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.

I remember how effective Heavy Weapon teams were in the original Dawn Of War. We need them to be that.

To represent the sand bags and gun shields, how about +1 armor save against shooting attacks if they didn't move that turn. In a future AoS style system were cover increases your save, this would mean a 3+ save against shooting attacks when dug in. Call it entrenched positions or something.

Or, we could go back to the original ESIC, which simply required 3 IG Platoons (any size / config), with Vox, to gain entrenched deployment and the ability to call in Apocalypse Barrages.

An idea I had at work, promptly forgot about, and then remembered just now for IG. What if IG got mechs similar to the ones in Avatar? Biggest reason against it in my mind is that it kind of takes away from the IG relying on the average foot soldier to grind to victory and could easily be seen as a ripoff to Tau suits. They get high T suits and IG get weak-armored sentinels :(

 Flanker wrote:
What if IG got mechs similar to the ones in Avatar?

IG have them. Sentinels.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Flanker wrote:
What if IG got mechs similar to the ones in Avatar?

IG have them. Sentinels.

Something stronger than them. Sentinels don't hold a candle to similar units in other armies. Or give Sentinels a Toughness stat to make them more durable.

I'd like to see sentinels made better and featured more prominently. If you want cavalry, there they are!

I actually think a scaled down Nemesis Dreadknight would make more sense for the IG than for SM. Space Marines are already powered up, why do they need a big mech suit?

 Flanker wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Flanker wrote:
What if IG got mechs similar to the ones in Avatar?

IG have them. Sentinels.

Something stronger than them.

Sentinels don't hold a candle to similar units in other armies.

Or give Sentinels a Toughness stat to make them more durable.

Avatar mechs are just fighting Ogryn-class threats. Closed-top Sentinels are a pretty good match. Armored Sentinel, as a far stretch.

Stronger? Fine, give the Sentinel a 2nd weapon or S8 DNCCW.

A Sentinels definitely don't deserve to be MCs or more durable. Cheaper, yes. But "good"? No, not really. Just not crap.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Flanker wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Flanker wrote:
What if IG got mechs similar to the ones in Avatar?

IG have them. Sentinels.

Something stronger than them.

Sentinels don't hold a candle to similar units in other armies.

Or give Sentinels a Toughness stat to make them more durable.

Avatar mechs are just fighting Ogryn-class threats. Closed-top Sentinels are a pretty good match. Armored Sentinel, as a far stretch.

Stronger? Fine, give the Sentinel a 2nd weapon or S8 DNCCW.

A Sentinels definitely don't deserve to be MCs or more durable. Cheaper, yes. But "good"? No, not really. Just not crap.

I'm fine with leaving Sentinels as light scout vehicles. Ogryns at T5 and 130 pts are hardly tough or worth it points wise. Why do SM get their already super armored dudes in bigger suits of armor (centurions) or GK get their guys in mecha-Streisand-Godzillas (Dreadknights) and the closest IG get are T5 5+ ogryns or 4+ bullgryns? Ogryns/Bullgryns are hardly survivable with those stats. New units in all armies across the board are moving towards high T units that can withstand more firepower. I'd see Avatar-style mechs as stronger than Sentinels and can deal more damage as well.

 Flanker wrote:
I'd see Avatar-style mechs as stronger than Sentinels and can deal more damage as well.

If Avatar Mechs were in 40k they would have weaker stats than a sentinel. AV10 open topped all round, 2HP (or 1 HP) armed with a heavy bolter only. 40k Sentinels are basically equivalent to Star Wars AS-AT.

Western Mech designs (that aren't kaiju sized) seem to either crib off of the AT-ST and the AT-At or the Power Loader from Aliens. The sentinel borrows from the AT-ST and the Dreadknight draws from the Power Loader.

The sentinel power loader is what happens when the AT-ST and Power Loader get really drunk one night and do something they both regret later on but they live in some crappy country that bans abortions and so the power loader gives birth to a child born of a shameful one night stand.

Given the current revelations, do you guys think guardsmen will benefit from the new direction? Will lasguns become more powerful, or will guardsmen just be reduced to cannon fodder?

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Given the current revelations, do you guys think guardsmen will benefit from the new direction? Will lasguns become more powerful, or will guardsmen just be reduced to cannon fodder?

Because they're not cannon fodder already

Save modifiers may actually lower casualties.
If Ap 5 weapons become -1 then Flak armour will actually have an effect on the game (Tiny sure, but you'd actually get to roll a save)
On the face of it the morale thing seems like it might be devastating, but we have no idea how morale mitigation abilities (Which Guard have a few) will function

Jbz` wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Given the current revelations, do you guys think guardsmen will benefit from the new direction? Will lasguns become more powerful, or will guardsmen just be reduced to cannon fodder?

Because they're not cannon fodder already

Save modifiers may actually lower casualties.
If Ap 5 weapons become -1 then Flak armour will actually have an effect on the game (Tiny sure, but you'd actually get to roll a save)
On the face of it the morale thing seems like it might be devastating, but we have no idea how morale mitigation abilities (Which Guard have a few) will function

Another thing, with save modifiers, the base save of models may indeed be lower as well. No longer will you choose either between your invulnerable save, armor save, or cover save, instead cover will affect the base save in a positive way. This may make it so that armies like space marines are weaker in the open, and actually make it so that they benefit from using cover. What this means is that if guardsmen are going to fire at units standing in the open, we may have a better shot at killing models than we had before.

Jbz` wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Given the current revelations, do you guys think guardsmen will benefit from the new direction? Will lasguns become more powerful, or will guardsmen just be reduced to cannon fodder?

Because they're not cannon fodder already

Save modifiers may actually lower casualties.
If Ap 5 weapons become -1 then Flak armour will actually have an effect on the game (Tiny sure, but you'd actually get to roll a save)

This is assuming that there will be some kind of correlation between AP values now and whatever armor modifiers exist. I wouldn't assume that.

Would not be surprised at all to see Lasguns get something like Arcane Bodkins, where once per game the Lasgunners crank up the power output to grant a -3 modifier to armor saves.

On the face of it the morale thing seems like it might be devastating, but we have no idea how morale mitigation abilities (Which Guard have a few) will function

Company or Platoon Standards granting +2 to Morale when in Cover, Medics granting the ability to mitigate it, yadda yadda yadda.

 Kanluwen wrote:

This is assuming that there will be some kind of correlation between AP values now and whatever armor modifiers exist. I wouldn't assume that.
.

Hence the if.
Its likely (not guaranteed) that the Ap will be used to determine modifiers after all they are suppose to represent the same thing after all.

 Flanker wrote:
An idea I had at work, promptly forgot about, and then remembered just now for IG. What if IG got mechs similar to the ones in Avatar? Biggest reason against it in my mind is that it kind of takes away from the IG relying on the average foot soldier to grind to victory and could easily be seen as a ripoff to Tau suits. They get high T suits and IG get weak-armored sentinels :(

Spoiler:

They have similar ones in one of the novels - I forget which one - the whole regiment is based around fairly steam punk world and the elite forces have pretty cool mini-mechs/ battlesuits.

Jbz` wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

This is assuming that there will be some kind of correlation between AP values now and whatever armor modifiers exist. I wouldn't assume that.
.

Hence the if.
Its likely (not guaranteed) that the Ap will be used to determine modifiers after all they are suppose to represent the same thing after all.

Are they really?

Because honestly, AP as it is now is an "all or nothing". A lot of the weapons that were close to AP5 in 8th(i.e. Strength 4 granting a -1 to saves) didn't get Rend values in AoS. They got left alone or other rules that did something(a second wound, d3 or d6 wounds, etc).

Boltguns, for example, I could see getting a statline where they do 2 Damage rather than 1 or a Rend value of -1.

IF they take this to as close to AoS as possible, it would also mean that you would see +1 to armor saves when in Cover or possibly +2/3.
So what if there's a Rend of -1 on a Boltgun when your Guard are in hard cover with +2 to their save? They'll be getting their 5+ save still.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Jbz` wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

This is assuming that there will be some kind of correlation between AP values now and whatever armor modifiers exist. I wouldn't assume that.
.

Hence the if.
Its likely (not guaranteed) that the Ap will be used to determine modifiers after all they are suppose to represent the same thing after all.

Are they really?

Because honestly, AP as it is now is an "all or nothing". A lot of the weapons that were close to AP5 in 8th(i.e. Strength 4 granting a -1 to saves) didn't get Rend values in AoS. They got left alone or other rules that did something(a second wound, d3 or d6 wounds, etc).

Boltguns, for example, I could see getting a statline where they do 2 Damage rather than 1 or a Rend value of -1.

IF they take this to as close to AoS as possible, it would also mean that you would see +1 to armor saves when in Cover or possibly +2/3.
So what if there's a Rend of -1 on a Boltgun when your Guard are in hard cover with +2 to their save? They'll be getting their 5+ save still.

maybe rend values won't work if the opposing unit is in cover. This may be where "ignores cover" come into play, where rend values still affect a unit even when it is in cover.

I have as good of an idea as anyone though, but I like my idea for now.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I remember how effective Heavy Weapon teams were in the original Dawn Of War. We need them to be that.

To represent the sand bags and gun shields, how about +1 armor save against shooting attacks if they didn't move that turn. In a future AoS style system were cover increases your save, this would mean a 3+ save against shooting attacks when dug in. Call it entrenched positions or something.

Used to have something like this. Don't recall the details but the old 2-man heavy weapons had gun-shields and there was some benefit from them.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Jbz` wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

This is assuming that there will be some kind of correlation between AP values now and whatever armor modifiers exist. I wouldn't assume that.
.

Hence the if.
Its likely (not guaranteed) that the Ap will be used to determine modifiers after all they are suppose to represent the same thing after all.

Are they really?

Because honestly, AP as it is now is an "all or nothing". A lot of the weapons that were close to AP5 in 8th(i.e. Strength 4 granting a -1 to saves) didn't get Rend values in AoS. They got left alone or other rules that did something(a second wound, d3 or d6 wounds, etc).

Boltguns, for example, I could see getting a statline where they do 2 Damage rather than 1 or a Rend value of -1.

IF they take this to as close to AoS as possible, it would also mean that you would see +1 to armor saves when in Cover or possibly +2/3.
So what if there's a Rend of -1 on a Boltgun when your Guard are in hard cover with +2 to their save? They'll be getting their 5+ save still.

maybe rend values won't work if the opposing unit is in cover. This may be where "ignores cover" come into play, where rend values still affect a unit even when it is in cover.

I have as good of an idea as anyone though, but I like my idea for now.

A lot of the current "Ignores Cover" stuff is...weird...when you sit down and really look at it.

Things like flamers, barrage weapons, etc--that's one thing.
AA missiles? Flak cannons? Stuff like that is a result of them making Jink into a Cover Save.

I don't think we'll see an "Ignores Cover" in its current state, but rather something like this:
Flamers--Units affected by this weapon cannot claim a bonus to their armor save when in cover.
Barrage weapons--If impacting inside of the cover, the unit cannot claim a bonus to their armor save when in cover.
AA, Flak, etc would get to ignore the possible "To Hit" modifiers for flyers, jetbikes, etc.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Given the current revelations, do you guys think guardsmen will benefit from the new direction? Will lasguns become more powerful, or will guardsmen just be reduced to cannon fodder?

I can see the new leadership rules stinging quite a bit.

I don't think Movement will hurt too badly since we'll probably be on the 'baseline' for it.

I am not looking forward to Formations 2.0 if they're going to require 150 Guardsmen.

 don_mondo wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I remember how effective Heavy Weapon teams were in the original Dawn Of War. We need them to be that.

To represent the sand bags and gun shields, how about +1 armor save against shooting attacks if they didn't move that turn. In a future AoS style system were cover increases your save, this would mean a 3+ save against shooting attacks when dug in. Call it entrenched positions or something.

Used to have something like this. Don't recall the details but the old 2-man heavy weapons had gun-shields and there was some benefit from them.

Then bring it back in spirit!

With a 3+ save and little rend to go around, they'd be really tough to shift by shooting. Which would encourage people to assault them, and assault could use a boost.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Given the current revelations, do you guys think guardsmen will benefit from the new direction? Will lasguns become more powerful, or will guardsmen just be reduced to cannon fodder?

I can see the new leadership rules stinging quite a bit.

I don't think Movement will hurt too badly since we'll probably be on the 'baseline' for it.

I am not looking forward to Formations 2.0 if they're going to require 150 Guardsmen.

I don't think Leadership will hurt too much. Horde Armies actually do well in AoS should they port over the +10 models = +1LD thing, with new LD stuff from Commissars and the like.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Given the current revelations, do you guys think guardsmen will benefit from the new direction? Will lasguns become more powerful, or will guardsmen just be reduced to cannon fodder?

Might be a bit late, but what kind of revelations? (I couldn't follow the conversation pretty good )

Firstly I really really want them to be called IMPERIAL GUARD again. Stick Astra whatever we're the emperors light doesn't shine. That name change is a reminder of dark days at GW. They don't need to make a big deal out of it just slip it back in gradually.

About lasguns:

I've learnt from using Bloodreavers that a flat 4+ to hit and wound with no armor save modifier and 1 damage is actually quite balanced.

 Knockagh wrote:
Firstly I really really want them to be called IMPERIAL GUARD again. Stick Astra whatever we're the emperors light doesn't shine. That name change is a reminder of dark days at GW. They don't need to make a big deal out of it just slip it back in gradually.

Try reading any of the books before griping about this.

"Astra Militarum" is only in the Codex a few times, with them referred to as "Imperial Guard" everywhere else in the book.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
Firstly I really really want them to be called IMPERIAL GUARD again. Stick Astra whatever we're the emperors light doesn't shine. That name change is a reminder of dark days at GW. They don't need to make a big deal out of it just slip it back in gradually.

Try reading any of the books before griping about this.

"Astra Militarum" is only in the Codex a few times, with them referred to as "Imperial Guard" everywhere else in the book.

All the more reason to change it back then.

I dunno about you, but I've been playing "Imperial Guard" the entire time. It hasn't seen an update since 2009, but that's OK.