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.

So the 5 point guard thread will be finished with the deaths of its current participants.
Far more interesting to me is a wider look at Guard. Now GW aren't going to re-look at their codex for at least another century, so it won't go anywhere. But still I can dream.

Codex's
I would love to see separate codex’s for each regiment - though the margins on this would be tiny for GW, so perhaps more a fan project (wouldn't it be great if GW made tools to support this...). It would be a bit of fun, include certain forgeworld units and options etc.

Sanctioned conversions
I would love to see on the community site or in White Dwarf some of the more popular conversions that can be done with GW kits get instructions and datafaxes. For example, making a razorback/predator cross (light tank) using the cool chimera mod where the lasgun arrays are cut down or removed and the turret moved back (and sometimes beefed up). Letting it have a cut down transport capacity of say 7 and an improved autocannon (maybe -2 save mod) would be a nifty light tank and numerous other examples are out there.

Regimental traits
There are a bunch of suggestions for balancing the regiments a bit better and most are very worthy. I would add to that a list of 'minor' buffs and stratagems (well maybe major and minor, pick one major and a minor or two etc.) which a player could take 2-3 from to make their own regiment. Nothing too powerful, just for those who dream of an army playing like the fluff they have written for it. I have several possible suggestions for this list One would have to be 'follower of the dark god(s)'...

Restructure the core/upgrade points
The army can be, I think, too much of a horde, when the schtick was more wave after wave of my own men, not matching the sea of orkish green or alien chitin.
I would take the cost of the upgrades and 'bake' them into the unit prices. For example lower the cost of heavy weapons by 5 points (mortar becomes 1 point), and increase the cost of every unit by 5 points for every heavy weapon on the list they can take. Net result ‘naked’ units cost more but properly equipped units wouldn’t change.

Points balancing
We all have our pet hates, so best not mention this. Well if I can do one... the bloody Hydra. Good gods make this thing cheaper (or +2 to hit fliers or something)! Every time I have found it in the box and been forced to use it (I really should prepare armies rather than grab random boxes) once the enemy have realised that even if it hits autocannons aren't that scary it gets roundly ignored for the rest of the game. Even I am tempted to ignore it and leave it sitting on the table, alone and ignored…

Chimera
Change the chassis to be toughness 6 for the armoured transport, toughness 5 for the open topped support versions (stuff like Salamanders would be 6). Hellhound stay at ‘light tank’ level of toughness - 7. BS of 5+, turret/main weapon BS of 4+. Why? Primary reason is to bring down cost of Chimera transports. As it stands the infantry protect their light tank like chimera rather than it dropping them off and supporting them. Plus BMPs which inspired the vehicle protect the contents from .50 cals but not entirely… Such changes should get a standard Chimera transport with weapons down to 60 points and less than a decently equipped squad. And I can’t see the gunners getting the same level of gear and training as tank sponson gunners when the hull weapons are more last ditch defence measures… Oh and drop the autocannon/twin heavy bolter variants to transport 10 to reflect their increased ammo storage…

Other changes
Change guard flak armour to a 6+ save, make it a regiment trait to get 5+ armour (e.g. Catachans would get 6+ whereas Cadians with their different gear would get 5+).
Add some new toys - Heavy Stubbers and any similar weapons for infantry (in the special weapons list so not requiring a heavy weapon team), heavy mortars (str 5 – the old metal mortar models) for weapon teams.
Be tempted to make conscripts cost less but not get regimental traits (too green, or locally press ganged).
And of course, lots of fun extra stuff like new options, command variants of vehicles, etc., etc!

The_Real_Chris wrote:
So the 5 point guard thread will be finished with the deaths of its current participants.
Far more interesting to me is a wider look at Guard. Now GW aren't going to re-look at their codex for at least another century, so it won't go anywhere. But still I can dream.

Not that unreasonable. GW hasn't changed with new versions of codex style so new IG codex is just matter of time 3, 4 years max and even that would be slowish.

One would have to be 'follower of the dark god(s)'...

That will be own codex of their kind. See how Imperial Knights didn't have chaos versions despite being easy one...

I would take the cost of the upgrades and 'bake' them into the unit prices. For example lower the cost of heavy weapons by 5 points (mortar becomes 1 point), and increase the cost of every unit by 5 points for every heavy weapon on the list they can take. Net result ‘naked’ units cost more but properly equipped units wouldn’t change.

Ummm no. Heavy weaponless squads should be allowed but if you do that only idiots would NOT take heavy weapons.

Complete overhaul of the Orders system. I've detailed it elsewhere, so I won't again unless asked to.
Overhaul of the Officers "rankings". Senior Officers remain HQs, Junior Officers become an Elites choice similar to the Marine Lieutenants(one slot gives multiples).
Addition of Vox-Casters to the equipment on a Chimera. There's a Stratagem for it now, just make it a wargear choice.
Vox-Casters grant a boost to the effectiveness of an Order rather than the range.

Bump points on Infantry Squads, remove Heavy Weapon Teams from their options, retain their Special Weapon options and add some new "Squad Support Weapons". Things like Heavy Stubbers, Heavy Lasguns(silly as it sounds--it's a thing that's been mentioned in the fluff before. They're just Lasguns with heavier barrels and larger batteries to be fired as suppressive weapons), some kind of "antitank rifle". All told, up to 3 models in a 10 man squad should be able to swap their stuff out. Also Sergeants get Lasguns as standard.

Heavy Weapon Squads go to 10 models, allowing for 5 teams per Heavy Weapon Squad. Same rule as Junior Officers and vehicle squadrons--they start off as one big thing but act independently for the remainder of the game. Each HWT should have access to a Vox-Caster.

Special Weapon Squads go to 10 models, getting organized into teams of two like HWTs. Each team takes two of the same weapon and they get some kind of benefit based upon what the weapon is--Snipers might get a perk while in cover, Plasma Gunners might get a perk where they can not fire if they roll 1s while Overheating but they don't die, Meltaguns might get boosted damage, etc.

Conscripts get Autoguns or Autopistols+CCWs, get bumped up to 6+ saves and the "Auxilia" keyword. No more receiving Orders!

Veterans get access to Hellguns and Carapace Armor as part of a 'kit'. They don't get Deep Strike or Infiltrate as standard/pointed options. Squads can take a Special Weapons Team and/or Heavy Weapons Team--or just take 4 Infantry Squad based Squad Support Weapons or 4 Special Weapons. Teams get split off from the rest of the unit when deployed.

Tarantula Sentry Guns get added as a Fortification option. 1-3 per slot, give them a quad-linked Heavy Stubber AA weapon, twin-linked Lascannons, twin-linked Meltaguns, a 'rapid fire Mortar', or twin-linked Heavy Bolters as options. They have to engage specific keywords as priorities--the quad Heavy Stubber has to engage "Fly", Lascannons and Meltaguns have to engage Vehicle or Monsters, and the and Heavy Bolters have to engage "Infantry" over anything else. Owning player can't override firing protocols without a Stratagem or a Master of Ordnance.

Rapier gun carriages get added as a Heavy Support option. 1-3 per slot, same loadouts as the Tarantulas but can choose their targets.

That's about all I've got locked and loaded in my head for the time being.

This thread makes me think about Bob Saget in half baked.

Essentially - IG have the most inspired codex in the game. Literally every army type is viable with cool and fluffy doctrines and the almost the entire codex is viable rules wise. The rest of the game is envious of how inspired he IG codex is. Holy mother of gak.

Yep, gotta admit Guard are in a stupendously good place...only thing they're lacking are good minis. Tanks are fine, but their infantry models need replacing in a bad way (so fething boring).

 Elbows wrote:
Yep, gotta admit Guard are in a stupendously good place...only thing they're lacking are good minis. Tanks are fine, but their infantry models need replacing in a bad way (so fething boring).

Guard themselves are in an okay place, despite what others seem to think. There's a few viable builds but by and large it comes down to them getting a "good rep" from being able to soup so well.

Not everyone wants to soup. This is for not "how to make them win better" but rather what we would like to see with the faction.

Me? I want to shut people like you and Xenomancers up. I want my army to be viable solo--and before you accuse me of hypocrisy, I'd like to see this for most of the armies that are 'full' factions--and the best way to do so is to rejig the army entirely from square one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This thread makes me think about Bob Saget in half baked.

Essentially - IG have the most inspired codex in the game. Literally every army type is viable with cool and fluffy doctrines and the almost the entire codex is viable rules wise. The rest of the game is envious of how inspired he IG codex is. Holy mother of gak.

This thread reminds me how little you actually know about a faction you constantly whine about.

IMO id like to see
1. New plastic kits for some of the discontinued lines of IG. I think they would be easy money for GW
2. Remove the CP regeneration warlord trait and relics (i think this should be game wide but either way it should just go)
other than that some minor points adjustments and rebalancing but they could accomplish that in chapter approved
3. This is just personal preference but I don't really like the look of HWT in the infantry squads. I think it would be cool to leave HWT in HWT squads and see some more single user weapons like LMG, RPG style weapons carried by a single guy.

so some minor stuff altogether.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Yep, gotta admit Guard are in a stupendously good place...only thing they're lacking are good minis. Tanks are fine, but their infantry models need replacing in a bad way (so fething boring).

Guard themselves are in an okay place, despite what others seem to think. There's a few viable builds but by and large it comes down to them getting a "good rep" from being able to soup so well.

Not everyone wants to soup. This is for not "how to make them win better" but rather what we would like to see with the faction.

Me? I want to shut people like you and Xenomancers up. I want my army to be viable solo--and before you accuse me of hypocrisy, I'd like to see this for most of the armies that are 'full' factions--and the best way to do so is to rejig the army entirely from square one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This thread makes me think about Bob Saget in half baked.

Essentially - IG have the most inspired codex in the game. Literally every army type is viable with cool and fluffy doctrines and the almost the entire codex is viable rules wise. The rest of the game is envious of how inspired he IG codex is. Holy mother of gak.

This thread reminds me how little you actually know about a faction you constantly whine about.

Agreed id like for anyone to slap down a mono army and not be handicapping themselves. There definitely needs to be a downside to soup that just doesn't exist atm

If you attended an event which was mono-codex, you genuinely believe Guard are in a bad place?

 Elbows wrote:
If you attended an event which was mono-codex, you genuinely believe Guard are in a bad place?

Not at all, I think guard is one of the best mono codexes atm really only competing with knights and space elves. The problem is that soup is just leagues ahead of all mono builds. Id like to see all armies be balanced against each other and able to stand on there own rather than each book being judged by 2-3 units that can be souped in. IT also causes huge issues down the line because nerfing a single unit in a mono army barely affects soup while sometimes crippling mono armies.

 Elbows wrote:
If you attended an event which was mono-codex, you genuinely believe Guard are in a bad place?

How many events are there that are mono-codex? How many events are genuinely attempting to restrict things by making it so that you can only bring Allies in via the Auxiliary Detachments one at a time?

Because that option is there. Tournament Organizers just need to do their job and utilize it.

More cavalry options!

Give us options for heavy cav, like knights and cataphracts with power mauls or something cool like that. A heavy shock cavalry that has a 3+ armor save. They wouldn't be the best combat unit in the game, but they should be decent.

Give us options for a mounted rifles type unit...with lascarbines or something.

Keep the classic rough rider option as well.

Something I've been thinking of, and I think would be cool would be to have a cav unit be able to transport an infantry squad. They cav would just have their carbines or pistols, and the infantry squad would just have their special weapon. No heavy weapons. If a cavalry model is killed, the infantrymen catching a ride is also killed.

No idea if that would be viable, but it sounds fun.

Basically just give us options for cavalry and a kit!

Also, more access to heavy stubbers, please. Infantry squads should be able to take them. Every squad should be able to take them.

Give us quad stubber scout sentinels please. Two stubbers on each side of the cockpit. It be like a walking ball-turret gunner, essentially.

More artillery options in codex. Wheeled artillery like howitzers, mortars and whatnot.

Other ideas...air cav in addition to actual cav! Give us a small , lightly armored helicopter type transport. Have it hold 10 men, and have 2 stubbers for weapons. T 5, 6 wounds maybe. Probably a 4+ save. If they do something to that effect, maybe make a gunship variant. Alternatively increase the valkyries transport capacity to 20 so a pair can transport fair amount of guardsmen into enemy lines super fast!

Honestly, what you're describing for Rough Riders is basically the Death Riders. We've got those in DKoK.

They don't really "fit" main Guard IMO. Not in the Regimental sense. They'd be a cool Auxilia unit though.

I don't know, some 'biker' cavalry would be pretty interesting, fast moving scout type units make sense.

I'd like some Tempestus units that fit in the heavy and fast slots, and the ability to take something else as a HQ without losing the doctrine, so I can make a brigade or two detachments in one army of them.

Armored Fist squads - where its cheaper than taking a Infantry Squad + a Chimera, but they have to remain together on the battlefield.

and I agree the Guard Orders and chain of command needs to be reworked.

 Kcalehc wrote:
I don't know, some 'biker' cavalry would be pretty interesting, fast moving scout type units make sense.

I talked about this last edition and it's kinda messy. Everyone seems to want "rawr, they're CC" or "close range shooters!".

Me? I went for a buffing/area denial unit. Bikers could deploy a sensor network that would allow for your tanks to do a bit better in shooting and your artillery was slightly more accurate.

I'd like some Tempestus units that fit in the heavy and fast slots, and the ability to take something else as a HQ without losing the doctrine, so I can make a brigade or two detachments in one army of them.

That's actually part of the reason for my suggestion of Rapiers. They 'fit' the idea of Tempestus a bit better--they're still fairly mobile, can be deployed via Valkyrie and a single operator can do a significant amount with the single platform. Fast Attack could see a Tempestus Sentinel variant; uparmored with a smaller selection of ranged weapons but some indirect fire stuff there too.

Regarding your 'gunship' idea--let's just try for Vultures in the codex.

Armored Fist squads - where its cheaper than taking a Infantry Squad + a Chimera, but they have to remain together on the battlefield.

This is a bit harder to do. You can't really play around too much with the points costs without them affecting everything in my opinion.

I could see Salamanders making an appearance here though and Veterans getting to start at 5 man squads then go up to 10.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Honestly, what you're describing for Rough Riders is basically the Death Riders. We've got those in DKoK.

They don't really "fit" main Guard IMO. Not in the Regimental sense. They'd be a cool Auxilia unit though.

The death riders are cool, but resin is horrible and completely overpriced. If they made plastic DKoK then fine, I suppose they wouldn't need more cavalry options, but I doubt that's happening.

Having them be auxilia would probably be the easiest way to do it, but it would be neat to get a regiment of them.

Its my dream to run an all cavalry guard army. Would it be the most effective, no! But every game would be fun and glorious!

I'd like penal legions for ultra crap chaff. Options to take shivs for +1 attack, exploding collars that you can trigger to blow up when they die or at any time just for fun. Stratagem to let you fire at units they are locked in combat with at no penalty, but 1s hit the penal boy and girls. Options build around supporting their vast hordes of criminal scum like priests and commissars to "inspire" them on to glory. Anytime a model flees you can detonate their collar to rid the others of any notion of retreat. You have to pay points for their guns meaning you could just send them in with fists and shivs if you want. You buy guns in bulk so you can equip two guys with a lasgun (or equivalent peashooter) for 1 point.

Add in a special rule to shoot your own penal legionaries for the fun of it (All in the name of it being part of the greater strategic plan) and we have an army tailor made for the guy who LITERALLY couldn't care less for his army.

Heafstaag wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Honestly, what you're describing for Rough Riders is basically the Death Riders. We've got those in DKoK.

They don't really "fit" main Guard IMO. Not in the Regimental sense. They'd be a cool Auxilia unit though.

The death riders are cool, but resin is horrible and completely overpriced. If they made plastic DKoK then fine, I suppose they wouldn't need more cavalry options, but I doubt that's happening.

Having them be auxilia would probably be the easiest way to do it, but it would be neat to get a regiment of them.

Its my dream to run an all cavalry guard army. Would it be the most effective, no! But every game would be fun and glorious!

You can already run an all cavalry guard army with DKoK...

You just run them as an Outriders Detachment.

I think they should give all the IG tanks another doubling in shots and another price cut.

I just want new kits someday. Love Cadians, but I'm not a fan of the kits.

I also want more Tempestus Scions stuff after new plastic regiments come out.

Asmodios wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
If you attended an event which was mono-codex, you genuinely believe Guard are in a bad place?

Not at all, I think guard is one of the best mono codexes atm really only competing with knights and space elves. The problem is that soup is just leagues ahead of all mono builds. Id like to see all armies be balanced against each other and able to stand on there own rather than each book being judged by 2-3 units that can be souped in. IT also causes huge issues down the line because nerfing a single unit in a mono army barely affects soup while sometimes crippling mono armies.

Sure, and I understand that...but it seems a bit odd to complain (at all) about a fantastic Guard codex. Nobody's codex is as good as soup, and unfortunately won't be for the foreseeable future. I agree I'd like to see mechanics put in place to benefit mono-codex forces. I just don't see any way you're going to improve a Guard codex to be competitive with soup. Soup, almost by definition, will always be stronger/better.

It's why I pity some of the smaller codices who don't have much in the way of soup (Tau, Necrons, etc.).

I think it's important to realize that some of the complaints here aren't that the Guard codex is bad but that people would like the book to be viable without soup being a factor.

 Elbows wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
If you attended an event which was mono-codex, you genuinely believe Guard are in a bad place?

Not at all, I think guard is one of the best mono codexes atm really only competing with knights and space elves. The problem is that soup is just leagues ahead of all mono builds. Id like to see all armies be balanced against each other and able to stand on there own rather than each book being judged by 2-3 units that can be souped in. IT also causes huge issues down the line because nerfing a single unit in a mono army barely affects soup while sometimes crippling mono armies.

Sure, and I understand that...but it seems a bit odd to complain (at all) about a fantastic Guard codex. Nobody's codex is as good as soup, and unfortunately won't be for the foreseeable future. I agree I'd like to see mechanics put in place to benefit mono-codex forces. I just don't see any way you're going to improve a Guard codex to be competitive with soup. Soup, almost by definition, will always be stronger/better.

It's why I pity some of the smaller codices who don't have much in the way of soup (Tau, Necrons, etc.).

I'm definitely not complaining about the IG codex. I love all the different regiments and the vast majority of the book. I'm also not arguing that guard need to be more competitive rather id like to see many codexes (SM ones for example) have some points adjustments and rules to be more viable on their own. Take a look at how flavorful knights are and competitive I think that should be the aim of ever mono dex. What im against is trying to balance each army as if the are going to be souped because what you will eventually end up with is the entire Imperium souped being equal in strength to a single faction and any mono codex just being laughed off the table. Instead, we should look for each codex to be competitive on its own and then soup to have a positive and negative aspect.

My suggestion has been to only allow CP to be shared between detachments from the same codex and for there to either be a CP penalty on soup or a bonus for mono. This way you get more flexibility in units from soup but you have the drawback of less cohesion and thus less CP shenanigans

The only minor adjustments in points i would do is things like chimeras (which transports in general need another look at this edition) thus not raising the power of the codex but simple diversity in units taken

I want Chimeras to be worth taking. I've got 16 of the things and they haven't been worth bothering to put on a table for three editions now.

Thats probably my biggest single thing. Id like to see Hydras and sentinels (both kinds) also get some improvement, and an option for Carapace vets, along with some rejuggling or Russ turret option costing and a rework of the Vanquisher.

More than either, I'd really like an updated DKoK list that actually functions and that doesn't leave the most archetypally attritionally oriented force the least effective guard list at that aspect

I do agree that "most" of the Leman Russ turret options need reconsidering. The autocannon, the plasma, and the vanquisher are all friggin' awful. GW has done well with some books to differentiate weapons, but the Russ ones are a bit of a mess.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I want Chimeras to be worth taking. I've got 16 of the things and they haven't been worth bothering to put on a table for three editions now.

Thats probably my biggest single thing. Id like to see Hydras and sentinels (both kinds) also get some improvement, and an option for Carapace vets, along with some rejuggling or Russ turret option costing and a rework of the Vanquisher.

Hydras could be fixed with a relatively simple alteration to them--make it so that it can ignore negative Hit modifiers, period, thanks to the autotrackers.

I'm just down for Kasrkin/Grenadiers as an option for Veterans. That's all I want man.
Russes I don't know what to do with.

More than either, I'd really like an updated DKoK list that actually functions and that doesn't leave the most archetypally attritionally oriented force the least effective guard list at that aspect

I've wondered how much of the issue with DKoK is related to their "Cult of Sacrifice" thing.

I'm not sure how much FW factored in Cult of Sacrifice, but theyve always made DKoK infantry more expensive and with access to fewer options than Codex counterparts going back to 4E, and it's always meant that DKoK lists never play well, especially when built as infantry hordes. I dont see CoS being worth more than codex Doctrines currentlt personally.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Codex's
I would love to see separate codex’s for each regiment - though the margins on this would be tiny for GW, so perhaps more a fan project (wouldn't it be great if GW made tools to support this...). It would be a bit of fun, include certain forgeworld units and options etc.

Please God No! How many books do you want to have to carry around with you to and from the local game store? I don't even think there should be proper codexes. Or rather Codexes are fine, but in addition we should have cards or sheets that go into a 3-ring binder with all of the rules. That way we don't have to carry around so ridiculous many books.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Regimental traits
There are a bunch of suggestions for balancing the regiments a bit better and most are very worthy. I would add to that a list of 'minor' buffs and stratagems (well maybe major and minor, pick one major and a minor or two etc.) which a player could take 2-3 from to make their own regiment. Nothing too powerful, just for those who dream of an army playing like the fluff they have written for it. I have several possible suggestions for this list One would have to be 'follower of the dark god(s)'...

I want better rules, not more rules. Let's try to balance out the ones we have before making it even harder to balance. One of the biggest frustrations is that I only ever see Cadians or Catachans. Why? Because they are the most powerful. What it we nerfed those and buffed some of the other regiments? Part of the problem with 7th was GW's approach of "More Rules, not better rules" which led to horrible imbalance and rules bloat.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Restructure the core/upgrade points
The army can be, I think, too much of a horde, when the schtick was more wave after wave of my own men, not matching the sea of orkish green or alien chitin.
I would take the cost of the upgrades and 'bake' them into the unit prices. For example lower the cost of heavy weapons by 5 points (mortar becomes 1 point), and increase the cost of every unit by 5 points for every heavy weapon on the list they can take. Net result ‘naked’ units cost more but properly equipped units wouldn’t change.

This is probably a step in the right direction for balance. Though I worry you overcorrect somewhat. Still it would be nice to consider special weapons again, and not always run naked squads (or 9 man including a mortar in the ITC).

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Points balancing
We all have our pet hates, so best not mention this. Well if I can do one... the bloody Hydra. Good gods make this thing cheaper (or +2 to hit fliers or something)! Every time I have found it in the box and been forced to use it (I really should prepare armies rather than grab random boxes) once the enemy have realised that even if it hits autocannons aren't that scary it gets roundly ignored for the rest of the game. Even I am tempted to ignore it and leave it sitting on the table, alone and ignored…

Because Eldar dominate the meta (as they have since I started back in 6th ed), I find Hydras to be pretty decent. Sure a minor points drop would make them an auto-take, and they don't compare to something like a Helervin which is notably too points efficient. But I'd say Ogryn, or Armoured sentinels, or Veterans, or Chimeras, and Valkeries need the help more.

Codex: Militarum Tempestus. 8E.

Kanluwen wrote:

Armored Fist squads - where its cheaper than taking a Infantry Squad + a Chimera, but they have to remain together on the battlefield.

This is a bit harder to do. You can't really play around too much with the points costs without them affecting everything in my opinion.

Why? That's how 5th edition Codex BA worked - assault marines got discount on transports if they dropped jet packs. It worked excellently, too, probably the only edition where mechanized SM were viable and fun (no, Gladius was not fun for anyone, TYVM).

Kanluwen wrote:I think it's important to realize that some of the complaints here aren't that the Guard codex is bad but that people would like the book to be viable without soup being a factor.

That is actually pretty easy to do - take a look at modern mechanized division, say Soviet one from 80s, or current Russian one (as they have doctrine closest to IG from all 'real life' units), make a note how units are organized (because centuries of thinking and millions of dollars went into developing something that works, and works without assistance of Custodes or SM, I might add), try to convert that into IG units. Done, you have got something realistic, featuring combined arms on all levels, something based on mountain of both practice and theory no Codex writer can match to even a fraction of thought. It would even allow for some really non-obvious combos employed in RL that would make you feel you're playing a real army, not an angry mob standing around with little purpose.

Alas, it's sad to see so many people think combined arms and actual, working tactics are unrealistic and need to be killed (which really won't help the objective of making IG stand-alone army...).

 Irbis wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Armored Fist squads - where its cheaper than taking a Infantry Squad + a Chimera, but they have to remain together on the battlefield.

This is a bit harder to do. You can't really play around too much with the points costs without them affecting everything in my opinion.

Why? That's how 5th edition Codex BA worked - assault marines got discount on transports if they dropped jet packs. It worked excellently, too, probably the only edition where mechanized SM were viable and fun (no, Gladius was not fun for anyone, TYVM).

That's great for 5th edition.

That's not how things work now.

Kanluwen wrote:I think it's important to realize that some of the complaints here aren't that the Guard codex is bad but that people would like the book to be viable without soup being a factor.

That is actually pretty easy to do - take a look at modern mechanized division, say Soviet one from 80s, or current Russian one (as they have doctrine closest to IG from all 'real life' units), make a note how units are organized (because centuries of thinking and millions of dollars went into developing something that works, and works without assistance of Custodes or SM, I might add), try to convert that into IG units. Done, you have got something realistic, featuring combined arms on all levels, something based on mountain of both practice and theory no Codex writer can match to even a fraction of thought. It would even allow for some really non-obvious combos employed in RL that would make you feel you're playing a real army, not an angry mob standing around with little purpose.

Alas, it's sad to see so many people think combined arms and actual, working tactics are unrealistic and need to be killed (which really won't help the objective of making IG stand-alone army...).

Nobody gives a crap about what the Soviets did.

Saying "look at a modern mechanized division"(which has what to do with the book being viable without soup being a factor again?) and then touting the crap about Soviets/Russians "having doctrine closest to IG from all 'real life' units" is just exposing that you actually haven't paid attention to the fluff.

The doctrines for the various Regiments are as wildly varied as any in current doctrines. Cadians don't act like Russians, Catachans don't act like Russians, Mordians don't act like Russians, Valhallans don't act like Russians, Vostroyans don't act like Russians, etc.

There might be a world somewhere with a doctrine similar to modern Russian/1980s "we just botched Afghanistan so hard" Russia but it ain't any of the big ones.