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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are my thoughts, what are yours?

Platoons are not, never will be, and never have been an answer to anything outside of "how do we game the FOC system?".

The issue is none of these actually fix the problem with guard, because guards problem dont stem from balance, or point cost, it stems form issues with the core of the rules of 8/9th.

Guards Gimmick has always been, armor, and utilizing blast weapons/spam weapons, both of which suck in 8th and 9th.
Guards tanks for example are worthless because of the removal of armor value, and the sheer volume of AP multi wound and how quickly guard profiles turn into worthlessness. When your trying to live on a T7 and even T8 and a 2+ in this edtions, that means nothing, so one of guards biggest strengths is negative by pretty much everything.
The other major issue is guard go all their strength from blast weapons, and no matter what rules you write, you can still roll a 1 with number of hits with a blast, and no matter what, it feels really bad, when you get 2 hits on a weapon that does 2d6 hits. Yes they ahve the blast rule, but its not nearly enough. In the world of scatter this was not as much of an issue as is now. Since before you would position your blast to take out the most number of models, and you off the bat had a 33% chance to score a hit with no scatter, then if you did scatter, would statistically average scatter only 4 inches, and everything under it still automatically got hit.


The two things to fix would be armor and blast and it would bring guard much better in line with where they should be.
- Armor needs to be buffed, guard and arguably pretty much all vehicles, need to have a built in rule where they ignore the AP of weapons whos Strength is not equal or greater then their toughness. or reduce it by half rounding down. GW tried to fix this by making the russ a 2+ but it still did not make them viable.
-Blast needs to be buffed more. The current blast rule was a step in the right direction but its still not enough. Blast weapons overall just need to be reworked some way to give more consistent hits. When you are guard and you spend all those points on basalisks and they roll 1s and 2s for number of hits no matter if you hit all of them, your not making your points back. I cant offer a good solution to this one because its a harder problem to fix. Something like, rolls of 1 and 2 are always doubled so that at worse you can do 4 hit if its a 2d6 weapon. Something to give them more consistency.

The problem with Guard stems from an extremely simple core issue:
They are trying to fit an entire combined arms force into one keyword and FOC while blathering on in the lore about how that's not how supposed to be how it works.

There's a secondary problem in that everyone seems to think the Valhallan or Krieg model of "expendable waves" is the default option for Guard...which is just a big ol' "NOPE".

You want to fix Guard?

Three simple steps:
-Pick your Army Type prior to writing the list. Set up a specific series of "archetypes". And no, "armoured/infantry/airborne" is not the right way to do it. The idea is to establish if it is an army composed of elements from a single world or a combined worlds army and go from there.
-Stop dicking around with "one size fits all" infantry squads. It has not nor ever should have been allowed after the introduction of aesthetics that very solidly set up a look which should have been affecting rules--as the Doctrines system actually set up.
-Conscripts get Auxilia keyword, stratagems required to give them Regimental status.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The problem with Guard stems from an extremely simple core issue:
They are trying to fit an entire combined arms force into one keyword and FOC while blathering on in the lore about how that's not how supposed to be how it works.

There's a secondary problem in that everyone seems to think the Valhallan or Krieg model of "expendable waves" is the default option for Guard...which is just a big ol' "NOPE".

You want to fix Guard?

Three simple steps:
-Pick your Army Type prior to writing the list. Set up a specific series of "archetypes". And no, "armoured/infantry/airborne" is not the right way to do it. The idea is to establish if it is an army composed of elements from a single world or a combined worlds army and go from there.
-Stop dicking around with "one size fits all" infantry squads. It has not nor ever should have been allowed after the introduction of aesthetics that very solidly set up a look which should have been affecting rules--as the Doctrines system actually set up.
-Conscripts get Auxilia keyword, stratagems required to give them Regimental status.

Unfortunately, none of these actually 'fix' guard. They're just variations on which units you pick in your army. Yes we need some kind of differentiation, just like marines have chapters, Tau have Septs, DE have covens, etc., but again, those don't 'fix' the army.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

1. Platoons!
2. Veterans.
3. Cheaper is better.
4. Order of Battle.
5. Vehicle Orders.
6. Endless Wave.

These are my thoughts, what are yours?

As I see it, there are a couple glaring issues staring us in the face
1- our output is for 8th edition, which is half (or less!) that of modern units, point-for-point
2- Our units don't have durability. With all the AP, and S5 wounding our T8 tanks on 5s, it doesn't take much to take down a LRBT
3- Our units give up too many VPs for their lack of output and lack of durability. Glass cannons are fine (it works for DE), but we can't trade our 1VP unit for a .5 VP unit.

Worst of all, in some cases 1&2 means we're down by a factor of 2-6x unit-for-unit. A squad of kroot carnivores (60 points) kills more guardsmen than a squad of guardsmen kill of kroot, while Kroot are far better in melee, and have a pre-game move. While it doesn't look like much on paper, a unit of 10xKroot between shooting and melee will pick up a squad of guardsmen with no buffs, but that squad of guardsmen can only kill ~5 kroot between melee and shooting. Again, down by half point-for-point.

I can't agree with the Endless Wave. We already give up too many VPs for our units, and this is just feeding the opponent more VPs. The units we have out there just need to be able to do their job, which they can't do because of the lack of firepower, lack of durability, and lack of orders.

I agree with the Platoons, not just for infantry, but for almost all units (LRBTs, hellhounds, arty, etc). It's not a 'fix', it's flexibility. The LT or Squadron leader provides orders and re-rolls of 1s to wound, which is HUGE. It's more orders where they need to be, and a buff to shooting and also an indirect buff to durability. Then we can have Veteran platoons and Scion platoons, without having to take separate detachments (saving CP), or sucking up valuable elite slots.

This allows us to split troops into 2(ish) groups - an 'assault' platoon with squads with special weapons designed to move up onto objectives early game, and 'fire support' platoons which have more heavy weapons to screen the backfield and provide covering fire to nearby objectives. Especially with mortars, you can cover the objectives in NML while being out of sight. LRBTs can also be split this way, with BCs and Vanquishers being 'fire support' and DCs/Punishers being 'assault' platoons. This leaves infantry to screen and kill other infantry, and tanks & HWTs to take out the big guys, and not just rely on 3-4 TCs to kill EVERYTHING.

Totally agree on more tank orders. Take Aim! and BID! could easily be tank orders, and a replacement for Markerlights and the Cadian 'Overlapping fields of fire'. Jarms48 has a great idea where tanks get 'Back Pedal', allowing a tank to fall back and shoot. If our melee doesn't get buffed, we need this capability sooooooo badly.

Personally, I'm in agreement on 'cheaper' units, but more as a way of getting around the VPs we give up. I'd love to see Chimeras, hellhounds, basilisks, etc. drop to 9 wounds so they are less cost and only 1VP each, and then they don't need to buffed as much. Then I'd buff LRBTs to 14W (agreed that the 2+ wasn't enough), and give tanks -1 To Wound when S<T. This makes tanks a lot more durable vs small arms, and makes most anti-tank weapons need that extra hit, and worth the 2VPs it gives up.

There's a lot of variation on the 'Order of Battle', I think the Necron protocols are a little outdated, but we do need something along the lines of an army-wide buff. Most folks (including myself) have split those between 'Regiment' traits (which includes regiment-specific orders) and 'Guard Doctrine'. Your idea does have a lot of merit, but I think the specifics you mentioned that's what the Orders are supposed to provide. The warlord directs the battle, the platoon commanders direct their troops. I think the LT is easy, the question is how to let the Warlord direct the battle.

I think Guard doctrine is simple: kill them with artillery, kill the next group with heavy weapons, finish what's left with the infantry. I've broken those up like this: Arty gets a bonus -1AP at 18"+ (covering the back 1/3rd of the board), Heavy Weapons (including infantry mortars) get -1AP from 9-24", and RF/Assault weapons get AP-1 within 12". This does 2 things: it makes weapons more effective at certain ranges, but also creates 'bands' of lethality boosts, which are right around the Objectives markers. Good commanders can use those band to focus fire to take and hold objectives, or the enemy units just behind those objectives.
>

I think the key to making Guard better on the table is make the rules encourage you to put the Guard in the background on the table.

Take the Infantry Squad for example. What do you see on the table?

10 models with no upgrades.

That is wrong. I want to see at least a special weapon if not also a heavy weapon team in every squad. I want to see some special weapons squads sprinkled in for additional firepower. I want to see Heavy Weapons Squads laying down the heavy firepower. I want to see some Chimeras providing mobility and fire support. But for this to work, the rules need to support it.

What could those be?

Orders rules that don't encourage you to use FRFSRF (or just eliminate that order entirely) and are aura-like as in the two Balance Dataslates

Platoon Commander rules that don't make him a worst Company Commander

Free or cheap special and heavy weapons

LOS for Special Weapon & Heavy Weapons Squads near Infantry Squads

Chimera with points values that don't break the bank

No Detachment cost rules for matching up the units, such as "If your detachment includes 2 or more Infantry Squads, you may include 1 Special Weapon Squad and 1 Heavy Weapon Squad without using a detachment slot"

That can help improve the Infantry side of the Codex. Then we can get to work on the support vehicles, tanks, and artillery.

Some fun ideas there, but probably not the way I'd go.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

1. Platoons!

I get the nostalgia factor, but platoons always struck me as a clunky bandaid on the FOC's problems. The FOC really doesn't make sense for most non-marine armies, and the guards' need for more unit slots is a good example of that. So rather than basically just letting guard get around the normal detachment rules, I'd probably rather see a fix for the problems presented by detachments/the FOC in general.

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

See above. Let's fix the problem at its source rather than requiring a bunch of factions come up with workarounds for it. That said, I would like veterans to get some love. Being troops again would be fine if force org roles must continue to be a thing. Giving them access to special rules and/or stratagems would also do the trick.

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

Is that not already the case? If I'm not mistaken, guard already have troops tied with gretchin and cultists for the cheapest models in the game. If anything, GW probably ought to make basic guardsmen a bit more expensive than cultists/gretchin and then up the cost of everything else in the game a bit to account for it. That aside, do you not feel that FRFSRF and such already accomplishes what you're describing?

4. Order of Battle. There should be something like many other armies have based on turns, like necrons command protocols.

Probably will be. Kind of wish GW would take these away from everyone rather than continue to hand them out. Most of the ones we already have tend to be kind of rules-bloaty and not especially fluffy. But yeah, I'd be surprised if guard don't get something along these line sin the new 'dex.

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

So basically just un-legends the forgeworld command vehicle option, yeah? Sounds good. I always thought that was a cool option.

6. Endless Wave. Alternatively, instead of an order of battle system and endless waves system could also be enacted.

Kind of wish GW would ditch doctrines and chapter tactics as customizable "slots" and instead allow you to pick from one of several army themes that dramatically changes how your army plays. So maybe guard would choose between the Endless Wave, Armored Company, Grizzled Vets, and whatever else themes and get a submechanic of roughly the complexity you're describing for whichever of those options they take. So something like:
Endless Wave = respawning units, especially cheap infantry.
Armored Company = obsec on vehicles who count as 10 models for scoring purposes and get a unique set of orders and vehicle upgrade wargear options.
Grizzled Vets = Give your guardsmen some genestealer cult-ish rules so that they feel like clever, tricksy, tactical Gaunt's Ghost types using their experience to stay alive and outmaneuver the enemy. And probably unlock some ye olde veteran style special rule/kit upgrades.

But my guess is that what guard actually get is probably going to look a lot like tau. Some raw power boosts on their better guns. Some raw power boosts to their orders. And probably a few too many subsystems as they try to shove war hymns, orders, a new doctrine equivalent mechanic, psychic powers, and whatever else into the same book.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Some fun ideas there, but probably not the way I'd go.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

1. Platoons!

I get the nostalgia factor, but platoons always struck me as a clunky bandaid on the FOC's problems. The FOC really doesn't make sense for most non-marine armies, and the guards' need for more unit slots is a good example of that. So rather than basically just letting guard get around the normal detachment rules, I'd probably rather see a fix for the problems presented by detachments/the FOC in general.

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

See above. Let's fix the problem at its source rather than requiring a bunch of factions come up with workarounds for it. That said, I would like veterans to get some love. Being troops again would be fine if force org roles must continue to be a thing. Giving them access to special rules and/or stratagems would also do the trick.

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

Is that not already the case? If I'm not mistaken, guard already have troops tied with gretchin and cultists for the cheapest models in the game. If anything, GW probably ought to make basic guardsmen a bit more expensive than cultists/gretchin and then up the cost of everything else in the game a bit to account for it. That aside, do you not feel that FRFSRF and such already accomplishes what you're describing?

4. Order of Battle. There should be something like many other armies have based on turns, like necrons command protocols.

Probably will be. Kind of wish GW would take these away from everyone rather than continue to hand them out. Most of the ones we already have tend to be kind of rules-bloaty and not especially fluffy. But yeah, I'd be surprised if guard don't get something along these line sin the new 'dex.

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

So basically just un-legends the forgeworld command vehicle option, yeah? Sounds good. I always thought that was a cool option.

6. Endless Wave. Alternatively, instead of an order of battle system and endless waves system could also be enacted.

Kind of wish GW would ditch doctrines and chapter tactics as customizable "slots" and instead allow you to pick from one of several army themes that dramatically changes how your army plays. So maybe guard would choose between the Endless Wave, Armored Company, Grizzled Vets, and whatever else themes and get a submechanic of roughly the complexity you're describing for whichever of those options they take. So something like:
Endless Wave = respawning units, especially cheap infantry.
Armored Company = obsec on vehicles who count as 10 models for scoring purposes and get a unique set of orders and vehicle upgrade wargear options.
Grizzled Vets = Give your guardsmen some genestealer cult-ish rules so that they feel like clever, tricksy, tactical Gaunt's Ghost types using their experience to stay alive and outmaneuver the enemy. And probably unlock some ye olde veteran style special rule/kit upgrades.

But my guess is that what guard actually get is probably going to look a lot like tau. Some raw power boosts on their better guns. Some raw power boosts to their orders. And probably a few too many subsystems as they try to shove war hymns, orders, a new doctrine equivalent mechanic, psychic powers, and whatever else into the same book.

I do quite like your idea of a "regiment specialization" which actually makes a lot of sense. Each detachment would have to be designated because Imperial Guard tend to be the XXth Artillery Regiment or the XXth Heavy Infantry and etc. I would even like it if these were also tied to detachments, (or special guard only detachments! Kinda like the realspace raid) ie a Spearhead detachment could be an artillery or tank regiment, which would give it a heavy bonus on shooting and such but also drastically reduce its ability to perform other roles like close combat, taking objectives, etc. We could still have an overarching Regiment rules for flavor but they can heavily favor one of the specific types of regiment specializations

 alextroy wrote:
Chimera with points values that don't break the bank

GW seems chronically allergic to people buying and using these. They decided they'd make them functional for one edition, well over 10 years ago, after making them literal deathtraps the edition prior, and then decided that they didn't want to sell any more again.

It has been multiple editions since I've seen someone put a Chimera on a table.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Chimera with points values that don't break the bank

GW seems chronically allergic to people buying and using these. They decided they'd make them functional for one edition, well over 10 years ago, after making them literal deathtraps the edition prior, and then decided that they didn't want to sell any more again.

It has been multiple editions since I've seen someone put a Chimera on a table.

honestly all transports should be a solid 20-30 points cheaper, they dont last long and the are often more expensive then the unit that they are transporting in the first place. They aren't giving off firepower like an immolator or razorback, why are we being charged like we do?

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Chimera with points values that don't break the bank

GW seems chronically allergic to people buying and using these. They decided they'd make them functional for one edition, well over 10 years ago, after making them literal deathtraps the edition prior, and then decided that they didn't want to sell any more again.

It has been multiple editions since I've seen someone put a Chimera on a table.

honestly all transports should be a solid 20-30 points cheaper, they dont last long and the are often more expensive then the unit that they are transporting in the first place. They aren't giving off firepower like an immolator or razorback, why are we being charged like we do?

How are you figuring Chimeras aren't putting out comparable firepower to Razorbacks? Or cost anywhere near a Razorback?
Or are you really complaining that they don't have the raw AT potential of the LC-Razorback because you want to use the wrong tool for AT work?

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Chimera with points values that don't break the bank

GW seems chronically allergic to people buying and using these. They decided they'd make them functional for one edition, well over 10 years ago, after making them literal deathtraps the edition prior, and then decided that they didn't want to sell any more again.

It has been multiple editions since I've seen someone put a Chimera on a table.

honestly all transports should be a solid 20-30 points cheaper, they dont last long and the are often more expensive then the unit that they are transporting in the first place. They aren't giving off firepower like an immolator or razorback, why are we being charged like we do?

I wonder if part of the current trouble with Chimeras/Tauroxen is one of board scale - we can fix durability, but given how little extra we're getting in mobility and that we're trading all of the squad's shooting to do so (which can reach a good section of the board T1 even with their lasguns, terrain permitting), I'm not sure that durability/cost fixes alone are going to be enough to make them worth taking. Not sure how we could make the board scale large enough to allow for meaningful differences in move speed between infantry/vehicles without also requiring hanging walkways and pusher sticks to actually reach midboard models or objects, though.

Alternatively, bring back Amphibious and make impassable water terrain mandatory on all boards

I think transports are bad because the only things you’re really going to put in there are things you already expect to die, and unless the transport lets them die in a more useful way (trukkboyz) it’s just a waste of points trying to keep them alive.

ccs wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Chimera with points values that don't break the bank

GW seems chronically allergic to people buying and using these. They decided they'd make them functional for one edition, well over 10 years ago, after making them literal deathtraps the edition prior, and then decided that they didn't want to sell any more again.

It has been multiple editions since I've seen someone put a Chimera on a table.

honestly all transports should be a solid 20-30 points cheaper, they dont last long and the are often more expensive then the unit that they are transporting in the first place. They aren't giving off firepower like an immolator or razorback, why are we being charged like we do?

How are you figuring Chimeras aren't putting out comparable firepower to Razorbacks? Or cost anywhere near a Razorback?
Or are you really complaining that they don't have the raw AT potential of the LC-Razorback because you want to use the wrong tool for AT work?

I meant it more in generalities. Most vehicles are given a premium price for being able to transport infantry, regardless of whether or not thats a good or useful thing. Stuff like Raiders seem to be able to do a lot for not too much more than a chimera with upgrades that make them quite impressive (AT, supreme close combat abilities, etc). Even if their armor is thin they still have enough tricks to mitigate incoming damage when compared to a chimera which is pretty much a slow moving and easy to kill box with less offensive firepower.

I'd kind of like to see Command Squads and Officers rolled back into one unit (still with character protection). Make the support options worth it so that they serve a purpose beyond suicide dropping special weapons units. The entire point of the command structure should be acting as force multipliers, and I'd also like to see relics/warlord traits revolve around that instead of giving Company Commanders a better melee attack or the like.

I'd also enjoy having at least 1 edition of the game where Ogryn are worth fielding.

However much I like the named regiments, I would kind of like regimental options to be denoted by type - mechanized, line infantry, heavy infantry, light infantry, etc. Mostly to keep the theme of "your guys". Say make a more balanced version of the 3.5 doctrines picks, or the Only War rpg (pick a homeworld type, regimental type, and say a specialty doctrine or two). That said, I also don't want to have "this is the tank subfaction, its tanks are objectively better than not-tank subfaction and you are actively gimping yourself if you don't do this."

Ideally, make your own Regiment rules would be a mixture of Infantry, Tank, and Artillery bonuses. I could totally get behind having a list for each with rules allowing you to pick 3, no more than two from the same list. More powerful options could count as 2 of your 3 picks.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I think transports are bad because the only things you’re really going to put in there are things you already expect to die, and unless the transport lets them die in a more useful way (trukkboyz) it’s just a waste of points trying to keep them alive.

Imo infantry needs to be slower in order to really appreciate transports. If not those grunts can still move around the board on foot on their own without having a huge disadvantage for doing so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
Ideally, make your own Regiment rules would be a mixture of Infantry, Tank, and Artillery bonuses. I could totally get behind having a list for each with rules allowing you to pick 3, no more than two from the same list. More powerful options could count as 2 of your 3 picks.

We had those rules in 4th. Just go back and burn 9th in a dumpster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kurhanik wrote:
I'd kind of like to see Command Squads and Officers rolled back into one unit (still with character protection). Make the support options worth it so that they serve a purpose beyond suicide dropping special weapons units. The entire point of the command structure should be acting as force multipliers, and I'd also like to see relics/warlord traits revolve around that instead of giving Company Commanders a better melee attack or the like.

I'd also enjoy having at least 1 edition of the game where Ogryn are worth fielding.

However much I like the named regiments, I would kind of like regimental options to be denoted by type - mechanized, line infantry, heavy infantry, light infantry, etc. Mostly to keep the theme of "your guys". Say make a more balanced version of the 3.5 doctrines picks, or the Only War rpg (pick a homeworld type, regimental type, and say a specialty doctrine or two). That said, I also don't want to have "this is the tank subfaction, its tanks are objectively better than not-tank subfaction and you are actively gimping yourself if you don't do this."

Standard Ogryns were always bad against armoured infantry. They could have at least given them a rule in hth to score a armour-breaking hit on a wound roll of 6 like Genestealers but nope.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I think transports are bad because the only things you’re really going to put in there are things you already expect to die, and unless the transport lets them die in a more useful way (trukkboyz) it’s just a waste of points trying to keep them alive.

Imo infantry needs to be slower in order to really appreciate transports. If not those grunts can still move around the board on foot on their own without having a huge disadvantage for doing so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
Ideally, make your own Regiment rules would be a mixture of Infantry, Tank, and Artillery bonuses. I could totally get behind having a list for each with rules allowing you to pick 3, no more than two from the same list. More powerful options could count as 2 of your 3 picks.

We had those rules in 4th. Just go back and burn 9th in a dumpster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kurhanik wrote:
I'd kind of like to see Command Squads and Officers rolled back into one unit (still with character protection). Make the support options worth it so that they serve a purpose beyond suicide dropping special weapons units. The entire point of the command structure should be acting as force multipliers, and I'd also like to see relics/warlord traits revolve around that instead of giving Company Commanders a better melee attack or the like.

I'd also enjoy having at least 1 edition of the game where Ogryn are worth fielding.

However much I like the named regiments, I would kind of like regimental options to be denoted by type - mechanized, line infantry, heavy infantry, light infantry, etc. Mostly to keep the theme of "your guys". Say make a more balanced version of the 3.5 doctrines picks, or the Only War rpg (pick a homeworld type, regimental type, and say a specialty doctrine or two). That said, I also don't want to have "this is the tank subfaction, its tanks are objectively better than not-tank subfaction and you are actively gimping yourself if you don't do this."

Standard Ogryns were always bad against armoured infantry. They could have at least given them a rule in hth to score a armour-breaking hit on a wound roll of 6 like Genestealers but nope.

Standard Ogryns have always been in a weird spot, they aren't a CC beast like they could be and they definitely can't shoot worth a darn. They should be more along the lines of a luck based elite, IE on a 6 you do something ridiculous as you say. I think this should also apply to their ranged weapons as well. They are carrying around light artillery pieces essentially and if they score a hit it should HURT. Bullgryn at least have their place as a big slab of meat that is hard to shift with decent close combat. Ogryns should be more focused on storming an objective and taking it long enough for more infantry to hold it. A hammer to the bullgryn anvil. Honestly its a highly characterful unit with a great model that deserves to shine.

I think part of the issue is that IG tend to be highly vulnerable to suffering from changes to other armies.

Their very concept means they're almost never in line for special boosts or new uber-weapons like Grav in 7th. So they're typically stuck with very weak basic weapons, supplemented by old classics like plasma. In essence, they rely on numbers and efficiency, rather than on weapons that are inherently strong.

Now, that's all perfectly fine.

The issue is that when other armies get boosts to toughness, wounds, saves etc., it almost always negatively impacts IG in addition to whatever other problems its aiming to solve. And so any efficiency advantage we might have gained quickly disappears. Same goes for weapons with increasing numbers of shots - being able to field more guardsmen doesn't matter if the extra bodies are effortlessly shredded.

7th provided some particularly egregious examples of this in the form of Wraiths and Thunderwolf Cavalry. Due to a combination of toughness, saves, and wounds/FNP, you were looking at an entire platoon of guardsmen to kill just one of them. Even if the point costs had been balanced (they weren't), it was completely impractical to put enough bodies on the table to actually fight such foes - to say nothing of the damage that large blasts and torrent flamers would inflict on such an army.

Whilst we might not have reached that level yet, I think we're definitely starting to see the same sorts of issues arising. And while guard are still using an 8th edition codex, guardsmen are already about as cheap as they can get (not to mention the expense and impracticality of just fielding ever more men to keep pace).

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that an army like IG is going to rely not just on good internal design but also on GW showing some actual restraint when it comes to other factions.

-First of all the obvious: Points drops (sponsoons and additional vehicle weapons in particular - looking at you 30pts for 2 heavy bolters)
-Allow Infantry squads to make 1 of each of the following slotless like Kroot do: HWS, SWS, Command Squad, Platoon Leader.
-Allow a reverse 'combat squad' option where any two of the above units can be combined before deployment (so a HWS can merge with an infantry squad, giving them a few bullet sponges). Not a stratagem.
-Give all variations of battle tanks +4W (stops them being one-shotted by new Titan weaponry on particular basic xenos tanks, plus said Xenos tank has more wounds than a Russ)
-(For Guard only) Make the blast rule of 6+ models (3 hits minimum) apply to 1+ models, if this isn't enough to fix blast for Guard also give +1 to hit on blast weapons
-Make GLs 1pt or free
-Make Laurel's of Command a point costed upgrade that can be taken by all rather than a relic but max it's additional extra orders for squads at +1 (for a max of 2 per squad)
-Won't make much of a difference but allow Sergeants and Tempestors to have a free lasgun like Vox casters get
-Give Autocannons either an extra ap or change them to Damage D2+1
-All non-auxiliary infantry gain obsec

generalchaos34 wrote:
I do quite like your idea of a "regiment specialization" which actually makes a lot of sense. Each detachment would have to be designated because Imperial Guard tend to be the XXth Artillery Regiment or the XXth Heavy Infantry and etc. I would even like it if these were also tied to detachments, (or special guard only detachments! Kinda like the realspace raid) ie a Spearhead detachment could be an artillery or tank regiment, which would give it a heavy bonus on shooting and such but also drastically reduce its ability to perform other roles like close combat, taking objectives, etc. We could still have an overarching Regiment rules for flavor but they can heavily favor one of the specific types of regiment specializations

Thanks! Glad to spark some cool ideas. I'd probably advise against being able to mix multiple such specializations in a given army though. The kind of mechanics I was pitching are hefty/complicated enough that including them all in a single game is probably a bit bloated. Imagine tracking respawning units, armored company special mechancis, and GSC style unit blips all at once. Plus, I'd argue that this risks watering down army theme and devolving into a matter of cherry picking benefits the way that chapter tactics have.

Poly Ranger wrote:
-Allow a reverse 'combat squad' option where any two of the above units can be combined before deployment (so a HWS can merge with an infantry squad, giving them a few bullet sponges). Not a stratagem.

This is interesting. You'd actually be making your normal models less durable by making them more susceptible to blasts and morale, but your special weapons/heavy weapons would be more durable by virtue of being the last to die. So your opponent might kill twice as many models as they otherwise would, but your heavy weapons team has 20+ ablative wounds before they die. I think I like it. Alternatively, maybe give special/heavy weapon and command squads a rule that lets them be screened by infantry and conscript squads? You'd end up without the above downsides but more reason to field lots of troop bodies.

-Give all variations of battle tanks +4W (stops them being one-shotted by new Titan weaponry on particular basic xenos tanks, plus said Xenos tank has more wounds than a Russ)

I'm not opposed to this and would actually be in favor of pretty much all vehicles in the game getting about 20% more wounds. That said, the haughty xenos player in me wonder if you think IG tanks shouldn't be inferior to most xenos vehicles. Like, I absolutely believe that tau, eldar, and necron vehicles should all be at least as hard to kill as a human tank, and drukhari vehicles are mostly only as fragile as they are because the dark eldar value appearances and adrenaline rushes more than safety features.

-(For Guard only) Make the blast rule of 5+ models (3 hits minimum) apply to 1+ models, if this isn't enough to fix blast for Guard also give +1 to hit on blast weapons

Eh. This feels like adding on weird rules exceptions just for the sake of powering them up. I struggle to think of a reason that a guardsman would be better at shooting a frag weapon than a marine or sister or skitarii. If the end goal is just to make them functionally BS 3+ with blast weapons, and if we're able to justify it from a fluff-perspective, maybe we're better off just changing their datasheets or weapon profiles. Give them "millitarum frag grenades" instead of normal frag grenades or whatever. But again, seems hard to justify. As skilled as they are, guardsmen are supposed to be a bit less good at hitting things than marines, et all. Giving them special rules to bypass that seems sketchy. Maybe give them a regimental doctrine that lets you add +1 to hit rolls with blast weapons if you want to represent a force that specialized in shock and awe?

-Make Laurel's of Command a point costed upgrade that can be taken by all rather than a relic but max it's additional extra orders for squads at +1 (for a max of 2 per squad)

Probably fine, but here's an alternative: Get rid of Laurels of Command, and instead allow veterans to benefit from extra orders representing their experience and their familiarity with their commander's tactics.

-Give Autocannons either an extra ap or change them to Damage D2+1

Probably fine, but I'm curious as to what the goal is here. Are autocannons exactly so bad that they're in need of buffing but perfectly fine if every other shot did 3 damage instead of 2? Sincere question from someone who hasn't played his small guard army at all this edition. Also, would you carry this change over to non-guard factions like skitarii and marines? And if not, how do you justify the guard having better autocannons than everyone else?

-All non-auxiliary infantry gain obsec

This has the same vibe as the blast weapon suggestion: feels like a gamey power boost without fluff justification. Why is a heavy weapon squad better at securing an objective than a devastator marine or a crafworld dark reaper squad or a sisters' purgation squad? Ditto a sentinel vs a war walker or invictus war suit?

Wyldhunt wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
-Give all variations of battle tanks +4W (stops them being one-shotted by new Titan weaponry on particular basic xenos tanks, plus said Xenos tank has more wounds than a Russ)

I'm not opposed to this and would actually be in favor of pretty much all vehicles in the game getting about 20% more wounds. That said, the haughty xenos player in me wonder if you think IG tanks shouldn't be inferior to most xenos vehicles. Like, I absolutely believe that tau, eldar, and necron vehicles should all be at least as hard to kill as a human tank, and drukhari vehicles are mostly only as fragile as they are because the dark eldar value appearances and adrenaline rushes more than safety features.

I suppose this would depend on the nature of the durability - I'd see Tau/Eldar/Necron vehicles as being durable due to superior technology (better base materials, better design, fancy psyker protections woven in or post-science not!magic shielding), whereas the Guard tanks would be durable because they've got an extra foot of flat plasteel because the Forge World needs to get 500 of these built by the end of the day and even if it weren't tech-heresy, they don't have time to retool all the foundries to do anything fancier. Hammer of the Emperor, remember? Blunt, brute force solutions to the same problems (ie. armored fighting vehicles worth the construction/transport/upkeep) that other races solve with finesse or magic or tech. Roughly equivalent, but not identical (and nothing that would increase the cost of the vehicle to the point that we can't take multiples).

Note: that's not to say I don't think Xenos vehicles should get a boost as well. From what I've heard, pretty much all vehicles need a boost of some kind to be viable in 9e. I just think we can find a middle ground where Xenos get a boost that befits their aesthetic and leaves them overall a little (not much, but at least a little) superior while also boosting IG tanks, and I don't know that it would be fair to try to do otherwise.

Just to reply to a few of your points there Wyldhunt and explain why I made some suggestions (Cba with quoting on a phone ):

-Blast rule needs updating for Guard because as mentioned above, Guard relied heavily on blast templates pre 8th and the current rules really don't help Guard. The rule above would represent the sheer volume of Guard bombardment and would still be less powerful than many other factions special gimmicks.

-Anything that can give us 2 orders on the same unit would be welcomed at this point to help get the Infantry anywhere near the point that they are coated (but only Infantry to prevent abuse)

-Auto cannons are truly awful compared to the heavy bolter. Due to the HBs one extra shot it is mathematically better against every single target in the game, significantly better against most (and the HB really isn't that good itself), the autocannon needs a boost, but something that just puts it on par with the HB so it doesn't negatively affect balance across the board. Hence an extra -1ap or Dd2+1 (or both if this makes very little impact).

-The non-auxillary obsec Infantry (not sentinals) is to represent the fact that Guard rely on overloading objectives with bodies. All-infantry get obsec already has precedent in newer dexes. This would only make it apply to HWSs, SWSs, Command Squads, Vet Squads and Tempestuous Command Squads who don't already have it. Since these squads all work together in a platoon, there is absolute justification behind it. This would be a minor help to Guard since it's a few extra T3 5+ bodies.

-As Waefre states above, whilst xenos tanks are known for their technological durability, Guard tanks are known to be solid bricks. This is represented through W, T and Save rather than Invulns, reduce damage, shields or special saves on wounds. An extra 4W would go well with that theme. Furthermore, the game justification behind it is that Russes always used to be tougher to deal with in previous editions than most other tanks (things like jinking wave serpents being the odd exception), this isn't the case anymore.

My perspective is definitely influenced by playing primarily infantry, but these are a few changes I would make. I however fear that those won't deal with the fundamental issues that the Guard faces because we are pretty basic, as Vipoid says. The Guard isn't known for its great and innovative weapons. It's a sledgehammer of men, artillery, and tanks. All of which use pretty standard equipment and it makes no sense to have any of their guns be superior to other armies' (except for the artillery. That's where Guard can really shine).

Fundamentally, the game has moved on quite a bit from the level where simple guardsmen and the like can keep up without it being overly silly. It's turned into a game where even space marines can't be considered to be elites anymore and they have also had a signification boost in their basic stats. For guardsmen that however is hard to justify, which means they fall ever more behind as anything but bodies. And bodies that are very easily removable as well.

> Lower the cost of infantry squads back to 50 points because they honestly can't go toe to toe against similarly priced troops except for things like gretchin who honestly are either grossly overcosted or need serious rules updates that makes them into more than just mindless hordes.

> Give infantry squads the ability to screen heavy weapons, special weapons, and command squads so these more expensive squads don't get blasted off the board first. Perhaps they all count as characters when being fired on as just a weird idea.

> Definitely bringing back some sort of platoon structure to allow the guard to actually field some proper numbers without having to go all in on a Brigade. This could also give extra slots for some basic supporting units that could perhaps become slotless instead of taking up valuable slots.

> Tanks and artillery also need a boost. For tanks, I agree that extra wounds would help a little. But perhaps to represent the nature of the guard, tanks could also get some ability to actually hold objectives. I also don't see a way to make them truly survivable on the modern 40k battlefield because just stacking on some extra wounds doesn't make a major difference. But it could very well help. And perhaps one of those -1 damage rules?

> For artillery, I would say that they should actually deliver a lot of pain. It used to be that if I got one of my Earthshaker rounds in the middle of a space marine squad they were basically gone. So perhaps something like 2D6 shots at minimum for a Basilisk, and for simplicity's sake I would upgrade them to 2 damage. Of course, there's the issue of them then becoming amazing antitank platforms, but really, I don't see a way to solve that without a rewrite of the core rules because that's an issue with all blast weapons.

An opinion without anything like a useful answer.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I am massively background driven.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I am massively background driven.

R&h had a specialisation that encouraged bigger squads, which if they were wiped had a 1/3 Chance to become active reserve.
It worked well , was only available on Standard troops but i wish they had given such a rule to IG.

Guard seems to have a lot of units that roll a lot of dice but accomplish nothing, or if they do accomplish something most tend to die before they can get their points back on average.

Some of this may be improving survivability of vehicles, but much probably comes from making lethality more expensive across the board, and making it valuable to take units that guard actually damages.

Another problem is guard is designed for larger play space where it's mobility and reach can be an advantage. On a small table, Guard can no longer kite as effectively for survivability, and the ability to drive troops up in Chimeras isn't important (and the chimeras get clogged up and instapop anyway)

Ranges may need to be revisted for smaller tables (E.g. Master of ordnance currently only offers re-rolls for enemies at the very back of the board, and so has little use in any play).

In my mind it's not just about working on guard units and rules, but part of a broader issue of the current "elite units" and "high lethality" (and in some cases nigh vulnerability to mass lasguns and other basic guard weapons) bend of the game across armies.

6’s to hit autowounding on lasguns could be nice, general boosts to their specific weaponry, more things like send in the next wave.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
6’s to hit autowounding on lasguns could be nice, general boosts to their specific weaponry, more things like send in the next wave.

As unspeakably glorious as the mountains of salt from such a rule change would be, I'm not sure giving the humble lasgun rules similar to Gauss weaponry would be a good idea (at least, pretty sure Gauss weaponry had a rule like that at some point in the past).

Could give -1Ap back to lasguns.