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.

I love the IG like no other army. Oh don't get me wrong, I hate playing them, especially against marines, but for fluff and emphathy and modeling I love them.

The 3.5 edition codex has some crap in it. It needs some work but the freedom it offers and the diversity of doctrines really makes it great for creating new regiments differentiated by more than color schemes.

The 5th edition codex will no doubt take this away. It will offer some new toys though and might address some long standing problems.

So... do we want a new one?

We need a new codex to remove imbalances, but I know if it is changed it will be to destroy all flavour of the army. So I can vote only NO.

Of course we need a new Codex.

Right now, IG options are extremely limited because there are so few units and combinations that "work" in the current Codex. The imbalance between "good" and "bad" is currently very high, so the army choices are very pigeon-holed to point that lists practically build themselves once you pick a couple starting things.

Despite the appearance of options, if 5th Edition moves forward with a push for Objectives to be taken by (Infantry?) Troops, the IG are totally screwed. Right now, the only semi-viable approach to taking Objectives would be via Drop Troops, and that's only because Drop Troops, as a Doctrine, is FREE. But when the enemy has the ability to Run, it is *not* a good thing to be a Guardsman standing in the open... Mechanized Guard, which should be a semi-default approach is so grossly overcosted and fragile as to be a non-starter here.

The IG need a major revamp in design. Guardsmen need to have points cost cut to no more than 5 pts/model. Guard need more Troops Platoon options (Grenadiers, Mechanized, Light Infantry). Chimera costs need to be cut drastically while bumping the side armor to 11+. Vehicles, while effective, are still overpriced. Guard needs decent Leadership, so Vox should be made "free". And so on.

Losing Doctrines is fine, as 90% of the important stuff can be captured in army-wide rules or wrapped up into new Troops Platoons, allowing for a more varied and viable force overall. I won't miss them, because the point is for the vanilla list to be playable and competitive.

It would be nice if any/all of the advisors became viable options. They're all ineffective, or over-costed, or both.

MinMax wrote:It would be nice if any/all of the advisors became viable options. They're all ineffective, or over-costed, or both.

agreed. To put it mildly, there are good ideas in there that are poorly executed.

Guard need a new codex.

I expect they will recut the Russ sprue, I think it is one of the oldest. Second vehicle after the old Rhino?

6 pt ork and a 6 pt guardman are pretty much on equal footing right?

The assumption, of course, is that a new codex will eliminate the current imbalances and fix those units that are underperforming, while not also having the obverse effect on currently useful units.

The Devil you know vs. The Devil you don't, eh?

Well said, Syr. While I don't play Guard, I would think that you'd be leary of wanting a new codex just yet. I'd say wait until 5th has had a few months to sink in and see how the various Codei fare.

I was under the impression that the run feature precluded any firing or charging on the turn it was performed. Am I wrong about this?

I'm going to propose something horrific. Everyone is going to disagree, it's going to be terrible, but meh.

Guardsmen should have BS4 when firing lasguns. Taking heavy weapons in platoon squads should require a doctrine, or simply not be an option.

Just lasguns. Not laspistols, not heavy weapons, not tanks. But the lasgun needs a boost, and I think that making them hit more effectively with it might just work. It would make guardsman worth something without giving them heavy weapons that require them to stay still. They should be able to move towards the enemy and fire their weapons into the enemy to a good effect. The primary guard firepower SHOULD be a case of many, many lasguns blasting apart targets with sheer numbers, SUPPORTED by their heavy weapons and artillery. A Guardsman platoon should be able to unleash enough firepower into a enemy unit to reduce them to bloody chunks.

Let people take heavy weapons squads as add-ons to platoons. It doesn't make much sense to tie them to infantry squads from a fluff standpoint (tactically, what infantry squad would want to tie themselves down like that?) and gameplay (the Guard now need to close on objectives!)

Run is identical to Fleet of Foot, with the exception that you cannot charge after Running.

NO. If that means the loss of doctrines then no no no no no no.
And the first person that says "well you can use XXX in Apocalypse is a tidliwinks playing girly man.

Good riddance to doctrines - talk about a good idea with poor execution.

The thing to remember about the execution of IG doctrines is that many of them came from CA lists that were invalidated by the new IG codex. things like Chem inhalers, Xenos hunters, die hards, and hardened fighters are exist to build the old CA lists.

By my rough count, 17 of the 28 doctrines have at least some value in play. I would consider that a decent batting average. I fully expect them to disappear, and I think a well executed Chaos or Eldar style codex could be really amazing, but the problem is still in execution, not in theory.

Finally, do you (Nurglitch) need to mock, minimize, or express disdain for everything enjoyed by people that disagree with you? I mean, it's one thing to have an opinion, but it seems you have a default sort of dismissal for things enjoyed by a lot of posters here. I don't think I've ever seen somebody dislike the doctrine system like apparently you do.

I vote no.

After the treatment Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Chaos Marines have received, I'm terrified that they're going to redo the guard codex and make it even less competitive then it is now, and take away all the fun doctrines that make so many builds possible.

Yes, the implementation of doctrines included a lot of legacy rules that were thrown in to appease the people that went out and designed armies based on what were essentially home-brew army lists.

The problem with the implementation is that there's gamers involved and gamers have a tendency to game the system, and not only that but suppress dissent of popular opinions about how the gamed should both be played and gamed. The implementation has resulted in there being doctrines that some people refer to as 'compulsory' and doctrines that are summarily dismissed as not having value in play. The end result of this unimaginative attitude has been the bland homogenization of the Imperial Guard back into cookie-cutter Imperial Guard armies.

While doctrines were intended to allow people to explore the diversity of the Imperial Guard, they just became another factor in producing the Competitive Imperial Guard Army. Part of the problem is the execution, in improperly valued doctrines and superfluous repetition. But part of the problem is in the concept, in separating these strategic choices too fully from the armies that they are chosen for. This problem was shared by codex armouries: that one value of each rule did not fit all.

Seeing as the content of those armouries have been made organic to the lists, resulting in the limited conceptual diversity of newer codicies resulting in more live options, expect to see the doctrines back as options integrated into the army list - some doctrines will be lost because they were superfluous and needlessly decorative diversity, and the surviving ones will be re-pointed* to account for the units that have them as option.

*When I say re-pointed I don't mean that some units will have the rule of doctrine X for 5 points and some units will have it for 10 points (though that might happen), I mean that if they have that option (such that the option is useful) the difference in cost will be taken up elsewhere in the list.

Edited for topical content.

Nurglitch wrote:
And yes Polonius, I do need to mock, minimize, or express disdain for everything enjoyed by people that disagree with me because (1) what they enjoy should be mocked, minimized, and disdained, and (2) I feel that like should be paid for like, and favours paid in full. Call it a moral compulsion, if you like.

Ok, I was just checking. It's a bit of shame really, because I think you raise a lot of valid topics of discussion (even if I frequently disagree.)

As for the doctrines:

I disagree wholeheartedly on the nature of IG homogenization. I think any single minded approach to IG is purely a resutl of reading Dakka, as I so seldom see IG armies as to make any comparison based on a pretty small sample pool. Even so, I seldom run into anything I would consider homogenous. The IG codex has the following builds, each distinct and viable:
1) all infantry SAFH
2) Mechanized/tank SAFH
3) Drop Troops
4) "Stealth" armies with Light Infantry
5) Codex, or hybrid armies.

That's more diversity then out of such current Codices as DA, and in practice is much more diverse then what you see from Tau, Tyranids, or necrons.

Two of those builds rely on Organizational doctrines, as does the lamentably weak Stormtrooper army. Outside of bum units, of which there are plenty, there are really only a handful of completely garbage doctrines (Die hards, chem inhalers, cyborg bodies, Warrior weapons), and There is really only one that would be considered mandatory: Iron Discipline. Close Order Drill and Drop Troops are arguably too powerful while being free, but lots of people build great lists without either one.

Competitve IG armies tend to use a small subset of Doctrines, but the IG book is old and was never a top notch book. It's like complaining that DE armies usually use one or two builds: it's amazing there's anything viable left in that book!

To Dr. Thunder: there are two issues you address:

1) The power level of the book. There's virtually nothing that can be done about it. Certain units will certainly be recosted, and in all fairness, the new books are balanced, in terms of each other. There are two arguably broken books (SM and NIds), but with 5th edition and a new SM codex on the horizon, the power balance of 40k is utterly in flux. I would not base any desire for a new book, or fear, on what it's strength will be.

2) GW has shown that when it wants to (Eldar, Orks, and to a certain extent DA) it can eliminate sub lists, clans, etc. and still retain the fundamental nature of those old lists. In addition, they generally gain flexibility in return. Chaos is a notable aberance, but the 3.5 book was insanely broad and diverse, and in all honesty needed a trim. Could GW have cut less? Of course, and I've argued in the past. The fact is, outside of IW SAFH and Daemonbombs, the spirit, if not the exact form, of the old lists were retained.

So what does this mean for IG? As many, many people have pointed out, the Doctrines offer at least some false choice. Of the 28, 10 are simply to unlike other units, leaving doctrine IG one of the smallest unit palettes in the game. Of the remaining 18, they can be divided more or less as follows:

Folded into the list:
Mechanized
Iron Discipline
Close Order Drill
Veterans

Allowable to certain platoons for a cost:
Light Infantry
Camo
Carapace
Drop Troops

Either Cut or unlocked with a character
Grenadiers
Hardened Fighters
Xenos Fighters

Cut with little great loss:
Die Hards
Independent commissars
Jungle Fighters
Sharpshooters
The rest of the equiptment.

If the IG retain the ability to field diverse looking formations (drop troops, mechanized, etc) I think any new IG codex will be a success, if only because it will also bring with it an update to the many, many underutilized units in the book.

Nurglitch wrote: And yes Polonius, I do need to mock, minimize, or express disdain for everything enjoyed by people that disagree with me because (1) what they enjoy should be mocked, minimized, and disdained, and (2) I feel that like should be paid for like, and favours paid in full. Call it a moral compulsion, if you like.

I especially like the last sentence (2). Hypocrisy at its finest.

If that doesn't scream "Ignore me! I am an Obnoxious, Flamebaiting Troll!" I dont know what does.

Time to use that all important ignore button now I suppose. its a shame, because I do find some usefulness out of your posts, even when they are rife with platitudes.

[edit]

On topic though, like many codecies in 4th edition before DA, there were alot of great ideas with bad execution.

Sadly, doctrines will likely go. I dont see why, as all GW has to do is balance them and call it a day. but now they will have to start from scratch and rework the whole thing.

Neither option is really bad, I suppose, but I imagine it would just be easier for designers to actually balance the iteration we have.

open_sketchbook wrote:Guardsmen should have BS4 when firing lasguns. Taking heavy weapons in platoon squads should require a doctrine, or simply not be an option.

Um, Guardsmen could be auto-hit with their S3 AP- Lasguns and they'd still be crap for shooting.

Note that many of the "Doctrines" are rules disasters. Sharpshooters and Jungle Fighters come to mind. These rules don't belong and would need to be simplified or rewritten.

Of the remaining Doctrines, many are grossly mis-costed. Warrior Weapons, for example, should be FREE, whereas Drop Troops is probably worth 25 pts per unit. If these Doctrines were costed properly, then they could be carried forward.

In light of the CSM book, I don't think that IG would suffer at all from a rewrite. Indeed, I suspect a CSM-style IG book could do wonders to further invigorate the IG.

"Um, Guardsmen could be auto-hit with their S3 AP- Lasguns and they'd still be crap for shooting."

Don't think so, if you take all the squads you can in six platoons you get 360 gaurdsmen who would then at 12 inches put out 720 shots that auto hit.

Against MEQs

720 hits 240 wound 80 dead marines.

Against Orcs

720 hits 240 wound 200 dead orcs *at 6+ save or 160 dead orcs at 5+ save

Not many armies, (in fact I can't think of any) can put out that much firepower at such a low cost.

As for right now,

360 hit, 120 wound, 40 kill against MEQs Now I do know armies that can do that. But very few with just troop options.

Well, I think that the IG have the best (note: I did not say "most powerful") codices in the game. They are the standard to which all other codices should be compared. Sure, they could maybe use a bit of tweaking (ogryns, advisors, tech-priests, some of the traits) but after the fiasco of the Chaos Space Marines codex, I'm skeptical about the current design team's ability to improve upon the IG Codex.

The IG Codex is supposed to represent the varied human armies (Inquisition aside) of the Galaxy. Those doctrines give them a lot of flexibility. I'd like to see the old book stay in print a while longer, at least until we see how it performs in 5th edition. If it's a failure in 5th, then obviously it needs to be reexamined.

Wow, how lucky for the player who can buy and model 360 Guardsmen, and then get them within 12" range of the enemy without any casualties or HtH to prevent the rest of the army from shooting.

But for sake of argument, let's just assume that you have 360 Guardsmen. At 6 pts each, that's 2160 pts.

Now for 2160 pts, that's 10 squads of Space Marines (1 Veteran, 6 Tactical, 3 Devastators), each in an AV11/11/10 Rhino...

720 hits with S3 + d6 for AP gives:
- 120 S4 hits for NO EFFECT,
- 120 S5 hits for NO EFFECT,
- 120 S6 hits for NO EFFECT,
- 120 S7 hits for NO EFFECT,
- 120 S8 hits for NO EFFECT, and (wait for it)...
- 120 S9 hits for NO EFFECT.

Awesome shooting, too bad about S3 not being able to scratch AV10+...

Now, you say that they were all within 12" to Rapid-Fire?

OK, great. No Movement.

10 Rhinos with 2 twin Bolters fire. That's 40 re-rollable shots for 35 hits, 23 kills.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Yay Rhinoes!

____

Oh, yeah. If we're talking about optimal MEQ-killing power, I think the new Bloodletters under similar conditions (no losses, in HtH) will do quite well for the points. Hellblades are just murder on SM.

Your poll is broken Kyoto.

I can see the 'Yes' and 'No' options, but where's the 'F**k no!' option?

BYE

I agree with HBMC?!? PARTY!!!

open_sketchbook wrote:I'm going to propose something horrific. Everyone is going to disagree, it's going to be terrible, but meh.

Guardsmen should have BS4 when firing lasguns. Taking heavy weapons in platoon squads should require a doctrine, or simply not be an option.

Just lasguns. Not laspistols, not heavy weapons, not tanks. But the lasgun needs a boost, and I think that making them hit more effectively with it might just work. It would make guardsman worth something without giving them heavy weapons that require them to stay still. They should be able to move towards the enemy and fire their weapons into the enemy to a good effect. The primary guard firepower SHOULD be a case of many, many lasguns blasting apart targets with sheer numbers, SUPPORTED by their heavy weapons and artillery. A Guardsman platoon should be able to unleash enough firepower into a enemy unit to reduce them to bloody chunks.

Let people take heavy weapons squads as add-ons to platoons. It doesn't make much sense to tie them to infantry squads from a fluff standpoint (tactically, what infantry squad would want to tie themselves down like that?) and gameplay (the Guard now need to close on objectives!)

making them 5 points each with an increase in the cost of heavy weapons would do the same thing.

True, tho 5 pts each with Heavy weapons pts unchanged would be more balanced. IG have a bad statline, and 5th penalizes static armies, so they get less utility out of their Heavy weapons.

Both yes and no, mainly no.

re cheaper guardsmen: I think the opposite. Guardsmen should cost more points, perhaps 7 each with frag greandes as standard equipment. to make up for this Sentinels, Chimeras Advisiors, rough riders some weapon options and Orgyns should be (much) cheaper, Ratlings and Veterans should be easier to get (i.e. not 0-1) and Advisors, Orgyns, Mortars Autocannons and Storm Troopers should be more powerful.

I'd like to see a streamlined Doctrine system but I've seen GW 'streamline' things before

First up I just want to say this is a really good, thoughtful discussion, the sort of stuff that makes Dakka great.

Tacobake wrote:

I expect they will recut the Russ sprue, I think it is one of the oldest. Second vehicle after the old Rhino?

Barring long OOP stuff like the Mk 1 land raider and the old Ork battlewagon (still not replaced!) the Russ is the oldest of them. Isn't the Chimera from the same time? They're still a decent looking kits, they just need some more options. Or we'll lose the ones not supported (like from mounted HBs on Russes and turret HBs on chimeras).

Polonius has some really good thoughts

Polonius wrote:Of the remaining 18, they can be divided more or less as follows:

Folded into the list:
Mechanized
Iron Discipline
Close Order Drill
Veterans

Allowable to certain platoons for a cost:
Light Infantry
Camo
Carapace
Drop Troops

Either Cut or unlocked with a character
Grenadiers
Hardened Fighters
Xenos Fighters

Cut with little great loss:
Die Hards
Independent commissars
Jungle Fighters
Sharpshooters
The rest of the equiptment.

If the IG retain the ability to field diverse looking formations (drop troops, mechanized, etc) I think any new IG codex will be a success, if only because it will also bring with it an update to the many, many underutilized units in the book.

But I think you're looking at it in reverse of how GW will. These days GW is asking what models does it have, what models does it want to sell and what are the best rules to make that happen.

5 point guardsmen are more likely simply because it would require buying more models.

With all the regiments but Cats and Cads OOP, I can see the following happening:

Troops:
Light infantry (6+ save, infiltrate, +1 in cover)
Infantry platoons (5pts a model, chimeras available to all)
Heavy infantry (storm troopers in plastic)

MAYBE conscripts, but probably not since GW would say they need to make a new kit for it.

I'd expect hellhounds, griffins and exterminators to come back with new sprues

Dropping would be limited to elite storm troopers, vets would get infiltrate. Close order drill and iron discipline if they survive at all would become wargear (the Iron Eagle Metal of Disciple or something).

Command platoons I think would be heavily reworked. Heavy weapon teams would go into heavy support where they should have always been. With luck, command platoons will become more like the IG General's retinue (WD a few years back) or Inquisition retinues.

The biggest problem in the IG is the tiny little bit sized units. Players need to option of combining squads to make 20-50 man units that can soak up losses for days.

I can understand why GW might drop doctrines-some people do try to min/max the hell out of their army with them

But whne I read the new CSM codex I was really disapointed with it, not really being customisable enough for my liking (Deamon Princes and Chaos Lords spring to mind) And removing doctrines would ruin many of the well thought out armies out there, and may discourage people to keep playing

The biggest problem in the IG is the tiny little bit sized units. Players need to option of combining squads to make 20-50 man units that can soak up losses for days.

I agree. My Tau firewarriors can deal with 12-man units. The IG cannot. I'm actually surprised that forgeworld didn't take the initiative and make their WW1 krieg army lists require at least 20 men per squad. You know, what with the whole "selling more models" and "massed infantry rush" themes.