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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I disagree. Seeing Guard armies without Heavies/Specials in their squad was more stupid.

This is actually more thematic. There are trillions of Guardsmen. There's dozens of stories with ranks of Guardsmen with nothing but lasguns. Supported by tanks and artillery. Obviously the real answer is somewhere in the middle, there should be some Guardsmen with special weapons.

Certainly the rule could have been implemented better, or the weapons could be made more equal in value so there weren't "auto-takes", but on the whole it's an improvement.

They should have just reduced the costs of the bad special weapons. Make the Flamer and Grenade Launcher 3 points instead of 5. Then drop the Infantry Squad back to 50 points. Maybe Power Swords could have different costs depending on WS, like how Plasma and Melta are 5/10, could make Power Swords 3/5. Also make Bolt Pistols 1 point, as 2 points is pretty bad for something with half the firepower of a Bolter.

 OldMate wrote:
This is why i think guardsmen need to be able to go to ground as a standard action in the movement or shooting phase and they should become much more resilient. Because they're not soaking up the damage on their squishy bodies and armour. The ground is. They can't move, can't charge but a decent cover save because unlike most other factions they can squish themselves into the smallest folds and features in the ground, firstly making them hard to hit but also making near misses more survivable and there like cockroaches they endure even under the greatest punishment. Unless someone starts throwing around eradicator shells, fire, or terrible music but that is besides the point. (It would also make flamers much more viable than plasma against guard as they sorta should be)

Sure they'd still be murderised in melee but that is sorta expected. In a gunfight the standard infantry squad should be annoyingly resilient. Guard on the defensive should be a pain in the gluteus maximus. Guard infantry on the offensive should be guys pressing forwards so they can lie on the ground somewhere else and take potshots with their flashlights from there. Movement should be a casualty intensive exercise for them without transports or tanks support but once they are in place and on their tummies in the mud or dirt their infantry should be stubborn.

That's definitly an image I would appreciate. And it would (in my opinion) make Guard more interesting. Bonus points for being useful für those that would prefer smaller numbers of more elite, better equipped Guardsmen as well as those that want to go more into mäßige numbers of poor infantry or even penal Guard.

Alright. I did my quick fixes for the current codex. It's a lot more than 3.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sWyXhpYNt8JsV8kvHWYmcTKMzdhDTEN6o8KIDlz0UYs/edit?usp=sharing

 Insectum7 wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:
The free wargear is just as stupid. As players will only take the best and all options. Suddenly every squad has a rare plasma gun and pistols.

It also does nothing for durability. So you could take 18 infantry squads all with plasma and lascannons, but after T1 or T2 you've lost 66% of them. Cause they die to a still breeze.

I disagree. Seeing Guard armies without Heavies/Specials in their squadd was more stupid. Certainly the rule could have been implemented better, or the weapons could be made more equal in value so there weren't "auto-takes", but on the whole it's an improvement.

I am all for 'Guard squads having equipment. Conscript/penal blobs are fine with basic stuff, but Guard is supposed to be a military force. I think it could have been handled better with the 'bad' options being free and the squad cost at 50, then very cheap further upgrade options. But then I would have liked to see more freedom with the upgrades too to cover different squad types and weird and wonderful org tables.

Certainly stuff like the sniper rifle needs a boost. With the general power creep previously outrageous options look quite reasonable now.

As an aside my dream build a squad table would be...



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And my slightly altered 3 fixes...

1) Make the damn thing simpler, strip away the strats, the ones that are always used bake into the units, bin the rest. Build on the speed aspects (so stuff like FRFSRF instead of doubling shots auto hits, other effects give fixed boosts/skip stages, all to make the army playable by the average human in a reasonable time).

2) Then sadly as well as the unit rebalancing you will need something extra. Personally I would go for a special rule like 'combined arms'. Represents infantry using armour for cover and armour using infantry to supress and disrupt enemy MANPAD/heavy weapon attacks. 'Combined arms' goes in as a keyword (stuff like hellhounds put infantry off and they wouldn't get it). Below is a badly written example.

If an infantry unit with combined arms comes under fire and are within 3" of a vehicle with 'combined arms' that is not engaged, take a LD test for the infantry. If successful the infantry use the tank for cover and the vehicle uses its weapons to distract the enemy and draw fire onto it. For any hits scored against the infantry roll to wound against the vehicle and any unsaved hits cause damage to it not the infantry.

If a vehicle with combined arms comes under attack and an infantry unit with combined arms is within 12" of the firing unit and has LoS tot he firing unit, the infantry unit may take a LD test. If passed make any wound rolls against the infantry squad as they valiantly draw fire onto themselves and supress the enemy weapons.

3) A bunch of other thematic changes, but that is for style/flavour, not balance.

Jarms48 wrote:
Alright. I did my quick fixes for the current codex. It's a lot more than 3.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sWyXhpYNt8JsV8kvHWYmcTKMzdhDTEN6o8KIDlz0UYs/edit?usp=sharing

Quick read, overall I like it, but it doesn't go far enough, it's an incremental improvement when we're not even playing the same game. Right now, there is 2 fundamental problems with the guard:

1 - inability to play the same game (Google "generals fighting the last war")
2 - inability to play the missions even if we get to play the same game.

We're still playing 8th edition, and our lack of output shows. Watching AoW40K yesterday, and their quote of "even Tau want to melee with us because Tau can fall back and shoot all game, and as soon as Guard get touched it's game over". So #1, we're not even playing the same game. Good players have realized the way to beat guard is to come straight at us. Even if they lose half their army turn 1 (which they won't), turn 2 they touch into us and it's game over. Literally, one squad of guardians or gaunts will shut down a LRBT for 2-3 turns.

To that end, the points cost on the LRBTs is still WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY to high. A LRBT with battlecannon has HALF the output of the Onager, and that's including Grinding Advance, and the Onager isn't even that good (but it is a middle-of-the-meta unit). Even a LRBT Demo Cannon only kills 2-3 marines (~2 with AoC). Sixes auto-wound wasn't near enough, and AoC was a far bigger nerf to guard than 6sAW was a buff. So Grinding Advance needs to go away, then buff the output from there.

I disagree on the 50points for a guard unit. The problem is durability, and just being 50 points doesn't change that. Paying for wargear just means you don't take the wargear, and our output is pathetic enough already.

So, to fix #1, guard output needs to seriously increase. It needs to be enough that enemies can't just come straight at us, or just touch a tank and it's game over. While guard is digging themselves out of their own DZ, opponents control the board and win.

So, once we fix the output, then guard can start playing the missions. To that end, infantry have to change away from just being screening units for the tanks. For that, we need some kind durability on our ObSec. Bullgryns need a 4++ or 5+++ and get ObSec. Look Out Sir! from tanks, smoke launchers make a 6" bubble of -1 to hit / obscuring / fight last (it's once per game, triggered instead of shooting, it dang well better be good!). Cheaper and/or more durable Chimeras, and/or make Chimeras ObSec(5) when they have an ObSec unit in them. Chimera hulls need a pre-game move, and/or hellhounds need free outflank (and make their flamers assault). Something to threaten opponents on multiple vectors, otherwise opponents just have to deal with what's in front of them, and that's easy to do.

What Onager do you compare the Leman Russ to?

Because a Russ is definitely more durable (T8 2+ is miles better than T7 3+/5++), but what weapons are you comparing?

Jarms48 wrote:


This is actually more thematic. There are trillions of Guardsmen. There's dozens of stories with ranks of Guardsmen with nothing but lasguns. Supported by tanks and artillery. Obviously the real answer is somewhere in the middle, there should be some Guardsmen with special weapons.

Having the 'conscript' squad just become regular stat'ed guardsmen but with no starting special weapons (and only flamer and grenade launcher options) as a core infantry choice should cover that.

As far as "thematic changes" go: some things I considered during kitbashing projects that I personally would find pretty cool (and would give Guard something to make it special:

1. Minelaying mechanism: some units can lay anti tank/anti personel mines. Basically like the spore mines of the Tyranids, just static. Place an empty 25 mm token, if something touches it, it does mortal wounds. Bonus points for a minelaying vehicle that can throw out several of those a turn. Or if you can place them hidden before the battle. Option for Manticors to fire cluster rockets deploying d6 mines, option for Vendettas to drop cluster bombs with D6 mines.
2. Some real working fortifications. Bunkers (that are worth the points), turret emplacements, trenches (that are worth it), dragons teeth/czech hedgehogs, a mechanism to lay barbed wire as infantry barrier...
3. Smoke screen mechanism: for example an unarmed variant of the Sentinel that can place a number of 25mm tokens along its line of movement. Every token has a plushy "smoke screen" on top of it. No line of fire can be drawn through the smoke screen. As with the mines: option to shoot Smoke screens with artillery, maybe Basilisks, Mortars and wyverns
4. Vehicles that can explode on purpose when being destroyed. Make sure that blown up hellhound takes some enemies with it...

Giving guard good bunkers/trenches that are cheap and they can deploy up to the half way mark would be pretty interesting.

Minefields are definitely coming. There's literally a transfer sheet section on the DKoK stuff just for them.

Being able to fire smoke shells onto targets and impeding their ability to hit would be hilarious.

A smoke barrage Stratagem that you can use if the enemy gets the first turn, might be useful.

brainpsyk wrote:

Quick read, overall I like it, but it doesn't go far enough, it's an incremental improvement when we're not even playing the same game.

It's not suppose to be meta, it's purely there to bump us to at least 40% until the new codex supersedes it.

To that end, the points cost on the LRBTs is still WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY to high. A LRBT with battlecannon has HALF the output of the Onager, and that's including Grinding Advance, and the Onager isn't even that good (but it is a middle-of-the-meta unit). Even a LRBT Demo Cannon only kills 2-3 marines (~2 with AoC). Sixes auto-wound wasn't near enough, and AoC was a far bigger nerf to guard than 6sAW was a buff. So Grinding Advance needs to go away, then buff the output from there.

Dunecrawler with the blasters into a marine squad kills 1.778 marines. The LRBT kills 1.792 marines, cause you have to factor the hull HB as well.

brainpsyk wrote:
I disagree on the 50points for a guard unit. The problem is durability, and just being 50 points doesn't change that. Paying for wargear just means you don't take the wargear, and our output is pathetic enough already.

I've somewhat improved durability. You could take Cadians and say Wilderness Survivors. So when you're not MMMing you get Light Cover.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What Onager do you compare the Leman Russ to?

Because a Russ is definitely more durable (T8 2+ is miles better than T7 3+/5++), but what weapons are you comparing?

In terms of durability brainpsyk has answered that.

"For tank durability, again I use 3 eradicators, as that's the meta choice, and is about the same output and cost as 3 attack bikes. So 3 Eradicators shooting at:
- a LRBTs (T8, AV2): median 5 +/-3 for std deviation, avg 5.0 damage
- Onager Dunecrawler (T7, AV3, 5++): median 5 (+/-3 std deviation), avg 5.3 damage.

Now using 4 Lascannon shots:
- a LRBTs (T8, AV2): median 3 +/-2 for std deviation, avg 3.6 damage
- Onager Dunecrawler (T7, AV3, 5++): median 3 (+/-2 std deviation), avg 3.5 damage.

With doctrines, the AP goes up, so the Onager actually does better than the LRBT, since the Onager has the 5++."

For output I measured the Russes against their closest counterparts. Vanquisher to the neutron laser, which is still superior but I don't want to make the Vanquisher any cheaper. Even if you used that 5 point difference to give the Vanquisher a lascannon it still loses against all targets.

Everything else to the blasters as that's the best option. Eradicator and Exterminator, with the heavy bolter also considered, are roughly equal to the blaster. Though with armour of contempt the Exterminator might have to go down to Vanquisher levels, as it's AP was entirely neutered. Only when you start getting to the other variants does that damage start to go up, thought the Battle Tank might need to go down too as it's barely better than an overcharged Executioner now too, which is why those variants cost more.

Jarms48 wrote:

To that end, the points cost on the LRBTs is still WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY to high. A LRBT with battlecannon has HALF the output of the Onager, and that's including Grinding Advance, and the Onager isn't even that good (but it is a middle-of-the-meta unit). Even a LRBT Demo Cannon only kills 2-3 marines (~2 with AoC). Sixes auto-wound wasn't near enough, and AoC was a far bigger nerf to guard than 6sAW was a buff. So Grinding Advance needs to go away, then buff the output from there.

Dunecrawler with the blasters into a marine squad kills 1.778 marines. The LRBT kills 1.792 marines, cause you have to factor the hull HB as well.

The Twin Phosphor blasters (8 shots, S6, AP2, D2) does 3.5 (Median 4) damage against Marines, ignores cover, and is ~50% faster (M8" compared to the M5" of the LRBT to get the Grinding Advance). The LRBT with 6sAW, BC and HB has moved up to ~D2.1.

Jarms48 wrote:

brainpsyk wrote:
I disagree on the 50points for a guard unit. The problem is durability, and just being 50 points doesn't change that. Paying for wargear just means you don't take the wargear, and our output is pathetic enough already.

I've somewhat improved durability. You could take Cadians and say Wilderness Survivors. So when you're not MMMing you get Light Cover.

part of the problem is we're either 1-MMM! to get to an objective, or 2-we're hiding out of LOS. There's enough indirect, even post-nerf that even the hiding units still still die.

The fundamental problem there is that our cheap screens can't screen anymore. So our tanks, which rely on the screens, no longer have any screens. We can't back out of combat, and we can't shoot our way out of it. Even a TC with punisher does ~5W between the Punisher and the HB during normal shooting, for costing 33% more than Trajann.

With all the terrain on 9th edition tables, we're always at point-blank range with zero durability. Until we have a way of digging ourselves out of our own DZ, incremental improvements are not enough. As best as I can figure, we need some serious combination of
1 - points reduction
2 - output boost, on the order of 75-100%
3 - durability boost on tanks (like AoC or Ramshackle)
4 - tanks ignoring INFANTRY models within engagement range. Realistically, it should be "TANK models ignore enemy INFANTRY models when moving, but may not stop within 1" of any enemy models when moving. TANK models can move out of engagement range of INFANTRY models without penalty, and ignore abilities from INFANTRY models that prevent falling back or leaving combat/engagment range. This rule does not apply to enemy units with any MONSTER, VEHICLE or TITANIC keywords".

Jarms48 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What Onager do you compare the Leman Russ to?

Because a Russ is definitely more durable (T8 2+ is miles better than T7 3+/5++), but what weapons are you comparing?

In terms of durability brainpsyk has answered that.

"For tank durability, again I use 3 eradicators, as that's the meta choice, and is about the same output and cost as 3 attack bikes. So 3 Eradicators shooting at:
- a LRBTs (T8, AV2): median 5 +/-3 for std deviation, avg 5.0 damage
- Onager Dunecrawler (T7, AV3, 5++): median 5 (+/-3 std deviation), avg 5.3 damage.

Now using 4 Lascannon shots:
- a LRBTs (T8, AV2): median 3 +/-2 for std deviation, avg 3.6 damage
- Onager Dunecrawler (T7, AV3, 5++): median 3 (+/-2 std deviation), avg 3.5 damage.

With doctrines, the AP goes up, so the Onager actually does better than the LRBT, since the Onager has the 5++."

For output I measured the Russes against their closest counterparts. Vanquisher to the neutron laser, which is still superior but I don't want to make the Vanquisher any cheaper. Even if you used that 5 point difference to give the Vanquisher a lascannon it still loses against all targets.

Everything else to the blasters as that's the best option. Eradicator and Exterminator, with the heavy bolter also considered, are roughly equal to the blaster. Though with armour of contempt the Exterminator might have to go down to Vanquisher levels, as it's AP was entirely neutered. Only when you start getting to the other variants does that damage start to go up, thought the Battle Tank might need to go down too as it's barely better than an overcharged Executioner now too, which is why those variants cost more.

Onager v LRBT comparisons never seem to factor in that Onagers aren't in squadrons anymore.

Make Primaris Psykers equivalent to SM psykers, give them +1 to casts/deny

Make Wyrdvane Psykers +1 for every model after 3.

Make Sly Marbo auto-wound every model within 6" of him when he appears, d3 MWs.

Make Deathstrikes do a flat 10MW, starting with the target, and d6MW to everything within 30".

Make the Ratling sniper brothers now do Heavy 3 S6 AP3 d6 damage each, and convert all damage to MWs on 6's.

Baneblades should now get a special tank order, that can only be given by a Lord Commissar, "UNALIVE THAT TARGET MISTER!" Where any model or unit within the range of the main gun of the Blade variant is "Unalived" This unit is destroyed. This order can only be given once per game.

^ hehe

Can I put my 2 cents in and suggest "Disalived" instead? I think the hard consonant sounds better and it might be more grammatically accurate, if that counts for anything (not much.)

 Insectum7 wrote:
^ hehe

Can I put my 2 cents in and suggest "Disalived" instead? I think the hard consonant sounds better and it might be more grammatically accurate, if that counts for anything (not much.)

Or you could just say 'kill'?

Twitter/Tiktok censor words are so unfunny that they shoot right past 'ironic use' and 'cringe comedy' and straight into 'makes me tired'.

ERJAK wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^ hehe

Can I put my 2 cents in and suggest "Disalived" instead? I think the hard consonant sounds better and it might be more grammatically accurate, if that counts for anything (not much.)

Or you could just say 'kill'?

Twitter/Tiktok censor words are so unfunny that they shoot right past 'ironic use' and 'cringe comedy' and straight into 'makes me tired'.

Ok boomer?

I didn't even know there was a trend of twitter/tiktok sensor words, so boomer's on me I guess. Makes sense though. Whatever, I'll still pull 13375p34k from time to time for yuks.

 Insectum7 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^ hehe

Can I put my 2 cents in and suggest "Disalived" instead? I think the hard consonant sounds better and it might be more grammatically accurate, if that counts for anything (not much.)

Or you could just say 'kill'?

Twitter/Tiktok censor words are so unfunny that they shoot right past 'ironic use' and 'cringe comedy' and straight into 'makes me tired'.

Ok boomer?

I didn't even know there was a trend of twitter/tiktok sensor words, so boomer's on me I guess. Makes sense though. Whatever, I'll still pull 13375p34k from time to time for yuks.

"see that target over there? I don't want to anymore"

"Make it unexist"

"Delete the target"

or, if you want to get victorian about it,

"that devilish thing offends my sensibilities, could you be a gentleman and ensure that it no longer interferes with my perception of the battlefield?"

with guard all orders are valid! Have some fun with it.

"that devilish thing offends my sensibilities, could you be a gentleman and ensure that it no longer interferes with my perception of the battlefield?"

^Beautiful

Or the more uncouthed side of the guard spectrum: "Take that fething thing out!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just can't reconcile melee combat against a tank with melee weapons or minig equipment(actual weapons designed for purpose; shaped charges or energy bombs on the other hand... yeah they should be great). Especially the high sided imperial guard tanks, which would seem to be pretty challenging to climb onto during combat, which would effectivelykeep enemy troops in the killzone. Any sudden movement of the vehicle left right backwards or forwards will kill infantry like they are not even there. And if they're not at the rear of the vehicle what the hell do they actually think they're going to achieve? Sure you breached the hull with a drill or super duper power weapon, its not a kinetic penetrator with tons of energy that will be dumped into the crew compartment setting fire to the ammunition stored in the vehicle or carrying through and destroying the engine, or a high explosive shaped charge which will penetrate the armour and deliver exsplosive force into the crew or engine compartment.
You might at great risk to yourself imobilse the vehicle (which would have put you in a prime position to get squished like a bug should the vehicle want to move) and if you imoblise it, its still a pretty formidible bunker. Weapons that cut or drill holes in tanks are only one stage in knocking the thing out. You actually then need to deposit exsplosive force or evil little gribbles into the vehicle to knock it out.

I think big dumb tracked tanks unlike walkers (which have some pretty obvious weaknesses, usually two of them, which if targeted will logically lead to said warmachine falling on its ass and becoming pretty combat ineffective) or hover tanks should be the bane of any melee squad that does not have dedicated anti tank weapons like melta charges, magnetic mines or the like. A 30-40ton leman russ should pop the shells of power armoured troops under its treads like a crocodile pops the shell of a turtle it has caught, whilst a baneblade or macharius should do the same to carnifexes and enemy walkers. A tank should on a ramming attack against something of less 'robustness class (based off strength/toughness maybe?)' if it rolls a 6 get special rule"gets target underneath hull" and just auto kills, as the tank has just used its greatest asset, tons of reinforced steel, to obliterate its target.
Instead of other factions wanting to close with guard tanks to destroy them, big dumb tanks should be terrifying.
After all, why would you hover over your enemies when you can crush and grind them to jam?

My 3 fixes.
#1: bring pack the platoon structure. Tyranids get 30 gant broods, Orks get 30 boy mobz, I want my 50 man platoons back.
#2: command squads should be an option to take with Company Commanders and/or Platoon Commanders. They should not be burning up an elite slot to do so
#3: we need more Fast Attack options. Split the Hellhounds, Devil Dogs, and Banewolves into 3 separate data sheets. And bring back the Rough riders.

 OldMate wrote:
Or the more uncouthed side of the guard spectrum: "Take that fething thing out!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just can't reconcile melee combat against a tank with melee weapons or minig equipment(actual weapons designed for purpose; shaped charges or energy bombs on the other hand... yeah they should be great). Especially the high sided imperial guard tanks, which would seem to be pretty challenging to climb onto during combat, which would effectivelykeep enemy troops in the killzone. Any sudden movement of the vehicle left right backwards or forwards will kill infantry like they are not even there. And if they're not at the rear of the vehicle what the hell do they actually think they're going to achieve? Sure you breached the hull with a drill or super duper power weapon, its not a kinetic penetrator with tons of energy that will be dumped into the crew compartment setting fire to the ammunition stored in the vehicle or carrying through and destroying the engine, or a high explosive shaped charge which will penetrate the armour and deliver exsplosive force into the crew or engine compartment.
You might at great risk to yourself imobilse the vehicle (which would have put you in a prime position to get squished like a bug should the vehicle want to move) and if you imoblise it, its still a pretty formidible bunker. Weapons that cut or drill holes in tanks are only one stage in knocking the thing out. You actually then need to deposit exsplosive force or evil little gribbles into the vehicle to knock it out.

I think big dumb tracked tanks unlike walkers (which have some pretty obvious weaknesses, usually two of them, which if targeted will logically lead to said warmachine falling on its ass and becoming pretty combat ineffective) or hover tanks should be the bane of any melee squad that does not have dedicated anti tank weapons like melta charges, magnetic mines or the like. A 30-40ton leman russ should pop the shells of power armoured troops under its treads like a crocodile pops the shell of a turtle it has caught, whilst a baneblade or macharius should do the same to carnifexes and enemy walkers. A tank should on a ramming attack against something of less 'robustness class (based off strength/toughness maybe?)' if it rolls a 6 get special rule"gets target underneath hull" and just auto kills, as the tank has just used its greatest asset, tons of reinforced steel, to obliterate its target.
Instead of other factions wanting to close with guard tanks to destroy them, big dumb tanks should be terrifying.
After all, why would you hover over your enemies when you can crush and grind them to jam?

Might I introduce you to the wonderful world of Tank Shock and Death or Glory from rules of old. In 5th edition at least, tank shock was basically driving your tank through an enemy unit. The enemy makes a morale check. On failure, it falls back towards it's own table edge (this is old morale rules where units fall back towards their map edge). On success the enemy is given an option. Simply let the tank pass as though the enemy models weren't there...or (if you don't hate fun ) DEATH OR GLORY! Death or glory worked as follows: a single model from the tank shocked unit rolls a single ranged or melee attack (as in a single die, even if you normally get multiple attacks, e.g., assault 3). That attack automatically hits the tank's front armor and you resolve that attack normally (via vehicle damage tables). If the attack successfully manages to stun, destroy, or immobilize the tank, the tank stops in it's tracks (and potentially blows up, leaving the wreck as a new piece of terrain). If the attack fails, the tank shock continues as normal and the model that performed death or glory is crushed beneath the treads and is removed from play (regardless of wounds or saves or anything else).

The obvious choice (in terms of payoff) when presented with a tank shock was usually to just let the tank pass. But the fun choice was to attempt death or glory. Why did they get rid of this rule? It was so fun and flavorful.

ERJAK wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^ hehe

Can I put my 2 cents in and suggest "Disalived" instead? I think the hard consonant sounds better and it might be more grammatically accurate, if that counts for anything (not much.)

Or you could just say 'kill'?

Twitter/Tiktok censor words are so unfunny that they shoot right past 'ironic use' and 'cringe comedy' and straight into 'makes me tired'.

I honestly don't know if you were referring to me here, but "Unalive that target" was a phrase I was politely informed existed from my CSM (Command Sgt Major) when he was ordering a bevy of 155 High Ex onto an enemy position in Afghanistan. If you want to call him a twitter/tiktok star, go ahead, but you need to furnish me with the URL, because that man spouted some of the funniest gak I've ever heard in my life.

1. Bring back Platoons as one standard choice (1 Officer IN his Command Squad (Unit gets look out Sir but not character), 2-6 Infantry Squads, 0-1 Conscripts, 0-3 Heavy Weapon Squads) and lower their individual base price by 30%
2. Merge all the off-shot Units into ultra flexible Veterans (Crusaders, Special Weapon Squads, Gaunt's Ghosts, Inquisitorial Guard, Kasrkin etc.) - this helps with focusing on internal balance instead of just pumping more garbage into the roster
3. Change all W6 attacks weapons to 8 attacks

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

 OldMate wrote:
Or the more uncouthed side of the guard spectrum: "Take that fething thing out!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just can't reconcile melee combat against a tank with melee weapons or minig equipment(actual weapons designed for purpose; shaped charges or energy bombs on the other hand... yeah they should be great). Especially the high sided imperial guard tanks, which would seem to be pretty challenging to climb onto during combat, which would effectivelykeep enemy troops in the killzone. Any sudden movement of the vehicle left right backwards or forwards will kill infantry like they are not even there. And if they're not at the rear of the vehicle what the hell do they actually think they're going to achieve? Sure you breached the hull with a drill or super duper power weapon, its not a kinetic penetrator with tons of energy that will be dumped into the crew compartment setting fire to the ammunition stored in the vehicle or carrying through and destroying the engine, or a high explosive shaped charge which will penetrate the armour and deliver exsplosive force into the crew or engine compartment.
You might at great risk to yourself imobilse the vehicle (which would have put you in a prime position to get squished like a bug should the vehicle want to move) and if you imoblise it, its still a pretty formidible bunker. Weapons that cut or drill holes in tanks are only one stage in knocking the thing out. You actually then need to deposit exsplosive force or evil little gribbles into the vehicle to knock it out.

I think big dumb tracked tanks unlike walkers (which have some pretty obvious weaknesses, usually two of them, which if targeted will logically lead to said warmachine falling on its ass and becoming pretty combat ineffective) or hover tanks should be the bane of any melee squad that does not have dedicated anti tank weapons like melta charges, magnetic mines or the like. A 30-40ton leman russ should pop the shells of power armoured troops under its treads like a crocodile pops the shell of a turtle it has caught, whilst a baneblade or macharius should do the same to carnifexes and enemy walkers. A tank should on a ramming attack against something of less 'robustness class (based off strength/toughness maybe?)' if it rolls a 6 get special rule"gets target underneath hull" and just auto kills, as the tank has just used its greatest asset, tons of reinforced steel, to obliterate its target.
Instead of other factions wanting to close with guard tanks to destroy them, big dumb tanks should be terrifying.
After all, why would you hover over your enemies when you can crush and grind them to jam?

Might I introduce you to the wonderful world of Tank Shock and Death or Glory from rules of old. In 5th edition at least, tank shock was basically driving your tank through an enemy unit. The enemy makes a morale check. On failure, it falls back towards it's own table edge (this is old morale rules where units fall back towards their map edge). On success the enemy is given an option. Simply let the tank pass as though the enemy models weren't there...or (if you don't hate fun ) DEATH OR GLORY! Death or glory worked as follows: a single model from the tank shocked unit rolls a single ranged or melee attack (as in a single die, even if you normally get multiple attacks, e.g., assault 3). That attack automatically hits the tank's front armor and you resolve that attack normally (via vehicle damage tables). If the attack successfully manages to stun, destroy, or immobilize the tank, the tank stops in it's tracks (and potentially blows up, leaving the wreck as a new piece of terrain). If the attack fails, the tank shock continues as normal and the model that performed death or glory is crushed beneath the treads and is removed from play (regardless of wounds or saves or anything else).

The obvious choice (in terms of payoff) when presented with a tank shock was usually to just let the tank pass. But the fun choice was to attempt death or glory. Why did they get rid of this rule? It was so fun and flavorful.

I do like that idea and that old rule-set makes a lot of sense, its pretty sensible, I guess they did the 'retreat to closest board edge' because this was back in the day when attacking a giant steel box in melee combat was considered insane, even by the designers of a table top game. I still maintain that melee assaults against an armoured steel box that can crush you like you're not there whilst having the high likelihood of not actually destroying the vehicle should be a last resort, or a very very bad circumstance to find yourself in.

1) Vehicles give ' Look out sir' to infantry units within 3". Alternatively they could allow infantry to use the save of the vehicle unit.
2) Remove the 'move half range' part of Grinding Advance.
3) Leman Russ variant allways use top bracket regardless of wounds taken.

Explanation:
1) Infantry squads have zero staying power in the current game. Models that survive the turn will probably run in morale phase. It's fluffy and realistic to have the infantry advance with the tanks and use them for cover.
2) Our tanks are still top notch when it comes to shooting, especially the demolisher. However with the low BS they really need to shoot twice in order to be effective.
3) Same as above really, the movement and BS degradation cripple the tanks way too hard. Russes are simple, tough and reliable, they just keep working until they die.

Armour of Contempt really fragged the Guard over. We have way to many low AP weapons that turn our too few shots. Marines can ignore multilaser, heavy flamer, heavy bolter. Autocannons and battlecannons basically become -1. That's just silly really.

Oh and like the guy above me said, infantry assaulting a main battle tank should suffer. Badly.

Giving a 135ppm (Demolisher) unit a non degrading statline? No thank you. Especially when it has 2D6 S10 AP3 d6dam shooting. (With double shoot, or flat 12 with full payload). Yeah, I'll go ahead and say no thank you to that. I can MAYBE see it on a Superheavy like a Baneblade, but the Lehman russ shouldn't be the hardest thing on the battlefield. Hell, according to the fluff, a sufficiently pissed off space marine can rip the turret off of one with bare hands.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Giving a 135ppm (Demolisher) unit a non degrading statline? No thank you. Especially when it has 2D6 S10 AP3 d6dam shooting. (With double shoot, or flat 12 with full payload). Yeah, I'll go ahead and say no thank you to that. I can MAYBE see it on a Superheavy like a Baneblade, but the Lehman russ shouldn't be the hardest thing on the battlefield. Hell, according to the fluff, a sufficiently pissed off space marine can rip the turret off of one with bare hands.

I kind of agree with yo (unless we're going for 9th edition broken OP, which I'd rather not have). LRBT does need more survivability, but so do most vehicles. I'd like to see some core rules changes to give a small buff to survivability. Not sure what though.

On a different topic, I'd like to see them bring back the versatility of the vanquisher (similar to the SoB Castigator). Used to be an option between blast and nonblast round. Make it cost 5pt more for the option between battle cannon stat line and the vanquisher stat line. Also, maybe give it a bit more range since that was the vanquisher's other thing iirc (won't come into play often, but it'd be fluffy)