about the other possibilities? What if I want to mix Infiltration and deepstrike? Cause maybe I want to play my own mix of doctrines, not one of GWs 'historical' builds. You don't like it? Fine. Don't use it. But to say that no one should have it just because you don't like it is a bit... one-sided, to say the least.

**CplPunishment**

don_mondo wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
don_mondo wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Then absolutely no.

Not just no. Hell no. Chapter Tactics, while a wonderful idea, are horribly implemented.

And that's not even getting into the atrocious "Combat Doctrines".

Even tho they made IG quite competitive back then? I'd love to see something like this come back, but prob not to be.

"Combat Doctrines" is what Space Marines have now. They're supposed to be an army defining trait that can tip the balance of a match with a benefit(the listed unit types) and a semi-drawback(the "Affected models" bits), but as it stands now? You have to be Ultramarines or fielding specific formations or the Gladius in order to use them.

They are once per game things, stackable(a Battle Demi-Company allows you to use Tactical once per game that is Ultramarines allowing you to do Tactical again--1+1=2 uses) that do the following:
Assault Doctrine--Affected models can reroll To Hit rolls of 1 in the Assault phase of this turn. Affected Assault Squads, Bike Squads, Attack Bike Squads, and Centurion Assault Squads--including any Independent Character that have joined those squads, can instead reroll all failed To Hit rolls in the Assault phase of this turn.

Tactical Doctrine--Affected models can reroll To Hit rolls in Shooting and Assault this turn. Affected Tactical Squads and ICs in them can reroll all failed To Hit rolls in Shooting and Assault this turn.

Devastator Doctrine--Rerolls on 1s in Shooting. ICs and Devs can reroll all in Shooting.

You're thinking of Regimental Doctrines, which I've expressed my displeasure with elsewhere. Like Chapter Tactics, they're a cool idea but there's too much min/maxing that goes on now. I don't want to see yet more of it.

Yes, I know the difference. I believe your post was a follow-on to someone else's comment re IG doctrines so I didn't think it was necessary to be pedantic. I'll try to do better next time.

But you still didn't answer my question. I get that you don't like them. Ok, I do. That was (IMO and experience with playing IG since 2nd ed) the best codex/main rule set combination IG have had. I've offered my own anecdotal evidence as to why I think so previously in the thread (also in response to one of your negative posts on IG doctrines). Not sure how IG would min/max effectively using such a codex but whatever. Course, right now, don't know if such a codex would truly be game effective (ie competitive) or not, depends on what the 40K rules morph into. But... it would satisfy a large number of IG players that want customizable regiments and many die-hard IG players have basically given up on being competitive without adding in some special uber-allies. Heh, one of our local players was bashing my 'pure' IG list, telling me I needed to add these Marines or this whatever and my response was, "But then I wouldn't be playing Guard."

Anyways, we're going to have to agree to disagree on IG regimental doctrines as per the previous codex. You say "Hell No", I say I would love to see the ability to apply Deep Strike to my entire army, or buy Light Infantry for some squads so that I can Infiltrate them, or buy Carapace army for almost any unit, and yes, I'd still like it even at the cost of having to spend a doctrine point to be able to take Stormtroopers (sorry, they're Scions now) or Ratlings or whatever. And GW could even (as I seem to recall they did before) release lists of doctrines to match up to their 'historical' regiments for those that want to play Vostroyan or Mordians or Valhallans or ... So round and round we go, your turn to tell us again how much you dislike the very idea of Regimental Doctrines.

Don't understand why Kanluwen doesn't want to customize a regiment in his image.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, I take that back. I do understand. It's because Kanluwen is in the process of drafting a new IG codex. Naturally all units in his collection (plus a few he wants) will be included. Any doctrines he likes will be invisible ones added into the main rules. As long as the IG are exactly everything Kanluwen wants to fit his playstyle, all is right with the world. Nuts to the rest of us.

**KommissarKiln**

jreilly89 wrote:
Pretty sure it's been covered already, but one thing I'd like to see is essentially an Open-topped Taurox or the IG equivalent of an Ork Trukk. Dirt cheap, flimsy, but great for just running around and causing chaos. Plus, throwing out lots of Flamer templates would be a blast.

I see what you did there

**Future War Cultist**

I want the regular Taurox to be fast and cheaper. Even if it means making the autocannon an extra upgrade. Cheap disposable speedy transport.

**NivlacSupreme**

I've been thinking about Praetorians.

What if they could swap their lasguns for better ones? S4 AP4 Heavy 1?

**Future War Cultist**

NivlacSupreme wrote:
I've been thinking about Praetorians.

What if they could swap their lasguns for better ones? S4 AP4 Heavy 1?

I like the idea but AP 4 is a lot. 30" range and S4 I can back though.

How about salvo? Two shots at 30 inches or one at 15".

**Dakka Flakka Flame**

Future War Cultist wrote:
What about Bodie style helmets?

I remember people combining Bretonian Men-At-Arms with IG parts. The wide brimmed helmets looked good imo.

I'd like to make my Cadians minis look different, and I was thinking of giving the brodie/kettle helmets as they are readily available and inexpensive. Not sure how well the various historical WW1/WW2 helmets will match up with the Cadian bodies. I don't want to spend too much money, but I also don't want to end up with a regiment of pinheads.

Something that would be interesting would be to bring back higher-ranking officers (Regimental Command Squad). It would be cool if they gave orders not to individual squads, but more strategic orders to the entire army. Like reducing the cover save of enemy units inside a certain piece of terrain, or giving all friendly units within 12" of an objective Stubborn.

**master of ordinance**

You know, thinking about it I could quite easily right a Guard codex in oh.... Shall we say two weeks for the initial product, and it would be internally balanced, capable of taking on the big three on an even power level and be incredibly varied and flexible enough to give a good representation of every aspect of the Guard. Allow another month for play testing, revision and you have the final product (rules wise at least) in about a month and a half. And this includes formations, doctrines, orders, new and exciting units, fixing and redesigning the broken units, etc.
If I, a lowly worker whom has never written any rules before, can do this within such a small time frame and do it well then why cant the so called "experienced" and "veteran" rules writers at GW HQ?

Spoiler:

**SolarCross**

Looking at what has emerged so far out of the Gathering Storm series which I guess we are all taking as an end-times-esque prequel to 8th ed and also looking at AoS as a mangling/fix of WFB, I am feeling increasingly sure that GW will be dialing up the herohammer past 11 to infinity and beyond with warhammer 8th. This isn't necessarily a terrible thing because 28mm is just the wrong scale for company level wargames with super heavies, flyers and tank battalions but is much better suited to relatively few super heroes punching each other out. However this does not bode well for IG because of all the 40k factions IG lends itself the least to herohammer so will probably get less love than the sisters have had for the last decade or more. The other horde armies like Orks and Tyranids will fare a lot better because they can readily be adapted to a heroification given that Orks can produce monsters like Ghazgull and the Beast and Tyranids are already at least half composed of monstrous creatures. I predict IG will sit out the entirety of 8th with no new rules or minis at all.

I predict this against my best hopes because I actually really want a guard army more than the others. Hopefully epic gets a reboot, for in epic scale guard should get plenty of love.

**Rav1rn**

Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
Something that would be interesting would be to bring back higher-ranking officers (Regimental Command Squad). It would be cool if they gave orders not to individual squads, but more strategic orders to the entire army. Like reducing the cover save of enemy units inside a certain piece of terrain, or giving all friendly units within 12" of an objective Stubborn.

This is a really interesting idea, and would make senior officers more relevant than just having access to the reserved orders and being able to issue 1 more. Mix in a few orders unique to certain regiment types and I think we'd have a solid system on our hands.

Future War Cultist wrote:
NivlacSupreme wrote:
I've been thinking about Praetorians.

What if they could swap their lasguns for better ones? S4 AP4 Heavy 1?
I like the idea but AP 4 is a lot. 30" range and S4 I can back though.

How about salvo? Two shots at 30 inches or one at 15".

I'd like to see at least a few options in las-weapon types. Lascarbines with shorter ranges and higher ROF for light infantry, lasrifles with longer range and strength for heavy infantry, the current lasguns for general infantry, and one or two more types for highly specialized or thematic regiments.

**Fafnir**

While Sigmar is a smaller scale game that focuses more on its personalities, even within its units, it's done a better job of representing the abilities of its heroes in a more supportive fashion than 40k has, with its constant escalation of close combat beatsticks. While the attention has certainly gone towards a few certain armies so far (a fair bit I'm willing to forgive, what with a lot of stuff being new up until this point), factions like the Freeguilds, Skaven, and Grots rely a lot on larger body counts with heroes that fill more supportive roles.

Considering the current 40k push towards more excessive degrees of herohammer, an AoSification could do a lot to open up avenues to more varied and useful supportive heroes.

**CplPunishment**

Future War Cultist wrote:
NivlacSupreme wrote:
I've been thinking about Praetorians.

What if they could swap their lasguns for better ones? S4 AP4 Heavy 1?

I like the idea but AP 4 is a lot. 30" range and S4 I can back though.

How about salvo? Two shots at 30 inches or one at 15".

I could get behind giving them "lasrifles" with 30" range, rapid fire (+1pt?). Catachan/Steel Legion/harakoniLascarbines would be 18" assault 2(free swap?). Elysian lasbullpups would be 24" Assault 2 (+1pt?). That being said, I think that lasgun variants should stay a consistent S3 AP-, hellguns/hotshots and long-las's notwithstanding.

**Zontarz**

Here's a list of things I would like to see being addressed/changed, or just general spitballing to get more ideas flowing.

1. Commissars provide aura of +1 LD and Summary Execution. Allows the choice of taking commissars but not having to devote to creating a blob for him to be effective. Something like 8" would be appropriate.
1a. Same for Priest I would say.

2. Platoon Standards allows nearby squads to re-roll pinning on base leadership 8. Or +1 LD on regrouping roll. As of now, the thing is useless, wounds in close combat? Why GW. Why. 6" or heck, make it 6" + LoS needed.

3. Medi-packs. See where I'm going with this? Provides feel-no-pain in 8" (CCS) or 6" (PCS)

4. Leman Russes crews are trained how to use their vehicles, mostly. Why are they firing snapshots whilst the ordnance is being fired? Doesn't make any sense to me. Same with with them being able to fire at separate targets from main cannon.

5. I would like to see a rehashed boon table and call it a promotion table, where each squad (or sergeant), when completing their assigned objective, gain a permanent (or 1 turn only) bonus.

I would like the IG to follow some of the ways AoS is going in terms of buffing. Stormcast/Freepeoples where the more unique characters (Priests, Commissar, Psykers) provide Aura benefits/orders that directly keep the infantrymen from not falling apart.
Ultimately what I'm looking for is more synergy between the units of the Imperial Guard, so that the force feels like each unit works in cohesions as should a combined arms IG army should be in some way.

**NivlacSupreme**

What if we all just abandon the current codex and go back together the 5th edition one? Or the imperial cults and militia list?

**Fafnir**

NivlacSupreme wrote:
What if we all just abandon the current codex and go back together the 5th edition one? Or the imperial cults and militia list?

Because while the 5th edition managed to be fairly powerful in 5th edition, the current state of codex creep at this point would leave it still lagging pretty far behind, even if it would be an improvement over the current one.

**CplPunishment**

Meanwhile in the SM thread, posters are stressing over which power armor style looks best and whether or not it's okay to mix mk IV armor with a mk V helmet and mk VII backpack

Oh, to have tier 1 problems.

**Flanker**

Zontarz wrote:
I would like the IG to follow some of the ways AoS is going in terms of buffing. Stormcast/Freepeoples where the more unique characters (Priests, Commissar, Psykers) provide Aura benefits/orders that directly keep the infantrymen from not falling apart.
Ultimately what I'm looking for is more synergy between the units of the Imperial Guard, so that the force feels like each unit works in cohesions as should a combined arms IG army should be in some way.

I like it. I like the idea of the squads staying and fighting because their comrades are staying and fighting around them. The wonders of peer pressure, eh?

**Dakka Flakka Flame**

Fafnir wrote:
Considering the current 40k push towards more excessive degrees of herohammer, an AoSification could do a lot to open up avenues to more varied and useful supportive heroes.

There seems to be a lot of things to like about AoS. I'm not a fan of herohammer, but I'm trying to get used to it. Also, in AoS while the heroes look crazy on paper in the battle reports I've seen it looks like they actually die easier than in 40k due to not being able to join squads.

Also, the Free Peoples' gunline is pretty rad.

**Otto von Bludd**

I was reflecting on this topic today and I wondered if the IG will go the way of the Empire in AoS; still playable but largely unsupported. The reason I thought this is because I considered how much I have expanded my IG force over the past year (a substantial expansion) and yet I bought only a small amount from GW because of the plethora of 3rd party Guard bits and models I've purchased. However, my army still perfectly fits the 40k aesthetic even though I've barely bought any GW kits.

I've heard this point raised before and I think it is a good one and one that is probably influencing GW quite a bit. That is that it's pretty difficult to copyright-protect the existing Guard line because of how generic they are, and how their fluff allows for such a diversity of different forces. My example perfectly illustrates this point; I have a great looking 40k Guard army but it has lots of 3rd party bits and models. This isn't what GW wants, but rather than revamp the Guard to have a more distinct 40k aesthetic (like Scions) they may just drop them in order to sell more Space Marines.

I personally would rather just see them repack the existing Cadian line and provide them with some more accessories / options and better rules, but I have a feeling we may get the Empire treatment. I don't really want new Guard models, as the prospect of buying and painting 60+ more guardsmen is not appealing compared to expanding my head-swapped Cadian force.

**Martel732**

CplPunishment wrote:
Meanwhile in the SM thread, posters are stressing over which power armor style looks best and whether or not it's okay to mix mk IV armor with a mk V helmet and mk VII backpack
Oh, to have tier 1 problems.

I don't even know what any of that is. But I'm not tier I, either.

**CplPunishment**

Martel732 wrote:
CplPunishment wrote:
Meanwhile in the SM thread, posters are stressing over which power armor style looks best and whether or not it's okay to mix mk IV armor with a mk V helmet and mk VII backpack
Oh, to have tier 1 problems.

I don't even know what any of that is. But I'm not tier I, either.

Different types of power armor

**Martel732**

All power armor is 3+ to me. Unless there is some I don't know about.

**General Annoyance**

Martel732 wrote:
All power armor is 3+ to me. Unless there is some I don't know about.

Articifer Armour?

**Martel732**

Yeah, I guess there's that. Mine's always golden, though so it's very separate in my mind.

**General Annoyance**

Fair enough. I guess it's also not commonplace, being an upgrade only available to Commanders

**JohnHwangDD**

Fafnir wrote:
NivlacSupreme wrote:
What if we all just abandon the current codex and go back together the 5th edition one? Or the imperial cults and militia list?

Because while the 5th edition managed to be fairly powerful in 5th edition, the current state of codex creep at this point would leave it still lagging pretty far behind, even if it would be an improvement over the current one.

FWIW, as a casual player, I still play the last "Codex: Imperial Guard", published back in 5E. I refuse to pay money for a Codex that covers a completely different (and worse!) "Astra Militarum" army.

As a casual player, it's C:IG is OK playing against other casuals, although it's rather obvious that 6E & 7E books have amped up the power since then. Knights & Ad Mech are definitely stronger than C:IG.

**Future War Cultist**

Just reading through the conversation here, I would love for the IG (well, 40k in general) to get the AoS treatment. But for the IG to end up like the Empire (or worse, the Bretonians or Tomb Kings!) would break my heart.

But, I have a feeling that what GW might do is push the Militarum Tempestus to the forefront. They're pretty marketable and copyright friendly. And yes, the IG would struggle in a hero hammer setting, but perhaps that means that pyskers should come to the forefront. I'm just brainstorming.

**JohnHwangDD**

If GW made the 40k rules like AoS, that would be awesome.

**Future War Cultist**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If GW made the 40k rules like AoS, that would be awesome.

I don't think they'll be able to completely Sigmarise 40k (believe me I've been trying) but even a little Sigmarising would be a great thing for it.