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.

Voss wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'd love to see all IG T8 vehicles like LRBTs get a rule where they have to be a full unit of 3. A full squad. No more cheap T8 spam.

That's... terrible. For smaller games that's absolutely wretched, but even beyond that, but forcing _all_ guard players to go all or nothing on tanks is just unpleasant. GW doesn't need to be dictating builds. Particularly not unfluffy ones.

It's funny, can you point me to a list in the last two editions that used less than 3 LR? It's easily the best unit of the guard, with a T8 platform that can dish out stupid levels of S10 dd6 firepower in full payload. Tank Commanders with Punisher cannons are broken for the price they pay. It's very telling that you think you should be allowed to take two single models of the best unit in the book, but forcing them to take a unit of 3 is suddenly too many. Once they hit the table they become single units anyway, so this really changes nothing but the amount that the UNIT costs, vs the model.

I actually haven't seen any lists that use any standard Russes at all. I've seen tank commanders paired with the artillery tanks, but that isn't the point.

As for what it changes, it alters the feel and organization of guard lists. I don't care what units _you_ think are too strong, or the overall unit cost. I care about people (including myself) being able to take a single tank to supplement a guard force, rather than throw ~500 points or take no Russes at all (other than the ridiculous tank commanders, which your proposal doesn't affect in any way whatsoever).

Voss wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'd love to see all IG T8 vehicles like LRBTs get a rule where they have to be a full unit of 3. A full squad. No more cheap T8 spam.

That's... terrible. For smaller games that's absolutely wretched, but even beyond that, but forcing _all_ guard players to go all or nothing on tanks is just unpleasant. GW doesn't need to be dictating builds. Particularly not unfluffy ones.

Yeah, mandatory squadrons of 3 is a bit much, but Guard feel like a faction that should be able to get more out of every one of their FOC slots, so maybe 1-3 for all vehicle units.

I fully admit I don't have a good suggestion for fixing Guard platoons to streamline them better for 9th. It was fine for building an army in something like Battlescribe but honestly for new players I can see how it could be an issue that GW wants to remove.

On a different note I'd like to see Ogryn and Multilasers to be good. No idea how to fix the abhumans, but the Multilasers could either go to D2 (to be a straight side grade with the heavy bolter) or get a higher volume of fire to make it a dedicated anti-horde weapon. It just seems strange that such a staple weapon of the Guard (being in basically every vehicle kit the Guard have) is so meh.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's funny, can you point me to a list in the last two editions that used less than 3 LR? It's easily the best unit of the guard, with a T8 platform that can dish out stupid levels of S10 dd6 firepower in full payload. Tank Commanders with Punisher cannons are broken for the price they pay. It's very telling that you think you should be allowed to take two single models of the best unit in the book, but forcing them to take a unit of 3 is suddenly too many. Once they hit the table they become single units anyway, so this really changes nothing but the amount that the UNIT costs, vs the model.

Leman Russes are bad... You know that, right? No-one takes a single Leman Russ in competitive play. In competitive play you only see Tank Commanders. Which, yes, the Tank Commander is one of the best units in an otherwise bad codex. Punisher variants also suck. The only variants worth taking are Demolishers, which can't get Full Payload, and Battle Tanks, which also can't get Full Payload. The only reason people even take Battle Tanks is 1) they're Cadian and want Gatekeeper, or 2) don't want to risk their tank being locked in melee.

Honestly, your suggestion is trash. T8 platforms aren't incredibly durable. What makes them durable is GW giving new T8 platforms a ton of durability buffs, like -1 Damage, a 2+ Save, and a 5++ Invulnerable.

If you actually wanted a Leman Russ to be competitively costed. You'd be looking at:
- Vanquisher: 115 points, with hull heavy bolter.
- Eradicator and Exterminator: 120 points, with hull heavy bolter.
- Executioner: 125 points, with hull heavy bolter.
- Battle Tank: 130 points, with hull heavy bolter.
- Demolisher and Punisher: 135 points, with hull heavy bolter.

These are all directly compared to the Ad-Mech Dunecrawler, which in itself isn't even considered a meta vehicle. They have very similar levels of durability, and the Dunecrawler is better than all variants up to the Executioner. This is also be buffs, like Dogma and Doctrina.

Jarms48 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's funny, can you point me to a list in the last two editions that used less than 3 LR? It's easily the best unit of the guard, with a T8 platform that can dish out stupid levels of S10 dd6 firepower in full payload. Tank Commanders with Punisher cannons are broken for the price they pay. It's very telling that you think you should be allowed to take two single models of the best unit in the book, but forcing them to take a unit of 3 is suddenly too many. Once they hit the table they become single units anyway, so this really changes nothing but the amount that the UNIT costs, vs the model.

Leman Russes are bad... You know that, right? No-one takes a single Leman Russ in competitive play. In competitive play you only see Tank Commanders. Which, yes, the Tank Commander is one of the best units in an otherwise bad codex. Punisher variants also suck. The only variants worth taking are Demolishers, which can't get Full Payload, and Battle Tanks, which also can't get Full Payload. The only reason people even take Battle Tanks is 1) they're Cadian and want Gatekeeper, or 2) don't want to risk their tank being locked in melee.

Honestly, your suggestion is trash. T8 platforms aren't incredibly durable. What makes them durable is GW giving new T8 platforms a ton of durability buffs, like -1 Damage, a 2+ Save, and a 5++ Invulnerable.

If you actually wanted a Leman Russ to be competitively costed. You'd be looking at:
- Vanquisher: 115 points, with hull heavy bolter.
- Eradicator and Exterminator: 120 points, with hull heavy bolter.
- Executioner: 125 points, with hull heavy bolter.
- Battle Tank: 130 points, with hull heavy bolter.
- Demolisher and Punisher: 135 points, with hull heavy bolter.

These are all directly compared to the Ad-Mech Dunecrawler, which in itself isn't even considered a meta vehicle. They have very similar levels of durability, and the Dunecrawler is better than all variants up to the Executioner. This is also be buffs, like Dogma and Doctrina.

Honestly, I apologize if I am getting this wrong, but your solution if I can understand your points, is to LOWER the cost of a platform that can put out 12 S10 AP3 Dd6 shots, plus it's dual HBs, because guard have better units?

It has nothing to do with Meta, it's just a foolish amount of firepower to give a player for less than half what other factions have to pay for it. Also, it's power directly affects at least 1 other faction, GSC, possibly a second, if Traitor Guard rumors are to be believed. It's still a 130ppm vehicle that puts out insane fire power, with double shooting, hail of fire, etc. Even in base form, no other unit in the game puts out 6-12 S8 shots per turn at 72", for 130 points.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Honestly, I apologize if I am getting this wrong, but your solution if I can understand your points, is to LOWER the cost of a platform that can put out 12 S10 AP3 Dd6 shots, plus it's dual HBs, because guard have better units?

It has nothing to do with Meta, it's just a foolish amount of firepower to give a player for less than half what other factions have to pay for it. Also, it's power directly affects at least 1 other faction, GSC, possibly a second, if Traitor Guard rumors are to be believed. It's still a 130ppm vehicle that puts out insane fire power, with double shooting, hail of fire, etc. Even in base form, no other unit in the game puts out 6-12 S8 shots per turn at 72", for 130 points.

I think you're forgetting the BS4 on the LRBT.

Jarms48 is right. A 115 point Onager dunecrawler with Twin Phospor blasters does median 4.0 damage, 4.8 mean damage against intercessors. The LRBT with BC does median/mean of 3.0, and that's with 2d6 shots. A LRBT with Demo Cannon does median 6, mean 6.8 damage vs. a T6 tank, while the 115 point Onager with a Neutron Laser does median 5, avg 5.7.

Considering 3 Multi-Meltas do the same damage to the Onager and LRBT, if anything, Jarms48 is charging too much. It should probably be closer to 105 for the BC & 125 for the DC, that's just to match unit-to-unit, and the Onager isn't even that good, while the LRBT is supposed to be the pride & joy/poster child of the entire AM codex.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Honestly, I apologize if I am getting this wrong, but your solution if I can understand your points, is to LOWER the cost of a platform that can put out 12 S10 AP3 Dd6 shots, plus it's dual HBs, because guard have better units?

It has nothing to do with Meta, it's just a foolish amount of firepower to give a player for less than half what other factions have to pay for it. Also, it's power directly affects at least 1 other faction, GSC, possibly a second, if Traitor Guard rumors are to be believed. It's still a 130ppm vehicle that puts out insane fire power, with double shooting, hail of fire, etc. Even in base form, no other unit in the game puts out 6-12 S8 shots per turn at 72", for 130 points.

So why aren't IG dominating the tournaments then with their foolish amount of firepower?

Because they suck. And are destroyed at will.

Making just stupid 3 slots is stupid idea. Unless you mean 3 for price of 1

Slots of 3 is silly since it means that the codex can't scale points levels properly for smaller games, plus it means forcing people to buy three kits just to fill one slot. 1-3 per slot is better and would be the more appropriate solution.

Jarms48 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
its the same difference, they just cut out the middleman and made the base save 3+ instead of saying its a 4+ with a special rule that gives it a +1 to saves.

Stormshields never gave +1 to saves until the 9th edition SM codex. Changing their shield from a storm shield and giving them a 3+ is 100% intentional.

Whatever man, they've always had a 3+ save whether it was armor or invulnerable or whatever it was in the past, this isn't really anything new, just a slight change from what it was previously.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Voss wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'd love to see all IG T8 vehicles like LRBTs get a rule where they have to be a full unit of 3. A full squad. No more cheap T8 spam.

That's... terrible. For smaller games that's absolutely wretched, but even beyond that, but forcing _all_ guard players to go all or nothing on tanks is just unpleasant. GW doesn't need to be dictating builds. Particularly not unfluffy ones.

It's funny, can you point me to a list in the last two editions that used less than 3 LR? It's easily the best unit of the guard, with a T8 platform that can dish out stupid levels of S10 dd6 firepower in full payload. Tank Commanders with Punisher cannons are broken for the price they pay. It's very telling that you think you should be allowed to take two single models of the best unit in the book, but forcing them to take a unit of 3 is suddenly too many. Once they hit the table they become single units anyway, so this really changes nothing but the amount that the UNIT costs, vs the model.

I've never used Leman Russ's in any capacity in any of my Guard lists, ever... but in that sense the change wouldn't impact me at all... still a terrible idea though.

Honestly, I apologize if I am getting this wrong, but your solution if I can understand your points, is to LOWER the cost of a platform that can put out 12 S10 AP3 Dd6 shots, plus it's dual HBs, because guard have better units?

It seems you must have some really bad experiences at the hands of guard players... because guard struggle to win games and Leman Russes are horrendously overpriced for what they do, both in terms of how rapidly they die and how little impact they actually make. They *can* put out 12 S10 AP3 Dd6 shots if you roll hot and everything goes your way, but on average they aren't doing anywhere near that.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Honestly, I apologize if I am getting this wrong, but your solution if I can understand your points, is to LOWER the cost of a platform that can put out 12 S10 AP3 Dd6 shots, plus it's dual HBs, because guard have better units?

It seems you must have some really bad experiences at the hands of guard players... because guard struggle to win games and Leman Russes are horrendously overpriced for what they do, both in terms of how rapidly they die and how little impact they actually make. They *can* put out 12 S10 AP3 Dd6 shots if you roll hot and everything goes your way, but on average they aren't doing anywhere near that.

QFT.

12 S10 shots isn't a big deal with BS4. Quick napkin math shows the chances getting 12 shots that hit are 1:140,000, while the chance of rolling 2 shots and both of them whiffing are closer to 1:140. So for every time you hit with 12 shots, you'll have completely whiffed 1000 times. "12 S10 AP3..." isn't even an argument.

As someone who plays plays pretty much exclusively 25 power games due to time constraints forcing 3 tanks would mean I would never field a Russ again as that is more then 25 on it's own and I'd have no way to fill out the required HQ and Troop slots. Whilst I acknowledge I'm in a minority in only playing smaller games I also know I'm not alone in that. A solution that cuts out a section of the player base from being able to use a unit is not a solution.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

On a different note I'd like to see Ogryn and Multilasers to be good. No idea how to fix the abhumans, but the Multilasers could either go to D2 (to be a straight side grade with the heavy bolter) or get a higher volume of fire to make it a dedicated anti-horde weapon. It just seems strange that such a staple weapon of the Guard (being in basically every vehicle kit the Guard have) is so meh.

Multilasers definitely need a fix (though honestly they only live on chimeras and Sentinels (and the latter only in theory)) And personally, my chimeras only have multi-lasers because I bought them before they recut the kit and added HBs and heavy flamers to the turret options. I honestly expect they'll do what they did for the eldar scatter laser and increase the shot count - the only reason to take the current version is to not pay +10 points.

----
One fear I have for the new codex is the 'not on the sprue' removal of options. Like track guards for hellhounds, which let you laugh at degrading profiles all day long.

Voss wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'd love to see all IG T8 vehicles like LRBTs get a rule where they have to be a full unit of 3. A full squad. No more cheap T8 spam.

That's... terrible. For smaller games that's absolutely wretched, but even beyond that, but forcing _all_ guard players to go all or nothing on tanks is just unpleasant. GW doesn't need to be dictating builds. Particularly not unfluffy ones.

Yea that is a terribly dumb idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw it is also d6 shots, 2d6 if getting to shoot a second time.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Whatever man, they've always had a 3+ save whether it was armor or invulnerable or whatever it was in the past, this isn't really anything new, just a slight change from what it was previously.

Sorry bud, also incorrect. Crusaders go as far back as the 3rd edition Witchhunters codex, possibly further. Where surprise, surprise had a 4+ armour save and a 4+ invulnerable from their suppression shields.

brainpsyk wrote:
Jarms48 is right. A 115 point Onager dunecrawler with Twin Phospor blasters does median 4.0 damage, 4.8 mean damage against intercessors. The LRBT with BC does median/mean of 3.0, and that's with 2d6 shots. A LRBT with Demo Cannon does median 6, mean 6.8 damage vs. a T6 tank, while the 115 point Onager with a Neutron Laser does median 5, avg 5.7.

Considering 3 Multi-Meltas do the same damage to the Onager and LRBT, if anything, Jarms48 is charging too much. It should probably be closer to 105 for the BC & 125 for the DC, that's just to match unit-to-unit, and the Onager isn't even that good, while the LRBT is supposed to be the pride & joy/poster child of the entire AM codex.

Yep, I purposely overvalue them because GW has this hidden T8 tax for some reason. Though as we've discussed before I also assume that TC's would be made better buffing characters.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honestly, I apologize if I am getting this wrong, but your solution if I can understand your points, is to LOWER the cost of a platform that can put out 12 S10 AP3 Dd6 shots, plus it's dual HBs, because guard have better units?

I think you really don't understand Guard. Did you even read what I said? Only a SINGLE vehicle is getting max 12 shots, for 2 CP against only VEHICLES. A leman russ also only has a single heavy bolter, you have to pay for 2 additional heavy bolters at a heavily inflated cost.

Did you have some bad experiences against Armoured Companies back in 3rd to 5th edition or something? Cause Guard are trash now. We're bottom tier competitively, even our best units are only okay compared to other factions.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It has nothing to do with Meta, it's just a foolish amount of firepower to give a player for less than half what other factions have to pay for it. Also, it's power directly affects at least 1 other faction, GSC, possibly a second, if Traitor Guard rumors are to be believed. It's still a 130ppm vehicle that puts out insane fire power, with double shooting, hail of fire, etc. Even in base form, no other unit in the game puts out 6-12 S8 shots per turn at 72", for 130 points.

Nothing foolish about it. Whatever shots you roll instantly gets its potential cut in half by BS4+. Leman Russes aren't durable anymore. Leman Russes aren't damaging anymore. They're bad units. Just like 90% of the Guard codex right now.

I'd be happy if baneblades were worth fielding. Would like Chimeras to be viable. Hate to lose Crusaders but I wager they take them out and leave them with sisters. (bought and detailed 10 of the bastards). Just don't want anything squatted

 RegularGuy wrote:
I'd be happy if baneblades were worth fielding. Would like Chimeras to be viable. Hate to lose Crusaders but I wager they take them out and leave them with sisters. (bought and detailed 10 of the bastards). Just don't want anything squatted

Honestly I'm curious how drastically the army may be reworked. We've been seeing a lot of subfaction reworks and regiments may see a drastic change up from where they are now. Don't get me wrong, the changes have been largely positive but I'll also admit that they could shift armies a fair bit too. It put me on the fence about wargear loadouts for a bit before I decided to just try and build everything so I can have an army that's a little more resistant to the way the game swings.

I mean Guard have one of the widest ranges in the game when it comes to options, so being able to flex into them as you see fit, or as metas shift is never a bad plan.

That's been one of the hard parts of coming on in the beginning of 8th for guard. By the time you've collected and painted what you wanted to field. The rules/meta/balance have moved on and you need something else, and there's a lot of something else. The bright side is eventually after you've collected, built, and detailed everything over the course of years and several editions, you're mostly future proof. Unless they squat something, or add something totally new I suppose. Ah well. Suffering through is the guard way.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The rumored contents for the DKoK range:
-Grenadiers/Engineers(box)
-Death Riders of Krieg(box)
-Heavy Weapons Team(large clamshell/small box)
-Grenadier/Engineer Officer(clamshell)
-Quartermaster with Servitors(large clamshell)
-Death Rider Officer/Commissar(large clamshell/box)
-Tank Commander Accessories(large clamshell)

Where are these DKoK rumors coming from because I haven't seen any known sources talking about them?

 RegularGuy wrote:
I'd be happy if baneblades were worth fielding. Would like Chimeras to be viable. Hate to lose Crusaders but I wager they take them out and leave them with sisters. (bought and detailed 10 of the bastards). Just don't want anything squatted

Chimeras will be much more viable once GW nerf MMM!.

As for brainstorming what GW will do with them. I could imagine something like:
- Multi-lasers becoming heavy 6. Look at Burst Cannons and Scatter Lasers.
- Heavy Bolter and Heavy Flamer turret upgrades becoming free, I imagine with the above they'll just remove the cost and it'll simply become player preference.
- Better vehicle upgrades. This will affect all Guard vehicles, but I could see something like augur arrays becoming once per turn rather than once per game, dozer blades giving the breachable keyword and maybe ignoring difficult ground, etc.
- I could see all Guard vehicles built on the Chimera, Leman Russ, and larger chassis' getting some kind of Ramshackle or flat -1 damage ability. If both versions of the GSC Goliath get a -1, which are just civilian Imperial vehicles, I don't see why Imperial military vehicles wouldn't.

Baneblades on the other hand need a ton of things fixed:
- A 2+ save for starters. Still baffling that the Russ got it and the Baneblades didn't.
- The same -1 damage as said above, or a flat -1 if other vehicles only get a Ramshackle equivalent.
- More wounds, at least 28 maybe even 30.
- Better BS, at least 3+, it always seemed incredibly strange that Tank Commanders have a better BS than Baneblades. Baneblades are crewed by some of the most elite tankers in the Imperial Guard.
- Better weapon profiles. If railguns can ignore invuls, why can't volcano and quake cannons?

Quick question for speculation, what will become of the metal regiments?

Somehow GW managed to give them rules, just in time for the 20+ year old models to go OOP.

Logic would be not to give them rules or show them, just like the Necromunda Spiders disappeared, but (as I mentioned earlier) I really hope they'll each get a 1 sprue box that covers most options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RegularGuy wrote:
I'd be happy if baneblades were worth fielding.

GW's logic would be "they already have like 3 or 4 Baneblades and aren't likely to buy more, better to give rules upgrades to the Baner Blades, a brand new model coming in 2023..."

More likely that the rules updates we saw in the Dataslate are things that they tested and found wouldn't also needs points changes to implement before the next codex so they pushed them out early as a patch.

I think theres a few paths they could take on regiments

They could "genericize" them - I.E. no more "Cadian Shock Troops", "Catachan Jungle Fighters", "Death Korps of Krieg", "Vostroyan Firstborn", etc. Instead you have "Shock Regiment", "Jungle Fighter Regiment", "Siege Regiment", "Veteran Regiment", etc. This theoretically frees up the ability for players to use their Cadian or Vostroyan or Death Korps minis, etc. in a build other than the one associated with the miniatures being used, and cuts them out from having to continue to support discontinued metal/finecast miniatures.

They could cut them - No more Mordians, Tallarn, or Vostroyans, etc. Only the regiments with plastic model ranges remain, joined by whatever new regiments get pumped out in plastic which gives us at least 3 options in the book with the potential for some more (1-2 based on rumors). This would more or less keep Guard where they are/on par with other factions. Might potentially suck for you if your guard faction is squatted, but hopefully the subfaction playstyles are diverse and varied enough that you can repurpose your Mordians or Tallarn (or Vostroyans :gulp: ) as one of the others, etc.

They could "double up" on them. I see no reason why they can't have "Cadian Shock Troops" and "Cadian Remnant Veterans" as two separate regiments, likewise "Catachan Jungle Fighters" and "Catachan Air Cavalry", or "Death Korps Siege Regiment" and "Death Korps Assault Regiment" or something.

They could keep them + supplement them - Guard codex remains mostly generic, includes a bunch of regiment subfactions that you can choose from which are no longer necessarily tied to specific models, etc. Then release Codex Supplements for the regiments in plastic, i.e. Kasrkin go in Codex Supplement: Cadian Shock Troops, Death Riders and Engineers in Codex Supplement: Death Korps of Krieg, etc.

Or some combination thereof.

We know that at a minimum we will still have Cadians, Catachans, and now Death Korps of Krieg, with the possibility of 1-2 more based on the reliable rumor dump. Based on the DKK rumors of them getting all these specialist units and special cavalry (a unit which I very much doubt GW is going to replicate for every regiment), I am inclined to think that GW won't be genericizing anything anytime soon. Likewise, I would be surprised if the plastic regiments, at least, did *not* receive Codex Supplements.

If baneblades get anything, it will possibly be the Stormsurge treatment. "If remain in place this turn, then "x" can be rerolled/counts as "Y"" or something akin to a special rule that makes them somewhat viable. I also think just based off the way 9th is going you will see IG LOWs come way down in points cost. If a SS is 330ish points, I don't see how a BB is more, given no Invuln, and weaker gun profiles.

I could see the BB getting an invul save, or a reduced damage rule to represent it's toughness like how titanic vehicles ignored the normal damage table because they're too big and hard to break.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Quick question for speculation, what will become of the metal regiments?

Somehow GW managed to give them rules, just in time for the 20+ year old models to go OOP.

Logic would be not to give them rules or show them, just like the Necromunda Spiders disappeared, but (as I mentioned earlier) I really hope they'll each get a 1 sprue box that covers most options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RegularGuy wrote:
I'd be happy if baneblades were worth fielding.

GW's logic would be "they already have like 3 or 4 Baneblades and aren't likely to buy more, better to give rules upgrades to the Baner Blades, a brand new model coming in 2023..."

I wouldn't be surprised if they got reduced to paintjobs like Chaos legions were from 4th to 7th Edition. You may use your old Tallarns just fine, but we'll just sell you Cadians to paint beige from now on.

I was going to post something similar, basically "Guard are really the only faction where subfactions are tied to the models you field rather than the paintjob" - but then I deleted it as its not entirely true with regards to the Space Marines subfactions. Then again, Space Marines could be the exception that proves the rule.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Voss wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'd love to see all IG T8 vehicles like LRBTs get a rule where they have to be a full unit of 3. A full squad. No more cheap T8 spam.

That's... terrible. For smaller games that's absolutely wretched, but even beyond that, but forcing _all_ guard players to go all or nothing on tanks is just unpleasant. GW doesn't need to be dictating builds. Particularly not unfluffy ones.

It's funny, can you point me to a list in the last two editions that used less than 3 LR? It's easily the best unit of the guard, with a T8 platform that can dish out stupid levels of S10 dd6 firepower in full payload. Tank Commanders with Punisher cannons are broken for the price they pay. It's very telling that you think you should be allowed to take two single models of the best unit in the book, but forcing them to take a unit of 3 is suddenly too many. Once they hit the table they become single units anyway, so this really changes nothing but the amount that the UNIT costs, vs the model.

Yeah I remember reading all this LR spam lists that have just been dominating the scene. I heard the top 8 of LVO was ready to concede any game where they lined up against these toughness 8 beasts. LR power is clearly why they felt the need to buff custods….. what can super humans do against such reckless hate

Calling russes cheap T8 spam has to be one of the funniest things I have ever read. These codex threads always bring out the best hot takes.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I was going to post something similar, basically "Guard are really the only faction where subfactions are tied to the models you field rather than the paintjob" - but then I deleted it as its not entirely true with regards to the Space Marines subfactions. Then again, Space Marines could be the exception that proves the rule.

Guard is probably the most tied to models. but Chaos comes close. I mean yeah you can paint your chaos marines green and call them plague marines, but really you want the bellies and the pickle helms and all that. Same with Khorne bunny ears, and 1000 Sons bunny ears and obviously there's nothing to be done for noise marines, either you have a bunch of demonic guitars for them or they're just purple marines.

Still I find it hysterical that GW spend 2 decades treating all guard the same, no matter what tailor they use, then suddenly decided they need faction rules, only to take 2/3 of the army OOP. Left hand meet right hand, you have a lot to talk about.

I've painted up desert style Cadians and no one seems to mind if I run them as Tallarn due to paint job or Cadian due to models; but I doubt I would get away with Vostroyans! So it's not so much the models that the regiments are tied to but it is the theme/paintjob of the army. Paint a model in cold gear and put it on an ice/snow base and that pretty much sets what it can be.

Like the look of those Krieg rumours if true. Hopefully they will come with unmasked as well as masked heads so they can be more easily integrated into other Guard armies. I don't much fancy putting the current Cadian heads on a more accurately scaled body.