PDA

View Full Version : IG Help



Makaiju
15-07-2009, 18:27
In light of there being no solid facts of when my beloved Dark Eldar will get an updated Codex, I decided to just start a new army... an Imperial Guard army.

I need to ask for help with a core buy list for the following reason:

I'm a huge fan of the look of the "DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG". So I'm going to have to buy most of my minis from Forge World and scratch make/modify the rest. (Note I suck at any Wip so the more I can buy the better off my army will look.) That is going to cost me way more money then if I bought a regular IG army models.

In turn I don't want to spend $600 on troops just to find I.G. tank armies are far more efficient then foot soldier army lists. In that vein I don't want to spend $1000 on vehicles to find that I have to leave half of those tanks at home if I want to field a winnable army list.


So to the experienced forum group that this is... I ask you... what are the general rule of thumb for an IG army to be considered a reliable army list?


example: should I get 60 foot troops, 1 command squad, 6 commissars, 2 tanks, and 9 total heavy weapon units?

Or 40 foot troops, 1 command squad, 2 commissars, 6 tanks, 12 heavy weapon units.

Not looking for a promised 'always win' army list... just a guideline on what I really 'have to have' to start out a valid army. I'll end up buying some extra stuff regardless so that I can switch things up every now and then. However like I said at the start, I just don't want to find I "have" to buy a bunch of extra stuff because I purchases allot of unnecessary models first.

that kind of feed back. So... any suggestions?

Oberon
15-07-2009, 18:38
In my opinion, IG is great when most of the points go to getting more units, than upgrades for said units, with some thought put into it of course. You have a need, pick a basic unit that could deal with it, give it _only_ the equipment they need to do that, and nothing more. Pick another unit to deal with something else.

With IG one can make very varied lists, there really isn't any hard 20-30-10 rule of army composition there.

A simple structure of what a Krieg IG army might look like and contain:
-command squad (hweapon, one or two advisors, transport if you like), lord commissar is cheaper (if you tool the command squad even a bit) and very Krieg.
-nothing from elite is a must have for krieg-type army, though storm troopers might be "kewl" (I think they are overpriced though, so no from me)
-a platoon of common soldiery, a couple flamers and some weaponry suited to fighting in trenches, a commissar here too maybe=25-45 models here would be enough, a chimera or two are never too much
-a squad of veterans (a fine place for those other krieg models, like engineers, and you will also need less models for a choice! A trench-war always produces a cadre of veterans who know you need to keep your head down)
-rough riders (who could resist those models!?)
-lots of heavy machinery, ~3 russes and ~4 artillery pieces maybe, forge world provides lots of these.

Minimum amount of footmodels for IG: 25, 2x10 veterans/penal legionnaires and a lord commissar, about 300 points, a bit less. There's always room for a chimera, always.

Vaktathi
15-07-2009, 18:42
In light of there being no solid facts of when my beloved Dark Eldar will get an updated Codex, I decided to just start a new army... an Imperial Guard army.

I need to ask for help with a core buy list for the following reason:

I'm a huge fan of the look of the "DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG". So I'm going to have to buy most of my minis from Forge World and scratch make/modify the rest. (Note I suck at any Wip so the more I can buy the better off my army will look.) That is going to cost me way more money then if I bought a regular IG army models.

In turn I don't want to spend $600 on troops just to find I.G. tank armies are far more efficient then foot soldier army lists. In that vein I don't want to spend $1000 on vehicles to find that I have to leave half of those tanks at home if I want to field a winnable army list.


So to the experienced forum group that this is... I ask you... what are the general rule of thumb for an IG army to be considered a reliable army list?


example: should I get 60 foot troops, 1 command squad, 6 commissars, 2 tanks, and 9 total heavy weapon units?

Or 40 foot troops, 1 command squad, 2 commissars, 6 tanks, 12 heavy weapon units.

Not looking for a promised 'always win' army list... just a guideline on what I really 'have to have' to start out a valid army. I'll end up buying some extra stuff regardless so that I can switch things up every now and then. However like I said at the start, I just don't want to find I "have" to buy a bunch of extra stuff because I purchases allot of unnecessary models first.

that kind of feed back. So... any suggestions?

I find that mechanized IG armies are one of the scariest things in the game today. They offer a lot of both infantry and tanks, usually more of each than most opponents will have, and provide mobility as well. an all infantry IG army has a lot of firepower as well, but not the mobility or armor wall.

I'd go for mechanized. If you want ideas on how to do a mechanized DKoK army, take a look at my sig, I'm reworking it as a DKoK mechanized veteran army, with 60 some-odd DKoK Grenadiers.

Lord Cook
15-07-2009, 19:35
It depends what sort of army you like. I certainly wouldn't go for a force consisting entirely of infantry, as that will be very expensive for Death Korps. Similarly, just adding as many battle tanks as possible leaves you very vulnerable in certain areas. I think about 60 infantry, with Chimeras, and perhaps a handful of tanks and support units would give you a solid foundation to work with. Commissars I would recommend only if you intended to have a large number of infantry on foot, and then only have one Commissar for every 20 or 30 men, if not more. For Heavy Weapons squads, mortars are very good so I heartily recommend those, and autocannons seem well worth it as well. Avoid anything more expensive. If you plan on mixing the heavy weapons in with the Infantry squads, any heavy weapon except heavy bolters would be fine. I've leave it at one Command HQ squad for the moment.

Makaiju
15-07-2009, 19:47
Thank you everyone who's replied so far. Obviously I'm still open to any other opinions but I wanted to just say you guys are 100% understanding the intent of my question/post.

My first army was a Dark Angle army that was stupid large... I mean 2 of very vehicle (as in 2 whirlwinds, 2 predators, 2 annihilators, etc), a 20 bike with 6 land speeder division, etc etc...

it was WAY more then I could ever field in a normal game and combos of stuff I just never needed to field. Sure it looked awesome on my shelf but I can think of much better use for my shelf space now a days then models I'll never use.

only joking...
15-07-2009, 19:49
any heavy weapon except heavy bolters would be fine

What wrong with heavy bolters? Not wanting to flame or anything just interested :)

LoneSniperSG
15-07-2009, 20:01
The first thing I'm wondering is if the OP is using Codex: Imperial Guard, or if he is actually going to use the Death Korps of Krieg rules. I'm sure they're pretty different.

If you're using the new IG 'dex, then for armor support I would suggest anywhere from 2-6 Russes. The one thing about the Leman Russ is that it's the scariest frakking tank you can field these days, Front armor 14, Sides at 12, can move and fire ordnance. The Leman Russ is not to be underestimated. Hellhounds and Devil Dogs are also seeing good uses. Squadron rules also make them even scarier, as you can now take three tanks as one H/S choice. Granted they all shoot at the same target, but three templates on one unit is nothing to shirk off.

I'll probably be following this topic as well, I'm trying to work up a force of Cadians, and I'm also not certain what to include in my core army (aside from those pretty tanks, of course).


What wrong with heavy bolters? Not wanting to flame or anything just interested :)

I'm kind of wondering Cook's exact reasoning myself, but I figure that with so many lasguns around, you might not need a Heavy 2 weapon in the squad when a Missile Launcher or something else would provide more powerful fire support.

In the case of a heavy weapons squad, I would say otherwise. A missile launcher with 2 Heavy bolters makes holes in many many things.

Xenobane
15-07-2009, 21:26
What wrong with heavy bolters? Not wanting to flame or anything just interested :)

If I may... :angel:

The problem with Heavy Bolters is that they have a particular role - light infantry killing - which is actually better performed by Mortars (and, more arguably, Missile Launchers). With 4+ cover saves so prevalent in 5th edition, the Mortar has a key advantage, even before you consider the option of hiding behind terrain and firing indirectly (far from ideal, but occasionally necessary/ useful).


I'm kind of wondering Cook's exact reasoning myself, but I figure that with so many lasguns around, you might not need a Heavy 2 weapon in the squad when a Missile Launcher or something else would provide more powerful fire support.

In the case of a heavy weapons squad, I would say otherwise. A missile launcher with 2 Heavy bolters makes holes in many many things.

Mixing Heavy Weapons is rather undesirable. In the case you've given, one of the Missile Launcher's strengths is its versatility - the ability to target light/medium vehicles and Monstrous Creatures as well as light infantry. Putting it in a squad of Heavy Bolters means you can't take full advantage of that versatility, and any time you choose to fire at vehicles or MCs, you're largely wasting the other weapons in the squad.

Vaktathi
15-07-2009, 21:29
What wrong with heavy bolters? Not wanting to flame or anything just interested :)

Look at an IG heavy weapons squad, 3 heavy bolters, 75pts. Against Orks in the open on average you are killing 3 per turn, or 18pts of models. Against orks in cover, on average you kill between 1 and 2.

They just aren't that efficient anti-infantry anymore. They work in the role yes, and can be devestating against expensive Eldar 4+sv units or Storm Troopers, but on the whole they are fairly mediocre.

Brother Alexos
15-07-2009, 22:09
well, I'd say that having tanks is good, but you need infantry to prtect their flanks and backsides while the tanks give support and your infantry move up

LoneSniperSG
15-07-2009, 22:13
If I may... :angel:
Mixing Heavy Weapons is rather undesirable. In the case you've given, one of the Missile Launcher's strengths is its versatility - the ability to target light/medium vehicles and Monstrous Creatures as well as light infantry. Putting it in a squad of Heavy Bolters means you can't take full advantage of that versatility, and any time you choose to fire at vehicles or MCs, you're largely wasting the other weapons in the squad.

Interesting, because that toally contradicts what I was told on a different forum.

Personally, I frakking hated the Heavy Weapons squads of the previous edition. "Oh, you can only have two types in one squad". Majorly lame, and it made the Lascannon/ML squads more susceptible to infantry assault. Same deal with the Mortars, and then reversely, the Heavy Bolter/Autocannon squad would suffer terribly against heavy vehicles.

Mixing them up like we are allowed to do now is the only way, man. Infantry will now have a harder time killing those Lascannons if there is a Heavy Bolter in the squad, and tanks will have a harder time overruning those anti-infantry squads when there is a Missile launcher in them.

only joking...
15-07-2009, 22:41
Look at an IG heavy weapons squad, 3 heavy bolters, 75pts. Against Orks in the open on average you are killing 3 per turn, or 18pts of models. Against orks in cover, on average you kill between 1 and 2.

They just aren't that efficient anti-infantry anymore. They work in the role yes, and can be devestating against expensive Eldar 4+sv units or Storm Troopers, but on the whole they are fairly mediocre.

Fair play Vaktathi looks like I might be removing some heavy bolters! :cool:

Lord Cook
15-07-2009, 23:07
What wrong with heavy bolters?

Heavy bolters are an anti-infantry weapon. But they are very bad at killing infantry. Firstly, cover has become far more prevalent. It's everywhere now. And cover saves have gotten better, so almost everything now provides a flat 4+ cover save. This means more heavy bolter shots deflected by stone pillars and bits of shrub. Secondly, models have gotten cheaper. Orks are the best example, with the cost of the standard Ork boyz dropping from 9 points down to 6. So there are more models in infantry hordes.

But despite these two trends, heavy bolters still have the same number of shots as before, and compared to other heavy weapons have actually gotten more expensive. So hordes are getting bigger with better protection from our shooting, and in exchange our heavy bolters get more expensive compared to alternatives. Notice the problem here?

Now look at mortars. Mortars used to be useless, but changes to blast weapons now mean they can expect to get more hits than a heavy bolter. Mortars are barrage weapons so they can fire over the top of intervening cover, denying the Orks potential cover saves, and mortars have actually gotten cheaper as well.

Finally, the new rules for heavy weapon teams make them much easier to kill with shooting. Mortars can choose to ignore this problem by sitting out of LOS and firing indirectly while being immune to almost all return fire. In short, it really isn't much of a contest when it comes to fighting hordes. Now heavy bolters do have some secondary abilities, but they are achieved far more cheaply and more effectively elsewhere.


for armor support I would suggest anywhere from 2-6 Russes.

Depending on the size of the game, I wouldn't overdo it with the Leman Russ. For a start, I certainly wouldn't include more than two tanks per squadron otherwise it's just 550 points of tank easily destroyed a single dedicated anti-tank unit. Two tanks in a squadron have some benefits that make up for having to squadron themselves, such as being able to provide each other cover with only one set of smoke launchers and things like that. Three tanks can't. Secondly, in any army you need enough scoring units to actually capture some objectives, and six or more Russ isn't going to leave much space for that.


In the case of a heavy weapons squad, I would say otherwise. A missile launcher with 2 Heavy bolters makes holes in many many things...

Mixing them up like we are allowed to do now is the only way, man. Infantry will now have a harder time killing those Lascannons if there is a Heavy Bolter in the squad, and tanks will have a harder time overruning those anti-infantry squads when there is a Missile launcher in them.

I totally disagree, and I think whoever has given you this advice is grievously mistaken. Mixing two weapons with no relation to each other in this context is a disaster. Against tanks you have almost no effectiveness, with just a single krak missile. As a reference, shooting at something like a Dreadnought would have about a 6% chance to destroy it. And that's only a vehicle with very average armour. Meanwhile your two heavy bolters are getting perhaps two wounds, and maybe one dead enemy.

In other words, a combination like this tries to do everything and ends up doing nothing, like someone trying to win a pie eating contest while simultaneously doing aerobics.

Now if a unit can only ever choose to shoot half it's weapons, then having a mix of weapons can be good. For example, if a Chimera moves it can only shoot one of it's two main weapons. Chimeras usually move. So it's a good idea to have a multilaser and a heavy flamer. The two have totally different roles, but as you can only fire one anyway, it lets you pick the best one for the situation at hand. Infantry in front of you, fire the heavy flamer. Light vehicles in the distance, fire the multilaser. But for a Heavy Weapons squad, mixing is pointless, because they always want to be firing every heavy weapon, and you want (and need) every heavy weapon to be firing at an ideal target.

freddieyu
16-07-2009, 00:57
Mixing ML and Lascannons can be OK, since they are related, and you get an advantage of the extra wound allocation....but I agree ML and HB maybe iffy...

Chimera with multilasers and heavy flamer rock! If you add a heavy stubber it is even better!

djinn8
16-07-2009, 06:12
I find that a mix of Autocannon/Missile Launcher work well together, both being multi-role weapons and all. Although I wouldn't put them in a heavy weapon team together, they do work well in combined infantry squads.

laudarkul
16-07-2009, 07:28
I
example: should I get 60 foot troops, 1 command squad, 6 commissars, 2 tanks, and 9 total heavy weapon units?

It's perfect choice for infantry squads. I would say to add another heavy weapon unit in order to have all four (LC,HB,AC,mortar) and start finding what is best for your army. I think that 9 commissars are a little bit over.
As for the tanks, you better take another one and start testing all those variants. You can start thinking about a Chimera or a HH variant.

LoneSniperSG
17-07-2009, 22:18
I totally disagree, and I think whoever has given you this advice is grievously mistaken. Mixing two weapons with no relation to each other in this context is a disaster. Against tanks you have almost no effectiveness, with just a single krak missile. As a reference, shooting at something like a Dreadnought would have about a 6% chance to destroy it. And that's only a vehicle with very average armour. Meanwhile your two heavy bolters are getting perhaps two wounds, and maybe one dead enemy.

In other words, a combination like this tries to do everything and ends up doing nothing, like someone trying to win a pie eating contest while simultaneously doing aerobics.

Now if a unit can only ever choose to shoot half it's weapons, then having a mix of weapons can be good. For example, if a Chimera moves it can only shoot one of it's two main weapons. Chimeras usually move. So it's a good idea to have a multilaser and a heavy flamer. The two have totally different roles, but as you can only fire one anyway, it lets you pick the best one for the situation at hand. Infantry in front of you, fire the heavy flamer. Light vehicles in the distance, fire the multilaser. But for a Heavy Weapons squad, mixing is pointless, because they always want to be firing every heavy weapon, and you want (and need) every heavy weapon to be firing at an ideal target.

Ya, well, I disagree. They get absolutely nothing done if you're deploying them like an idiot. That ideal target that you mentioned is what the mixed squads are assembled for, and you seemed to completely miss my point of assembling the squad for dealing with a specific target. I'm not going to take one missile launcher and two heavy bolters and freaking expect it to bust Land Raiders. That's called "squandering".

Perhaps I just plain can't afford three Missile launchers, so I take one and toss it in with a couple heavy bolters and make something that no Marines want to really tangle with. Are you seriously going to deny the effectiveness of a long-range frag weapon landing shots on an infantry squad? Come on.

Brother Alexos
17-07-2009, 23:02
If your using alot of vehicles in your army like me then youll want to spend the extra points equipping ALL of them with hunter killer missles, because in my army, I have 4-5 chimeras and two leman russ tanks. with all those hunter killer missles in the first turn you can knock out alot of ANYTHING.

LoneSniperSG
17-07-2009, 23:03
If your using alot of vehicles in your army like me then youll want to spend the extra points equipping ALL of them with hunter killer missles, because in my army, I have 4-5 chimeras and two leman russ tanks. with all those hunter killer missles in the first turn you can knock out alot of ANYTHING.

True, but that gets expensive, or really unreliable when you don't get first turn.

marv335
17-07-2009, 23:05
I'm going to come in on the side of Lord Cook here.
Mixing weapons with differing roles in a heavy weapons squad is a really bad idea.
Have you ever heard the expression "jack of all trades, master of none"?
If you want versatile, go all Missile Launcher.
You seem to say that one frag template in a squad is better than a third heavy bolter, surely three frags would be better still.
Of course it's your army, your choice, but for me the numbers just don't add up.

Wicksy
17-07-2009, 23:08
My advice would be a couple of big squads combined with commisars ans sgts (tooled up if you can afford it). A few Leman Russ's aswell. The std battle tank works pretty well against all comers. Then maybe a few veteran squads in chimeras spamming flamers or metlas for shifting objective campers and heavy armour (tanks and termies). That pretty much soughts me out on a regular bass ;)

Oh yeah, work in sly marbo aswell....he's dirty as a coalminer's underwear and only 65pts of death.

Lord Cook
17-07-2009, 23:40
They get absolutely nothing done if you're deploying them like an idiot.

Who was talking about deployment, and what does deployment have to do with this discussion? I don't understand.


That ideal target that you mentioned is what the mixed squads are assembled for, and you seemed to completely miss my point of assembling the squad for dealing with a specific target.

Again, I don't understand. Mixed squads, by definition, have no ideal target. That's the whole point.


Perhaps I just plain can't afford three Missile launchers, so I take one and toss it in with a couple heavy bolters and make something that no Marines want to really tangle with.

Why would Marines be even slightly concerned by a unit like this? They would happily 'tangle with it' because it has virtually zero effectiveness against them. Even your value against Scouts has been diluted by using a missile launcher instead of the third heavy bolter.


Are you seriously going to deny the effectiveness of a long-range frag weapon landing shots on an infantry squad? Come on.

It's not long range. Heavy bolters only have 36" range, so unless you only want to fire one third of your heavy weapons, you need to fire at targets within 36". And yes, I will deny the effectiveness of these weapons. Because while heavy bolters can potentially be good at dealing with T4 troops with decent saves (such as upgraded Genestealers, SM Scouts, Ork 'Ard Boyz, etc.) the frag missile is good against light troops with very poor saves (such as Hormagaunts or Ork Boyz). The two, despite being similar at first glance, are not well suited in terms of target.

Mixing weapons like this means that instead of only being good within a single niche, now you aren't good in any niche.