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:
Could give -1Ap back to lasguns.

i don0t think adding more AP inflation to the game will resolve the issues of guard though

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
An opinion without anything like a useful answer.

In short? The Imperial Guard simply aren’t that well suited to the scale of your standard 40K game.

Sure they are!

But not with the vision that the majority of players and GW has jammed them into over the years.

We're seeing it happen again in real time with the Skitarii troop units, BTW, in AdMech. They've gone from being able to be fielded in small units while retaining large amounts of unique and interesting wargear at those numbers, with special rules making them notably different from just being meatshields...into being shoehorned into requiring large blobs to shield a few special weapons.

Background wise, and in Epic scale? Awesome. Loads of units, wide choice. Lovely lovely stuff.

But in 40K? You just cannot replicate the background. It’s kind of the same issue Nids face. Both are meant to be numberless, faceless hordes. Forces not at all afraid, or even inclined, to be afraid of horrendous losses (one could argue the Imperial Guard loses more soldiers and materiel in a day than there are Eldar left in the Galaxy).

Which is a crappy metric to use, given that humanity is pretty much everywhere, and the Guard is too.

They don’t, and have never, done things by halves. Absolute, irresistible overwhelming force isn’t just the order of the day, but the order of the Millenia. It’s what they do. A remorseless meat grinder where life is cheaper but thankfully more readily available than you and yours.

And this is where the problem lies, amplified relentlessly by Cruddace and the "vision" the books he helmed has forced on the army.


For every instance of a Valhallan Regiment with no rifles, there's supposed to be an instance of an elite regiment that relies upon training and their specialized equipment accompanying their training to come through.

And I just can’t properly conceive how one would translate that to the tabletop properly.

Extremely easily, but it requires someone at GW having the audacity to actually follow through with something that will be met with the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the outset from people who seem to think the Guard die at a 300:1 ratio when fighting things like Tyranids or bloody Gretchin.

It involves actually building around 3 core tenants:
-Guard armies can be from multiple worlds and multiple elements, brought together under one banner while retaining their own unique identities as part of an overarching campaign.
-Guard armies can be from multiple worlds, melded together into one cohesive force based upon shared experiences as survivors of a campaign.
-Guard armies can be from a single world, bringing together multiple elements with a shared world identity/trait into one joint force that operates together as part of an overarching campaign.


These are important tenants. These are what make Guard Regiments into Guard Regiments. I'm sure you remember the whole snippet about the Cadians field-stripping lasguns, right? That's the kind of thing that needs to be leaned into. Building a world identity for the subfactions first, including subfaction specific units(Kasrkin for Cadians, Catachan Devils for the Catachans, Tallarn Rough Riders, etc) and then adding a kind of "regimental pride" that is tied specifically to whatever the regimental type you're fielding is.

To throw out an example of the third bit?
-Cadians <Insert bonus here>, applying only when the army is entirely Cadian.
--Armoured Regiment: <Insert Bonus Here>, applying only when the army is made up of Vehicles or contains enough Transports for your Infantry units to be mounted in them.

This creates a reason for people not just to pick+choose the 'best' traits of a Build Your Own Regiment list and allows for a thematic list to be built from the outset.

The other concepts would necessitate actually creating a more robust command structure for the Guard...which I don't think GW has anyone up for that task unfortunately.

Yes, I am massively background driven.

Same here. Which is why I've consistently made these suggestions, only to get dumped on by people who have no real vision for Guard other than as the "human faction versions of Orks or Tyranids".

ccs wrote:
[How are you figuring Chimeras aren't putting out comparable firepower to Razorbacks? Or cost anywhere near a Razorback?

Or are you really complaining that they don't have the raw AT potential of the LC-Razorback because you want to use the wrong tool for AT work?

Uh, Chimeras are BS4+ and carry much worse cargo. Razorbacks are also just incredibly over-costed. They should be around 90 points, minimum.

Chimeras base cost isn't actually too bad. Their issue is that weapon upgrades should cost the same as the infantries and that MMM makes them pointless. I really don't understand why GW keep making vehicle heavy weapons cost 5 more. Yes, vehicles don't suffer heavy penalties and can shoot into combat but you shouldn't be taxed on every single weapon, it should have been factored into the vehicles cost in the first place.

For example: The Chimeras heavy bolter and heavy flamer turret upgrade should be reduced to 5 points. Meaning the multi-laser is worth 5 points and swapping it to something better is also 5, which equals out to 10 points the same as an infantry heavy bolter.

It also seems strange that the Chimera is also the only W10 vehicle out of all the other Chimera chassis datasheets. The Basilisk, Hydra, Wyvern, Hellhound, Deathstrike, and Manticore are all W11. Just make it W11 like the rest of them now that CA2022 changed Bring It Down to make W10 count as 2 VP.

An idea; if you want to use a 'crusade' force, by which I mean take a force that is a majority of one regiment with a smattering of others, just drop the Ld of attached forces, to denote the attached forces' lack of trust in their allied commander, or the commander's lack of understanding on how to use them most effectively.

Just -1 or -2, and you are hitting the guard in their weakest stat, their morale.

Something crossed my mind with the "never do thing by halves": perhaps they could get a rule that does something like having you allocate all your lasgun shooting and for each unit you stack up on the same target you gain some sort of bonus as you drown the target in las fire.

It's a rough idea but with mechanics like Crossfire and the new Markerlights it feels like the army could have some really interesting rules that buff its shooting through a mechanic that plays to the army's lore.

Though I have some concern that orders could become actions for the officers issuing them since we're seeing more and more action interrupts.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Voss wrote:
Could give -1Ap back to lasguns.

i don0t think adding more AP inflation to the game will resolve the issues of guard though

If they aren't going to drop their point cost (which they won't) they have to inch towards making that cost worthwhile. They don't really have all that much room to play with stats- this one at least has some grounding in the game's history and makes them slightly less bad. And its a lot less asinine then making them sometimes run at super-speed.

Jarms48 wrote:

ccs wrote:
[How are you figuring Chimeras aren't putting out comparable firepower to Razorbacks? Or cost anywhere near a Razorback?

Or are you really complaining that they don't have the raw AT potential of the LC-Razorback because you want to use the wrong tool for AT work?

Uh, Chimeras are BS4+ and carry much worse cargo.

I wasn't asking about the quality of the shots, just the quantity. And if you do have that much worse cargo embarked? Well, then you get more shots!

Jarms48 wrote:
Razorbacks are also just incredibly over-costed. They should be around 90 points, minimum.

Chimeras base cost isn't actually too bad. Their issue is that weapon upgrades should cost the same as the infantries and that MMM makes them pointless. I really don't understand why GW keep making vehicle heavy weapons cost 5 more. Yes, vehicles don't suffer heavy penalties and can shoot into combat but you shouldn't be taxed on every single weapon, it should have been factored into the vehicles cost in the first place.

For example: The Chimeras heavy bolter and heavy flamer turret upgrade should be reduced to 5 points. Meaning the multi-laser is worth 5 points and swapping it to something better is also 5, which equals out to 10 points the same as an infantry heavy bolter.

None of that, especially your opinion of "should", changes the fact that in here reality a Chimera & a Razorback do not cost anywhere near the same points

Jarms48 wrote:
It also seems strange that the Chimera is also the only W10 vehicle out of all the other Chimera chassis datasheets. The Basilisk, Hydra, Wyvern, Hellhound, Deathstrike, and Manticore are all W11. Just make it W11 like the rest of them now that CA2022 changed Bring It Down to make W10 count as 2 VP.

Random commentary....

 generalchaos34 wrote:
Attention Troopers! It has come across my desk recently that our valiant guardsman have been dying more unceremoniously than normal. While I expect all of you to die gloriously for the Emperor it does help if you take a few enemies out on your way with a few well trained bayonet strikes. That being said....

Its very clear that Guard have not been in a good place for a VERY long time (I came in just after the halcyon days of 5th edition when guard had some teeth in them still but still reeling after . At the dawn of 8th there was some hope with conscripts and then again with Greater Good choose your own regiments. However nothing has been able to stick in a competitive scene. Which brings us this very quandary...how do we fix guard? Its a complex army that has some of the largest diversity in its builds and lists, going from all mech, all armor, all artillery, and all foot troops and everything in between. Balancing all of these factors will be quite a chore that will take planning, depth, and a strong dose of rules sensibility, which probably won't be happening ( a girl can dream can't she?). What does the guard need? Rebuilding from the ground up? A whole new kind of organization? Maybe simply point fixes? There are many ways to do it. Here are some of my ideas.

1. Platoons! Call me nostalgic but I really did enjoy these clunky monstrosities. Maybe less so at the time, but they have grown on me for sure! I think they are even more relevant now because they can give guard an opportunity to work around the constraints of the force organization chart. These should be a LT, 0-1 command squads, 2-5 Infantry squads, 0-3 conscripts, and a limit of heavy weapon squads and special weapons squads at 1 per Infantry squad (to help with balance). This would definitely free up the heavy slots and give HWS some time to shine, In all honesty due to their ease of killing they should cheap and terrible in general. Now with the more granular nature of 9th and its points this is a great time to balance out IS in general. Having a heavy weapon should not be as cheap as it is for the HWS but some special weapons should be free, ie flamers, sniper rifles, and grenade launchers, with a more premium price on melta and plasma guns. These weapons we never great so they should be cheap and ubiquitous. Orders should be standard unless they are issued by the platoon LT and then it should be applicable to all units in the platoon that are within LoS and are within 6 inches of the LT or 3 inches of another platoon unit getting an order. This way you can have a tightly packed formation that can be extremely efficient in the order department and get more bang for your buck.

I'm mostly with you here - Especially as it points to an issue with the base game itself i.e. restricting ObSec to Troops choices - I'd probably work it a little differently but the basic concept works for me. Say LT, 0-1 Command Squads (or even 1-1), 2-5 Squads OR Conscripts and 0-1 Special OR Heavy per Squad/Conscripts.

2. Veterans. Veterans should go back to being troops. They will be an alternative to the platoon and pretty much be how they are now. Upgraded troops for an upgraded price and a way out of buying a platoon.

Nah leave them Elites, but they should have all the abilities of their Non-Veteran source plus their elite abilities i.e. any Elite version of a Troop should get the benefits of troops such as ObSec - truth be told I'd give ObSec to all Infantry, or all Core, or all Core Infantry.

3. Cheaper is better. Guard should have garbage units for cheap, Its what they do and the prices should reflect that. Things like orders and platoons will be something that can mitigate the badness but also require careful planning and formations to maintain synergy

Guard should not be garbage units for cheap. That's grots, cultists, and a few others - and even then, the unit shouldn't be total garbage they are by fluff - cannon fodder units and should provide a benefit when used that way. Also, that's not to say one guardsman model can't be garbage, but the UNIT shouldn't be. Infantry squads, Gants and Gaunts, Boyz, Breachers and Strikers, (Potentially) Guardians and Corsairs, should all be roughly equal in different ways i.e. the Boys bad at shooting but good at fighting,

4. Order of Battle. There should be something like many other armies have based on turns, like necrons command protocols. In this case though it will be a battle plan you devise before the battle. If you try to stick to it you will gain bonuses. However, like guard, it is inflexible once in place and go horribly awry at a moments notice. I imagine this would be a branching choice of selections that would be available at certain turns and me require a pre-requisite order to move onto another one, letting you have some flexibility while also making paths designed for troops, armor, or artillery. Things could be like "hold the line" which would give a bonus to morale, or go to ground, which would give a bonus to ignoring AP -1 for a turn if they didn't move, which could then be followed up by Fix Bayonets, which could give a static bonus to charging or melee (and stay thematic to a counter charge). Obviously it would be very complicated but I think having an Order of Battle would really open up play styles for guard. This would also allow for something like Necrons where you can have each regiment have its "specialty" and get a bonus Order of Battle based on that, IE cadians get a leadership/orders one, catachans get a melee/stealth one, Valhallans get an infantry/artillery one, etc

sounds kind of like MARTIAL KA’TAH - but I think I'd go something more similar to the Space Marine Doctrines - potentially even just copying them over.

5. Vehicle Orders. Vehicle orders should be expanded, its nice now that a tank commander can give orders to any vehicle but this could also be expanded to allowing a special "command chimera/taurox" which is just a point upgrade for those vehicles that give it an ability to issue an order (wishlisting a new command vehicle in general, ala a command salamander)

Big time. I'd even go so far as to give them an Army of Renown to be just a Tank Company or Mechanized Infantry i.e. all Infantry must have a transport. But this also means expected terrain has to change in a way that lets lots of vehicles move around the table instead of being lucky to find a place to even deploy more than one vehicle. More smaller pieces to create roadways or open fields between stands of trees. Current terrain expectations of a few gigantic pieces cutting off all LOS is the issue there. I'd also allow these new and redone Tank Orders to Super Heavies even if each tank order has two sections - If (Normal Tank) and (Titanic Tank)

6. Endless Wave. Alternatively, instead of an order of battle system and endless waves system could also be enacted. This could be wholly copied from the the chaos daemon abilities where you get points each time you lose a unit or do something specific that you can cash in to return a lost unit onto your board edge (like summoning except you're summoning a guy with a lasgun and no shoes). This would of course have strict limits, ie no upgrades, but it would certainly give guard some major flexibility (lost a whole bunch of infantry? here comes a hellhound for reinforcements!) but would also be limited to you having taken massive casualties, which in itself is a very bad thing

These are my thoughts, what are yours?

Meh. I'd rather see Guard get a boost to "defense" -i.e. not getting pushed off of where they already are - than turned into a model revolving door. I'd like to see (Infantry based) Guard have more shortcuts into No-Man's-Land and be tough to dislodge with a weakness for expanding. More infiltrate, more cover saves, more/better overwatch, the Armored Company Guard would be the flip side, tough time defending where they're already at, but easy to assault places they aren't. Then the trick to list building with Guard is finding the balance or finding a way to cover up the weakness of whichever side you lean into.

 Kanluwen wrote:
[...] a number of good comments [...]

While we disagreed a couple of times in the past I have to say from discussion to discussion you begin to convince me, Kanluwen. While I, personally and for "my dudes" like the human horde image, I think you are very right that IG is kind of... backed into a corner there. And that at least a significant part, if not the majority of regiments (fluff wise) should be more elite and professional. Especially when one compares them to Grots and the simpler Tyranid forms.
And what you describe as "World Identity" seems from what I understand from it a valid approach to achieve that. It would also seem unproblematic to implement a niche there for people like me who want to stick to hoardy guard without barring everyone else from a more professional force that might fit the background better and result into better... lets call it "performance" in winrates etc.

ClockworkZion wrote:Something crossed my mind with the "never do thing by halves": perhaps they could get a rule that does something like having you allocate all your lasgun shooting and for each unit you stack up on the same target you gain some sort of bonus as you drown the target in las fire.

that sounds pretty interesting I think. I don't know how to do this rules wise, but... interesting.

 Pyroalchi wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
[...] a number of good comments [...]

While we disagreed a couple of times in the past I have to say from discussion to discussion you begin to convince me, Kanluwen. While I, personally and for "my dudes" like the human horde image, I think you are very right that IG is kind of... backed into a corner there. And that at least a significant part, if not the majority of regiments (fluff wise) should be more elite and professional. Especially when one compares them to Grots and the simpler Tyranid forms.
And what you describe as "World Identity" seems from what I understand from it a valid approach to achieve that. It would also seem unproblematic to implement a niche there for people like me who want to stick to hoardy guard without barring everyone else from a more professional force that might fit the background better and result into better... lets call it "performance" in winrates etc.

Early on, I mean way way back in 2nd Edition - it seemed like the guardsman was their default base statline. Or perhaps it was just a generic not-guard man, and guard were a very minor upgrade to that. If I'm remembering right, the man was WS/BS 2 and Guard were WS/BS3 and another point of LD or so. I think the players shifted to MEQ. For balance and GrimDark I think the game is better when GEQ is the base.

ClockworkZion wrote:Something crossed my mind with the "never do thing by halves": perhaps they could get a rule that does something like having you allocate all your lasgun shooting and for each unit you stack up on the same target you gain some sort of bonus as you drown the target in las fire.

that sounds pretty interesting I think. I don't know how to do this rules wise, but... interesting.

Or old school Markerlight rules too. Have to be careful to not turn flashlights back into the "terminator killers" like 3rd edition. I'd do something smaller for all the lasguns in the squad or something bigger for the special and heavy if all the lasguns target the same unit kind of thing. Something along the lines of the Eradicators Total Obliteration Rule Maybe but more Guard-flavored. If it stayed stationary... or If it's in cover....

One big thing as was mentioned before is that the Guard has a lot of plinking firepower. In the current version of the game, multiwound infantry is becoming the norm and that makes lasguns an absolute waste of time and an exercise in rolling way too many dice for a slight effect. Of course, that's a general flaw with 40k where it wants to be a company scale game where the exact shape of an individual's knife still matters. I could easily see basic weapons being consolidated into a single profile per unit. With the strength/AP/Damage varying by the amount of guardsmen left. But then again, that would probably have to involve getting rid of the whole (at minimum) three step attack roll.

And please, give sergeants their lasguns back. That makes our units much easier to manage and that one extra melee attack is pretty meaningless anyways.

Instead of making infantry cheaper, I think rules like GSC have will be awesome for guard aswell. Remove a unit from the table (doesn't matter how many models are still left) and return them full strength back somewhere on the table.

- adds strategy (at what moment do you use it, opponent has to think about how much firepower they put into a unit)
- you make them cheaper without making the starting points cheaper
- it makes guard stronger as a unit of troops coming back somewhere else on the table is a great option to have
- guard should play the surviving game (hold the line!), not the destroy the enemy game

MorglumNecksnapper wrote:

- guard should play the surviving game (hold the line!), not the destroy the enemy game

That's what I was getting at. They (Infantry)should get a bonus to their "defense" more than a bonus to their offense - i.e Guard that move half distance or less have cover. Guard in Cover and shoot lasguns twice (or lasguns for guard in cover are Rapid Fire 2 is probably simpler. While the Armored Fist aspect should get more linebreaker boosts.

Maybe also something like "digging in", symbolized by Infantry squads getting light cover if they don't move/perform an action a turn and maybe (!) even counting as obscured if they do so two consecutive turns (because they are sitting in foxholes and trenches).
But I have no idea if that is to strong. Might be something though if Infantry Squads sitting on an objective could make themselves hard to remove, even if they have abysmal offense

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Maybe also something like "digging in", symbolized by Infantry squads getting light cover if they don't move/perform an action a turn and maybe (!) even counting as obscured if they do so two consecutive turns (because they are sitting in foxholes and trenches).
But I have no idea if that is to strong. Might be something though if Infantry Squads sitting on an objective could make themselves hard to remove, even if they have abysmal offense

I like that idea, but fear that before they could get that buff, they probably would get removed because they don't really have much in the way of survivability. Generally though, cover could be much more effective, especially for light infantry.

 Dolnikan wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Maybe also something like "digging in", symbolized by Infantry squads getting light cover if they don't move/perform an action a turn and maybe (!) even counting as obscured if they do so two consecutive turns (because they are sitting in foxholes and trenches).
But I have no idea if that is to strong. Might be something though if Infantry Squads sitting on an objective could make themselves hard to remove, even if they have abysmal offense

I like that idea, but fear that before they could get that buff, they probably would get removed because they don't really have much in the way of survivability. Generally though, cover could be much more effective, especially for light infantry.

It might be fun to borrow the "Defensive Stakes" rule Bretonian Bowmen had in Fantasy. They had bases of little stake models that went in front and did mean things to people who charged the bowmen. But when the bowmen moved, they left the stakes behind (well they were removed but you get what I mean). Give the guard some sandbag bases that get left behind when they move.

Order of Battle doesn't mean what will you do in a particular phase of a fight. An Order of Battle is: the units, formations, and equipment of a military force. In other words, the army list is the Order of Battle. (Retired military here, not trying to be pedantic. However, military terms should be used correctly.

Breton wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Maybe also something like "digging in", symbolized by Infantry squads getting light cover if they don't move/perform an action a turn and maybe (!) even counting as obscured if they do so two consecutive turns (because they are sitting in foxholes and trenches).
But I have no idea if that is to strong. Might be something though if Infantry Squads sitting on an objective could make themselves hard to remove, even if they have abysmal offense

I like that idea, but fear that before they could get that buff, they probably would get removed because they don't really have much in the way of survivability. Generally though, cover could be much more effective, especially for light infantry.

It might be fun to borrow the "Defensive Stakes" rule Bretonian Bowmen had in Fantasy. They had bases of little stake models that went in front and did mean things to people who charged the bowmen. But when the bowmen moved, they left the stakes behind (well they were removed but you get what I mean). Give the guard some sandbag bases that get left behind when they move.

It could actually be an interesting kind of action where a unit can dig in as one to give a bonus to cover until they move. Or it could even be integrated into a completely refreshed order structure.

Again: I don't know if that would work gameswise, I don't have experience and it would definitly feel wonky as long as Guard sprints faster than some vehicles with MMM:
Maybe something like the Space Marine boni in progressing turns that symbolized the whole force digging in. So (just roughly from the hip, don't claw at the exact execution)
Turn1: the force arrived on the battlefield, no bonus
Turn2: the first foxholes are there, the heavy weapons teams have placed some sandbags, the Snipers have found their hiding places etc. (infantry has light cover), Maybe stationary tanks have also snuggled in really deep (and profit from cover as long as they don't move)
Turn3: Voxnet established (order Range increases significantly), Spotters (non-LOS Artillery gets some kind of bonus, if another unit sees the target)
Turn4: I don't know... maybe barbed wire is laid out? (some bonus that keeps the infantry from getting charged), Camo Nets on immobile tanks (-1 to hit for enemies or something)
Turn5: Artillerybarrage/Airstrike (some off-bord damage can be called in, maybe enough to clear a contested objective on the last turn)
etc.

Reading through it, it looks a bit chaotic and almost purely defensive thingies, but I guess it's enough to get the general impression. Might be funny to simulate the Militarum modifying their battlefield and getting more and more stuck in.

 Dolnikan wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Maybe also something like "digging in", symbolized by Infantry squads getting light cover if they don't move/perform an action a turn and maybe (!) even counting as obscured if they do so two consecutive turns (because they are sitting in foxholes and trenches).
But I have no idea if that is to strong. Might be something though if Infantry Squads sitting on an objective could make themselves hard to remove, even if they have abysmal offense

I like that idea, but fear that before they could get that buff, they probably would get removed because they don't really have much in the way of survivability. Generally though, cover could be much more effective, especially for light infantry.

It might be fun to borrow the "Defensive Stakes" rule Bretonian Bowmen had in Fantasy. They had bases of little stake models that went in front and did mean things to people who charged the bowmen. But when the bowmen moved, they left the stakes behind (well they were removed but you get what I mean). Give the guard some sandbag bases that get left behind when they move.

It could actually be an interesting kind of action where a unit can dig in as one to give a bonus to cover until they move. Or it could even be integrated into a completely refreshed order structure.

It fit Catachan at least who set up defensive booby traps to slow the enemy.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

It fit Catachan at least who set up defensive booby traps to slow the enemy.

Which is a wildly different concept to the stakes, which gave a bonus when being charged.

In an ideal world?
We'd get these as a "deployable" option for some Infantry types. They're legitimately man-portable from the looks of things, and 'retract' for transportation/carrying purposes.


You can't really envision the Tanith or Tallarn or Catachans or Elysians carrying cover or sandbags around with them, or even really going heavy into defensive works. They hit hard and move back out as quickly as possible to avoid the enemy getting to grips with them.


I've gone into detail before about the different ideas of Infantry Squads, and I maintain that it makes sense for a "Line Infantry" archetype to be the one given the defensive tools like sandbags or other "dig in" mechanics to offset their lack of heavy armor and stealth/skirmishing tactics.

It is worth mentioning that we have art of Krieg Engineers and Grenadiers via the Kill-Team and Ork codex material. Might be that we'll be seeing an Engineer unit coming tied to that heavier armored bodytype, allowing for deploying minefields--something we've seen on the DKoK transfer sheet. Would allow for Cadians and Krieg to have an 'alternate build' unit from the same Kasrkin/Grenadier kits and be where token models could be placed as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And while I'm in suggestion mode:
Something I've been toying with for Guard vehicles is making them degrade less often but more drastically. Say, rather than degrading 3-4 times across brackets?

They get two brackets: "Mostly okay" and "Definitely Not Okay".

Paying X points to make them a "Veteran Crew" would allow for you to ignore certain downsides of the "Definitely Not Okay" bracket.

Biggest hope is just something to make full infantry guard viable. I think that would be done through an improved regiment creation system, being able to select the bonuses of like a 4+ armor save and some sort of bonus to lasguns to represent vostroyans would be pretty amazing. I feel like data sheet wise guard is easy to shift into a good spot of at least internal balance, nothing really steps on the toes of other things all too much, just I worry that gw will random decide one aspect of guard is to be smited into the ground so either artillery, tanks, or infantry will randomly suck.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And while I'm in suggestion mode:
Something I've been toying with for Guard vehicles is making them degrade less often but more drastically. Say, rather than degrading 3-4 times across brackets?

They get two brackets: "Mostly okay" and "Definitely Not Okay".

Paying X points to make them a "Veteran Crew" would allow for you to ignore certain downsides of the "Definitely Not Okay" bracket.

Where would you put the breakpoint for the bracketing? The trend seems to be that dedicated AT guns get high minimum or flat damage, I'd wonder if this would only really change things on paper as average shooting might still result in a non-Superheavy vehicle getting bracketed anyways (assuming no further stat/special rule changes and that "def not OK" ~= the current "lowest bracket").

You'd simply cut out the middle bracket, rolling it into the top bracket.

Caveat note:
This isn't necessarily appropriate for all Guard vehicles. But having it as a feature on some of the battle tanks or superheavies could go a long way.

Given the current boost in the Balance Dataslate, I think GW will be trying to improve Guard Infantry through use of improved Orders. That rule has an Order work over a group of Guard units that are close to each other. Sort of a Platoon Order rather than a Squad Order.

Currently that is a small boost because Orders are not particularly strong and a unit can only get one order. But imagine what a few shifts to that could do?

Stronger Orders that have bigger impact on the ordered units. Like having FRFSRF give a bonuses to the attack such as Hit, Wound, AP, Strength, or even Damage to make the impact of the Lasguns better when used under the watchful supervision of officers.

The ability to benefit from multiple orders, like one from a Platoon Commander and one from the (almost certainly one per detachment) Company Commander. Add Orders that Company Commanders have but Platoon Commanders don't. Give Veterans a niche by having them be their own Platoon Commander with an even more limited set of Orders.

Expand the units affected by support units like Priest and Commisars.

Add some defensive rules for the support infantry units like Heavy Weapon Squads and Special Weapons Squads.

In short, make even Infantry Guard a combined arms operation. It should not be just drowning your opponent in bodies. It should be increasing the effiency of mediocre troops into a devastating hammer.

You know, for the purpose of not rolling hundreds of dice for little gain, I think at this point I'd just like to see the lasgun get a sidegrade that has similar effect to current setup but without all the dice rolling. Say instead of rapid fire and FRFSRF boosting the shots even more, give it 1 shot, and then rolls of 4 = 1 hit, roll of 5 = 2, roll of 6 = 3 hits. Maybe change FRFSRF to increase all hits by 1 so that 4 = 2 hits, 5 = 3 hits, and 6 = 4 hits.

Just one of those things where you are rolling 1/2 to 1/4 of the dice but with the exploding numbers are still getting a reasonable number of hits in.

At least I'd prefer that to the solution of giving lasguns more shots and then having to roll literal buckets of dice for a single squad.

 kurhanik wrote:
You know, for the purpose of not rolling hundreds of dice for little gain, I think at this point I'd just like to see the lasgun get a sidegrade that has similar effect to current setup but without all the dice rolling. Say instead of rapid fire and FRFSRF boosting the shots even more, give it 1 shot, and then rolls of 4 = 1 hit, roll of 5 = 2, roll of 6 = 3 hits. Maybe change FRFSRF to increase all hits by 1 so that 4 = 2 hits, 5 = 3 hits, and 6 = 4 hits.

Just one of those things where you are rolling 1/2 to 1/4 of the dice but with the exploding numbers are still getting a reasonable number of hits in.

At least I'd prefer that to the solution of giving lasguns more shots and then having to roll literal buckets of dice for a single squad.

complains about rolling too many dice, and his solution? more dice, More Dice, MORE DICE!!!

Be nice to have some rules for combined arms effects.

Something like: Combined Arms (Artillery) in the shooting phase, pick an Infantry unit with a Vox caster and an Artillery* unit, they must both fire at the same target. Resolve each units firing as normal; however the enemy unit gains no bonus to their saving throws for cover against either unit. If the enemy unit is destroyed before one of these units get to fire, the shots of the other are lost - it may not pick another target and counts as having fired all its weapons this turn.

And other things that have effects when using 2 or more units of different types together. Like transports and infantry squads, getting a bonus if they stay together, infantry screening tanks, ogryns shielding their little brothers, scout sentinels spotting for tanks, and so on.

 carldooley wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
You know, for the purpose of not rolling hundreds of dice for little gain, I think at this point I'd just like to see the lasgun get a sidegrade that has similar effect to current setup but without all the dice rolling. Say instead of rapid fire and FRFSRF boosting the shots even more, give it 1 shot, and then rolls of 4 = 1 hit, roll of 5 = 2, roll of 6 = 3 hits. Maybe change FRFSRF to increase all hits by 1 so that 4 = 2 hits, 5 = 3 hits, and 6 = 4 hits.

Just one of those things where you are rolling 1/2 to 1/4 of the dice but with the exploding numbers are still getting a reasonable number of hits in.

At least I'd prefer that to the solution of giving lasguns more shots and then having to roll literal buckets of dice for a single squad.

complains about rolling too many dice, and his solution? more dice, More Dice, MORE DICE!!!

Um...I'm confused? How is rolling 10 dice for a squad of lasguns more rolling than 19 (rapid fire) or 37 (rapid fire + FRFSRF)?

 kurhanik wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
You know, for the purpose of not rolling hundreds of dice for little gain, I think at this point I'd just like to see the lasgun get a sidegrade that has similar effect to current setup but without all the dice rolling. Say instead of rapid fire and FRFSRF boosting the shots even more, give it 1 shot, and then rolls of 4 = 1 hit, roll of 5 = 2, roll of 6 = 3 hits. Maybe change FRFSRF to increase all hits by 1 so that 4 = 2 hits, 5 = 3 hits, and 6 = 4 hits.

Just one of those things where you are rolling 1/2 to 1/4 of the dice but with the exploding numbers are still getting a reasonable number of hits in.

At least I'd prefer that to the solution of giving lasguns more shots and then having to roll literal buckets of dice for a single squad.

complains about rolling too many dice, and his solution? more dice, More Dice, MORE DICE!!!

Um...I'm confused? How is rolling 10 dice for a squad of lasguns more rolling than 19 (rapid fire) or 37 (rapid fire + FRFSRF)?

Your suggestion was progressively more exploding hits on a bunch of hits. How do you resolve them? Are they auto-wounding? or would you need MORE DICE!!!?