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.

How about "Khrushchev's Other Shoe"?

 DoomMouse wrote:
Just used the ogryn bodyguard with death mask relic for the first time in my foot list. Wow that thing is a beast! Walked straight into a black Knight deathstar, killed one but most importantly survived with no damage taken. This meant they were locked up from shooting and charging next turn. This guy is so good in combination with a horde list!

How did you kit him out? I'm seriously considering a few in my infantry list as both a counterattack element as well as just being good old bodyguards

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 DoomMouse wrote:
Just used the ogryn bodyguard with death mask relic for the first time in my foot list. Wow that thing is a beast! Walked straight into a black Knight deathstar, killed one but most importantly survived with no damage taken. This meant they were locked up from shooting and charging next turn. This guy is so good in combination with a horde list!

How did you kit him out? I'm seriously considering a few in my infantry list as both a counterattack element as well as just being good old bodyguards

Just with a bullgryn maul, slabshield and death mask for the 2++. I don't really see much point in using him for the actual bodyguard function as you may as well take another TWO company commanders for the same points! Having a few S7 D2 attacks in CC that hit on a 3 were really useful in the game I played. He really adds to a guard gunline as he's a unit that no one wants to engage in CC due to being too tough. Makes opponents have an interesting choice to make between charging your guardsmen and getting locked up next turn by the guard, or backing off and letting the guardsmen go unmolested

 Niiai wrote:
Is there anywhere I can read up on heavy weapon teams? I am adding some genestealer cults to my nid army. I might support them with some astra militarum, but I do not know enough about them. My tyranids brings venom cannons and impaler cannons. The cult brings hammer abbrrants. I don't know what AM can bring. The army is very saturated in infantery, I feel a tank would be shot of the table turn 1.

If you point enough flashlights at something, maybe it’ll break! Anyways, you can take any heavy weapon from the guard codex, so heavy Bolter, lascannon, etc. I’m not sure if you can take mortars but since I play dkok that’s what I do.

Has there been a recent change in the rules for targeting characters? Can a character still prevent the enemy from shooting at another character if its closer but out of LOS? I half remember seeing a recent rule change but can't find it. A reference would be much appreciated.

Just straight up googled "40k character rules update" and found it https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/12/15/the-future-of-faqs-and-chapter-approved-dec-15gw-homepage-post-2/

As this is the only enduring IG thread on these forums, I just want to say: I almost revived that dead thread about IG being overpowered when the codex dropped just so I could let it sink in to people they shouldn't jump to conclusions. (yeah I'm still mad about our overnerfs essentially requiring me to only field Russes + infantry against competitive opponents) .

Let's not reopen that can of worms again. We all agree that GW did a very poor job with the changes to IG. But it's hardly just russe's and infantry that are good. Many of the artillery platforms are still very powerful, some baneblade variants are still nuts, ogryns still have their shenanigans, mortars are some of the most cost efficient shooting in the game, right up there with lasguns, we still have one of the best pyskers in the game, orders are excellent, we have some of the most useful regiment traits in the game, and even with the commissar nerf we have more ways to mitigate morale than any other army (aside from armies that straight up just get our old commissar style rule of course like that eldar subset) Unless your meta is practicing for Adepticon literally every single game, you can build a wide variety of IG lists and compete fairly well.

It shouldn't be shocking however that infantry squads and Leman Russe's make a solid core to any list and is a good idea to use, that's the point. Infantry squads and leman russes are the core almost every army you see in a book or picture is built around. The codex literally has a few pages where it breaks down in detail how infantry and tank units are organized, and you could copy paste these into a list builder and be 80% done with your list in most areas. Infantry squad/leman Russ meta is ironically one of the only codexes functioning somewhat as intended on a competitive level right now. I can sit down and follow the exact TOE of an infantry and tank company and build a very solid list. How many other codexes can say that? What would you say if a space marine player was complaining that he needed a solid core of tac squads and scouts to build a solid list with some devestators, dreads, and assault squads mixed in? You'd laugh, because that's how the army is supposed to be built on a basic level, and we have proof because Dakka flipped out when that guy won a GW tournament with 6 tac squad units (granted 5 each with a lascannon but still). Yes it's cool to be able to build weird variant lists like mech vets but a player should be able to open his book, see the "hey this is how your army works in the lore" section, build his army like that, and do well. And an IG player can do exactly that. He won't win with purely leman russe's and infantry all the time, but that's a sign that an army is at least somewhat designed well. How well they're balanced to other armies can depend on your point of view, as well as internal balance, which is spotty and then some, but at least the core of what makes a guard army what it is works and acts like it's supposed to on the tabletop.

The issues of course step in with GW's panicked nuking of commissars and conscripts. I can't comment on the FW nerfs but for the codex nerfs they were absolutely needed. They were way too heavy handed obviously, but they were at least trying. It's pretty telling when literally anyone who could take IG at a competitive level was spamming conscripts and commissars if they had the models. Had the state gone on for say 6 more months it would've become way more obvious and problematic. Which is part of why I think the 8th Ed codex didn't absolutely obliterate every meta in that one week golden period we had before the Nerf. You can't just go out and build that kind of army at the drop of a hat, even if you're a die-hard tournament player. And if you were crazy enough to collect say 250 infantry and 10 leman russe's, it is highly unlikely you played competitive 40k because that army setup has been considered trash to middling at best since I started in 5th, so for the most part only casual players had access to that kind of collection. Thats why it didn't seem like a big deal yet when it dropped. I think the one good tournament result we got they only took say 4-5 of the top 10 spots in varying degrees of pure to soup lists? That's pretty good for a game that has something like 20 different distinct factions with multiple subsets. Yes the IG codex didn't seem like it was dominating the meta yet, but had it gone say 6 months without the Nerf, it would've become brutally obvious as more people bought and painted up the armies they needed. The nerfs were needed, just handled poorly.

I'm still on the fence on if IG are "really really good" or "broken" but it seems like as more codexes drop the codex is becoming much more fair to play. At least now when I play another army that has a codex it's been a good fight, which is better than I could say in the days of hot index on index action when 8th dropped. Most of games still devolve down to me tabling or near tabling the opponent, but I've found most can at least fight me at the objective game and win there, which makes sense with how I build my lists. It's also fitting lorewise, if you show up to a battle with guard and expect to win a battle of attrition, you're going to have a bad time. But if you force the IG player to play the objective he can struggle and even lose regardless of the fact that he killed 90% of your army.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
As this is the only enduring IG thread on these forums, I just want to say: I almost revived that dead thread about IG being overpowered when the codex dropped just so I could let it sink in to people they shouldn't jump to conclusions. (yeah I'm still mad about our overnerfs essentially requiring me to only field Russes + infantry against competitive opponents) .

You mean because they... crippled conscripts?

There's still plenty more gold in the book:
Hellhounds are amazing for the price and the 4+ to deal mortal wounds when they explode just sweetens the deal.
Basilisks and Manticores are still plenty strong.
Even with full price plasma, Scions are genuinely still one of the best troops in the game. I've always been a member of the "IG aren't broken" camp and I doubt myself sometimes when I look at Scions.
Several of the superheavies are what I'd call more than a little competitive.
Ogryn Bodyguard gives us a beatstick that rivals what many codexes have for double to triple the points (which is supposed to be the IG "weak spot"). I haven't used one, but the statline is pretty comparable.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, please do not start those threads up again. That would make me unhappy. I'm kind of enjoying the relative quiet.

Actually he was the defence minister of the time

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Just straight up googled "40k character rules update" and found it https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/12/15/the-future-of-faqs-and-chapter-approved-dec-15gw-homepage-post-2/

As this is the only enduring IG thread on these forums, I just want to say: I almost revived that dead thread about IG being overpowered when the codex dropped just so I could let it sink in to people they shouldn't jump to conclusions. (yeah I'm still mad about our overnerfs essentially requiring me to only field Russes + infantry against competitive opponents) .

The guard were nerfed from the best single army in the game to... the best single army in the game. Guard remain the best choice of armies in the game. You literally have every thing you could ever want in a guard army. I am baffled why you are upset about anything. Were you abusing smite spam? If so my sympathy for you is absolutely nil. Smite spam was not fun to play against

I’d like to see you back that statement up with some actual tournament results. Because in the real world where the rest of us live, Eldar reaperspam and Chaos variants (like the disgusting Cultist/Pox hordes that are apparently perfectly in balance) are splitting tournament wins, while AM has fallen off.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Just straight up googled "40k character rules update" and found it https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/12/15/the-future-of-faqs-and-chapter-approved-dec-15gw-homepage-post-2/

As this is the only enduring IG thread on these forums, I just want to say: I almost revived that dead thread about IG being overpowered when the codex dropped just so I could let it sink in to people they shouldn't jump to conclusions. (yeah I'm still mad about our overnerfs essentially requiring me to only field Russes + infantry against competitive opponents) .

lol - I hear ya on that one. My latest incarnation of my 1k patrol only list is 4 russes, 3 infantry squads and two vet squads...

A bit of a side note. But what is the cheapest ways to get heavy weapon teams? I am building 6 x mortars and 3 x lawcannons. I saw anvill had some cheap weapons, then I would only need bodies? Or are IG weapon teams cheaper?

 Niiai wrote:
A bit of a side note. But what is the cheapest ways to get heavy weapon teams? I am building 6 x mortars and 3 x lawcannons. I saw anvill had some cheap weapons, then I would only need bodies? Or are IG weapon teams cheaper?

I bought GW, which wasn't cheap, but at least they give you all the weapons with the team. I think only one tripod though, but the mortar doesn't use it. If you already had enough bodies, you could make a mortar and a lascannon out of a single kit. I think back when I ran Cadians, I'd normally use a standing set of legs from the Cadian Shock Troop box and then use one of the Heavy Weapon Team legs for the guy actually on the gun.

Nowadays playing Mordians, I don't honestly know what I'd do for heavy weapons if I wanted more than the 6 LC I have already. I guess bitz websites for the stuff I needed and then see what Victoria had to offer.

I got all my HWT mainly from cadian defence force.

GW is a pretty good way to go, you just need more 60mm bases and some sort of platform to hold the guns ( really easy to do ). Pretty much all of the 5 HWT options are pretty good, so its nice to be able to build all of them.

I pinned my guardsmen onto the 60mm bases so its easy to paint them and if I really want to I can put them on a 25mm base instead.

Example: ( I save the tripods for the autocannons or lascannons since they're so big. Missile launchers and Heavy Bolters are easy to mount).

Yeah but there is a combination of 3 things.

Base
Bodies
Weapon.

What I am conserning is where do you get the bodies? And are there enough arms to go with those bodies?

PS: That are some good bases. Well done.

Look I'm not saying guard are weak or they are the best single army in the game (they're not either of those). All I was saying was that the warhammer community outcry at IG being strong at all was so obnoxiously loud that it forced GW to do something. If you feel that ALL of the changes in CA with regard to IG were fair, balanced, and intuitive, then please, explain to me.

I tried using ratlings at their old price and they sucked BUT they are cool models and could easily fit into lists to use for fun. Now it's too meh to really want to use unless I'm playing my friends in fluffy battles. I'm talking about playing my friends who have chaos soup lists or competitive eldar lists. If I wanted to pay points to extend my anti-deepstrike zone, I'd have used something that had the capability to fill out a BDE and could perhaps withstand some fire aka scout sentinels for the same damn price as 5 ratlings. This is merely 1 example.

I get that guard have units which are more effective than their points would seem aka Shadowswords. My opinion, since I started back in 3rd edition and then started back up in 7th, is I don't really like superheavies in regular games. Therefore I tend to shy away from those types of units and don't have much of an opinion on them.

All I was trying to say was, that guard were powerful when their codex dropped and instead of people freaking out over it, they merely needed to remain patient to wait for other codexes to be released. And if the guard codex required ALL of the multitude of annoying changes in several FAQs and CA then by all means, adjust things which need it. As it stands, we still have stratagems and various other rules which need clarification. But instead GW had to pander and adjust points on a plethora of units, most of which I am still baffled by.

So please, continue to respond in condescending replies instead of acknowledging there has been no outcry to other powerful codexes dropping and that we still have a need for FAQs for RULES vagaries and not just freaking points updates because people cried about things.

Also, shadowswords aren't even that good.

People overreact to them because it OMGONESHOTS things, but the most common foe for my baneblade companies to lose to is hordes, and there has never ever ever been a time when I said "gee a Shadowsword would have been a better choice than my Baneblade/stormhammer/banehammer/stormsword".

Even fighting enemy superheavies.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Look I'm not saying guard are weak or they are the best single army in the game (they're not either of those). All I was saying was that the warhammer community outcry at IG being strong at all was so obnoxiously loud that it forced GW to do something. If you feel that ALL of the changes in CA with regard to IG were fair, balanced, and intuitive, then please, explain to me.

I tried using ratlings at their old price and they sucked BUT they are cool models and could easily fit into lists to use for fun. Now it's too meh to really want to use unless I'm playing my friends in fluffy battles. I'm talking about playing my friends who have chaos soup lists or competitive eldar lists. If I wanted to pay points to extend my anti-deepstrike zone, I'd have used something that had the capability to fill out a BDE and could perhaps withstand some fire aka scout sentinels for the same damn price as 5 ratlings. This is merely 1 example.

I get that guard have units which are more effective than their points would seem aka Shadowswords. My opinion, since I started back in 3rd edition and then started back up in 7th, is I don't really like superheavies in regular games. Therefore I tend to shy away from those types of units and don't have much of an opinion on them.

All I was trying to say was, that guard were powerful when their codex dropped and instead of people freaking out over it, they merely needed to remain patient to wait for other codexes to be released. And if the guard codex required ALL of the multitude of annoying changes in several FAQs and CA then by all means, adjust things which need it. As it stands, we still have stratagems and various other rules which need clarification. But instead GW had to pander and adjust points on a plethora of units, most of which I am still baffled by.

So please, continue to respond in condescending replies instead of acknowledging there has been no outcry to other powerful codexes dropping and that we still have a need for FAQs for RULES vagaries and not just freaking points updates because people cried about things.

Guards have some really good advantages.

- 1. IG has acess to cheap units, arguably the cheapest, making getting CP easier. If IG has a good stratagem that can convert convert that CP into ad advantage you can fudge your numbers significantly.
- 2. Cheap models means you can easaly grab objectives. SM are on the other side of this.
- 3. A wast range of models make IG much better then an army that has fever options. While detachmench can change this a bit, we are stil discussion codexes spesific an not soup composition.
-4. The more unit entries you have the bigger is the chances that some of them are costed wrongly and thus powerfull. This is an argument of chance, although nerfs can have changed this back.
- 5. IG has good units on all slots.
- 6. IG is one of the few armies that have can field good anti infantery and anti armour in both a highlt big point unit and in small units. As most armies often take a balanced aproach an army lists with only tanks or only infantery can saturate a lott of heavy bolters or lascannons respectivly. Incidentaly, few 'multi wound elite infatery' means you have fewer models that are vunerable to both weapon types.
- 7 Math hammer supports that in this edition the number of attacks is much more important the qualaty of attacks. The same with the number of wounds. The IG 5+ save is good here. (As in leviathan or jorhmungard gaunts.)
- 8 IG has every concievable weapon profile in the book available to them.
- 9 Warhammer is based around SM and then adding other rule systems on after. Weard armies like nids and dark eldar have a big chance of changing from edition to edition as their particular nieche of rules matter little in this edition. See necrons lach of special rules ghaus weapons for instance. IG are fairly close to SM using many of the same weapons.
- 10. Many strategies are weak to gunlines. IG should be the best gunline in the game since that is their design space. That makes IG strong in certain editions.

IG are not OP. Point balances desides what is OP (Imagine if a GK model costed 2 points, yes please.) But unless they are severly overcosted IG often does well.

Hey all, I have a question if it is cool to change the topic.

I am planning on using a AM/GSC army for a tournament in 2 weeks time. I was just wondering if Tank Commanders are able to Command themselfs or other Tank Commanders? E.g. I plan on bringing at least 2 so could Tank Commander A give a Command to Tank Commander B and vice-a-versa.

Been looking through all the FaQ, Errata's and Codex and can't find a thing to say otherwise.

Thanks for the help.

Tank commanders can not command characters. Tank commanders are characters. I don't know where it sais that. I hope that helps, although somebody can chime in with the quote.

I stil wanne know how to make cheap heavy weapon teams.

 Niiai wrote:
Tank commanders can not command characters. Tank commanders are characters. I don't know where it sais that. I hope that helps, although somebody can chime in with the quote.

I stil wanne know how to make cheap heavy weapon teams.

The codex says the TC can command a friendly <regiment> Leman Russ within 6" to give it an order, there is nothing preventing the TC from ordering itself.

gendoikari87 wrote:
I should note my playgroup has no other super heavies and we play 1000–1500. My 1500 list is simple:

2x Tank commander
Psyker

Infantry + goodies

2x manticore
Fully kitted four sponson baneblade

Making the baneblade tallarn to deepstrike It will protect it's turn one vulnerability problem and give better positioning(place it after you know the map and game type)
I will admit the cadian bonus is awesome, but tallarn is the safest.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 DoomMouse wrote:
Just used the ogryn bodyguard with death mask relic for the first time in my foot list. Wow that thing is a beast! Walked straight into a black Knight deathstar, killed one but most importantly survived with no damage taken. This meant they were locked up from shooting and charging next turn. This guy is so good in combination with a horde list!

How did you kit him out? I'm seriously considering a few in my infantry list as both a counterattack element as well as just being good old bodyguards

They can be pretty awesome but your list needs to have a place for them. In my Catachan combat list I would use Nork and another one to soak wounds from Straken and the other CC that dropped out of a valkyrie but honestly in the end if your not doing something shlocky like that your better off simply taking normal bulgryn. They have the same number of attacks but less wounds for less points but the KEY is that they are in a large unit, meaning you benefit from command point interrupts or activating them first or psychic buffs etc etc. Every list I build has a 5 man bulgryn unit as the central anchor and it has never even come close to being destroyed. I have had them mulch through two 30 man ork boy units. I think any guard player not using these guys is really missing out, they are clutch.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Look I'm not saying guard are weak or they are the best single army in the game (they're not either of those). All I was saying was that the warhammer community outcry at IG being strong at all was so obnoxiously loud that it forced GW to do something. If you feel that ALL of the changes in CA with regard to IG were fair, balanced, and intuitive, then please, explain to me.

I tried using ratlings at their old price and they sucked BUT they are cool models and could easily fit into lists to use for fun. Now it's too meh to really want to use unless I'm playing my friends in fluffy battles. I'm talking about playing my friends who have chaos soup lists or competitive eldar lists. If I wanted to pay points to extend my anti-deepstrike zone, I'd have used something that had the capability to fill out a BDE and could perhaps withstand some fire aka scout sentinels for the same damn price as 5 ratlings. This is merely 1 example.

I get that guard have units which are more effective than their points would seem aka Shadowswords. My opinion, since I started back in 3rd edition and then started back up in 7th, is I don't really like superheavies in regular games. Therefore I tend to shy away from those types of units and don't have much of an opinion on them.

All I was trying to say was, that guard were powerful when their codex dropped and instead of people freaking out over it, they merely needed to remain patient to wait for other codexes to be released. And if the guard codex required ALL of the multitude of annoying changes in several FAQs and CA then by all means, adjust things which need it. As it stands, we still have stratagems and various other rules which need clarification. But instead GW had to pander and adjust points on a plethora of units, most of which I am still baffled by.

So please, continue to respond in condescending replies instead of acknowledging there has been no outcry to other powerful codexes dropping and that we still have a need for FAQs for RULES vagaries and not just freaking points updates because people cried about things.

Guard are the single most powerful codex in the game. And where were you when people were endlessly whining about malefic lords (for good reason).

I'm sorry. Guard in 8th are better than every other codex. They're not quite taudar better, thank god, but don't pretend that guard have more and better tools for almost every phase of the game than any other army. They can effectively, without allies, cover 90 percent of all roles in the game. They have the best artillery (no shock here). The best chaff (Guardsmen remain real good even after conscripts were nerfed to oblivion). The best sub super heavy tanks. The best non forge world super heavies (Though super heavies are never a unit to build an army around). They have one of the best and most resilient melee units in the game. They have one of the best drop in fire power in the game (Scions are great. Yes even after you had to take fair points for plasma and melta guns). What don't they have best or near best of? Fliers, although guard fliers aren't awful. Heavy infantry, but this is hardly a loss since the consequence of everyone being a marine is that gw keeps handing out really say ways to massacre swathes of marines real efficiently, and horde melee (Now that conscripts are nerfed).

I thought Eldar may have been able to upend this, but despite their drastic increase in strength in the codex verse the index, it is still too hard for eldar to eliminate the very point efficient guard units faster than they, themselves, are eliminated. Nids prompt tighter, more efficient deployments, but if you have that down, you can beat them in punishing volleys of firepower as they mulch through your chaff and blockers, though their codex is still new enough that new tricks might show up, I don't believe this will be the case.

Chaos soup was the only contender, and their stupid OP unit was nerfed to nothing. And Guard remains able to take imperial soup, but there's very little spice for guard since guard want for pretty much nothing. With demons coming, chaos may remain a contender, but lacking the single dominating force that guard are for the imperium.

On a slightly different tone... How are you people coping with the new Death Guard? Their Disgustingly Resilient ability on everything makes it very hard to kill things. And their tank is noticeably killy. I go out of my way to win by objectives (as in seriously undermining my position for the next turn). I mainly use a Brigade with 60 guardsmen with basilisks, a Manticore, Executioner and a Punisher.
In short the more I play games of 8th the more i think Guard is very powerful against marines and Eldar but we have a problem with high resilience armies.

konst80hummel wrote:
On a slightly different tone... How are you people coping with the new Death Guard? Their Disgustingly Resilient ability on everything makes it very hard to kill things. And their tank is noticeably killy. I go out of my way to win by objectives (as in seriously undermining my position for the next turn). I mainly use a Brigade with 60 guardsmen with basilisks, a Manticore, Executioner and a Punisher.
In short the more I play games of 8th the more i think Guard is very powerful against marines and Eldar but we have a problem with high resilience armies.

Multi damage really ruins plague marines day. A manticore still wounds them on a 2+ and does d3 damage meaning they are only really slightly more survivable to it then a regular marine. The things that are VERY annoying are the vehicles. High toughness a demon save and a DR save makes them a real PITA to remove sometimes. That said, you deal with them like you deal with most things, more gun.

 Red Corsair wrote:

konst80hummel wrote:
On a slightly different tone... How are you people coping with the new Death Guard? Their Disgustingly Resilient ability on everything makes it very hard to kill things. And their tank is noticeably killy. I go out of my way to win by objectives (as in seriously undermining my position for the next turn). I mainly use a Brigade with 60 guardsmen with basilisks, a Manticore, Executioner and a Punisher.
In short the more I play games of 8th the more i think Guard is very powerful against marines and Eldar but we have a problem with high resilience armies.

Multi damage really ruins plague marines day. A manticore still wounds them on a 2+ and does d3 damage meaning they are only really slightly more survivable to it then a regular marine. The things that are VERY annoying are the vehicles. High toughness a demon save and a DR save makes them a real PITA to remove sometimes. That said, you deal with them like you deal with most things, more gun.

Agreed. I take Artemia Hellhounds in my lists specifically for multi-wound models. Also, Rough Riders with their D3 wounds on the charge could do a little damage, though I wouldn’t count on too much... I’ve charged Terminators with 5 RRs and taken out 2 several times, not a bad return on investment, though they usually get wiped out afterwards.

pulling out the baneblade for the first time today, wish me luck guys.

 Zuri Prime wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
Tank commanders can not command characters. Tank commanders are characters. I don't know where it sais that. I hope that helps, although somebody can chime in with the quote.

I stil wanne know how to make cheap heavy weapon teams.

The codex says the TC can command a friendly <regiment> Leman Russ within 6" to give it an order, there is nothing preventing the TC from ordering itself.

is there not a non character clause erataed on?