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.

epronovost wrote:
That's technically incorrect.

You know we're talking about the Volcano cannon. Don't be a pedant.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Again though... It's not.

It's easier for a Shadowsword to wound ONE UNIT of Cadians per turn if they are are standing close enough to a legendary hero and the army has not already used all of it's capacity for excellence on other options like offensive tactics than it is for the Shadowsword to wound a landraider.

It doesn't matter if it's one unit or 100 units. The fact is that it can happen, and it shouldn't.

What about that don't you get?

And people SHOULDN'T be able to survive falling out of a plane or being struck by lightning, and moms SHOULDN'T be able to lift cars. Usually these things don't happen.

But there have been edge cases where they DID happen. What about that don't YOU get?

Especially when making the investments necessary to represent this on the table would likely leave the rest of the army vulnerable in such a way that you could walk all over them.

PenitentJake wrote:
And people SHOULDN'T be able to survive falling out of a plane or being struck by lightning, and moms SHOULDN'T be able to lift cars. Usually these things don't happen.

This has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

PenitentJake wrote:
But there have been edge cases where they DID happen. What about that don't YOU get?

We're talking about rules. Rules bloat. More DLC. More endless rules on top of endless rules. And now Guardsmen have Transhuman.

It's fething stupid, and I'm going to repeat myself:

They could have done anything with a Guard update, focusing in on Guard army structure, heirarchy, types of commanders, order systems, platoon structure, the attached groups that aid the Guard (Ecclesiarchy, Commissariat, Enginseers, sanctioned Psykers, etc.), and so on.

But no: They just made a strat that makes some Guardsmen magically tougher.

PenitentJake wrote:
Especially when making the investments necessary to represent this on the table would likely leave the rest of the army vulnerable in such a way that you could walk all over them.

WHO. CARES?

This rule shouldn't exist in the first place.

This is my beef with this rule. This is why this rule infuriates me, more than any rule change I've seen since the brain-dead decision to (incorrectly) merge the living creature and vehicle rules in Dark Heresy 2.0.

It's a ludicrous addition to the Guard rules - they magically become super tough because... memes, I guess - rather than actually looking at what the Guard should be about and giving them rules that reflect that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

epronovost wrote:
That's technically incorrect.

You know we're talking about the Volcano cannon. Don't be a pedant.

Well if you want to make the argument that shooting a volcano cannon at guardsmen and basically killing one less than usual giving this strat, I would say that you are being extremely pedantic too. Is saving a single guardsmen in a squad really that important to mention? That start is actually going to make a difference when someone will use stuff like assault cannons and other high power anti-infantry/light tank hunting weapons.

How about infantry that can actually do something on the battlefield? Standard small arms are neigh on useless. All you end up carìng about are special weapons and characters. I don't know why GW thinks dudes armed with rifles should be so bad...

I mean infantry squads are pretty much only there to die / screen, or sit back in your deployment zone on an obj to do nothing. It's not very fun or engaging.

At least allow people some means of situational usefulness for standard infantry. Like allowing your factions standard rifle to fire right before an assault or something.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
How about infantry that can actually do something on the battlefield? Standard small arms are neigh on useless. All you end up carìng about are special weapons and characters. I don't know why GW thinks dudes armed with rifles should be so bad...

I mean infantry squads are pretty much only there to die / screen, or sit back in your deployment zone on an obj to do nothing. It's not very fun or engaging.

At least allow people some means of situational usefulness for standard infantry. Like allowing your factions standard rifle to fire right before an assault or something.

Well this might come to a surprise to you, but rifles in modern warfare, even at infantry level combat, are basically "useless". They serve to provide covering fire and support fire to special weapons, pin enemy in place for portable artillery, etc.

Plus, in 40K, rifles are actually pretty good at killing infantry. Space Marines Intercessor can put out a very descent amount of anti-infantry firepower without going into plasma and the like. To a certain extend, Tau and Necron enjoy excellent rifles capable of doing some good damage. While Scions might have a more restricted version, Hot-Shot Lasguns aren't too bad, especially against things like Tau, Sisters of Battle, Guardsmen though, its true that their ability to pack a lot of special weapons outshine their basic weapons. Skitarii, be they vanguard or ranger, can both put the hurt on other infantry without having to lean heavily on special weapons. Guardsmen are basically the only troop choice whose basic rifle is weak and really needs special weapons to compensate (and maybe ork shoota, but these haven't been good since 5th edition).

epronovost wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
How about infantry that can actually do something on the battlefield? Standard small arms are neigh on useless. All you end up carìng about are special weapons and characters. I don't know why GW thinks dudes armed with rifles should be so bad...

I mean infantry squads are pretty much only there to die / screen, or sit back in your deployment zone on an obj to do nothing. It's not very fun or engaging.

At least allow people some means of situational usefulness for standard infantry. Like allowing your factions standard rifle to fire right before an assault or something.

Well this might come to a surprise to you, but rifles in modern warfare, even at infantry level combat, are basically "useless". They serve to provide covering fire and support fire to special weapons, pin enemy in place for portable artillery, etc.

Plus, in 40K, rifles are actually pretty good at killing infantry. Space Marines Intercessor can put out a very descent amount of anti-infantry firepower without going into plasma and the like. To a certain extend, Tau and Necron enjoy excellent rifles capable of doing some good damage. While Scions might have a more restricted version, Hot-Shot Lasguns aren't too bad, especially against things like Tau, Sisters of Battle, Guardsmen though, its true that their ability to pack a lot of special weapons outshine their basic weapons. Skitarii, be they vanguard or ranger, can both put the hurt on other infantry without having to lean heavily on special weapons. Guardsmen are basically the only troop choice whose basic rifle is weak and really needs special weapons to compensate (and maybe ork shoota, but these haven't been good since 5th edition).

Marine platoons were critical in falijuah, and the Marine Corps has committed to every marine a riflemen until at least 2030. Infantry are needed to secure, clear, and hold objectives. Without them air and artillery support is useless.

In 40k there is no pinning mechanic, infantry have a range of 24inchs, which if you take 28mm as 1/56 scale then they shoot at 112 feet. They lack the ability to advance onto a position and dispace a pinned enemy. Their role is to use up enemy activations by dying or standing back and doing nothing in your deployment zone. Tell me why I'd want to buy, paint, and then play with them, when their role is that boring?

This is why the "lose more" morale mechanics should be replaced with a pinning/suppression mechanic.

Unit fails a "morale test"? Can't hold an objective! Unit fails a "suppression test"? Can't advance/charge/has to go to ground/whatever.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Tell me why I'd want to buy, paint, and then play with them, when their role is that boring?

I mean, you can absolutely use infantry, even basic troop choice, to capture objective, clear up enemy squads without using even a single special weapons. If you include special and heavy weapons they can be used to snipe tanks or hard hitting stuff. If you can't use infantry and basic troops to achieve objective in 40K, you are basically doomed to be a very mediocre player.

PS: securing, clear, and hold objectives is basically basic troops entire shtick. That's what Objective Secure actually represents as a rule. Almost all troop choice in the game can do this. With Space Marines, being probably the best at it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unit fails a "morale test"? Can't hold an objective! Unit fails a "suppression test"? Can't advance/charge/has to go to ground/whatever.

I got to admit that the moral rules of the game would deserve to gain some depth.

I would wager that depends on the troop. Guard squads don't clear up anything by themselves, and also only capture objectives in the most pedantic sense (running forwards and evaporating as soon as the enemy is permitted to act).

Am I the only one that thinks that an experiencd soldier deep in cover, with a commander giving him instructions about the direction and nature of the attack, SHOULD actually be a much harder target to nail than a tank when firing with a very huge cannon?

I don't understand where the problem is honestly.

And for those that think that 2+ conscripts are going to be a mainstay for IG... just no. This strat will see a very marginal use.

epronovost wrote:
I got to admit that the moral rules of the game would deserve to gain some depth.

I don't imagine it would be that difficult, especially when you consider that 40k doesn't really have morale rules but instead just has a "now more things die in a way that bypasses all the standard methods of toughness, damage, wounds and saving throws" system.

Spoletta wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that an experiencd soldier deep in cover, with a commander giving him instructions about the direction and nature of the attack, SHOULD actually be a much harder target to nail than a tank when firing with a very huge cannon?

No. Because there's a difference between concealment and cover.

Concealment makes you harder to hit. Cover makes you harder to damage. A volcano cannon doesn't care about the ruined building you're in. You can certainly conceal yourself from the volcano cannon (this rules does not abstract that), but nothing short of another vehicle or the curvature of the planet itself should be able to block a volcano cannon shot.

And if there is a commander giving him instructions about the nature of the attack, that instruction should be "JOHNSON! GET OUT OF THERE! IT'S A VOLCANO CANNON!", or, y'know, something like that.

Spoletta wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that an experiencd soldier deep in cover, with a commander giving him instructions about the direction and nature of the attack, SHOULD actually be a much harder target to nail than a tank when firing with a very huge cannon?

I don't understand where the problem is honestly.

What you are missing is that this doesn't apply to all experienced soldiers deep in cover with a commander giving him instructions.

It applies only to Cadians, and does so whether or not a commander is even on the battlefield, whether or not the Cadians are in cover, and whether or not they are literally crawling down the barrel of the cannon.

Yes, and for some reason only Steel Legion seem to know how to fire and reembark upon their transports..despite Cadia having famed Armored Fist regiments.

What's your point?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I would wager that depends on the troop. Guard squads don't clear up anything by themselves, and also only capture objectives in the most pedantic sense (running forwards and evaporating as soon as the enemy is permitted to act).

Neither should they really be able to do such a thing. They are supposed to be one of the poorest quality troop in the game. Their ability to perform should come their ability to help others perform, be a distraction, provide supporting fire once in a while and be annoying to remove when in a defensive position and of course abundant. I think those new stratagems and rules will help Cadians do just that.

That's a doctrinal thing. Within the granularity possible within this game, the Steel Legion's training on a large scale is represented via their mechanised warfare training in a way that let's them do that, where as giving that to a single squad type in an army doesn't really cover the same thing.

This isn't a doctrinal thing. This is avoiding damage because memes.

epronovost wrote:
They are supposed to be one of the poorest quality troop in the game.

Are they?

Guard represent the highly trained front line military might of the Imperium. The force that overwhelmingly fights their wars and smashes aside all the foes that face them. The fact that they have to contend with Tyranid Warriors, Chaos Marines and Dark Eldar Wyches doesn't change that fact.

Gretchin are poor quality troops. Conscripts are poor quality troops (other than Cadian ones, who are more durable than some things in the whole game! ). Guardsmen are not "poor quality".

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, and for some reason only Steel Legion seem to know how to fire and reembark upon their transports..despite Cadia having famed Armored Fist regiments.

What's your point?

That none of this any makes any damn sense from a narrative perspective.

And you seem to agree! I too wish Cadians could field armored fist regiments as good as Armageddon's! Just like they could in every edition until 8th!

epronovost wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Tell me why I'd want to buy, paint, and then play with them, when their role is that boring?

I mean, you can absolutely use infantry, even basic troop choice, to capture objective, clear up enemy squads without using even a single special weapons. If you include special and heavy weapons they can be used to snipe tanks or hard hitting stuff. If you can't use infantry and basic troops to achieve objective in 40K, you are basically doomed to be a very mediocre player.

PS: securing, clear, and hold objectives is basically basic troops entire shtick. That's what Objective Secure actually represents as a rule. Almost all troop choice in the game can do this. With Space Marines, being probably the best at it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unit fails a "morale test"? Can't hold an objective! Unit fails a "suppression test"? Can't advance/charge/has to go to ground/whatever.

I got to admit that the moral rules of the game would deserve to gain some depth.

By clearing an objective I mean killing, injuring, or causing an opposing force to flee from a position or a target. Not stand around an arbitrary marker until you die.

I mean, just look at the cadian regimental trait, it activly discourages you from moving up.

In 7th edition veterans could reliably get 2+ cover saves with camo cloaks and getting down. That got ignored due to the profliration of ignores cover though.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Guard represent the highly trained front line military might of the Imperium. The force that overwhelmingly fights their wars and smashes aside all the foes that face them. The fact that they have to contend with Tyranid Warriors, Chaos Marines and Dark Eldar Wyches doesn't change that fact.

Yes, it's called "perspective". You can't expect guardsmen to perform like Space Marines, Eldars, Tyranids, Orks, Necrons and even Tau. Guardsmen are comparatively worst than any of their equivalent in every faction in the game. The Imperial Guard is the main military of the Imperium, not the Guardsmen. The Imperial Guard triumphs because of its massive size, its powerful artillery, tanks and other assets, not because its infantry can match that of the opposition. Guardsmen are competent, but expecting a squad of them to flush out of an objective a squad of Necron Warriors by themselves is ridiculous, especially if they can't count on special and heavy weapons. Guardsmen aren't supposed to be capable of doing that. They can mop up the squad of Necron after a Russ opened up on them, and that's precisely what they can do now. More impressive is the fact that these guardsmen will be able to perform better at being annoying to remove when entrenched which is where they were lacking.

Right.

Guard squads are the helpers.

The ones who pin the enemy down to allow faster elements who maneuver - or the ones who maneuver when heavier elements pin the enemy down.

They deploy smoke/obscurants to cover the assault conducted by dedicated units.

They provide weight of fire with high-ammo-capacity weapons, fixing a foe and then suppressing them.

Oh wait, pinning, obscurants, and suppression are largely absent from 40k...

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I mean, just look at the cadian regimental trait, it activly discourages you from moving up.

As it should be. It would be ridiculous for the Regiment most famed for holding a fortress against impossible odds to favorize moving out of cover and running at the enemy. Cadians are supposed to be great at holding the walls not storming them. If you are clever, you want to move swiftly your Cadians around a hard point and then force your enemy to get you out of it and struggle to eliminate your unexpectedly tough and high moral troops. You do not gain by playing a high mobility game with a subfaction designed for defensive play and with a fluff that consist as holding the mother of all fortress against the mother of all foes.

Ehhh...the misrepresentative trick of Guard is that not every Guardsmen is "comparatively worse than any of their equivalent in every faction in the game".

Guardsmen range from being equivalent to Aspect Warriors for the Aeldari('career soldiers' who are locked into one methodology of warfare) to the Guardians of the Aeldari('volunteer soldiers' who go to war maybe once in their lifetime, then never go again).

A Guard infantry squad, currently, is always supposed to be able to count on a special or heavy weapon at least. Some of their weapons aren't shown in our game, unfortunately.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right.

Guard squads are the helpers.

The ones who pin the enemy down to allow faster elements who maneuver - or the ones who maneuver when heavier elements pin the enemy down.

They deploy smoke/obscurants to cover the assault conducted by dedicated units.

They provide weight of fire with high-ammo-capacity weapons, fixing a foe and then suppressing them.

Oh wait, pinning, obscurants, and suppression are largely absent from 40k...

No, but the capacity to plink wounds off everything is a mechanic of 40K. As is literally serving as meat shield and distraction. Every squad of guardsmen can carry some special and heavy weapons to add some punch here and there and even the humble lasguns can help weaken or finish off damaged units. That represents, albeit not ideally such kind of action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Guardsmen range from being equivalent to Aspect Warriors for the Aeldari('career soldiers' who are locked into one methodology of warfare) to the Guardians of the Aeldari('volunteer soldiers' who go to war maybe once in their lifetime, then never go again).

Except that Aeldari are superhumans with a more advanced technology and train for literal millennia while guardsmen for a decade and a half at best. That's not a great comparison and that's why Aspect Warriors consider guardsmen as cannon fodders. Their training is minuscule comparatively speaking and the human body inferior to that of an Aeldari, let alone their weapons and armor.

epronovost wrote:
Yes, it's called "perspective". You can't expect guardsmen to perform like Space Marines, Eldars, Tyranids, Orks, Necrons and even Tau. Guardsmen are comparatively worst than any of their equivalent in every faction in the game. The Imperial Guard is the main military of the Imperium, not the Guardsmen. The Imperial Guard triumphs because of its massive size, its powerful artillery, tanks and other assets, not because its infantry can match that of the opposition. Guardsmen are competent, but expecting a squad of them to flush out of an objective a squad of Necron Warriors by themselves is ridiculous, especially if they can't count on special and heavy weapons. Guardsmen aren't supposed to be capable of doing that. They can mop up the squad of Necron after a Russ opened up on them, and that's precisely what they can do now. More impressive is the fact that these guardsmen will be able to perform better at being annoying to remove when entrenched which is where they were lacking.

Ok, fair enough, I can get behind that.

I guess I just want to avoid the flandersation of the Guard, where their infantry are portrayed as bunch of scarcely organised inexperienced idiots with an average life expectancy if 7 nanoseconds and that have to double check which end of the gun the shots come out of before charging a unit of Stompas with bayonets fixed because the Commissar said so (ie. everything we get the Regimental whatevieritscalled* tends to say about the Guard).


*Basically GW's in-house equivalent of Text-to-Speech.

epronovost wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Guardsmen range from being equivalent to Aspect Warriors for the Aeldari('career soldiers' who are locked into one methodology of warfare) to the Guardians of the Aeldari('volunteer soldiers' who go to war maybe once in their lifetime, then never go again).

Except that Aeldari are superhumans with a more advanced technology and train for literal millennia while guardsmen for a decade and a half at best. That's not a great comparison.

Ehh..."superhuman" is subjective.

But the comparison is better than you seem to think. Cadians, Death Korps, Steel Legion, or Mordians? They aren't too far off the mark from what the Aspect Warriors are, comparatively: continually training and martially competent.

epronovost wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Guard represent the highly trained front line military might of the Imperium. The force that overwhelmingly fights their wars and smashes aside all the foes that face them. The fact that they have to contend with Tyranid Warriors, Chaos Marines and Dark Eldar Wyches doesn't change that fact.

Yes, it's called "perspective". You can't expect guardsmen to perform like Space Marines, Eldars, Tyranids, Orks, Necrons and even Tau. Guardsmen are comparatively worst than any of their equivalent in every faction in the game. The Imperial Guard is the main military of the Imperium, not the Guardsmen. The Imperial Guard triumphs because of its massive size, its powerful artillery, tanks and other assets, not because its infantry can match that of the opposition. Guardsmen are competent, but expecting a squad of them to flush out of an objective a squad of Necron Warriors by themselves is ridiculous, especially if they can't count on special and heavy weapons. Guardsmen aren't supposed to be capable of doing that. They can mop up the squad of Necron after a Russ opened up on them, and that's precisely what they can do now. More impressive is the fact that these guardsmen will be able to perform better at being annoying to remove when entrenched which is where they were lacking.

first off the guard isn't a monolith. Some regiments possess incredible infantry, and the lasgun has incredible variation in its capabilities.

Furthermore the tau are a great examle as well. If your're playing them right all you want to do is sit there in your deployment zone and roll dice.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ehh..."superhuman" is subjective.

No it's not. Humans can't live for thousands of years (even with magic rejuvenation drugs, humans seldom live more than a few centuries and guardsmen don't have access to such things), Eldars do. Eldars can dodge bullets with relative ease and have superhuman reflex and run as fast as horses. They have senses sharper than any human. They are all psykers. They are also more intelligent and completely obsessive to a point that humans cannot comprehend unless they are mentally ill.

But the comparison is better than you seem to think. Cadians, Death Korps, Steel Legion, or Mordians? They aren't too far off the mark from what the Aspect Warriors are, comparatively: continually training and martially competent.

A human can only train for a few years and perform for a few more before age catches up with him. An Eldar can fight and train for centuries continuously. No Guardsmen can do that. Hell most Space Marines or Sisters (thanks to rejuvenat can't do that). The eldest Space Marines isn't considered old by Eldar standards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
first off the guard isn't a monolith. Some regiments possess incredible infantry, and the lasgun has incredible variation in its capabilities.

Yeah, and comparatively speaking the lasgun is poor compared to a thing like a bolter, a gauss weapon or even a shuriken weapon.

If your're playing them right all you want to do is sit there in your deployment zone and roll dice.

Or you are using Breacher teams and crisis suits to make a "Tau bomb", a staple of the Tau style since their inception (well not with Breachers, but Tau air cavalry was something you could do and make work for a long time).

Cadians are evidently superhumans. They can survive volcano cannon shots better than any other type of Guardsman.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Cadians are evidently superhumans. They can survive volcano cannon shots better than any other type of Guardsman.

But not as well as actual tough superhumans like Space Marines, Orks or Necrons unfortunately for them.

epronovost wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Cadians are evidently superhumans. They can survive volcano cannon shots better than any other type of Guardsman.

But not as well as actual tough superhumans like Space Marines, Orks or Necrons unfortunately for them.

Barring special faction traits (like BT vowing to have a 5++, or iron hands having bits of metal stuck on for their 6++), all of those die slightly easier than a cadian does. S16, D2d6 and -5 AP just doesn't care.*


*assuming some random supplement or other hasn't changed the stats again.