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.

Here's a quick link to my Google Document, it's too long to post here. It's a total of 51 pages. I've been working on it for awhile. Trying to think of ways to provide small buffs but not overly change everything.

Though after seeing the Ad-Mech and Dark Eldar codexes I may not have gone far enough. There's definitely a lot of buffs, tons of more options to try and make them more "your dudes" again. It also has several sister documents for custom regiment traits.

Here's the link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-15z9-A9D9Bm3Y_TFDcKcC1iPIwYtu2NMgsGTWULd00/edit?usp=sharing

I'd love to hear your feedback and have a discussion on what I could further change.

Can we get a summary of the most important changes?

There’s a ton of things to mention:

- Core: All non-character and non-titanic Regiment units are considered core.
- Tons of rebalancing of stratagems, as well as new stratagems.
- Tons of rebalancing of custom regiments, I made it similar to Ad-Mech at least the 8th edition codex. Where you choose a primary and then one of three secondaries. This is in a linked sister document.
- Added more orders, as well as expanded them to work on nearly every Regiment unit. Tank orders are now Vehicle orders.

- Infantry can now take bolters or heavy stubbers as special weapons.
- Infantry can now take twin heavy stubbers, heavy flamers, multi-lasers, plasma cannons, or multi-meltas as heavy weapon teams.
- Tweaked existing vehicle upgrades and added new ones. The biggest ones is making Command Vehicle a generic transport upgrade (except Baneblades) and Medicae Vehicle which gives a transport the medi-pack rule (except Baneblades).
- Readded Infantry Platoons, and made Veterans Troops again. Scions are Elites in an AM list, or Troops in an MT list.
- Voxcasters unlimited range.
- Medi-pack 6 inch 6+++ aura.
- Consolidated a lot of datasheets together. All Malcador variants into a single Malcador Squadron for example.
- Readded a ton of Legends options.
- Consolidated exist Forge World units into the codex.

There’s a lot more.

Same disclaimer as the other thread: I barely play my IG and haven't played a game with them in 9th. Here are my disorganized thoughts as I skim through the document:

* Implacable Determination seems really weak compared to the other warlord traits. If I want to get into melee, I'm probably better off taking Fiery Denouncer. Its only use seems to be making charge rolls out of reserves slightly easier, but then it's competing with Master of Command.

* Unflinching Resolve: What is your company commander or commissar doing to make my lascannons hurt your tanks less? Bit of fluff/crunch dissonance there for me.

* Swift Attacker: That's quite the game changer. Fluffy, and appropriate for Tallarn, but maybe a bit too good? Unless your opponent is good at tripointing, this basically removes melee combat as a form of counterplay against shooting-centric lists. It keeps things like your bassilisks from having their big guns quieted by chargers.

* Form Firing Squad!: Bit worried about this one. Sniper lascannon teams and melta squads seem like a bad time. For comparison, drukhari can do this with a single model's guns for 2CP. And it's limited to the least shooty subfaction in the codex.

* Heirloom Weapons: Seems pretty weak compared to the others. The entirety of this trait feels weaker than any one of the three distinct benefits of Industrial Efficiency.

* Iron Discipline: Might want to make it not stack with Draconian Disciplinarian(?). Having two stacking 4+ rolls to ignore failed combat attrition tests after failing a rerolled morale test feels like a lot of dice rolling to basically say, "You're immune to morale."

Think I'm hitting my reading limit for now. I might keep reading and offer more feedback later.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some more feedback:

* I like dozer blades allowing vehicles to benefit from the breachable keyword. Good stuff.

* Regimental Standards: Ah. There's a third stackable way to ignore failed combat attrition tests on a 4+, I see.

* Summary Execution: Confirming. This rule only allows you to keep a single unit from running each turn, right? There's a RAW interpretation that it works for any number of units, but only impacts a given unit the first time that specific unit fails a morale test. But given that units don't normally take multiple morale tests, I assume the intent is that you can only use the rule on a single unit each turn.

Also, how worried are we that autopassing morale with conscripts or infantry blobs turns them into a stat checking horde problem again? Losing an average of 2 conscripts to autopass morale is kind of a non-cost.

* I Am Assuming Command: Feels kind of unearned to me. It doesn't seem like IG should be especially good at this sort of thing. Or if they are, it seems weird that a commissar would be the one to take over instead of like, a platoon commander or something.

* I think I might hate the structure of the infantry platoon. I know it's a throwback to how it used to be, but I found it a clunky and kind of a problem (felt like it was an excuse to get extra heavy/elite slots) back then too.

But I'm probably missing the appeal. What are the advantages/selling points of lumping multiple units together like this?

* Dig-In ability. Conceptually cool. Am I right in thinking that this would give guardsmen a 3+ save if they dig in on terrain though? Even if not, it's functionally the same as a 3+ save against any weapon with AP-1 or better. Which seems like a bit much at guardsmens' current price tag.

What do you think of changing this to an action performed in the shooting phase that grants them the benefits of light cover and the ability to overwatch for free until they move/fallback/advance/charge? So you'd have the ability to move them onto an objective and dig in in the same turn. You wouldn't have to worry about functionally giving a 3+ save to a dirt cheap model. You'd get a little extra benefit (free overwatch) for the rest of the game until you give it up by moving. And then make a stratagem that lets you say some of your infantry units have already dug in prior to the start of the game.

* Conscripts: Going back to (almost) autopassing orders and giving commissars the ability to make them pseudo-fearless brings back all the old problems they had in their hay day. I know power creep has occurred since then, but how confident are you that bringing back fearless conscripts with FRFSRF is good for the game?

* Ad-Mech Liaison: I'm reluctant to open up so many options from a different book for them. They're attached to an IG regiment, presumably largely out of touch with the lines of supply and access to priests of various disciplines that make forgeworld traits work. Plus, subfaction traits are generally useful for helping to distinguish units/armies from each other. The enginseer in an IG detachment is already unique by virtue of being one of a handful of other cogboys in an otherwise largely unaugmented force. Giving them access to a bunch of options from another book makes them harder to balance while also kind of being a hat on a hat.

* Servitors: Ditto the above. At that point, you should probably just be taking an allied detachment.

* Devildog: Does the meltacannon need the buff? I feel like the recent buffs to multimeltas make it a more desirable option purely by virtue of its sponson options.

* Deathstrike: Hmm. Not sure how I feel about this. Are you keeping The Hour is Night?

On one hand, the current rules for this unit are pretty meh, so increasing its output seems like a decent move. On the other hand, it's kind of weird that an ICBM's damage can be shrugged by a storm shield or holoprojector.

I don't know. This is a tough unit to represent and balance. I *think* like the changes as it means you'll do more damage on average versus big targets. So it becomes sort of an anti-superheavy choice.

Also, and I know you're mimicking the current rules, but would it make more sense to resolve the splahs damage *before* the primary damage? So that you don't shrink the target unit's footprint thus reducing your area of effect (or even make it do no splash damage at all if you wipe out your target).

* Heavy weapon platoon: As with the infantry platoon, I'm not sure what the advantage is to doing it this way. I'm more okay with it here though as it doesn't come with awkward platoon commander baggage.


I can tell lots of time and thought went into this. Thanks for sharing your efforts.

* Implacable Determination seems really weak compared to the other warlord traits. If I want to get into melee, I'm probably better off taking Fiery Denouncer. Its only use seems to be making charge rolls out of reserves slightly easier, but then it's competing with Master of Command.

It can offer some mobility with the massive nerf to Move! Move! Move! Currently guardsmen with that order can go anywhere from 14 - 24 inches. So this can be good for something like a cavalry officer to get some extra distance, or for guardsmen to get onto objectives.

* Unflinching Resolve: What is your company commander or commissar doing to make my lascannons hurt your tanks less? Bit of fluff/crunch dissonance there for me.

This one is my mistake, this is the old Emperors Fist Tank Company warlord trait. So it should only be accessible to Vehicle characters. I'll edit that when I can.

* Swift Attacker: That's quite the game changer. Fluffy, and appropriate for Tallarn, but maybe a bit too good? Unless your opponent is good at tripointing, this basically removes melee combat as a form of counterplay against shooting-centric lists. It keeps things like your bassilisks from having their big guns quieted by chargers.

I might change this to Tallarn Infantry units.

* Form Firing Squad!: Bit worried about this one. Sniper lascannon teams and melta squads seem like a bad time. For comparison, drukhari can do this with a single model's guns for 2CP. And it's limited to the least shooty subfaction in the codex.

It can already be lasguns, bolters, and plasma guns in the current rules. You can already order a command squad with 4 BS3+ plasma guns to target characters. Is 3 BS4+ lascannons really that bad?

* Heirloom Weapons: Seems pretty weak compared to the others. The entirety of this trait feels weaker than any one of the three distinct benefits of Industrial Efficiency.

Perhaps, but I think Vostroyan still have the better stratagem with the +1 to Hit for 1 CP. Not every doctrine has to be better. Industrial Efficiency only has 2 benefits, the 3rd part just clarifies that it stacks with an order. Which is an opportunity cost in itself. You're losing out on using a different order, and you run the risk of the enemy simply choosing a different target entirely.

* Iron Discipline: Might want to make it not stack with Draconian Disciplinarian(?). Having two stacking 4+ rolls to ignore failed combat attrition tests after failing a rerolled morale test feels like a lot of dice rolling to basically say, "You're immune to morale."

I wasn't aware they did stack? Is that how this rule interaction works? Wouldn't you just choose 1 source of 4+ Does Not Flee and if it fails they still run?

* Regimental Standards: Ah. There's a third stackable way to ignore failed combat attrition tests on a 4+, I see.

Yay, I may change this one. Maybe I could go back to the old +1 attack, but then I was worried that something like Catachans would have 4 attacks with stacking buffs from Straken, a Priest, and a Standard.

I was also thinking of making some relic standards. That offer alternative abilities.

* Summary Execution: Confirming. This rule only allows you to keep a single unit from running each turn, right? There's a RAW interpretation that it works for any number of units, but only impacts a given unit the first time that specific unit fails a morale test. But given that units don't normally take multiple morale tests, I assume the intent is that you can only use the rule on a single unit each turn.

Also, how worried are we that autopassing morale with conscripts or infantry blobs turns them into a stat checking horde problem again? Losing an average of 2 conscripts to autopass morale is kind of a non-cost.

It applies to every unit in the aura. I did also increase the Commissars cost. I personally don't believe infantry hordes are an issue anymore. We saw players like Mordian Glory bring 260 infantry to a tournament and didn't come any places. You have to remember that an Infantry Squad with First Rank will only end up killing 1.5 MEQ's. 30 Conscripts with First Rank only kill 3 MEQ's thanks to BS5+.

* I Am Assuming Command: Feels kind of unearned to me. It doesn't seem like IG should be especially good at this sort of thing. Or if they are, it seems weird that a commissar would be the one to take over instead of like, a platoon commander or something.

This is actually very fluffy for single battles. If the commanding officer is killed then in the heat of the battle the commissar would take command, after which when the dust settles then a suitable replacement would be found in the rank and file. The most senior Lt would be promoted to Captain.

* I think I might hate the structure of the infantry platoon. I know it's a throwback to how it used to be, but I found it a clunky and kind of a problem (felt like it was an excuse to get extra heavy/elite slots) back then too.

But I'm probably missing the appeal. What are the advantages/selling points of lumping multiple units together like this?

For an army like Guard, the removal of platoons in 8th was necessary to fill out multiple detachments to get CP. Now with 9th it's the complete opposite, you want to maximise CP by taking as little detachments as possible. Bringing back platoons allows up to 18 infantry squads in a single battalion, saving a lot of CP from having to take those extra detachments and saving points from avoiding additional HQ tax. Though you do have the platoon commander tax to get those platoons.

* Dig-In ability. Conceptually cool. Am I right in thinking that this would give guardsmen a 3+ save if they dig in on terrain though? Even if not, it's functionally the same as a 3+ save against any weapon with AP-1 or better. Which seems like a bit much at guardsmens' current price tag.

What do you think of changing this to an action performed in the shooting phase that grants them the benefits of light cover and the ability to overwatch for free until they move/fallback/advance/charge? So you'd have the ability to move them onto an objective and dig in in the same turn. You wouldn't have to worry about functionally giving a 3+ save to a dirt cheap model. You'd get a little extra benefit (free overwatch) for the rest of the game until you give it up by moving. And then make a stratagem that lets you say some of your infantry units have already dug in prior to the start of the game.

Dig in is purely for heavy weapon squads. A unit that is almost never seen in anything but mortars, why? Because they die to a stiff breeze and mortars can hide behind obscuring. That potential 3+ save in cover gives them some durability to at least stand up basic range weapons.

* Conscripts: Going back to (almost) autopassing orders and giving commissars the ability to make them pseudo-fearless brings back all the old problems they had in their hay day. I know power creep has occurred since then, but how confident are you that bringing back fearless conscripts with FRFSRF is good for the game?

You have to remember that Conscripts are 5 points still, and something like a Skitarii Ranger/Vanguard is 8. I mentioned above how little lasguns would kill even with First Rank. I don't see it as a huge issue.

* Ad-Mech Liaison: I'm reluctant to open up so many options from a different book for them. They're attached to an IG regiment, presumably largely out of touch with the lines of supply and access to priests of various disciplines that make forgeworld traits work. Plus, subfaction traits are generally useful for helping to distinguish units/armies from each other. The enginseer in an IG detachment is already unique by virtue of being one of a handful of other cogboys in an otherwise largely unaugmented force. Giving them access to a bunch of options from another book makes them harder to balance while also kind of being a hat on a hat.

* Servitors: Ditto the above. At that point, you should probably just be taking an allied detachment.

You might be right. I did write this before the new Ad-Mech codex was released. So we might even see Tech Priests removed entirely. Which might be fine seeing as I've given us 3 other sources of vehicle repairs.

* Devildog: Does the meltacannon need the buff? I feel like the recent buffs to multimeltas make it a more desirable option purely by virtue of its sponson options.

Hellhound type vehicles don't have any sponsons. Devildogs as well as Banewolfs are also the least taken options.

* Deathstrike: Hmm. Not sure how I feel about this. Are you keeping The Hour is Night?

On one hand, the current rules for this unit are pretty meh, so increasing its output seems like a decent move. On the other hand, it's kind of weird that an ICBM's damage can be shrugged by a storm shield or holoprojector.

I don't know. This is a tough unit to represent and balance. I *think* like the changes as it means you'll do more damage on average versus big targets. So it becomes sort of an anti-superheavy choice.

Also, and I know you're mimicking the current rules, but would it make more sense to resolve the splahs damage *before* the primary damage? So that you don't shrink the target unit's footprint thus reducing your area of effect (or even make it do no splash damage at all if you wipe out your target).

It still has The Hour is Nigh. I just wanted to give it some power when it actually hits. I definitely will need to tweak the ability portion of the Death Strike missile.

It's such a hard unit to balance.

* Heavy weapon platoon: As with the infantry platoon, I'm not sure what the advantage is to doing it this way. I'm more okay with it here though as it doesn't come with awkward platoon commander baggage.

The advantage is being able to take 3 units in a single Heavy Support slot. Meaning you can save CP from having to take another detachment for more Heavy Support options. Alternatively if you want to play pure infantry Guard you can now take 9 Heavy Weapon Squads in your Heavy Support slots alone.

Thanks very much, I really appreciate you reading and taking the time to comment.

Jarms48 wrote:

* Implacable Determination seems really weak compared to the other warlord traits. If I want to get into melee, I'm probably better off taking Fiery Denouncer. Its only use seems to be making charge rolls out of reserves slightly easier, but then it's competing with Master of Command.

It can offer some mobility with the massive nerf to Move! Move! Move! Currently guardsmen with that order can go anywhere from 14 - 24 inches. So this can be good for something like a cavalry officer to get some extra distance, or for guardsmen to get onto objectives.

As a guy who mostly plays eldar, I haven't found movement 7" compared to movement 6" to be very impactful. You do you. I just feel like this is likely to be one of the less popular options.

* Form Firing Squad!: Bit worried about this one. Sniper lascannon teams and melta squads seem like a bad time. For comparison, drukhari can do this with a single model's guns for 2CP. And it's limited to the least shooty subfaction in the codex.

It can already be lasguns, bolters, and plasma guns in the current rules. You can already order a command squad with 4 BS3+ plasma guns to target characters. Is 3 BS4+ lascannons really that bad?

Yeah. I think so. :S Something like lascannons doesn't have to get danger close to get full effectiveness like plasma guns do. Additionally, a trio of lascannons rolls fewer dice and thus has a weaker bell curve; they're more likely to damage spike especially after you factor in CP rerolls. Lasguns and bolters are relatively non-threatening to most characters. Again, compared to drukhari you're getting about 10CP worth of value out of this over the course of a 5 turn game. You're also letting heavy weapon teams take multimeltas, so there's that consideration too. Might be worth playtesting before changing. I feel like I could build a list around this if I wanted to and give my opponent a really frustrating time.

* Iron Discipline: Might want to make it not stack with Draconian Disciplinarian(?). Having two stacking 4+ rolls to ignore failed combat attrition tests after failing a rerolled morale test feels like a lot of dice rolling to basically say, "You're immune to morale."

I wasn't aware they did stack? Is that how this rule interaction works? Wouldn't you just choose 1 source of 4+ Does Not Flee and if it fails they still run?

As far as I'm aware, they would stack. It's not a "save" that explicitly tells you to take your favorite of several rules. It's just several special rules that happen to share a trigger and effect.

* Regimental Standards: Ah. There's a third stackable way to ignore failed combat attrition tests on a 4+, I see.

Yay, I may change this one. Maybe I could go back to the old +1 attack, but then I was worried that something like Catachans would have 4 attacks with stacking buffs from Straken, a Priest, and a Standard.

I'm not sure that would be so bad. Compare 4 attack catachans to drukhari wyches. They'd be cheaper, sure, but the wyches would have several advantages for those different points. Plus, melee infantry guard sounds kind of neat.

* Summary Execution: Confirming. This rule only allows you to keep a single unit from running each turn, right? There's a RAW interpretation that it works for any number of units, but only impacts a given unit the first time that specific unit fails a morale test. But given that units don't normally take multiple morale tests, I assume the intent is that you can only use the rule on a single unit each turn.

Also, how worried are we that autopassing morale with conscripts or infantry blobs turns them into a stat checking horde problem again? Losing an average of 2 conscripts to autopass morale is kind of a non-cost.

It applies to every unit in the aura. I did also increase the Commissars cost. I personally don't believe infantry hordes are an issue anymore. We saw players like Mordian Glory bring 260 infantry to a tournament and didn't come any places. You have to remember that an Infantry Squad with First Rank will only end up killing 1.5 MEQ's. 30 Conscripts with First Rank only kill 3 MEQ's thanks to BS5+.

Good points. Hadn't crunched the numbers. Still, throwing piles of cheap, fearless bodies onto an objective raises a red flag for me. Although counterpoint: poxwalkers.

* I Am Assuming Command: Feels kind of unearned to me. It doesn't seem like IG should be especially good at this sort of thing. Or if they are, it seems weird that a commissar would be the one to take over instead of like, a platoon commander or something.

This is actually very fluffy for single battles. If the commanding officer is killed then in the heat of the battle the commissar would take command, after which when the dust settles then a suitable replacement would be found in the rank and file. The most senior Lt would be promoted to Captain.

Fair enough.

* I think I might hate the structure of the infantry platoon. I know it's a throwback to how it used to be, but I found it a clunky and kind of a problem (felt like it was an excuse to get extra heavy/elite slots) back then too.

But I'm probably missing the appeal. What are the advantages/selling points of lumping multiple units together like this?

For an army like Guard, the removal of platoons in 8th was necessary to fill out multiple detachments to get CP. Now with 9th it's the complete opposite, you want to maximise CP by taking as little detachments as possible. Bringing back platoons allows up to 18 infantry squads in a single battalion, saving a lot of CP from having to take those extra detachments and saving points from avoiding additional HQ tax. Though you do have the platoon commander tax to get those platoons.

I guess I'm questioning whether getting to bypass the limitations created by detachments (when no one else really can) is a good thing. Even though I found platoons clunky in 5th, it made sense from the perspective that you had a single force org that would quickly run out of space. Nowadays, you can just take an additional detachment (at a cost). Like, if MSU hormagaunt spam turns out to be really powerful in the next 'nid 'dex, are we going to be okay with 'nids also getting a special rule that lets them spam even harder?

I'm not sold on it. Seems a little unwieldy for the sake of letting guard stuff more units into a detachment than other armies can, and I'm not sure that's an inherently good feature. But it also doesn't seem likely to be a gamebreaking thing, so you do you.

Dig in is purely for heavy weapon squads. A unit that is almost never seen in anything but mortars, why? Because they die to a stiff breeze and mortars can hide behind obscuring. That potential 3+ save in cover gives them some durability to at least stand up basic range weapons.

Ah. I missed that it was for heavy weapon teams only. That's perfectly reasonable.

* Conscripts: Going back to (almost) autopassing orders and giving commissars the ability to make them pseudo-fearless brings back all the old problems they had in their hay day. I know power creep has occurred since then, but how confident are you that bringing back fearless conscripts with FRFSRF is good for the game?

You have to remember that Conscripts are 5 points still, and something like a Skitarii Ranger/Vanguard is 8. I mentioned above how little lasguns would kill even with First Rank. I don't see it as a huge issue.

Again, you make good points. I'm very much not a fan of using Skitarii rangers as the measure for what a unit should be like, but your point stands.

You might be right. I did write this before the new Ad-Mech codex was released. So we might even see Tech Priests removed entirely. Which might be fine seeing as I've given us 3 other sources of vehicle repairs.

Honestly, I kind of like where enginseers are as-is. They're simple enough to not be clunky, and unusual enough to splash some flavor into the army; kind of like abhumans and psykers.

Hellhound type vehicles don't have any sponsons. Devildogs as well as Banewolfs are also the least taken options.

My bad. They just have the one forward-mounted multimelta slot. Fair enough. I'm fine with your Banewolf changes; I was specifically looking at devildogs. I was thinking this would turn them into an immolator with even more melta. XD

The advantage is being able to take 3 units in a single Heavy Support slot. Meaning you can save CP from having to take another detachment for more Heavy Support options. Alternatively if you want to play pure infantry Guard you can now take 9 Heavy Weapon Squads in your Heavy Support slots alone.

Yeah. I think I'm onboard with that. Similar to being able to stick multiple russes into one force org slot. I may be biased because heavy weapon teams have an inoffensive blend of moderate firepower and low defense that I find makes them enjoyable to face.

Thanks very much, I really appreciate you reading and taking the time to comment.

Sure thing! Hope I haven't come across as too much of a downer.

As a guy who mostly plays eldar, I haven't found movement 7" compared to movement 6" to be very impactful. You do you. I just feel like this is likely to be one of the less popular options.

You might be right, but combined with something like the nerfed Move! Move! Move! it still does mean infantry squads could still move 14 inches. Which still gives them pretty respectable mobility, but still not as insane as what they can do currently. Alternatively they could do something like Forwards for the Emperor! Which means they'd be able to move at least 8 inch + whatever you roll for the advance, then can still fire their weapons.

So there are definitely some situations where it'd be useful, but you might be right. It might not be as impactful as other traits.

Yeah. I think so. :S Something like lascannons doesn't have to get danger close to get full effectiveness like plasma guns do. Additionally, a trio of lascannons rolls fewer dice and thus has a weaker bell curve; they're more likely to damage spike especially after you factor in CP rerolls. Lasguns and bolters are relatively non-threatening to most characters. Again, compared to drukhari you're getting about 10CP worth of value out of this over the course of a 5 turn game. You're also letting heavy weapon teams take multimeltas, so there's that consideration too. Might be worth playtesting before changing. I feel like I could build a list around this if I wanted to and give my opponent a really frustrating time.

Those 4 plasma guns can be pretty scary currently. In rapid fire range that's 8 shots, with a potential of 16 damage, and can even be at AP-4 with 1 CP. Alternatively you could even give it to a Veteran Squad which is slightly less plasma (3 plasma guns) but you can get 6 AP-1 lasguns on top of that.

You might be right with multi-meltas, but you have to remember to get that 4+ (3+ in cover) save those Heavy Weapon Squads have to remain stationary. That means you only have 24 inch range. So those characters either have to come to you, or you have to move towards them which gives you a -1 to Hit and loses your save bonus. In perfect conditions though you'll hit with 3 on average, wound with 2, and do anywhere from 7 damage outside of half range or 11 damage in half range. Assuming the enemy doesn't have an invul or FNP.

I might remove heavy weapons from the list, but I'll leave assault weapons.

As far as I'm aware, they would stack. It's not a "save" that explicitly tells you to take your favorite of several rules. It's just several special rules that happen to share a trigger and effect.

I'm not sure that would be so bad. Compare 4 attack catachans to drukhari wyches. They'd be cheaper, sure, but the wyches would have several advantages for those different points. Plus, melee infantry guard sounds kind of neat.

I removed 1 source of 4+ does not flee by changing the standard to +1 attack and +1 leadership.

Good points. Hadn't crunched the numbers. Still, throwing piles of cheap, fearless bodies onto an objective raises a red flag for me. Although counterpoint: poxwalkers.

I do think conscripts might still be a bit easier to remove than poxwalkers. Especially against blast.

I guess I'm questioning whether getting to bypass the limitations created by detachments (when no one else really can) is a good thing. Even though I found platoons clunky in 5th, it made sense from the perspective that you had a single force org that would quickly run out of space. Nowadays, you can just take an additional detachment (at a cost). Like, if MSU hormagaunt spam turns out to be really powerful in the next 'nid 'dex, are we going to be okay with 'nids also getting a special rule that lets them spam even harder?

I'm not sold on it. Seems a little unwieldy for the sake of letting guard stuff more units into a detachment than other armies can, and I'm not sure that's an inherently good feature. But it also doesn't seem likely to be a gamebreaking thing, so you do you.

The Infantry Platoon was a staple of the Guard ever since they were a faction in 40k. It was always used as a way to represent how Guardsmen were individually weaker than everyone elses standard troops but made up with that in numbers.

Honestly, I kind of like where enginseers are as-is. They're simple enough to not be clunky, and unusual enough to splash some flavor into the army; kind of like abhumans and psykers.

That's fair enough. They do need something though. They're just not worth it currently.

My bad. They just have the one forward-mounted multimelta slot. Fair enough. I'm fine with your Banewolf changes; I was specifically looking at devildogs. I was thinking this would turn them into an immolator with even more melta. XD

This is fair, maybe they should be slightly more expensive. I do think making it a flat 3 shots makes it more reliable and more interesting though.

Sure thing! Hope I haven't come across as too much of a downer.

Nah, you're all good. I appreciate the comments.

What's the purpose of model/unit definitions? Couldn't you just use Keywords for this?

9e has taken the sensible step of approaching weapon definitions with "anything that has bolt/las/flame in the name, plus-", which might save you some time.

Bring It Down! seems very strong, especially on something like Tempestus Scions. I don't think this is a massively underused order as it stands, is it? It's just not usually as good as FRFSRF or MMM, because very little is.

You need to lay out how you want Voice of Command to actually work, because right now I just have to guess. Is it still in the Shooting phase, in which case Move! Move! Move! now does nothing? Or is it in the Command phase, and I can't use it the turn I disembark? Are all orders available to all officers of that type, in which case AM officers suddenly got even more flexible as buffers?

I like general Armoured Orders, just because I love Sentinels and Hellhounds and would like to see a Commander for both/either.

I don't like the strict "you must build a dogma this way" approach on AdMech, but that's mainly because the framing there doesn't make a huge amount of sense. I would quite like to see Astra Militarum Custom Regimental Doctrines split into a mandatory INFANTRY-focused and VEHICLE-focused Doctrine, because that's how the actual Regiments work.

What's the purpose of model/unit definitions? Couldn't you just use Keywords for this?

9e has taken the sensible step of approaching weapon definitions with "anything that has bolt/las/flame in the name, plus-", which might save you some time.

I wrote it in that way to make it easier to understand. Rather than adding the keywords to each datasheet which could easily be missed.

Bring It Down! seems very strong, especially on something like Tempestus Scions. I don't think this is a massively underused order as it stands, is it? It's just not usually as good as FRFSRF or MMM, because very little is.

I changed Bring It Down! because it's mathematically the same as Take Aim! this makes it situationally better.

You need to lay out how you want Voice of Command to actually work, because right now I just have to guess. Is it still in the Shooting phase, in which case Move! Move! Move! now does nothing? Or is it in the Command phase, and I can't use it the turn I disembark? Are all orders available to all officers of that type, in which case AM officers suddenly got even more flexible as buffers?

You are right. I haven't ironed that part out yet. I think it might need to all be done in the command phase. Which is a bit of a nerf. Though I might create a stratagem that allows an out of phase order.

I like general Armoured Orders, just because I love Sentinels and Hellhounds and would like to see a Commander for both/either.

Yeah, it seems strange that only leman russes get all the fun.

I don't like the strict "you must build a dogma this way" approach on AdMech, but that's mainly because the framing there doesn't make a huge amount of sense. I would quite like to see Astra Militarum Custom Regimental Doctrines split into a mandatory INFANTRY-focused and VEHICLE-focused Doctrine, because that's how the actual Regiments work.

Did you find the link to the sister document? I can share it here if that's easier. That's exactly how I did it.

Jarms48 wrote:

I changed Bring It Down! because it's mathematically the same as Take Aim! this makes it situationally better.

In what situations is it mechanically worse, now?

RevlidRas wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:

I changed Bring It Down! because it's mathematically the same as Take Aim! this makes it situationally better.

In what situations is it mechanically worse, now?

- Take Aim!: Re-roll hit rolls of 1 for all the models in the ordered unit until the end of the phase.
- Bring it Down!: Re-roll wound rolls of 1 for all the models in the ordered unit until the end of the phase.

Statistically they are the same. There's no difference between using one or the other mathematically. Except, re-rolling to hit is typically superior because Guard have more abilities that trigger off hit rolls. For example:
- Avoiding Gets Hot on plasma weapons. Which we have a ton of.
- Scions have many exploding 6's to Hit abilities.

Rerolling 1's to wound is only really beneficial for sniper rifles, which nobody takes anyway.

So changing Bring it Down! to +1 to Wound against Vehicles/Monsters makes sense. As it's at least situationally better than always using Take Aim!.

Astra Militarum WL traits are too good, you're never not going to take 3 of them (or 2+ Tank Ace). Grand Strategist giving D3+1 CP for 1CP is not even remotely fair.

I like the vox-caster range increase. Love the M!M!M! nerf, I just find it so silly that one of the core strengths of IG is their Commanders ordering Infantry Squads to move at supersonic speeds. Suppressing Fire needs more text and I have a hard time seeing it ever get used. FRF!SRF! would probably be too good with full re-rolls from Abbadon.

Terrifying Visions isn't fun and it's still not good at WC 6. It might be okay at WC 4, but it's still not fun and doesn't fit with what IG want to do as a battle plan. Adding a slowing effect would make it more fun for the IG player and synergies with the battle plan. Something like halving advance and charge rolls.

Mental Fortitude is fitting, but morale is probably too low impact to be worth casting a spell to prevent one specific unit from suffering. Making it a an Aura might make it better.

Gaze of the Emperor is also bad and doesn't help you do anything really. Have it target one unit, do a little bit of damage and remove cover, something that would actually make an IG player feel good when it goes off, like the -1 to hit and +1 Sv powers which feel good because they help your squishy units stay alive or make your tanky units unkillable.

Speaking of Psychic Barrier, there is no way it's going to give a 3+ invul in the future unless the writer is asleep on the job.