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.

gungo wrote:
So I found it odd they only chose 7 space marine chapters for tactics.

Not that odd, it's the exact same 7 chapters that was in the 7th Ed and 6th Ed codex.

I don't think every army will get the same number of "chapters".
There are for instance 5 major Eldar Craftworlds (6 if you count Altansar) and 9 Chaos Legions. Not sure how many "named" hive fleets there are, but I don't think it's 7.

With that said, it would be nice if AM got so many different regiments to choose from.

While alaitoc, bieltan, iyanden, saimhann, ulthwe are the main craft worlds. It's not as if Altansar isn't popular in lore and ilkaithe would be a great way to bring bone singers into the game or the many other craftworlds.

At 35 points, I think you're better off buying another ogryn if they're on foot. But if you've got room in the Valkyrie, seems reasonable. Rerolling 4+ isn't terrible, give him a power axe I guess? Eviscerator is too expensive for what it does in my opinion. It costs twice what a powerfist does for only one more ap.

gungo wrote:
While alaitoc, bieltan, iyanden, saimhann, ulthwe are the main craft worlds. It's not as if Altansar isn't popular in lore and ilkaithe would be a great way to bring bone singers into the game or the many other craftworlds.

Or Yme-loc for superheavies or gravtank 'tactics'.

There is a constant call for rules to represent individual regiments, and GW did that somewhat successfully in the 3.5 codex, with the doctrines. So, you could buy little rules for squads based on what doctrines you took, and each regiment could be different.

GW moved away from that, choosing instead to have a single list, with regiment/craftworld/chapter determined by the choices a player made. So, an Ork player in 4th edition could build a Goff Army by taking extra Nobs, while adding the Kult of Speed special character allowed warbikes to be troops.

Now that GW is again providing chapter tactics, coupled with the keyword system, this indicates that there might be rules to distinguish different regiments of the IG. Ideally, I would keep regiments as just a way of group special characters and possibly strategems. Instead, I would suggest that they add a new keyword for regiment type: line, light, mechanized, airdrop, etc. After all, not all Catachan regiments fight in the same way.

I don't agree with that, as you're fundamentally unable to actually play many variations with the current GW imperial guard.

Almost all of your support is mechanized. You have one choice of Airborne troops, three if we count Scions (which are a distinct regiment in and of themselves). Light regiments does not have any meaning at all, but light infantry more or less restricts it to well, infantry without heavier support. Line infantry regiments would require support GW does not produce (modern divisional artillery is 105-155 mm). Unless GW actually starts producing FW models or make some new variants, we will never see these in the codex, an GW does not really make rules for FW models (or take them into consideration).

Right now, you can play mechanized infantry (infantry with transports) with armoured or mechanized support, standard infantry with possible armoured or mechanized support, or playing entirely armoured regiments. If we get stratagems for having no tanks or something like that, it would just be a massive restriction on what we can bring whereas Space Marines are free to bring whatever they want from the codex.

 Aenarian wrote:
I don't agree with that, as you're fundamentally unable to actually play many variations with the current GW imperial guard.

Almost all of your support is mechanized. You have one choice of Airborne troops, three if we count Scions (which are a distinct regiment in and of themselves). Light regiments does not have any meaning at all, but light infantry more or less restricts it to well, infantry without heavier support. Line infantry regiments would require support GW does not produce (modern divisional artillery is 105-155 mm). Unless GW actually starts producing FW models or make some new variants, we will never see these in the codex, an GW does not really make rules for FW models (or take them into consideration).

Right now, you can play mechanized infantry (infantry with transports) with armoured or mechanized support, standard infantry with possible armoured or mechanized support, or playing entirely armoured regiments. If we get stratagems for having no tanks or something like that, it would just be a massive restriction on what we can bring whereas Space Marines are free to bring whatever they want from the codex.

I mean, you can use Forge World stuff. I think if you include that the number of regiments reflected goes up dramatically.

I play a Superheavy Tank Regiment, for example, and don't expect to get anything from the codex at all.

Yeah, and I use Forge World. But I don't think that GW will provide for other than their semi- or fully mechanized playstyle. I would be content if they just copypasted the old doctrines (without points cost perhaps), and you could create some archetypes from that.

I am already well provided because I have my "regmental tactics" in that I get Cult of Sacrifice and WS3+, as well as a few other bits and bobs. I would like some additional rules like Forlorn Hope from IA12, and unique units such as Combat Engineer Hades and WS3+ artillery crew, but hey, I'm happy right now. I want people who play only using the codex to also be happy, and I don't think there are many ways that can be done if we just consider the present plastic model range because lets be honest, GW will not provide anything for FW units as it currently stands. They included Medusa and Griffon in a previous codex, and then they removed them the next edition.

Aldaris wrote:

 Cothonian wrote:
I think I'll try rolling with a unit of Bullgryns, see how it works out. I must admit, I haven't actually used a dedicated melee unit in years! Going to be weird.

Weird but cool! BLOOD FOR THE... ahem. Emperor. That's what I meant.

I'd really like to try 2 units of 5 all-maul Bullgryns in a Crassus, with Straken and a Priest. That's 62 S7 Ap1 D2 attacks on the charge from the big boys. Only problem I see is I don't think the Crassus is durable enough to weather a round of shooting if your opponent goes first and really wants it dead (which he should).

Let's up the ante a bit here, go airborne! Three Valkyries should be enough... Now I want a Crassus too though! lol

I'm wary of Bullgryns simply because they concentrate points too much for my liking.

Just personal preference but, aside from the occasional character, I prefer having several weaker squads to one big, expensive one.

That's what I typically do. I'm more so looking at the Bullgryns as a fun option. (So much damage to be done, so few models needed)

gungo wrote:
So I found it odd they only chose 7 space marine chapters for tactics. So I wonder if this is deliberate to give each faction 7 "chapters". Orks coincidentally have 7 clans with freebooters. So which 7 regiments do you think guards will have?
Cadian
Catachan
Vostroyan
Valhallan
Steel legion
Mordian
Tallarn

Are my guesses. Which leaves out praetorian, which haven't had models in a long time. (And dkok and Elysian which fw will have to do) Or do you think gw will just do 8+ regiments for guard?

It will be good to see how they expand necron dynasties, tyranid hive fleets, and tau septs to create 7 chapters for each.

I would be surprised if we saw "Regimental Tactics" for anything besides Cadian, Catachan and MAYBE Steel Legion. The model lines for each of the other regiments is woefully incomplete or out of print at this point. It took some serious eBaying to collect my Tallarn army and have something that resembles options. I can guarantee that GW doesn't want to encourage people buying their models from second hand sources, with their fix of if something doesn't have a kit, it doesn't exist. I am fully expecting to have to choose the regimental doctrine of my Tallarn to be either Cadian or Catachan if there are any regiment specific strategems sadly.

Supposedly, Mordians are just "temporarily out of stock". Same as plasma guns. I'm still waiting to see if either actually come back at this point.

I think this might have come up before, but do you guys have any suggestions for making guard fun?

I'm thinking especially of how to make them fun to play against for my opponents.

Haha I think the only way you will have fun playing against guard right now is if the guard player intentionally takes a poor list.

Even when I've taken "fun" lists, it is still easy. Granted its been against Tau and Space Wolves, which are both not very strong right now.

Yep same here. Have to make gimp my lists and play inefficient in order to make it entertaining for my opponents.

What do you guys think is a good # of drops to aim for?

I'm building a Scion (Kasrkin) list right now and I have it down to 10 drops. Lowest I can go is 9. Had to sub out my Vulture to get my # of drops down :(

I think I have 26. Will probably keep it between 20 and 30, really hard to create an infantry-heavy DKoK list without a lot of drops.

Haha absolutely, my normal infantry focused guard has countless drops. At that point, the more the merrier!

Depending on list version, my 2000 point army has 4, though that's a heavily reinforced company. My usual drops are... *maths*

*more maths*

6, or so. Sometimes 5, sometimes 7.

I have the same problem right now that guard are crushing other armies. I brought what I thought too be a toned down guard list the last few fights (Tau, death guard, grey knights) and o it was not fun. Short of bringing armored sentinels for every model, I don't feel like I can tone it down much more. This edition was so good to so many units in the guard.

 Smotejob wrote:
I have the same problem right now that guard are crushing other armies. I brought what I thought too be a toned down guard list the last few fights (Tau, death guard, grey knights) and o it was not fun. Short of bringing armored sentinels for every model, what am I supposed to do?

I think the real problem is people haven't adapted yet to hordes. 8th edition is all about alpha strike, or surviving the alpha, people are still bringing really inefficient options. I haven't lost yet against my local marine player, because he keeps bringing "fair" lists, people need to stop bringing varied forces and understand that the only thing that matters now is Kill power. Toughness isn't a thing anymore. If you don't have 12+ lascannon equivalents, and the ability to kill 40+ infantry a turn at the same time you can't compete. I think the reason AM is getting a rep for being good, is that Guard forces you to do that because of how cheap stuff is.

I have gotten the creeping feeling that this edition, even more than previous ones, sort of rewards you for just taking the best unit in your codex and spamming it as hard as you can. Not really any need to make room for anything else. Worst case, you spam two types of units so that you have the one weakness from your first spam choice mitigated.

See: Conscripts and Basilisks. Strike Squads. That elite Sisters squad that people keep talking about using a lot. Genestealers. I'm sure there's more.

They really need to bring back the FoC or build in army comp in such a way that you can't just cherry pick the best unit in your army and ignore everything else.

 GreaterGood? wrote:

I think the real problem is people haven't adapted yet to hordes. 8th edition is all about alpha strike, or surviving the alpha, people are still bringing really inefficient options. I haven't lost yet against my local marine player, because he keeps bringing "fair" lists, people need to stop bringing varied forces and understand that the only thing that matters now is Kill power. Toughness isn't a thing anymore. If you don't have 12+ lascannon equivalents, and the ability to kill 40+ infantry a turn at the same time you can't compete. I think the reason AM is getting a rep for being good, is that Guard forces you to do that because of how cheap stuff is.

I think people might also need to adapt to the new transport rules. Or, more accurately, the new transport prices. I had a game against an Ork player today who used a Nob squad and Warboss in a battlewagon and 3 squads of Boyz in Trukks (a similar army to one he used in 7th). The thing is though, those trukks were ~80pts each and the battlewagon was about 200. So, almost half his army was spent on transports.

 daedalus wrote:
I have gotten the creeping feeling that this edition, even more than previous ones, sort of rewards you for just taking the best unit in your codex and spamming it as hard as you can. Not really any need to make room for anything else. Worst case, you spam two types of units so that you have the one weakness from your first spam choice mitigated.

See: Conscripts and Basilisks. Strike Squads. That elite Sisters squad that people keep talking about using a lot. Genestealers. I'm sure there's more.

I think the problem is that there are so many detachments and such variety of mandatory slots that you can basically fit whatever army you want into one.

My favourite detachment at the moment is the Brigade. You have to include 3 HQs. You have to include 3 Elites. You have to include 6 Troops. You have to include 3 FA units. You have to include 3 HS units. I like it because it actually makes me take stuff that I might not otherwise use in order to fill those slots.

Now, obviously there are quite a few armies that would struggle to fill a Brigade (at least at low-mid point levels), but I wish that the other detachments were effectively scaled down brigades - so one with 2 HQs, 2 Elites, 2 FA, 2 HS and 4 Troops. And one with 1 HQ, 1 Elite, 1 FA, 1 HS and 2 Troops (with the maximum number of each unit also scaled down accordingly).

Of course, doing this would also effectively lock people out of many builds that aren't overpowered.

 vipoid wrote:

I think the problem is that there are so many detachments and such variety of mandatory slots that you can basically fit whatever army you want into one.

My favourite detachment at the moment is the Brigade. You have to include 3 HQs. You have to include 3 Elites. You have to include 6 Troops. You have to include 3 FA units. You have to include 3 HS units. I like it because it actually makes me take stuff that I might not otherwise use in order to fill those slots.

Now, obviously there are quite a few armies that would struggle to fill a Brigade (at least at low-mid point levels), but I wish that the other detachments were effectively scaled down brigades - so one with 2 HQs, 2 Elites, 2 FA, 2 HS and 4 Troops. And one with 1 HQ, 1 Elite, 1 FA, 1 HS and 2 Troops (with the maximum number of each unit also scaled down accordingly).

Of course, doing this would also effectively lock people out of many builds that aren't overpowered.

I like your idea and think those should scale like that. I think there should also be some sort of actual cost to the specialized FOCs. And no, only +1 command point is not a cost. They're just encouraging spam right now as it is. Maybe troop choices should get better too? I don't know. I know a lot of people complained about their guardians or whatever back in the dey, but I assume it was just because they were boring.

I guess the alternative is you go back to special characters or special FoC per army that let you fiddle around with the chart, like in 5th and early 6th edition. There's gotta be an easier way of doing it though. Maybe even just "no more than x of any given unit per y points", but that still does stupid things to some armies. Maybe "no more than x of any given non-troop unit per y points", but then people are going to complain because you've broken Deathwing but are still allowing people 4 squads of conscripts.

 Cothonian wrote:

Weird but cool! BLOOD FOR THE... ahem. Emperor. That's what I meant.

I'd really like to try 2 units of 5 all-maul Bullgryns in a Crassus, with Straken and a Priest. That's 62 S7 Ap1 D2 attacks on the charge from the big boys. Only problem I see is I don't think the Crassus is durable enough to weather a round of shooting if your opponent goes first and really wants it dead (which he should).

Bullgryn's cant benefit from Straken. He only gives +1 attack to Catachan units. Ogryns are Regiment 'Militarum Auxillary'.

I honestly just wouldn't worry about drops as foot guard, because no matter how low you go you won't be getting first turn. So just either plan around going second, or convince your group to roll off for first turn the old fashioned way.

Sure, Valkyries and Vendettas can squadron up, so you can get 3 Valkyries/Vendettas and any combination of up to 36 infantry models (6 SWS, 3 infantry squads and 6 officers, 9 command squads, etc.) in a single drop. But that's a lot of points to pay for a deployment manipulation gimmick.

Now, if you're playing a tank list, then squadrons could allow you to catch your opponent off-guard with a surprisingly small deployment footprint. And a superheavy list is functionally equivalent to a Knight list.

Right now I take fun lists with units I rarely got to play with the last 2-3 editions.
I bought 2 boxes of bullgryns I never played but built because they were cool looking. I get to play with them now.
I was never into spamming the same unit so I only have about 3x of each model. Death strikes I finally use for fun.
Chimeras I still use w melta vet squads and they aren't all that
I have 10 dkok riders I use as rough riders.
Hell hounds
Basic infantry w command squads with standards because they look cool.
I'm not spamming company commanders, scions or taking more then 40 conscripts (because all I have is 40 conscripts). I use my 4 sentinels 1 of which is a power lifter.

So basically playing stuff I owned and always wanted to play with even if I haven't painted them yet. I don't think this gravy train will last forever.

Out of curiosity, do any of you mind that you can only customise weapons on your characters? (I know that this is just an index, but would you mind if the codex was the same?)

 daedalus wrote:

I like your idea and think those should scale like that. I think there should also be some sort of actual cost to the specialized FOCs. And no, only +1 command point is not a cost. They're just encouraging spam right now as it is. Maybe troop choices should get better too? I don't know. I know a lot of people complained about their guardians or whatever back in the dey, but I assume it was just because they were boring.

I was actually thinking of just removing the specialised FoCs.

Otherwise, I agree that there should be a higher cost for using them. Honestly, my IG armies usually have about 12 Command Points and I rarely use any of them.

You could perhaps only be allowed 1 of the specialised detachments per army?

I naturally migrated towards a brigade detachment, I have a very decent variety of units.

I'm happy

I'm in the camp of bringing gimped IG lists as well. I'm currently investing in scions to keep the model count down and I'll probably make use of tauroxes to transport them instead of deep striking all of them.

This is my base of an army...

Creed
Lord commissar
Tempest Scion CC

50 conscripts
3x infantry (w weapon team)
2x scions w. Plasma

Astropath
Priest
Eversor assassin

Hellhound
2x scout sentinel (flamer)

Manticore
2x Mortars weapons teams

Then build from there... Lot of fun so far and does really well. Building from there I can either go more guard for anti tank, or bring a more elite Ally. Lots of fun. 11 command points. Good staying power and decent fire power.