PDA

View Full Version : Should Guardsmen be cheaper?



cleansingfury
12-06-2007, 18:14
I am not asking for a major drop of 2 or 3 points but 5 points a model sounds better hten 6 points amodel. They do almsot nothing and have flashlights for guns,so why not drop the cost to 50 a squad?

Please feel free to voice your opinion.
Lets hope this doesnt turn into a chainswords should have rending repeat... i can still feel the wrath...

Corrupt
12-06-2007, 18:16
Wouldnt go amiss, tho not desperately needed.

cleansingfury
12-06-2007, 18:18
Wouldnt go amiss, tho not desperately needed.

Whle not desperatly needed it would give us more of an edge on bugs cause for 50 points 10 guys, giving thema HB and then a flamer or something and you got a bug eater.

Corrupt
12-06-2007, 18:21
Except vs bugs flamers suck because everything has an assault range of about 40 inches and you'l never fire it
You want GL's and Heavy Bolters.
Yeah while id like the drop, they should sort out techpriests and orgryns first, maybe fix the doctrine points...and let Stormtroopers get WS4 like regular guard somehow, along with mkaing hellguns worthwhile

superknijn
12-06-2007, 18:21
Yes, they should.

On to the next point on the agenda: learning everyone to look on the older pages of a forum. ;)

Lord of Skulls
12-06-2007, 18:22
5 pts Guardsmen would be nice, but adjusting the costs of the weapons is much more needed. It makes no sense that it costs more to give a weapon to a BS3 guardsman than a BS4 Space Marine...

Even more important would be changing the cost and/or survivability of the I.G. vehicles. As they are now they are way to fragile compared to skimmers. (The Leman Russ Battle Tank and the Land Raider, which are described as some of the toughest vehicles in existence, appear to be made of paper compared to Falcons and Hammerheads...)

Lord Malek The Red Knight
12-06-2007, 18:33
didnt they cost 5 pts in the last codex? :p

IMO the current cost is fine. if you want cheaper fodder... err, troops, there are conscripts. if you want bulk you can leave off upgrades. if you want an edge, you can add some Doctrines. if you want you can even use Storm Troopers.

cheers :)

~ Tim

Blandman
12-06-2007, 18:40
You know that whole thing about Guard special weapons costing more than Marine special weapons? I always thought that was quite reasonable. Though I loath to say it, Marines are the finest troops in the Imperum, should they not have plentiful supply of efficent weapons?

Where as the Guard are, well...not the finest troops, shall we say? Cardboard armour and flashlights shall suffice for them!

Jayden63
12-06-2007, 19:13
Guardsmen do not need to be cheaper, but there is a heck of a lot of other stuff in other codexs that should be more expensive. I think this is where the bigger problem lies.

Killnik
12-06-2007, 19:19
You know that whole thing about Guard special weapons costing more than Marine special weapons? I always thought that was quite reasonable. Though I loath to say it, Marines are the finest troops in the Imperum, should they not have plentiful supply of efficent weapons?

Where as the Guard are, well...not the finest troops, shall we say? Cardboard armour and flashlights shall suffice for them!


Well in my opinion . . . Guard costing is fine, its the weapons that need to change. Guard are worse shots, shorter "survivability" then marines, granted they have access to more Heavy and Special weapons to Space Marines but the survivability and Lower BS should come into the costing. If anything they should be the same cost Special and Heavy weapons as marines as the ability to put more in more units counteracts the survivability aspect of them.

NIk

Blandman
12-06-2007, 19:22
I suppose. Teaches me for taking a fluff perspective of it.

So yeah. Cheaper Guardsmen and weapons, plzthnxbi.

rintinglen
12-06-2007, 19:26
Lower Point cost?--If not the Guardsman, then something else in the codex: as it stands now, you get too little bang for the buck. High priced special and heavy weapons combined with the 60 point squad definitely limits the guard in the one thing it is supposed to do well: shoot. (Or at least as well as a BS3 army can manage). It is supposed to be an army of many that outnumbers and grinds down its opponents through torrents of fire power. In one game I played, my 75 space marines outnumbered the opposing guard infantry, albeit he did have tanks that I did not, but still, in an even point game, that should never happen. Something needs to be fixed.

Blandman
12-06-2007, 19:30
Tanks shouldn't have had such a large effect like that. They are meant to have the largest amount of armour in the galaxy.

I'm starting to see this whole "too expensive" problem. It's erking my erk already.

Commissar_Sven
12-06-2007, 19:34
I could do with a point drop but I would be happier if doctrines were cheaper, applied to every one and you got more of them.

Patriarch
12-06-2007, 19:34
No, because in both WH40k and WFB, even after all these editions, the points system is based on a single, unarmoured human with the most basic weapon (hand weapon or las pistol) costing 5 points. An IG guardsman has flak armour and a lasgun, so *has* to cost over 5 points. 5 armed & armoured IG will always beat 6 unarmoured humans with laspistols in a straight fight.

They shouldn't pay more for special/heavy weapons than marines, even though marines have a more ready avaibility. Why? Because for the same army PV, there is fewer marines. The same budget of points for weapons will result in the same number of SWs which are distributed amongst the squads. There are fewer squads in our marine army, so each squad of marines will have a higher prevalence of special weapons. Decent weapons will be comparatively rarer the IG, as there are more squads to share them amongst.

And as killnik said, IG have lower BS and other factors which make them less effective at using those weapons.

Bunnahabhain
12-06-2007, 19:49
In WFB, the baseline troop is a standard human. In 40k, the baseline has subtlety drifted to being marine, rather than a standard human.

Guardsmen could be cheaper, but cheaper heavy and special weapons are far more important. Assorted troops- psykers, preists and tech preists- should not need a doctrine point to take. The existing doctrines need to be rebalanced, so more of them are used, and preferably costed per mode, not per squad, for any expensive ones.

gLOBS
12-06-2007, 19:50
Heh sry to say but the game is based around a 15 point space marine.

A conscript is 4 points has flak armor and a lasgun so I would say that being based on a 5 point basic human bunk.

Bloodknight
12-06-2007, 19:51
Your 5 point argument for a naked human in WFB is incorrect.
Empire Free company are 5 points and come with 2 hand weapons. DoW duellists are naked humans with WS4, I4 and skirmish for 5 points....

And basically flak armour and a lasgun is the equivalent of unarmed and unarmoured in 40K.

Personally I would liuke to see the restricted troop types gone from the doctrine system (so they should be freely available. I wonīt spend a doctrine point on psykers, priests or techpriests) and advisors should be able to be placed where I want them, or at least the 2nd advisor of each type.

daladzor
12-06-2007, 20:07
some things should be reduced in cost, however most is fine as it is
i just think the cost fo powerfists should be reduced due to being less effective in a guardsmen/offficor's hands

bertcom1
12-06-2007, 20:16
Guardsmen shouldn't have to be pegged at 5 or 6 points.

The only time where they are purchased individually is the remnant squads in platoons. The rest of the time they are purchased in whole units. So why not 55 pts for a squad of 10?

Weapon costs are silly as well. Why must they all be multiples of 5pts, other than the grenadelaunchers and flamers?

KaldCB
12-06-2007, 20:24
no, cheaper weapon options are more right.

EarlGrey
12-06-2007, 20:28
Perhaps keep the same points, but add in frag grenades and a laspistol for free?

floyd pinkerton
12-06-2007, 20:43
meh, I'd be fine with five point guardsmen. More to die as gruesomely as possible:D

Deathwing_Adam
12-06-2007, 20:48
Guard are fine at 6 points, and no they shouldn't always outnumber X because there are quite a few other things in that army that you can use that aren't standard guardsman, Leman Russ, Hellhounds, Sentinals, Veterans and Storm Troopers to name a few. You don't have to spend doctorines to use restricted troops, because you don't have to use doctorines, and if you use doctorines than your base troop price will go up (unless you're using only the free doctorines).

hellboy29
12-06-2007, 21:05
As was mentioned earlier, the high points cost of the special and heavy weapons isn't only about effectiveness. Though I'm sure the fact that you can fit more than double any particular heavy or special weapon in an IG army than you can in a SM army has something to do with it. I also imagine part of the reason the weapons are so expensive is to represent how hard it is for the IG to get their hands on the more advanced firearms. It's not just about battlefield usability, it's about the flavor and nature of the army. IG just doesn't have as easy access to all that fancy stuff. Because of this, that equipment is more expensive.

p.s. Guard point cost is fine, though I wouldn't complain if it dropped a point.

Snotteef
12-06-2007, 21:24
You know that whole thing about Guard special weapons costing more than Marine special weapons? I always thought that was quite reasonable. Though I loath to say it, Marines are the finest troops in the Imperum, should they not have plentiful supply of efficent weapons?

Where as the Guard are, well...not the finest troops, shall we say? Cardboard armour and flashlights shall suffice for them!


and


I also imagine part of the reason the weapons are so expensive is to represent how hard it is for the IG to get their hands on the more advanced firearms.

I love the fluff and I am no powergamer by any means, but points cost should be used STRICTLY for game balance not for fluff. There are better ways of getting the armies to represent fluff WITHOUT disturbing game balance (such as minimum and maximum requirements). Arguments that something should cost more points because it is rare hold no water with me. If they are rare, make them RARE, put restrictions on them, give them only to elite troops; do not raise points!

BrainFireBob
12-06-2007, 21:46
I don't think they need a points drop. Individually, they may seem too expensive, but the point of Guard is that by squad they're worth their cost. Run enough squads, and that six points starts seeming too cheap.

infernus31
12-06-2007, 22:00
I think the Guard cost on weaponry would be about right if the points are 9as they seem to be becoming) the points cost given in Codex DA . thus I think it is far more likely that guardsmen will get that slight reduction in cost to 5 pts rather then the weapons being made cheaper.


The real units that need sorting out are stormtroopers (way to expensive and obsolete by the entry for Hardened Veterans) Ogryns (insta kill powerfist is way to easy and they dont do enough damage for a coutner assault unit) and Sentinels (cheaper in line with the war walkers)

Petronivs
12-06-2007, 23:26
I think the guard list is pretty good overall, but a little weak compared to most others. You don't see many IG armies winning tournaments and such. In the end, there are only a few doctrines worth taking, and something is wrong so that a full Guard army just isn't as strong as it should be at whatever point level. Whether that is adjusted by tweaking the basic soldier's cost to 5 or lowering the cost of heavy/special weapons slightly, either would result in a couple more squads in the average IG list, which is about right.

Killnik
12-06-2007, 23:34
it's about the flavor and nature of the army. IG just doesn't have as easy access to all that fancy stuff. Because of this, that equipment is more expensive.

Under this logic the Heavy Bolter, a Widely used piece of imperial equipment is hard to come by, and yet Chaos Marines still maintain and manufacture theirs from how many Millennia ago . . . if ammunition was the case then the H. Bolter could be changed to Multi Lasers and rationalised by saying you can recharge the packs like lasguns but over a longer period.

So why are Heavy Bolters Twice the cost of Marines? (They are more but this is a rough guess I don't have a Marine codex)

Stella Cadente
12-06-2007, 23:37
I like them being 6pts

gitburna
12-06-2007, 23:48
with marine squads and heavy weaponry getting more regimented now [Dark Angels codex and chaos rumours], do you think the guardsman is more fairly priced, comparitively speaking?

A tactical squad now has to pay at least 170 points to get access to even the most basic heavy weapon, and in order to make use of the combat squads rule [and thus get the best out of the veteran sergeant as well as the heavyweapon] the squads get easier to gang up on.

While most of the power of the guard list remains in its tanks i think the more rigid pricing structure for the new wave of marines means that the balance of power of the humble guardsmen is ever so slightly improved.

not so sure when it comes to the Eldar vs guard because i havent played a game between them for a vry long time.

Mojaco
12-06-2007, 23:50
they're fine. It's the weapons that are expensive.

And some doctrines are overpriced. Warrior weapons is supercool, but who wants it forces for 2 pts (33% increase per guardsman!) on every single model? With stuff like drop troops on the other end of the spectrum, which is free of cost and free of choice. Rediculous. THAT needs fixing.

Hicks
13-06-2007, 00:00
I think that a lot of things in the codex need to either cost less or get better. A guardsmen costs 1 less point than a Kroot, but the Kroot is a lot better. Likewise, a storm trooper is one point less that a SOB and the SOB is miles better. I'd rather see battle tanks and transports get better than cheaper, but right now though, for what you pay they die way too easily. The sad truth is that stuff that kills marines effectivly, also kills our tanks effectively, so you will very rarely fight an army that can't deal with tanks. If GW wants our tanks to remain that vulnerable, then I would very much want to see the point cost of guardsmen drop to compensate.

Rodman49
13-06-2007, 00:20
A lot of stuff in the Guard list needs to be cheaper; primarily because Warhammer 40k games aren't all that well designed for non power armored armies fighting power armored armies.

The biggest problem with the list this edition though is that you can't screen troops, so you either have to put your heavy weapons in squads and lose mobility or group them together in the back of your army and still get the **** shot out of them by heavy bolters. Same thing happens to your command sections, get shot by heavy bolters. Sure you can put your guys in cover but there is only so much cover. I mean I know you should expect Guard casualties as an IG player, but you can't afford for your heavy weapons and command sections to get chewed up, I mean - they are your combat effectiveness, only thing a basic guardsmen is good at is HtH (because I assure you - boltguns are not healthy for guardsmen).

Outlaw289
13-06-2007, 01:35
5 Point Guardsmen or 5 points off every Heavy Weapon would be nice. As would Grenade Launchers being the same points as a Flamer; Grenade Launchers are pretty much worthless compared to Plas/Melta

Also, Assault 2 Hellguns would be nice. It would make them a good run n gun special weapons unit, and would make Hellguns useful. I think the Assault 2 solution is better than the S4 fix some people argue because Storm Troopers shouldn't have bolters, they should lay down accurate hails of lasfire. Assault 2 enables this, and allows the Storm Troopers to get the most out of their Special Weapon-centric role

Drogmir
13-06-2007, 01:37
I think 5 points Guardsmen

Cheaper heavies

and a better written Doctrines section would be nice

Chapter Master of Astro
13-06-2007, 04:02
Guard Cheaper no I do not believe they should be cheaper. They get Barrage and ordanace weapons. If my marines could get that would be a whole different universe.

scarvet
13-06-2007, 04:21
Guardsmen shouldn't have to be pegged at 5 or 6 points.

The only time where they are purchased individually is the remnant squads in platoons. The rest of the time they are purchased in whole units. So why not 55 pts for a squad of 10?

Weapon costs are silly as well. Why must they all be multiples of 5pts, other than the grenadelaunchers and flamers?

I would like to see that too, if the heavy weapons have a cost reduction.

Or 5pts per model, keep the heavy's cost because you can always get more guards man but not more guns:D

Rodman49
13-06-2007, 05:08
Guard Cheaper no I do not believe they should be cheaper. They get Barrage and ordanace weapons. If my marines could get that would be a whole different universe.

Um, don't Space Marine get freaking Whirlwinds . . . oh, let's not forget the best weapon in the game . . . the dirty asscan.

BARON SAMDI
13-06-2007, 05:13
i think they should be cheaper because one of my kroot characters can waste a 12 person squad of gaurdsmen in two turns and a kroot warrior costs 7 pts

AkodoGilador
13-06-2007, 09:09
Just do the sums...

Note: I'm only comparing basic troop costs here. I realise that the costs of special and heavy weapons and access to vehicles and other things affect the details and relevance of the following calculation, but those factors should also be balanced by use of appropriate point costs.

Two squads of guardsmen (just lasguns, no "upgrades": 120pts) get the jump on 8 marines (also 120pts).

Expected kills: 20 * 2 * (1/2) * (1/3) * (1/3) = 2.222
Points killed: 2.22 * 15 = 33.3

Marines return fire: 5.78 * 2 * (2/3) * (2/3) = 5.14
Points killed: 5.14 * 6 = 30.8

So even though the Guards have shot first they're only just winning the fight. And this ignores the likelihood that the squad that was shot at will fall back and likely never shoot again, which would mean that while the Marines have lost a quarter of their force, the Guards have lost half.

Now, let's see what happens in the rather more likely scenario where the Marines shoot first:

Marines kill: 8 * 2 * (2/3) * (2/3) = 7.11.
Points killed: 7.11 * 6 = 42.7

Guards return fire: 12.9 * 2 * (1/2) * (1/3) * (1/3) = 1.43
Points killed: 1.43 * 15 = 21.5

The Marines have lost a sixth of their force, the Guards over a third; if the Guards fail their morale check they'll have lost half their force.

Basic Guardsmen are overcosted.

Alex

gitburna
13-06-2007, 13:12
and what happens to your sums if we assume that the guardsmen and marines both have some cover to shelter behind ?

Corax
13-06-2007, 13:31
Guard are priced correctly. Everything else is too cheap! :cheese:

Seriously though, I don't think there is much wrong with IG overall, other than the cost of the wargear, which is mostly kinda useless given the limited capabilities of IG characters. However I do believe that the average SM is at least 2pts cheaper than he should be, given his capabilities and survivability. But that's an entire other rant... :rolleyes:

bratbag
13-06-2007, 13:40
Personally i would go for only a ranged/special weapon price drop.


I like that marines are more cost effective at short ranged firefights and believe that the basic guard squad should be more cost effective at long ranged firefights.Slight imbalances like this are what give a force its flavor.

Imperial elite shootie troop's (veterans, storm troopers) supported by hellhound's, demolisher's and sentinal's should be cost effective inside bolter range and might need modifying accordingly.

jfrazell
13-06-2007, 13:48
and what happens to your sums if we assume that the guardsmen and marines both have some cover to shelter behind ?
That clouds the issue. We could also add in after the one round of shooting the marines charge in the 2nd round, wiping out squad 1, consolidating into squad two and wiping that out in the IG player's turn.

The rank guardsmen needs a price drop. I'm ok with certain heavy weapons (lascannon/plasma) having higher costs than marine equivalents. However, they should have cheaper missile launchers, autocannon, and a heavy stubber option for troop squads to compensate. I'd keep melta guns priced and availabel as they are (especuially as no complains about them) or at worst, give sergeants the option of having a melta bomb ata dirt cheap price, to represent that antitank mine that each squad would bring against heavy stuff.

The other item of course is that tracked vehicles now are severely limited by V4 obscurement and ordnance rules. Make them cheaper and give their protection a boost to compensate. An anti-monstrous creature ordnance round for the Lemans would (doing d3 wounds) be a nice option as well, or alternatively permitted the full range of current FW vehicles.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
13-06-2007, 14:12
In the 3rd edition rulebook army list, the firepower of IG all-infantry armies was ridiculous which is why they pay so much for heavy weapons now.

I think guardsmen could do with a price drop but the plasma gun and lascannon need to remain expensive, I would even increase the lascannon's price to 35 points (with a 10 point drop on the basic infantry squad). Maybe increase missile launcher cost too so that its not a total no-brainer. Increase plasma gun to 15 points and grenade launcher to 10.

A guard squad with a heavy bolter or autocannon should be cheaper though. 70 points for a guard infantry squad with heavy bolter and grenade launcher sounds right. 100 points for a plasma gun and lascannon seems fair on the other hand.

I'd also make lots of small 5 point reductions across the board in regards to the armoury.

Bloodknight
13-06-2007, 14:24
Yeah, but it was ridiculous because of several factors: 5 point plasma guns, 15 point lascannons, screening and the fact that you only had to buy one squad per platoon which meant that a lot of people fielded 6 squads of guardsmen with 6x Lasplas and 6 command squads with 4 plasma each. Oh, and Guard squads were 50 points. Then the nerf hammer struck everywhere instead on only one or two of the issues and therefore Guard got a bit underpowered.
Maybe Pete didnīt like Guard armies outshooting IW ;)

shutupSHUTUP!!!
13-06-2007, 14:30
Yeah. As somebody who plays both with and against powerful shooty guard armies, I think they need a boost in all areas -except- gunline tactics. If they want masses of infantry they should have to take the weaker weapons options to balance it out.

We also have to evaluate the IG in light of the new marines rules. DA, BA, chaos and soon codex:sm will be hit with the nerf hammer. With marines less threatening Ig will be able to focus a bit more on anti-horde to take on other armies. I find my army lacking against tyranids but fine against marines at the moment for instance.

Maleficum
13-06-2007, 15:09
Chimeras should be cheaper.

Some weapon options could be cheaper too, especially HW- and SW-Squads.

AkodoGilador
13-06-2007, 16:16
If the Guards attempt to hug cover, the numbers are more in their favour, but the tactics don't work: it's much easier for the Marines to ensure that they encounter the Guard squads sequentially rather than simultaneously.

Guardsmen being unable to fight effectively means that infantry squads get reduced to special and heavy weapon carriers, and the army relies on the heavy weapons squads to do the bulk of the work.

Alex

Snotteef
13-06-2007, 18:22
Guard Cheaper no I do not believe they should be cheaper. They get Barrage and ordanace weapons. If my marines could get that would be a whole different universe.

How about Whirlwinds and Vindicators? Did you read your codex before posting?

I agree that Chimeras should be cheaper. With side armor 10 they are more fragile than a Rhino (front 12 isn't that hot when you need to move around and expose your sides). It is an O.K. gun platform, but a terrible transport.

As for the points increase being in response to the 3rd edition list: With screening gone, none of those options are nearly as powerful. Sure you can put for plasma guns in your commands squad, but since I can target them, a few heavy bolters wipes out an expensive squad with ease. We definitely need to see a points decrease on some special/heavy weapons, Chimeras and Stormies.

AkodoGilador
13-06-2007, 18:37
The way to balance a list containing barrage and ordnance weapons is to make sure that those weapons are costed effectively, not to increase the cost of every other option in the list. If Guardsmen are overcosted and big guns are undercosted, is it any surprise that people take as few Guardsmen and as many big guns as possible?

I'd also agree that Chimeras are overcosted, but not by that much - compare the Tau Devilfish which has similar armour and similar weaponry for 80pts. More to the point, the Imperial Guard need a cheaper transport, either Rhinos (30pts seems reasonable if they have BS3) or something open topped.

Alex

Bloodknight
13-06-2007, 18:46
The Devilfish is a skimmer (big difference) and has a side armour of 12 (even bigger difference). Itīs not comparable to a Chimera in usefulness. It also can pour out 7 shots at S5, so the firepower is quite equal.

jfrazell
13-06-2007, 19:14
I thought the side armor was 11. Still better than a chimera, and still a skimmer. Does that 7 shots include the gun drones as well?

Maleficum
13-06-2007, 19:22
The way to balance a list containing barrage and ordnance weapons is to make sure that those weapons are costed effectively, not to increase the cost of every other option in the list. If Guardsmen are overcosted and big guns are undercosted, is it any surprise that people take as few Guardsmen and as many big guns as possible?

Good points.


Another point is that for VP purposes it's vital to have the troops cost a little so that they can gain VP for beeing close to objectives and behind 'enemy lines' or whatever. :)

colmarekblack
13-06-2007, 19:44
I agree with the 1pt decrease for the stand ranking guardsman, also decrease the cost of some weapons like the missile launcher and autocannon. Maybe add a infantry multi-laser to replace the heavy bolter. Also perhaps a Heavy Stubber option would be prudent, fluffy as well.

Bloodknight
13-06-2007, 19:46
Yeah, I got it wrong, itīs 11 and itīs 5 shots. I thought it could have a SMS, but apparently it cannot.

Still 3 BS3 S5 shots and 2 shots at BS2 TL are not really worse than the firepower of a chimera (3 S6 and 3 S5 shots at BS3).
Therefore a Chimera is worse in the armour department, slightly better armed, not a skimmer and costs more.

jfrazell
13-06-2007, 19:51
Exactly Bloodknight.

paddyalexander
13-06-2007, 19:54
I think guardsmen are the right points cost.

Their heavy weapons are way too over-costed however. 20 points for a str 6 powerfist is ridiculas.

L192837465
13-06-2007, 20:07
i played guard a while back and built up quite a large army, but no matter what i tried, if something hit my lines, i was boned. yes, you can field a retarded amount of troops and heavy weapons. yes, their tanks are awesome. but a decent marine player will cake walk a decent IG player.

there was an equation a little further back stating guardsman are about average to a marine.

bull $h*t

you forgot to account moving and the 2 crucial subsequent turns.

8 marines move into range of 20 guardsman:

20 shots, 10 hit, 3 wound, fails 1

7 marines move again

same

6 marines move again and double tap thier bolters into one squad

12 shots, 9 hit, 7 wound, 7 die

leadership check on unit that was pulverized. we'll say they passed

13 guardsman charge the marines

6 marines attack, 6 attacks, 4 hit, 3 wound, 2 die
22 attacks back, 11 hit, 3 wound, 1 fail

marines win combat, and its now a slaughter in favor of the marines (higher initiative and far harder to kill)

guardsman are vastly underpowered for thier cost. i dont think they should decrease in value, per-say, but i do think they should all be given a laz pistol and ccw (read any bit of fluff and every guardsman in history is equipped with a lasgun, las pistol, and straight silver)

that would make mobile squads of cc specialist squads far more useful as you could just batter to hell the enemy with sheer number of attacks. maybe give them a +1 initiative boost on the charge. something. anything.

bratbag
13-06-2007, 23:59
I hate arguing this as I like my guard, but marines are supposed to be better than imperial guard in close range fire fights and assaults.

Imperial guard are supposed to be better at long range fire fights and bombardments.

Thusly guard should be over-costed for close range fire fights and assaults, but under-costed for long range fire fights and bombardments.It is then up to you as a general to play to the strengths of your army by mostly engaging at range and utilize the few limited units available to you that can hold their own through a close-in fight where needed.

Where this falls flat on its face is the high cost of guard heavy weapons.They need to be reduced in price, but the basic guardsman with a lasgun must never be point for point as good as a marine in a short range fire fight or assault.

Bloodknight
14-06-2007, 01:00
If the Guardsman should be as good as a marine in a short range firefight heīd have to be between 2 and 3 points. (Marines are 6 times as good at 2.5 times the price).
Nobody wants that, but I think the Guard doesnīt get enough basic grunts for their points - and therefore not enough big guns either.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
14-06-2007, 01:16
We should also consider the boring nature of a guard gunline army and the need to complete missions objectives. How does a guard army win a recon mission for instance? The IG army list has many units, they should all serve a purpose instead of massed guardsmen being the automatic choice.

Bunnahabhain
14-06-2007, 01:35
The Guard are hard pushed by any mission requiring you to move a large part of your army, unless you go for the entirely drop troop approach, which is just as boring as the gun line, just shorter range.

The basic troops are somewhat too expensive, and our transports are far too expensive, given how vulnerable they are. If basic squads and chimeras were cheaper we could take a gun line, with a few mechanized squads to go objective grabbing. As it stands, trying to do that makes each part of the force too small to accomplish it's mission.

The Guard should have massed standard infantry, with many chimeras and tanks as the main choice, it's what the army is. The special troops, storm troopers etc, should be less common.

BARON SAMDI
14-06-2007, 02:22
i want them to be cheaper so i can have more challenging games against the ig but sadly enough there relly is nothing we can do about it

Templar Ben
14-06-2007, 02:31
I want IG cheeper by a point for troops and Conscripts. I want Storm troopser to be cheeper by 2. I want Chimeras cheeper by 15. I don't think any of that will happen.

BARON SAMDI
14-06-2007, 03:12
thy should just go through it and calculate how much it is actually worth

Corax
14-06-2007, 03:45
We should also consider the boring nature of a guard gunline army and the need to complete missions objectives. How does a guard army win a recon mission for instance? The IG army list has many units, they should all serve a purpose instead of massed guardsmen being the automatic choice.

shutupSHUTUP!!! makes a really important point: The inability of Guard to compete in CC with MEQs means that they are forced to sit back and play the gunline strategy. In order for them to be effective, Guard must be able to shoot as much as possible, and avoid getting entangled in CC with things that will butcher them (pretty much everything else - except Grots). One of the big things that hinders the mobility of Guard is their trustly Lasgun. The Rapid-Fire rule means that in order to fire at full effectiveness, they must not move. This is what makes Guard such a static army, because people sacrifice movement for more firepower.

I think that the main thing that would help Guard to be more mobile would be to change the Lasgun itself. If the Lasgun were Assault 2 Range: 24" (or even 18") it would not restrict their movement as much, and I really don't think it would be overpowering as it is still S3 AP-. This would allow Guard units to move and fire at full effectiveness, and hopefully make them a less static army.

Alternatively, the Cavalry could be given a bit of a boost to give them something that can at least hold it's own in CC. Maybe WS 4 and Hit & Run? :angel:

Just my two bits...

Bunnahabhain
14-06-2007, 07:46
Alternatively, the Cavalry could be given a bit of a boost to give them something that can at least hold it's own in CC. Maybe WS 4 and Hit & Run?

No point. Rough riders have always been one hit wonders, as their Lances only last for one round of combat. It doesn't matter how much better they are at hitting the enemy, once they are back to S3, I3, they're not going to do much. They're the best counter assault unit in the game.

Re-writing the upgrade rules, so you could have a squadron with lances, and a few with special weapons in the same squad could also be useful.

bratbag
14-06-2007, 07:47
The IG army list has many units, they should all serve a purpose instead of massed guardsmen being the automatic choice.

Exactly.

Stormtroopers should be cost effective in a close range firefight.

Ogryns, rough riders and conscripts (in their own unique way) should be cost effective in assaults.

Longer range fire should then be provided by cost effective long-range guardsmen.Veterans are guardsmen who are very good at this role.

Close range vehicles (demolisher's, hellhound's,various sentinel versions) should be overly effective in short range firefights but horribly open to an assault so that combing them with standard guard provides a force that overall is cost effective in a close range firefight.

So its heavy weapon costs, stormtroopers and ogryns that need looking at.

You cannot look at a single unit in a diverse army and seek to balance it in isolation. To me, this is what a guardsman point drop appears to be.

Lord Solar Plexus
14-06-2007, 08:03
Comparisons on a unit-per-unit basis are nothing but stupid. It's a perspective without context and parameters. It's like saying 'X is higher' without a reference point - it makes no sense.

What does make some sense is to ask whether a certain unit can be expected to fulfill its role. Under this premise, line squads aren't too expensive, Ogryns and Techpriests are. These need a cost reduction or other rules. Basic guardsmen are fine.


I think that a lot of things in the codex need to either cost less or get better. A guardsmen costs 1 less point than a Kroot, but the Kroot is a lot better.


Who cares? For 70 points, the guardsmen bring along a heavy bolter, sit down and wait until the Kroot come out of their woods. In 1,500 points, the Guard may have brought two Hellhounds, or a Bassie. Ironically, any number of Kroot are overcosted compared to a Hellhound. Likewise, the Tau may have brought a railgun along. Context.

Same goes for the SoB/Stormie debate. Where in the screenplay does it say that they have to have the same efficiency? Yes, Stormies could be better. Still, I'd rather have them the way they are than not at all. Look at them as an option for players who like to make a list with some medium infantry. Why not?


Just do the sums...


No please. Let us not do the sums. Your sums are wrong and misleading. They work under certain arificial and arbitrary prerequisites that have little practicality and bearing on the game. In the game, both sides will have other forces around, there'll be terrain and dice-rolls for nightfight, who goes first, there'll be firelanes, special and heavy weapons, TACTICS, tanks, escalation, movement etc.pp.

Taking away 99 % of all factors represented in your typical game and basing a pseudo-scientific argument on that situation is just wrong.

Rioghan Murchadha
14-06-2007, 08:06
I'm just curious where everyone is getting their assumption that the Imperial Guard is a bunch of yobbos armed with spears and shields?

Most guard regiments undergo quite extensive training, and are the best of the best non genetically enhanced soldiers in the imperium. The IG is the first, and often only line of defense for the many beleagured worlds in the Imperium. Try to find some fluff justification for a Cadian officer throwing away the lives of the men in his regiment simply to act as a speed bump till the marines arrive. I doubt you'll find one.

I'd also like to see a majority amount of fluff supporting that IG regiments are ill equipped. If anything, a guard regiment will have access to MORE resources than a SM strike force can call on at any given time. Naval support, Armour, Artillery, all sorts of stuff that is difficult to get when you've just performed a tactical insertion behind enemy lines, or launched a rapid response strike. Things that SM are typically deployed for.

In closing, there's no reason that IG should pay more for weapons than SM, other than sheer volume.

Commissar_Sven
14-06-2007, 08:27
Mabey to represent that guard should get peliminary bombardment in most games. Or when they take artilery they shoul be able to keep it off table and have a spotter call it in. Or airstrikes that would be cool.

Shockwave
14-06-2007, 09:23
Okay, My basic opinion. Should Guardsmen be cheaper? NO. Should Guardsmen have cheaper weapons? NO

The reason behind the first point is as someone said on page 2, the basic profile cost in 40k is 5pts for a human stat line, That has not change since the days of Rogue Trader. Flak armour and las gun add 1 point to that for 6. Someone said that Flak armour was equal to no armour under the current rules set, are you aware that flak armour back in those days was just a save of 6? and almost all weapons had a -1 save mod? Didn't think so. Yes Kroot cost 7 points and are better, Why do you think most Tau tournement armies have only the complusary Firewarrior unit and and 1+ Kroot squads? I play Tau and was truely suprised when they didn't up the Cost of Kroot.

2nd point. Guard pay alot for there Heavy Weapons because they are not expected to move and thus they get to fire said weapon every turn. Marine tactical squads are expected to move, thus their Heavy weapons are cheaper. BUT the Devastor squads don't move so lets compare to them, Oh look Marine Devastors pay 5- 10 points more per weapon. Special weapons cost the same between armies but guard have more men, thus more weapons which considering the cheaper cost of the guardsmen anyway, have you not got that weapon cheaper??

Right what else is there?? Doctrines, yes point conceded, some are more effective then others (Drop troops, CoD) and that could indeed be fixed perhaps. But then they could just be taken away all together!!

Instead of lamenting on what you don't have. Lookat what you do have and take advantage of it.

bratbag
14-06-2007, 10:27
Someone said that Flak armour was equal to no armour under the current rules set, are you aware that flak armour back in those days was just a save of 6? and almost all weapons had a -1 save mod? Didn't think so.

I'm also fully aware that flak armor's save improved to 5+ against templates, which meant that it continued to provide protection against many anti-infantry area effect weapons.

This doesn't really matter though because for the reasons i stated before, i believe guardsmen themselves are well costed for their intended role.



2nd point. Guard pay alot for there Heavy Weapons because they are not expected to move and thus they get to fire said weapon every turn. Marine tactical squads are expected to move, thus their Heavy weapons are cheaper. BUT the Devastor squads don't move so lets compare to them, Oh look Marine Devastors pay 5- 10 points more per weapon. Special weapons cost the same between armies but guard have more men, thus more weapons which considering the cheaper cost of the guardsmen anyway, have you not got that weapon cheaper??


Marine tactical squads are 'intended' to be split into two 5 man units, with one holding back and giving covering fire with its heavy weapon while the other advances.

Devastators also have a secondary role as close range bunker-busters when loaded into a rhino and given multi-meltas.

Your argument is flawed at its core.

Devastators pay a premium for heavy weapons because of the incredible efficiency of 4 heavy weapons in one squad compared to 1 heavy weapon in 4 squads.

Col.Gravis
14-06-2007, 10:50
i played guard a while back and built up quite a large army, but no matter what i tried, if something hit my lines, i was boned. yes, you can field a retarded amount of troops and heavy weapons. yes, their tanks are awesome. but a decent marine player will cake walk a decent IG player.

there was an equation a little further back stating guardsman are about average to a marine.

bull $h*t

you forgot to account moving and the 2 crucial subsequent turns.

8 marines move into range of 20 guardsman:

20 shots, 10 hit, 3 wound, fails 1

7 marines move....

whine

whine

whine

SNIP



If you only factor in Guardsmen with Lasguns yes on average theyre going to lose, that why you dont *just* take Guardsmen with Lasguns, you give them heavy weapons, special weapons god forbid you include tanks or roughriders in the army!

Yes, in terms of equal points basic Guardsmen are pants compared to tactical marines, but the army as a whole is *just* as capable if your using it effeciently. Or are you telling me that those Guards players, myself included, who actually win games are freaks of nature? Please, please, please stop whining and whinging your giving us headaches, instead use your time more contrsuctively and learn, yes learn to use what we've already got.

infernus31
14-06-2007, 11:12
I don't think it's neccesary for Guard to get a points decrease, i do think it would make Guard perform better then currently in the levels of competitiveness because at the moment I believe the infantry underperform for their points in the current codex, maybe it's just my experience of infantry, but thats how I see it. Guard armies at the moment are seen as a peg lower in terms of competitiveness to that of armies such as Eldar, Tau, marines etc, but I believe this simple change would do much to bring Gaurdsmen on a more level footing then they are now.

Bloodknight
14-06-2007, 11:24
I think the problem is simply that itīs an old codex for an obsolete rule system. In 3rd edition Guard worked a lot better when screening and real hull down was still in effect.

The 5 points for a basic unarmed naked human in 40K is a wrong argument (especially when people say that it was always so - it wasn't. RT Guardsmen: 20 points, 2nd edition Guardsmen 10 points, 3rd edition Guardsmen 5 points, then 6 points).

Col.Gravis
14-06-2007, 11:27
I think the problem is simply that itīs an old codex for an obsolete rule system. In 3rd edition Guard worked a lot better when screening and real hull down was still in effect.


Both of which affects all armies not just Guard, we're not special.


Guard armies at the moment are seen as a peg lower in terms of competitiveness to that of armies such as Eldar, Tau, marines etc, but I believe this simple change would do much to bring Gaurdsmen on a more level footing then they are now.

I'd make a distinction, some armies are competative, some are easily abusable, thats a different matter entirely.

Bloodknight
14-06-2007, 11:37
Both of which affects all armies not just Guard, we're not special.

I wouldnīt sign that. For example:
it made no difference for Dark Eldar except making grotesques even more useless ;)
It made no difference for chaos except that obliterators got a bit worse but then people deepstrike them anyway.
My Deathguard plays exactly the same way as it did before.

Guard suffers in that case due to the very fragile command and heavy weapon units which cannot be played in the lines anymore, lowering the overall effectivity of the army.

Col.Gravis
14-06-2007, 11:43
Really?

I find Heavy Weapons Squad just as effective now as then, they sit in cover behind an Infantry line picking on choice targets, sometimes they get picked on, sometimes they dont.

Command Sections I play exactly as before either as a countering or offensive unit hugging cover with Special Weapons, or as part of the line with a single Heavy Weapon (usually JO's only), likewise to Heavy Weapons I've had no greater difficulties then before, they survive more often then not.

Bloodknight
14-06-2007, 12:24
I donīt know, in my experience my opponents always try to kill the platoon HQs first to lower the overall LD. The main HQ often survives but doesnīt really take part in the battle due to sitting behind a wood or building, providing the morale bubble, which is a bit dissatisfying.

Col.Gravis
14-06-2007, 12:37
Well the way I'd look at it is this - if he targets your PCS then your Infantry Squads are pouring on the fire longer which is a benefit to you as long as you've not gone over the top on equipping your command sections, the Command HQ hiding well, its hiding behind trees rather then Guardsmen in the previous version.

If you really find it a problem though can always look at Veteran Sergeants and CoD Ld9 Infantry? Why not eh? ;)

jfrazell
14-06-2007, 12:43
Or he's already dropped in and is wading through your squads like Rosie O Donnell through a snack bar. Add in a little Tigurius 24" Boo power and its good times.

Petrov_101
14-06-2007, 12:50
The problem I have with infantry is spacing them well enough to avoid the consolidation move after the *squad of death* has hacked my front line troops to ribbons.

Too many infantry and you start to get in the way of each other. I do have heavy weapons in a few of my squads but I tend to prefer move and shoot squads instead. Flamers and Grenade Launchers being my favorite special weapon selections.

Col.Gravis
14-06-2007, 12:58
Or he's already dropped in and is wading through your squads like Rosie O Donnell through a snack bar. Add in a little Tigurius 24" Boo power and its good times.

Which is when you pull in the Roughriders with a little fire support, a lone nasty like that is nasty, but its quite possible to deal with if your army is well balanced, you hold your nerve oh and of course at least some of your army holds its :p

jfrazell
14-06-2007, 13:36
rough riders are good for a lone nasty (love the unit even though I didn't play it myself). But if their entire force is dropping in, thats not going to stop the hurting.

And thats doesn't count the two or three heavy flamer/A cannon dreads dropping in and wasting entire squads.

Nickn
14-06-2007, 14:16
i agree but i think the command squad should be cheaper 40 points for 1 guy that you have to buy 3 of thats 120 points down the drain andyou wil never need more than 1 commander so i think they should bring the min commander down to 20 points

Col.Gravis
14-06-2007, 14:48
No, but it should deal with or at least reduce the threat of the nastiest infantry based unit on the drop, guard numbers should allow to absorb casualties and then take out the biggest threats with firepower.

Remember also also short of very good luck on the DSers part everything is not going to arrive at once nore often on target - if it did I agree the Guard would be in serious trouble but that is unlikely to happen, I've played enough games against armies which use such a tactic and used guard Drop Troopers enough to know this.

Nickn? 1 Guy? You get a Squad of 5 for that price with plenty of weapons options, Command Squads are a good deal.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
14-06-2007, 14:55
I think the real difficulty with guard mobility is making units cheap enough to take a long-ranged component and a mobile compont an an army, but without just ending up with everyone taking advantage of the cheap firepower and leaving everything else at home. Perhaps a points break on innately mobile units, a fair price for static long-ranged and a price hike for ordnance.

Shockwave
14-06-2007, 16:53
Marine tactical squads are 'intended' to be split into two 5 man units, with one holding back and giving covering fire with its heavy weapon while the other advances. If Space Marine tactical squads could be split in such a way (Note i say Space Marine not Dark Angel) or if you could have 12 your arguement would have alot more weight. But they don't.


Devastators also have a secondary role as close range bunker-busters when loaded into a rhino and given multi-meltas.

Your argument is flawed at its core.

Devastators pay a premium for heavy weapons because of the incredible efficiency of 4 heavy weapons in one squad compared to 1 heavy weapon in 4 squads.
I can't see how. If that was the case then why are 4 Lascannons so expensive? Because having 4 in one unit is not "incredible effeciency" it's deminishing returns and excessive. Heavy Bolters and to a smaller degree Missile Launchers tend to work better in numbers but that is because the targets are more numerous are the weapon is not that great at it's other role. As an side, i've read a developer mention that heavy weapons cost more in different types of squads because of how likely they are to get used.

As to the Multi-Melta thing, no one i've seen has ever put 4 in a unit to put in a rhino. Fluff-wise bunkers are smashed at range with multiple Krak missiles.